Are there any filters that are available that are as good or better than the Amsoil EaO line?
Are there any filters as good as Amsoil EaO?
- Thread starter Cooper
- Start date
- Status
no
I have yet to use an Amsoil Ea filter. I have Amsoil in my vehicles, but had a few extra Wix and OEM filters still. I just sold my last 4 OEM filters, and now I don't have any unused filters at all. I am planning on using the Ea line for my next OCI. I have OEM Nissan and Toyota on the cars right now with SSO 0w30 in the Altima, and ATM 10w30 in the RAV4. They will both be SSO with the Ea filters next OCI.
No............ Wish there were but no.....
George Morrison, STLE CLS
George Morrison, STLE CLS
Originally Posted By: FZ1
Maybe not. But the M1 is "good enough" for me.
Maybe not. But the M1 is "good enough" for me.
How do all the posters saying "no" know?
There was a recent post where an EaO allowed far more particulates of every size than another filter (forget kind). Only one instance but what is the data other than Amsoil claims in favor of the EaO?
There was a recent post where an EaO allowed far more particulates of every size than another filter (forget kind). Only one instance but what is the data other than Amsoil claims in favor of the EaO?
I recently bought some Canton/Mecca filters. 8 micron/20K change interval. No ripping the filter open for visual, all you change is the element.
http://www.cmfilters.com/tech.cfm
http://www.cmfilters.com/tech.cfm
Last edited:
I read a post where the filtration a few thousand miles into use was better than out of the bottle.
The three best that I've read in favor of the EaO are:
1) Terry's detailed data.
2) GeorgeCLS's data.
3) The guy that showed essentially new oil condition data.
Don't ask me to find the threads. I don't do BITOG site searches anymore. I've already wasted too many valuable years doing that.
1) Terry's detailed data.
2) GeorgeCLS's data.
3) The guy that showed essentially new oil condition data.
Don't ask me to find the threads. I don't do BITOG site searches anymore. I've already wasted too many valuable years doing that.
In 200,000 miles it makes no difference what you use!
Originally Posted By: glennc
How do all the posters saying "no" know?
There was a recent post where an EaO allowed far more particulates of every size than another filter (forget kind). Only one instance but what is the data other than Amsoil claims in favor of the EaO?
That may have been my thread (which caused plenty of confusion) due to the different particle count methods used. So here is a summary of my oil filter test comparing the FRAM synthetic blend XG7317 vs. the AMSOIL full synthetic EaO13.
Round one was NOT a laser particle count but a weighed filter patch test because the lab could not get the laser to read through the darker oil. As I understand it the results are not accurate for particles
Round one also had the wrong scale listed adding to the confusion. Round two added this note which I think some folks missed. "Note lab made mistake on listing scale last time even after I queried so data for all tests is in 100ml scale."
Both oil filters were installed with fresh fills of RP 5W-40 and run for 5,000 miles, before the particle count oil samples were taken.
Originally Posted By: jmsbntz
Round one results...
"James, this will be a good repeatable RELATIVE reference for the testing even though breaking out the individual particle count may be impossible we will have a good reference to compare the EaO to, provided the engine burn is similar etc.
21mg/L = roughly NAS 6 for the clean (new) RP 5w40.
63 mg/L = NAS 8 for the used oil with Fram OF and RP 5w40.
Estimate of used oil sample stands at:
5-15 micron - 15-25 micron - 25-50 micron -
Relative value of the EaO particles weighed will be very interesting.
Feel free to post this result.
Note too that the lab techs suggest the dyes in the RP are what are screwing up the laser reading capability to particle count. Frankly in automotive oils especially used oil the add pack and combustion byproduct are the main culprits to reflecting the beam rendering it useless. Why hydraulic fluids are usually more clear or the dye lighter in coloration."
Terry
Originally Posted By: jmsbntz
Round two! The fuel dilute increase is probably from extended city driving while Christmas shopping after Thanksgiving as well as a Bio-Plus fuel conditioner clean-up phase (double treat rate) in the last 3000 miles of this OCI.
James, finally results ! Note: because the lab was so happy to get the laser to read they forgot to weigh the filter patch to compare to the other tests. Please do share with my friends at BITOG or elsewhere.
The laser worked on this run so we have actual micronic values compared to the weighed levels from the earlier filters test. This was as standardized as we could get with the particle count capability at hand and for darker motor oils.
From this data the EaO shows it cleaned the oil to VOA levels (possibly better) since oil adds would have activated and filmed/adhered to the engine.
Roughly 3 times less particles in suspension in the RP oil this test. Note lab made mistake on listing scale last time even after I queried so data for all tests is in 100ml scale.
NAS 1638 (1964) probably the best chart to guide. Whatever relative measure the EaO is impressive.
Second remark is that fuels dilute was worse this run so results are biased against EaO. Another reason lower copper in spectral exam indeed was reduced wear particles in suspension.
Test 2 EaO laser micron count oil sample stands at:
>2 - 52249/100ml
>5 - 9843
>15 - 517
>25 - 107
>50 - .7
>100 -.1
At YOUR service, Terry
Originally Posted By: jmsbntz
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Why did they change the units??
From what is here, the Eao did a worse job at 2 of the debris of the Fram at above that. That's if the tests are comparable (different resolutions?) and I'm not getting the units messed up.
Yes... the camparison appeared FUBAR to me at first but if you look at the NAS 1638 Contamination Class Chart it is easier to compare the results.
The new oil sample.... = NAS class 6.
