Lack of Amsoil EaO Test Data/ISO-4548-12

[Jim Allen]

Has anyone run into any Beta Ratio data yet on the EaO filter? If not, can anyone reference the ISO 4548-12 test? I'm most interested to know what the first-pass performance of the EaO filter might be. The "15 Micron according to ISO-4548-12" in Amsoil literature doesn't tell you a whole lot if you don't know the test.

Heck, I'd be happy just to find out what that ISO test is all about? That would give me some clues as to what "15 microns" means. After a half hour of searching, I can't find a source that lists what the IS) 4548-12 test entails... at least without paying $60-110 for the priviledge. I can access SAE tests, no problem. If someone has found a source that lists the parameters for this test, I'd be interested in comparing it to the other test methods.

I find it very interesting that with all the whining over other oil company's stingy attitude towards releasing detailed information, Amsoil isn't getting more heat for a relative lack of material on the EaO filters. Compared to what we can find on Wix filters, we know next to nothing about the EaO. Amsoil's material is mostly glitz and toothy smiles.

If I'm wrong about that, I'm happy to be slapped around for it as long as the punishment comes with information, or at least a couple of clues on where to look.

 

[o2man98]

SO 4548-12 is derived from the ISO standard for Multi-pass filter testing (ISO 16889) which is based upon testing of hydraulic filters. This test requires filter manufacturers to determine the average particle sizes which yield Beta ratios equal to 2, 10, 75, 100, 200, and 1000, using the multi-pass test stand approach. The multi-pass test bench must contain On-Line Liquid Automatic Optical Particle Counters and calibrated using certified calibration fluid with a known particle size distribution. Particle counts are taken upstream and down-stream every minute of the test. The new standard gives a better interpretation of a filter's overall performance. AMSOIL has chosen to utilize ISO 4548-12 to review the performance of its full flow and by-pass filters.

An older test using multi-pass protocol is the SAE J1858. This test also reviews the ability of a filter to remove contaminants of a specific size from the fluid stream at a specific moment in time. The test can be repeated to suggest efficiencies over the life of the filter. Results are reported as a ratio between the number of partials of a given size entering the filter and the number of the same size particles exiting the filter. The difference between the two is referred to as the BETA ratio.

 

[Johnny]

Jim,

The late GeorgeCLS ran a test on the EaO filter that produced results even he could not believe. Here is the link.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=66157&Number=846034#Post846034

 

[Jim Allen]

02man98: Yes, that gives me the Amsoil party line but not any details. What exactly does "15 microns mean?" Is that 15 microns absolute, 15 microns nominal or none of the above? If they gave a Beta Ratio, I could interpret it.

I have no doubt the EaO is a good filter, I just wanna know HOW good.

I had seen (but forgotten) George's post. Did not know he had passed on.

 

[Steve S]

They are all the filter you would ever need. Grease tested one with his bubble point? machine and it was fine. The element type has beed used by Fleetguard and Donaldson and id you think you need a high capacity filter those are the ones to pick.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
What exactly does "15 microns mean?" Is that 15 microns absolute, 15 microns nominal or none of the above? If they gave a Beta Ratio, I could interpret it.


Here's more party line propaganda ..but it surely answers you question.


Absolute Efficiency
AMSOIL Ea Oil Filters (EaO) have the best efficiency rating in the industry. EaO Filters provide a filtering efficiency in accordance with industry standard ISO 4548-12 of 98.7 percent at 15 microns, while competitive filters containing conventional cellulose medias range from 40 to 80 percent efficiency.


That's Beta15=75 in dog years.

 

[StevieC]

I know this isn't a scientific test, but I was a regular WIX user in the past and then switched to the EAO filter, and I even tested them on the same oil under the same driving conditions for the same amount of miles and I noticed that my EAO had reduced the wear metals and insoluble in the engine by a good margin versus the WIX. I think WIX makes a very good filter, but that EAO's are the cream of the crop of the filters out there IMO!

