Amsoil Eao before and after Particle counts

[GeorgeCLS]

This will take a bit of time but just sent in my latest engine oil analysis to include particle count. This will establish a regular paper element baseline for particle counts, ISO cleanliness. Next oil analysis will be with Amsoil EaO filter element, with particle counts.. Should be interesting...
George Morrison, STLE CLS

 

[TeeDub]

George,

The best way to do this is with the SAME batch of oil, like I just did with my Sube. Take your sample, then change just the filter and install the Amsoil EAO - but without topping off the crankcase. Run that oil for several hundred miles and re-test.

As you well know, there are too many variables if you try to do a particle count comparison with successive sumps full of oil. Even if you used the exact same filters driving routes and OCI,there is probably a +/- 20% variation in what you'd see as a particle count, which masks the contribution of the oil filter.

Ted

 

[GeorgeCLS]

I have been running occasional particle counts on my Toyota Sequoia for the past 150,000 miles and they have been very consistent; i.e. I have an excellent baseline for Mobil 1 Racing 0W-30.. It has remained within the same ISO code consistently.. But I can indeed do what you suggest in drawing a sample with the OEM paper oil filter, then with EAo filter... Should be interesting..
George Morrison, STLE CLS

 

[TeeDub]

George,

I'm surprised you can get a particle count from that engine, assuming you are talking about the 4.7L, V-8? From the UOA's I've seen it hardly wears at all....

Are you still selling the excellent M1 racing oil? I though it was discontinued?

Ted

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

George,

The best way to do this is with the SAME batch of oil, like I just did with my Sube. Take your sample, then change just the filter and install the Amsoil EAO - but without topping off the crankcase. Run that oil for several hundred miles and re-test.

As you well know, there are too many variables if you try to do a particle count comparison with successive sumps full of oil. Even if you used the exact same filters driving routes and OCI,there is probably a +/- 20% variation in what you'd see as a particle count, which masks the contribution of the oil filter.

Ted

---

What you say MAY be true, however, both filters aren't subjected to the same conditions. You'd have to reverse the process at least once, preferebly two or three times.

 

[Gary Allan]

Yeah. I don't know about this. It may work with two known filters that have a distinct distance between them in filtering ability ..but suppose you don't have a clue which is better

The first filter may remove stuff that the second filter can't even touch. If the tests were conducted close enough together, you could conclude, incorrectly, that they were somewhat matched in performance.

I feel that the production of particles is abundant and frequent enough to cover the "process variable" and that one filter run X number of miles having a more distinct cuttoff or radical reduction in larger particles would tend to be the better filter. I also don't see any clearly established correlation between PC and UOA ..although one would surely think so. PC is blind to composition and "collateral damage causing" content. The stuff could be soft ..it could be made of granite

Soft soot? Hard carbon?

 

[GeorgeCLS]

Yes, we do not know what the components of the PC are, that is correct. However, to do a UOA filter comparison *without* doing a PC would be missing a major component of potential wear. Then, if a significant difference is indeed seen in both PC and UOA, onward to Ferrography.. That WILL enable us to define just what is taking place.

Additionally, the filter "system" will reach equilibrium fairly quickly with each filter element. It will not be like comparing two high quality oil filters. Comparing the performance a 30 micron paper element with a potential 10 micron element should display some very meaningful emperical differences in both PC and UOA.. Which is what I will be doing.....
We shall see...
This testing is not going to provide test results to write a paper on; just some data which may provide some insight as to the comparative effectiveness.. That is all I am interested in seeing with the initial results...

George Morrison, STLE CLS

 

[Gary Allan]

Yes, George, there's no new science being written here ..but, as you say, it will give insight into stuff that isn't easy to come by with other means. It's a shame this data, truthfully presented, isn't just available to everyone

This is, by no means, a discounting on your efforts here. We're sitting in the cheap seats. You do want to attempt to closes as many escape routes as possible ..before we release the hounds.

I look forward to your results.

 

[427Z06]

It will be interesting to compare George's results with the Eao filter test I'm running too. I'm coming up on the midway point on mine.

 

[Gary Allan]

Well, take a road trip ..move the testing along.

That's one of my frustrations being a home grown tester. It just takes a long time to get anything to show. Everything feels like it's on a back burner ..add a dose of normal complications that always get in the way .....

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

Well, take a road trip ..move the testing along.

---

I would but Texas has been shut down for the past two days due to a "Winter Storm."

