PER-1 must be an older number, I have been able to find it on the internet. It is in no way the PureOne filter, I'm sure the PureOne would has tested way better than 10% at 14u and 42% at 20u.
Amsoil EAO filter Microns
- Thread starter harry j
- Start date
- Status
Oops, that should have been "would have tested..."
Yep...I believe you're correct. Still kinda' makes you wonder why they're testing a filter that was first spec'd over three decades ago.
427Zo6,
A wild guess would be to make their (Amsoil) filter look better.
A wild guess would be to make their (Amsoil) filter look better.
Donaldson makes 4" X 6" synthetic medial hydraulic filters that are 3 micron beta 200 and flow ~20GPM for ~$20. I wish the Eao's would filter like this, and I don't see a real reason they couldn't.
Because they would clod up filtering at those efficiencies on the average gas engine.
3 microns would be a bit extreme, but if you change your oil often, it could be tenable. I would like to see a filter of 10 microns at 98.7 %, it is doable evidently with a good oil flow. Too bad one isn't available. Custom filter anyone?
OK, maybe 3 micron was extreme. But I was looking at the larger sized filters that would provide more media. Someone stated that the Eao's were tested out to 60K and did well. I think they could come down to maybe 6 or 10 microns like harryj pointed out.
I'm sure they have to have a wide margin of error built in for a consumer product though, so it will be a long time before we see full flow ultra filters on engines I guess.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
You just can't make any filter align with the criteria that we need in a combustion environment. Any filter should have (probably) a like holding capacity for a given surface area (or so I reason). So you're then faced with what are you going to trap. The lower you go ..the higher the holding capacity requirements (again, or so I reason).
From there you're into physical size limitations and cost (in terms of ROI in the given environment).
For example, I'm going to attempt to run twin EaBP110 filters in parallel as full flows. They'll probably last a long time ..but @ over $75 to replace them ..and needing 60k miles to have them pay ...and to what gain ..it just doesn't make any practical sense.
It's, more or less, clear that hydraulic application filters are to remove, to various levels, normal self generated decay particles from the machinery. Our filters, OTOH, appear mainly to remove the continually introduced combustion byproducts. As we've seen, filters have shrunk as these byproducts have been reduced.
I'm sure you could add a condition or two to my basic impression there (life cycle, investment - ROI, consumer trends, etc.)
From there you're into physical size limitations and cost (in terms of ROI in the given environment).
For example, I'm going to attempt to run twin EaBP110 filters in parallel as full flows. They'll probably last a long time ..but @ over $75 to replace them ..and needing 60k miles to have them pay ...and to what gain ..it just doesn't make any practical sense.
It's, more or less, clear that hydraulic application filters are to remove, to various levels, normal self generated decay particles from the machinery. Our filters, OTOH, appear mainly to remove the continually introduced combustion byproducts. As we've seen, filters have shrunk as these byproducts have been reduced.
I'm sure you could add a condition or two to my basic impression there (life cycle, investment - ROI, consumer trends, etc.)
Tempest,
I entirely agree, there is a wide margin engineered into the Eao filters. I don't think they had BITOGERS in mind when they designed it. They had to consider the general driving public and the fact that other than Amsoil lubes would be used. Plus they have an engine guarantee to think about.
I entirely agree, there is a wide margin engineered into the Eao filters. I don't think they had BITOGERS in mind when they designed it. They had to consider the general driving public and the fact that other than Amsoil lubes would be used. Plus they have an engine guarantee to think about.
You just can't make any filter align with the criteria that we need in a combustion environment. Any filter should have (probably) a like holding capacity for a given surface area (or so I reason). So you're then faced with what are you going to trap. The lower you go ..the higher the holding capacity requirements (again, or so I reason).
Yes Gary, that sounds reasonable. I think the Eao fits that bill. Amsoil could easily make a 10 micron filter, that has a substantial capacity to filter and hold particle debris, with out adversly affecting flow rates.
Yes Gary, that sounds reasonable. I think the Eao fits that bill. Amsoil could easily make a 10 micron filter, that has a substantial capacity to filter and hold particle debris, with out adversly affecting flow rates.
Quote:
3 microns would be a bit extreme, but if you change your oil often, it could be tenable. I would like to see a filter of 10 microns at 98.7 %, it is doable evidently with a good oil flow. Too bad one isn't available. Custom filter anyone?
The oil filter on my F-150 from Canton Racing Products claims 8 micron filtering, and good for 10,000 miles. The filter element is replaced by removing the bottom of the "billet" and replacing the old element.
98% efficiency at 2 microns when you also use an Amsoil EaO Bypass filter.
mountravlr,
You write that the filter you use is considered by the manufacturer to be an 8 micron filter. Do you know what efficiency this was measured at?
You write that the filter you use is considered by the manufacturer to be an 8 micron filter. Do you know what efficiency this was measured at?
Tim,
I have considered using the Eao bypass setup. Due to a darth of installation room and my personal dislike for all that extra hardware under the hood, I decided to go with the Eao filter only (Eao20). I was just wishing that the spin on filter could be a little more efficient....they can do it, but probably won't.
Now, if they can figure out how to produce a combo filter that incorporates standard flow filtering and a bypass type filtering, I would be very interested.
I have considered using the Eao bypass setup. Due to a darth of installation room and my personal dislike for all that extra hardware under the hood, I decided to go with the Eao filter only (Eao20). I was just wishing that the spin on filter could be a little more efficient....they can do it, but probably won't.
Now, if they can figure out how to produce a combo filter that incorporates standard flow filtering and a bypass type filtering, I would be very interested.
Accordind to a representative I talked to at Amsoil, they could make a full flow filter to a 10 micron absolute specification, but it does not fit their oil change plan. The filters have been tested out to 60,000 miles and they were still good for more. So I don't see what the problem is, unless it would cut into their bypass sales.
I was just talking to my mechanic. He thinks that the Eao filter is just amazing. He wanted to know why I changed my oil so frequently, because it comes out so clean. I had to agree, but oil habits die hard. I refuse to go more than 5,000 miles on an oil change.
In a word: no. I clicked on the "tech" link in the cmfilters.com website to look for any measurements. They claim much experience and reputation, but I can't find any testing to support these claims:
"CM elements filter out particles down to 8 microns, half the size of what the average spin-on filter does and has a flow rate even when contaminated, that is far greater than that required by any automotive application. Depth filtration extends filter element life because it can catch far more contaminates without restricting flow. Because of it’s longevity CM filters are a natural match for use with the longer lasting synthetic oils."
Perhaps an inquiry to them would add more information.
mountravlr,
It is a well known game filter manufacturers use to make their filters look good. It is pretty maddening to read that such and such a filter will filter down to x microns and then fail to state neither the efficiency at that particular micron level or what test they used. I would like to see all manufacturers use the same test and always give the efficiency at whatever micron level they claim.
It is a well known game filter manufacturers use to make their filters look good. It is pretty maddening to read that such and such a filter will filter down to x microns and then fail to state neither the efficiency at that particular micron level or what test they used. I would like to see all manufacturers use the same test and always give the efficiency at whatever micron level they claim.
Donaldson makes 4" X 6" synthetic medial hydraulic filters that are 3 micron beta 200 and flow ~20GPM for ~$20. I wish the Eao's would filter like this, and I don't see a real reason they couldn't.
I read elsewhere that at 6 microns, the filter starts to strip VI improvers from the oil under high heat conditions.
I read elsewhere that at 6 microns, the filter starts to strip VI improvers from the oil under high heat conditions.
- Status
Similar threads