 

[Jim Allen]

Gary: I saw that "absolute efficiency" in the EaO blurb but did not interpret it as meaning "absolute, absolute." Thought it was just a header. So you are saying that IS the absolute efficiency. I'll believe you if you do... even if you are a Amsoil coolaid drinker < ).

 

[Johnny]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
02man98: Yes, that gives me the Amsoil party line but not any details. What exactly does "15 microns mean?" Is that 15 microns absolute, 15 microns nominal or none of the above? If they gave a Beta Ratio, I could interpret it.

I have no doubt the EaO is a good filter, I just wanna know HOW good.

I had seen (but forgotten) George's post. Did not know he had passed on.


November of 2008. Cancer

 

[AzFireGuy79]

Sad to hear about George. My experience with the EaO on my tacoma was spectacular as far as keeping the oil visibly "more clean" I know I know, not scientific by any stretch. This was done in the most controlled way possible with the same oil and same OCI. Not going to mention the other filter, just that I am impressed by the EaO and will continue to use it in the future.

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Gary: I saw that "absolute efficiency" in the EaO blurb but did not interpret it as meaning "absolute, absolute." Thought it was just a header. So you are saying that IS the absolute efficiency. I'll believe you if you do... even if you are a Amsoil coolaid drinker < ).

Just run the %'s BetaX=75 is 98.7% Beta 75 is considered "absolute" by any filtration standard that I know of.

74/75= 98.666666666666666666666666.
BetaX=200 =199/200 = 99.5%

 

[iunderpressure]

I thought I saw where people had to run their EAO filters out longer in order to see their better filter ability. They didn't stand out as much on shorter runs.

 

[Gary Allan]

In one test compared to an M1, particles counts appeared to favor the M1 over, iirc, 5k OCI's.

 

[FZ1]

Thanks for the honest information.

 

[Jim Allen]

Ok I'm clear on the EaO now.I just did a thorough cleaning of my glasses too! I'm still not clear on the ISO4548-12 test, but I'll keep looking.

 

[Pablo]

Jim - I'm a little late to the party, but over the years I have asked Amsoil for more data on the EaO's. One time I must have asked about first pass info. Then they gave me the same pat answer as O2Man. But the last part is a little interesting.

Quote:
In regards to first-pass data, we do not have that specific information. However, There are many terms and test methods used to indicate the performance of a filter. Today, the most widely used test method for oil filters is the International Organization for Standardization test method, ISO-4548:12 (Methods of Testing Full-flow Lubricating Oil Filters for Internal Combustion Engines)



ISO 4548-12 is derived from the ISO standard for Multi-pass filter testing (ISO 16889) which is based upon testing of hydraulic filters. This test requires filter manufacturers to determine the average particle sizes which yield Beta ratios equal to 2, 10, 75, 100, 200, and 1000, using the multi-pass test stand approach. The multi-pass test bench must contain On-Line Liquid Automatic Optical Particle Counters and calibrated using certified calibration fluid with a known particle size distribution. Particle counts are taken upstream and down stream every minute of the test. The new standard gives a better interpretation of a filter's overall performance. AMSOIL has chosen to utilize ISO 4548-12 to review the performance of its full flow and by-pass filters.



An older test using multi-pass protocol is the SAE J1858. This test also reviews the ability of a filter to remove contaminants of a specific size from the fluid stream at a specific moment in time. The test can be repeated to suggest efficiencies over the life of the filter. Results are reported as a ratio between the number of partials of a given size entering the filter and the number of the same size particles exiting the filter. The difference between the two is referred to as the BETA ratio.



Finally, SAE HS J806B reviews the ability of a filter to remove a known contaminate from the fluid stream over a period of time. Results are reported as the percent of contaminant (by weight) removed over a period of time (time weighted efficiency). Capacity (life) is also determined by noting the amount of contaminant required to increase the resistance across the media to a given level. Capacity is reported in grams of contaminant. As the contaminant used varies in its specific particle size and as we review the efficiency over time, this test method tends to picture as to how the filter will perform in a given application. AMSOIL used to utilize this test to depict the performance of the SDF full-flow filters.

