I removed an Amsoil EAO filter after 2 1/2 years and 13,000 miles of service. The filter medium looked brand new and could have gone several more years of service(full syn oil).
Second Partticle Counts Complete
- Thread starter GeorgeCLS
- Start date
- Status
Did you do an oil analysis?
Originally Posted By: harry j
Did you do an oil analysis?
No, but I didn't need to do one to see that the filter had plenty of life left. I changed the filter to be safe.
Did you do an oil analysis?
No, but I didn't need to do one to see that the filter had plenty of life left. I changed the filter to be safe.
No pics man?????
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
The jury is still out.
The best thing I am seeing on the EaO is great flow along with what seems to be good filtration. I also like the long service life for extended oil changes or using for one or more shorter oil changes. I am not at all impressed with the ADBV if the "blow" test means anything at all. The M1 oil filters and most others are better in this regard than the Amsoil ones I have tried.
Doing a quick scan of this thread leads me to a question. Please let me know if this is what I read.
My thought is that folks were saying that a 6 micron filter was filtering out VII? Are these VII particulates or liquids? If they are particulate, then yes that can be a concern. If they are liquid, they are not being filtered, hence doesn't matter how well the filter does its job.
Is this, in a nutshell, correct?
My thought is that folks were saying that a 6 micron filter was filtering out VII? Are these VII particulates or liquids? If they are particulate, then yes that can be a concern. If they are liquid, they are not being filtered, hence doesn't matter how well the filter does its job.
Is this, in a nutshell, correct?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
NewC6
Particles at the particle size and in solution are extremely hard to filter. I'm pretty sure you're into angstroms ...picometers(picons?).
Particles at the particle size and in solution are extremely hard to filter. I'm pretty sure you're into angstroms ...picometers(picons?).
Originally Posted By: garageman402
Besides, George's new thread explains the pore blockage measurement method. The screen used is a 10 um, so the other values are arrived at using extrapolation with established patterns. As I stated there, a truly remarkable filter would not follow established patterns, and the extrapolated figures would be meaningless.....
-Bob
+1
The magical consistency of Blackstone's particle size ratios has been brought up here several times over the years.
The small differences in ratios at different particle sizes between the two filters being discussed can be accounted for by rounding errors.
34/2 = 17, but if the sample were ten times as large (pp10m), the numbers could easily be 336/24 = 14.0.
Besides, George's new thread explains the pore blockage measurement method. The screen used is a 10 um, so the other values are arrived at using extrapolation with established patterns. As I stated there, a truly remarkable filter would not follow established patterns, and the extrapolated figures would be meaningless.....
-Bob
+1
The magical consistency of Blackstone's particle size ratios has been brought up here several times over the years.
The small differences in ratios at different particle sizes between the two filters being discussed can be accounted for by rounding errors.
34/2 = 17, but if the sample were ten times as large (pp10m), the numbers could easily be 336/24 = 14.0.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
NewC6
Particles at the particle size and in solution are extremely hard to filter. I'm pretty sure you're into angstroms ...picometers(picons?).
That's kind of what I meant, I think.
What I was trying to infer was that if VII's are liquid, they are NOT being filtered. Only particles will be filtered.
Thanks and have a great day.
NewC6
Particles at the particle size and in solution are extremely hard to filter. I'm pretty sure you're into angstroms ...picometers(picons?).
That's kind of what I meant, I think.
What I was trying to infer was that if VII's are liquid, they are NOT being filtered. Only particles will be filtered.
Thanks and have a great day.
Good thread.
Any updates? Is EA as good a filter as EOA? EA has a shorter lifespan (15Kmiles)
Any updates? Is EA as good a filter as EOA? EA has a shorter lifespan (15Kmiles)
Originally Posted By: 427Z06
Quote:
On the contrary, what the two samples did was confirm what is an industry recognized set of standards. That accepted standard bieng that a cellulose/paper oil filter element is essentially a >30 micron oil filter and that a microglass element can effectively filter down to 1 microns with a 99.97% efficiencies when properly configured.
Well if that's true, this filter should be stripping out the VIIs as you've claimed before. And don't try to tell me M1R doesn't have VIIs.
What are VIIs?
Quote:
On the contrary, what the two samples did was confirm what is an industry recognized set of standards. That accepted standard bieng that a cellulose/paper oil filter element is essentially a >30 micron oil filter and that a microglass element can effectively filter down to 1 microns with a 99.97% efficiencies when properly configured.
Well if that's true, this filter should be stripping out the VIIs as you've claimed before. And don't try to tell me M1R doesn't have VIIs.
What are VIIs?