The Fram used sample = NAS class 8.
The EaO used sample.. = NAS class 6.
Nothing wrong with the used oil having the same NAS Class 6 rating as new oil in my opinion!
How do all the posters saying "no" know?
There was a recent post where an EaO allowed far more particulates of every size than another filter (forget kind). Only one instance but what is the data other than Amsoil claims in favor of the EaO?
That may have been my thread (which caused plenty of confusion) due to the different particle count methods used. So here is a summary of my oil filter test comparing the FRAM synthetic blend XG7317 vs. the AMSOIL full synthetic EaO13.
Round one was NOT a laser particle count but a weighed filter patch test because the lab could not get the laser to read through the darker oil. As I understand it the results are not accurate for particles
Round one also had the wrong scale listed adding to the confusion. Round two added this note which I think some folks missed. "Note lab made mistake on listing scale last time even after I queried so data for all tests is in 100ml scale."
Both oil filters were installed with fresh fills of RP 5W-40 and run for 5,000 miles, before the particle count oil samples were taken.
Originally Posted By: jmsbntz
Round one results...
"James, this will be a good repeatable RELATIVE reference for the testing even though breaking out the individual particle count may be impossible we will have a good reference to compare the EaO to, provided the engine burn is similar etc.
21mg/L = roughly NAS 6 for the clean (new) RP 5w40.
63 mg/L = NAS 8 for the used oil with Fram OF and RP 5w40.
Estimate of used oil sample stands at:
5-15 micron - 15-25 micron - 25-50 micron -
Relative value of the EaO particles weighed will be very interesting.
Feel free to post this result.
Note too that the lab techs suggest the dyes in the RP are what are screwing up the laser reading capability to particle count. Frankly in automotive oils especially used oil the add pack and combustion byproduct are the main culprits to reflecting the beam rendering it useless. Why hydraulic fluids are usually more clear or the dye lighter in coloration."
Terry
Originally Posted By: jmsbntz
Round two! The fuel dilute increase is probably from extended city driving while Christmas shopping after Thanksgiving as well as a Bio-Plus fuel conditioner clean-up phase (double treat rate) in the last 3000 miles of this OCI.
James, finally results ! Note: because the lab was so happy to get the laser to read they forgot to weigh the filter patch to compare to the other tests. Please do share with my friends at BITOG or elsewhere.
The laser worked on this run so we have actual micronic values compared to the weighed levels from the earlier filters test. This was as standardized as we could get with the particle count capability at hand and for darker motor oils.
From this data the EaO shows it cleaned the oil to VOA levels (possibly better) since oil adds would have activated and filmed/adhered to the engine.
Roughly 3 times less particles in suspension in the RP oil this test. Note lab made mistake on listing scale last time even after I queried so data for all tests is in 100ml scale.
NAS 1638 (1964) probably the best chart to guide. Whatever relative measure the EaO is impressive.
Second remark is that fuels dilute was worse this run so results are biased against EaO. Another reason lower copper in spectral exam indeed was reduced wear particles in suspension.
Test 2 EaO laser micron count oil sample stands at:
>2 - 52249/100ml
>5 - 9843
>15 - 517
>25 - 107
>50 - .7
>100 -.1
At YOUR service, Terry
Originally Posted By: jmsbntz
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Why did they change the units??
From what is here, the Eao did a worse job at 2 of the debris of the Fram at above that. That's if the tests are comparable (different resolutions?) and I'm not getting the units messed up.
Yes... the camparison appeared FUBAR to me at first but if you look at the NAS 1638 Contamination Class Chart it is easier to compare the results.
The new oil sample.... = NAS class 6.
The Fram used sample = NAS class 8.
The EaO used sample.. = NAS class 6.
Nothing wrong with the used oil having the same NAS Class 6 rating as new oil in my opinion!
Last edited:
The test vehicle for both filters was my 07 Pilot with the iVTEC V6 engine.
Originally Posted By: daman
IMO yes there is,,if you can find a Fleetguard
"stratapore" filter in your app that is..i'm tyring one
out on my truck next OC...
I agree with this.
I found a Fleetguard stratpore for my MC FL-820S application but can't justify the cost since I'm on warranty OCI of5K.
IMO yes there is,,if you can find a Fleetguard
"stratapore" filter in your app that is..i'm tyring one
out on my truck next OC...
I agree with this.
I found a Fleetguard stratpore for my MC FL-820S application but can't justify the cost since I'm on warranty OCI of5K.
Let's reverse this - how do you know the Fleetgard is better than the EaO?
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Let's reverse this - how do you know the Fleetgard is better than the EaO?
"I" never said it was...the OP asked IF there was one "as good"
or better,i don't know if it is,,know one does,,but it sure looks
like a winner to me,and i'm trying one out...
Originally Posted By: glenncof
I found a Fleetguard stratpore for my MC FL-820S application but can't justify the cost since I'm on warranty OCI of5K.
$11 for me OTC locally is what i'm finding,,not a bad price for EaO performance..
Let's reverse this - how do you know the Fleetgard is better than the EaO?
"I" never said it was...the OP asked IF there was one "as good"
or better,i don't know if it is,,know one does,,but it sure looks
like a winner to me,and i'm trying one out...
Originally Posted By: glenncof
I found a Fleetguard stratpore for my MC FL-820S application but can't justify the cost since I'm on warranty OCI of5K.
$11 for me OTC locally is what i'm finding,,not a bad price for EaO performance..
- Status
Similar threads