It drops below freezing with a little moisture and people start dying around here.

 

[GeorgeCLS]

Just received my most recent particle counts for my Toyota Sequoia with 160,000 miles on the engine. Mobil 1R 0W-30 used for most of its life. 10,000 miles on the oil.
Particle count ISO is 20/19/17, which is consistent with previous PC's for this engine. And not bad for a gasoline recip engine.
The breakdown is as follows:
>4 microns 8407 particles per ML
>6 microns 4578 particles per ML
>15 microns 79 particles per ML
>25 microns 157 particles per ML
>50 microns 15 particles per ML
>100 microns 1 particle per ML

This is with the OEM paper oil filter element. Will re-sample at 1,000 miles with OEM paper oil filter, then re-sample with EAO filter at 1,000 miles.. And then go on to 10,000 miles and compare with previous ISO results at 10,000 miles.
Spectro results for same were:
Iron, 14: Chrome 0: Lead 2: Copper 3: tin 0: Aluminum 2:
Silicon 10... Again, for 10,000 miles, excellent numbers.
George Morrison, STLE CLS

 

[harry j]

I expect the PC to be much better with the Eao filter, I am looking forward to the analysis.

 

[Gary Allan]

George ..did you get these two numbers reversed

>4 microns 8407 particles per ML
>6 microns 4578 particles per ML
>15 microns 79 particles per ML
>25 microns 157 particles per ML
>50 microns 15 particles per ML
>100 microns 1 particle per ML

 

[GeorgeCLS]

Gary, very astute.. In my haste in entering before rushing out of the office, I indeed transposed the two numbers. >15 should read 157 while >25 should read 79 particles per ml.
Thank you so much for actually reading the results.. One never knows when one enters if it has any meaning for anyone..
George Morrison, STLE CLS

 

[Gary Allan]

This filter actually appears to do a decent job in the >15um range. There's a distinct cutoff. The BIG numbers are probably, to a decent degree, insolubles that may be low in total % ..but numerous due to their small particle size.

This will be an excellent test for the EaO, imo.

 

[GeorgeCLS]

Gary, very astute again, which prompted a double check on the results. A paper element just should not perform that well in the >14 size spectrum.. And sure enough, the LAB did a typo!
My sincere apologies on this one as my PC should now read..
>4 8407, >6 4578, >14 779, >25 157, >50 15, >100 1..

Now, courtesy your comments, we have the real, final PC's for my Toyota Sequoia.. The original ISO cleanliness was correct, just the human typed numbers from the lab...
Again, thank you for your comments as it double prompted my double check.. Murphy of Murphy's Law once again...
Thank you.....
George

 

[harry j]

George, Iunderstand that the Eao filter is actually good for 60,000 miles, shudder. It has been acknowledged to have a low back pressure (great flow). What do you think about perhaps increasing the element thickness, a little less flow, and mayby it won't be effective for as many miles....but oh those microns! It may be close to a bypass setup in efficiency. Amsoil could call it the Eao XL.

 

[GeorgeCLS]

From a lube engineer's perspective, there are limits of filtration of engine oil. Anything below 6 microns and we can begin filtering viscosity improver.. i.e. there is a happy medium. Moreover, all indications are that this filter is world's better than a paper element, both in flow and capacities. And yes, it may well last to 60,000 miles in its present form and very likely even in a tighter version, same performance. I realize it sounds strange but the performance difference between a microglass and paper is normally just that. I have seen a 30 micron Beta 200 paper element need replacement at 30 days, yet its 6 micron beta 200 microglass element needing replaced at 120 days.
The microglass element was filtering to a much tighter tolerance yet lasted 3 times longer. As much as 40% of a paper element may not flow oil at all! A microglass element flows 100%, which is why they flow with so much lower Delta P. (measured flow resistance)
So, from my experience, there is just so low one can go, micron-wise, in a full flow oil filter. It has been shown that the 10 to 30 micron particle size is THE culprit for wear, so if the EAO attacks that size component with good efficiency, we have a winner in my opinion.
You can well see what my particle counts show for the OEM paper... Hopefully this will be significantly reduced in the next go-round.
George Morrison, STLE CLS

 

[harry j]

I am looking forward to your results George, I expect great things. A bypass filtration system is said to have an absolute efficiency down around 2 microns, would that not remove some VI improvers? Some synthetic oils are said to have little or no VI improvers, I seems that filtration below 6 microns would have little or no effect on it.