Note: Filter test performance can only be compared when it has been obtained using the same test method.

 

[JohnBrowning]

Synthetic glass media has been around a long time. The problem is or was they either cost too much, they had few sizes to chose from or they did not stick around. I had a case of PEAK Synthetic Glass MEdia Filter ans they worked great as long as you glued the hollow o-ring seal in place before trying to put it on. The hollow o-ring would not stay put and often it either got caught while installing or it would get cut and whenyou fired up the engine your oil sprayed out all over the place. It happened to me the two of the first 3 times I tried them. Finaly I figured out the problem ad a dab of elmers the night before I installed one solved the problem. I got an entire case for around $6 because no one would buy them they had such a problem with the hollow o-ring not doing it's job because it did not stay put when installing. IN fact one pawn shop had a back room with about 100 cases he got from area parts stores that could not sell them. None of them fit my Toyota at the time this was when I was either still in college or just out of college so it was some time ago!

THen GM had a glass fiber media filter in it's HP catalog. It was long strand synthetic glass media contained in a mesh that was not far off from looking like smaller sized chicken wire. They where really expensive though so they almost never sold.I want to say they where between $15-$24 a filter and that was back when most filters where under $3.

I might consider an Eao but from what I have been told Amsoil does not have any for Toyota's at the moment and they had some failures in Toyota's so I am bit nervous about their filter.I have never had an oil filter failure that damaged an engine and and I would just as soon not ever have one either!

I already have a bypass/full flow filter. I will have to run some numbers and see if it is cheaper to keep it or to go to EaO. One thing I like about my Trasko besides it much larger size is that because I bought it for a truck that had a lot more room it is larger and has more capacity in every way. So much so that I will have to relocate my oil filter to under hood because it is too wide to fit in the current location under the care. THis means I will not have to fight with a tiny filter under the car in cramped space! I do not need to get under the car to drain the oil a hand is all I need under it but for the oil filter I have to be under it. It is always a pain because of how Toyota packaged it. So the Trasko has it's advantage plus it is a bypass filter more then it is a full flow..... What I mean to say is that it has a full flow screen that catch's anything I think 25-30 microns but it has a special element that looks like but does not feel like toliet paper that filters to sumb micronic levels. So you always have full flow and some filtration by the reusable screen but it is bypass filtering to levels that a regular full flow couldnot hope to get to.......

So it would depend on what is of more value. I do not think first pass filtration is going to be as important as total level of filtering. I guess I will have to test it out and get a particle count. My thinking is that if you have a good OEM air filter and all your hose's and such are not leaking one should not need insane first pass filtration youneed flow and a 20-30 micron screen would definately be good for flow the level of slow bypass filtering makeing up for it in a healthy engine in a clean invornment? The alternative would be to get a dual remote mount just a regular style one and run a regular filter on the one side and the bypass/full flow on the other. Because it is not a full on bypass unit one does not need the special type of dual mount that Amsoil had for year's that function is built into the filter houseing itself so that you could mount it directly to your oridary full flow oil filter adapter. This would drasticly increase capacity and cover all the base's!!!!!

 

[yota4me]

From an Amsoil TSB on engine wear:

"Ea Oil Filters have been evaluated using today’s
benchmark test, the ISO 4548-12 multi-pass test.
AMSOIL Ea Oil Filters provide 98.7 percent efficiency
at 15u and up to 70 percent efficiency at
7u."

 

[Steve S]

What is really good about the Amsoil filters is they are made for extreme long oil and filter change intervals . The media has been well tested in over the road trucks in filters made by Donaldson and Fleetgard flters . They are really a waste of $$$ for the short oil change intervals most users of the filters do.

 

[Gary Allan]

It comes back to getting value out of your filter purchase. If you're a 3k/3m type, don't bother with an expensive filter unless that's what you need to do out of personal preference. If you're going LONG, then an EaO makes sense. If you're going (lower case) long ..a PureOne may make more sense over cheaper filters.

Either way, make it work out in dollars spent over miles/time used. If it can't pass that test, you're wasting money. I don't care what filter is in the comparison.