Particle Count Data Point: P1 vs EaO

[Ericm]

Another particle count data point.
I ran a Pure One filter for 4000 miles. I pulled an oil sample, then changed to an EaO filter without adding any new oil. I ran the EaO for 549 more miles and pulled the second sample.

IMPORTANT NOTE: IT LOOKS AS IF THE EaO SAMPLE MAY HAVE BEEN MISTAKENLY CONTAMINATED WITH ADDTIONAL DIRT BASED ON A HIGH SILICON READING.
(More Details at end of post.)

Filter__P1___________EaO

Miles
on
Filter_4042___________549

Miles
On Oil_4042__________4591

Make up
Oil_____1.0 qt________none

Particle
Count
(microns)
>5u____17159_______19501
>10u_____427_________474
>15u______49__________60
>20u______20__________25
>25u______11__________15
>50u_______2___________2
>75u_______0___________0
>100u______0___________0

Fe
Debris_____15__________15

ISO______21/13_______21/13

Particle
Volume_____2__________2

Anti
Freeze____Pos*_______Trace*

Water_____Pos**_______Neg

Fuel_______Neg________Neg

Elements
PPM
Cu_____1____________1
Fe_____2____________2
Cr_____0____________0
Ni_____0____________0
Ti_____0____________0
V______0___________0
Ag_____0___________0
Pb_____4___________2
Sn_____3___________0
Al______2___________2
Si______5__________16
Na_____3___________5
K_______0___________0
Mo____118__________96
B_____109_________116
Ba______0___________2
Ca___1994________1856
Mg______0___________0
Mn______2___________2
P_____946_________898
Sb______2___________7
Zn___1093________1005

Viscosity: 16.0 cst
Oil type: Chevron Supreme 20w-50

* According to Butler Cat Lab the glycol test is extremely sensitive and may be a false positive.
** According to Lab the presence of water was low enough for a particle count to be taken. Water is counted as particles and will add to PC.

A laser type particle counter was used. (The lab did not dilute the samples for particle counting).

Vehicle is 1993 Geo Metro XFi. Total mileage at end of test was approx. 270,072.
Filters were extra large oversize: Purolator PL30001 and EaO 15.

Sampling procedure: Used rigid polyethylene tubing, otherwise the same as:
http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...true#Post866529

I think dirt contamination was introduced into the EaO sample possibly during the filter change due to wind blown dust (it took a while to pour oil from P1 filter into the EaO).
I don’t think contamination occurred during sampling because I believe this would have raised the particle count of the larger particles in the 50, 75, and 100 micron range as well as the smaller sizes. It looks to me as though the EaO filter removed these larger sizes before sampling.

Sorry about that. I got impatient and changed over to the EaO filter on a windy afternoon. Should have waited for a calm weekend morning, when I normally change oil.

Comments welcome.

 

[rn2fine]

I have been waiting for this post. Thank you for doing this. Sorry to hear about the wind. How much of an impact do you think it had? I would not think that changing a filter while it is a bit windy would expose the oil to a significant amount of contamination, but I am not an expert. I would think the EaO likely had enough miles to demonstrate its filtering capability (just my opinion). The oil probably passed through the EaO thousands of times during its 500+ mile use. Based on the data it looks like the PureOne and the EaO are very comparable in terms of performance (particle filtering). The results do not surprise too much though based on some things I have observed in the past. Someone on this site previously posted pics of filter internals to include an EaO and a Donaldson with the Synteq media. The media of both filters appeared very unique and identical. Donaldson makes the EaO and it may (I repeat MAY) be possible that the EaO is constructed with Donaldson's Synteq media. It is good stuff. Grease tested the Synteq media and reported on it's pore sizes a while ago (bubble point test I believe). The numbers for the Synteq media in Grease's study looked great, but similar to some other filters such as the PureOne. I look forward to seeing the results of a test without the possible wind generated contamination if you decide to conduct such a test again. Until then I will remain content with P1s on my shelf (bought at $5 each, regular price). Thank you for sharing your information.

 

[rn2fine]

The post with the pics of the EaO and Donaldson was by Big O Dave. They both really have some unique looking media, like nothing I have seen in any other filter. Thanks again for taking the time to test the P1 and EaO.

 

[rn2fine]

Sorry to post so many times in a row. Hey Pablo, or any other Amsoil reps, quick question. Are the EaOs made by Donaldson and do they use Donaldson media? If so, is it similar or the same as Synteq?

 

[Pablo]

Quote:

---

Sorry to post so many times in a row. Hey Pablo, or any other Amsoil reps, quick question. Are the EaOs made by Donaldson and do they use Donaldson media? If so, is it similar or the same as Synteq?

---

1) The filters are made by Wix.
2) The media is made specifically for Amsoil by Donaldson.

 

[Ericm]

Quote:

---

I would not think that changing a filter while it is a bit windy would expose the oil to a significant amount of contamination, but I am not an expert.

---

I'm not an expert either. Maybe there was another source of Si like an air system leak??? Anyhow, I was disappointed that this happened right in the middle of this "final" test. There are so many variables I wish I could do more to see a trend, but I bought six of these PC test kits and have used them up now. I think I'm gonna take a breather. I'm happy with either the P1 or EaO at this point. Thanks m2fine.

 

[JAG]

Thanks for providing real data.

 

[Gary Allan]

Now a good validation would be to leave the EaO on for whatever miles you can extend it (the same mileage would be nice) and then put a new P1 and run it for the same mileage and see what the results are.

Essentially, reverse the order.

The differences are close enough (the vast majority of the readings are aligned with each other) that you can attribute it to testing variables. It essentially says that in 500 miles of usage the EaO is at par with what a 4000 mile P1 is doing in terms of filtration. That is, maintaining the status quo.

If you reverse the order, then you can see if P1 can duplicate that ..do better ...do worse

 

[GeorgeCLS]

The sample capture procedures for particle count are very critical and from my experience, the best system to get consistent results are, in addition to what you did on the sample was.
1. Mark the tubing with the length of the dip stick to ensure the tubing is beneath oil level.
2. Draw a sample through the tubing and into a "trash" bottle.
3. Put on a new sample bottle and draw a sample. Put the top on the bottle, shake and dump the contents. Re-install the bottle on the thief and draw another sample, making sure to keep the thief horizontal so that none of the incoming oil touches the thief. Put the top on the bottle, shake, dump and re-install the sample bottle on the thief, THIS will now be our final sample.. It should be a good one.
4. And yes, try to capture the sample indoors, away from blowing dust, etc.
If these procedures were not used (double rinse), the sample results will not be usable...
The greatest of care must be taken in particle count gathering...
George Morrison, STLE CLS

 

[Ericm]

Quote:

---

If these procedures were not used (double rinse), the sample results will not be usable...
The greatest of care must be taken in particle count gathering...

---

I did #1 and assured oil was drawn in at about 3/4" below end of dipstick. The other steps I did not do, but make good sense to me. I might add that keeping the sample bottle open for as short a time as possible is also prudent. From my limited experience on two baseline samples, one was open for several minutes more than the other and particle counts were significantly higher across all micron ranges for the bottle that was open longer.

 

[Ericm]

Thanks for everyone's comments.

 

[GeorgeCLS]

Yes, keeping the tops on the sample bottles for minimal time is also important. With particle counting being sooo sensitive, PC sample capturing must be near surgical in procedures or the sample results will be meaningless..
George Morrison, STLE CLS