Originally Posted By: georgeseq;603413
------------- OEM toyota Filter Amsoil EaO Filter
>14 microns = 168 particles/ML 12 particles/Ml
>25 microns = 34 particles/Ml 2 particles/ML
>50 microns = 3 particles/ML 0 particles/Ml
These results don't really impress me that much. I've seen three different oil tests (one by Amsoil) and Toyota performed poorly in all of them. Ditto other OEM filters like Honda, Chrysler, Ford.
The fact there are a lot of particles not captured by the Toyota filter does not surprise me, and I wonder how a Mobil 1 EP filter vs. Amsoil EAO vs. Amsoil EA15k test would perform. (I said EA15k because that's what my car runs.) I suspect the M1 would be as clean as the Amsoil, because the Mobil filter uses synthetic filtering too.
------------- OEM toyota Filter Amsoil EaO Filter
>14 microns = 168 particles/ML 12 particles/Ml
>25 microns = 34 particles/Ml 2 particles/ML
>50 microns = 3 particles/ML 0 particles/Ml
These results don't really impress me that much. I've seen three different oil tests (one by Amsoil) and Toyota performed poorly in all of them. Ditto other OEM filters like Honda, Chrysler, Ford.
The fact there are a lot of particles not captured by the Toyota filter does not surprise me, and I wonder how a Mobil 1 EP filter vs. Amsoil EAO vs. Amsoil EA15k test would perform. (I said EA15k because that's what my car runs.) I suspect the M1 would be as clean as the Amsoil, because the Mobil filter uses synthetic filtering too.
Last edited:
Is the information in this thread, particularly post #1, still valid with the change in Amsoil's claim of their EaA filters from 25K miles to 15K miles?
I read in another thread that they 'adjusted' the media to allow larger/more particles to flow through the filter, to achieve a successful extended interval.
I realize the claim has been lowered, and the statement above contradicts this, but It's what I have read.
I read in another thread that they 'adjusted' the media to allow larger/more particles to flow through the filter, to achieve a successful extended interval.
I realize the claim has been lowered, and the statement above contradicts this, but It's what I have read.
My bovine scatology detector goes off when I read the original test these days. I've had numerous particle counts done over the past few years and even with filters similar in efficiency to the Amsoil filter (~ 99% @ 20 um), combined with 3 um absolute bypass filtration, they weren't quite this good. And the claim is that just a primary, full flow filter did it all?!
I bought it hook line and sinker when I first read it in '07 and in many ways, that post could be one that helped fuel my interest in filtration. Today, I have my doubts. I've looked a a lot of particle counts since then too so have a better basis of knowledge. I would need to see the actual test report to believe it fully. A lot of research on the OP, here and in other places on the internet, did not make me any more confident of the information.
I bought it hook line and sinker when I first read it in '07 and in many ways, that post could be one that helped fuel my interest in filtration. Today, I have my doubts. I've looked a a lot of particle counts since then too so have a better basis of knowledge. I would need to see the actual test report to believe it fully. A lot of research on the OP, here and in other places on the internet, did not make me any more confident of the information.
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
My bovine scatology detector goes off when I read the original test these days. I've had numerous particle counts done over the past few years and even with filters similar in efficiency to the Amsoil filter (~ 99% @ 20 um), combined with 3 um absolute bypass filtration, they weren't quite this good. And the claim is that just a primary, full flow filter did it all?!
I bought it hook line and sinker when I first read it in '07 and in many ways, that post could be one that helped fuel my interest in filtration. Today, I have my doubts. I've looked a a lot of particle counts since then too so have a better basis of knowledge. I would need to see the actual test report to believe it fully. A lot of research on the OP, here and in other places on the internet, did not make me any more confident of the information.
That's very interesting. I will take this thread with a grain of salt and continue my research to make a sound, logical judgement on filtration.
Thank you for your input, I always enjoy your posts.
My bovine scatology detector goes off when I read the original test these days. I've had numerous particle counts done over the past few years and even with filters similar in efficiency to the Amsoil filter (~ 99% @ 20 um), combined with 3 um absolute bypass filtration, they weren't quite this good. And the claim is that just a primary, full flow filter did it all?!
I bought it hook line and sinker when I first read it in '07 and in many ways, that post could be one that helped fuel my interest in filtration. Today, I have my doubts. I've looked a a lot of particle counts since then too so have a better basis of knowledge. I would need to see the actual test report to believe it fully. A lot of research on the OP, here and in other places on the internet, did not make me any more confident of the information.
That's very interesting. I will take this thread with a grain of salt and continue my research to make a sound, logical judgement on filtration.
Thank you for your input, I always enjoy your posts.
- Status
Similar threads
