- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
I wanted to add ...however, whatever error or imperfection the test inherently has, it did show consistently better results with M1 filters.
A comparison of Mobil 1 and Amsoil EaO oil Filters
- Thread starter btanchors
- Start date
- Status
Surely a $16 filter would outperform a lowly $10 filter.
In any other argument on this site these kind of data would be viewed as gospel. I believe you. You did as scientific an experiment as one man can do and I for one salute your effort. It seems the efficiency wasn't so absolute after all. So, now that we know Mobil 1 are the best, let's see them against a PureONE and NAPA Gold. If some people don't believe the data, they never will.
As far as blackstone goes, they may be wrong about some things, but these tests were performed entirely on blackstone equipment so whether blackstone is better or worse than another lab is immaterial - the method was consistent, if imperfect.
In any other argument on this site these kind of data would be viewed as gospel. I believe you. You did as scientific an experiment as one man can do and I for one salute your effort. It seems the efficiency wasn't so absolute after all. So, now that we know Mobil 1 are the best, let's see them against a PureONE and NAPA Gold. If some people don't believe the data, they never will.
As far as blackstone goes, they may be wrong about some things, but these tests were performed entirely on blackstone equipment so whether blackstone is better or worse than another lab is immaterial - the method was consistent, if imperfect.
Last edited:
Well the question is why does M1 filter better than the Amsoil EaO filters. Is it the media in the filter? The design of the filter?
One test on Blackstone isn't going to convince me the data is an absolute!
One test on Blackstone isn't going to convince me the data is an absolute!
Originally Posted By: btanchors
chevrofreak,
I thought I might get a question like this, asking to try other filters! But based on Pablo's response, he still may not be convinced the Mobil 1 filters are performing better, so it sounds like I need to try the Amsoil filter again to be sure. Buster - Can you point me to the post or other info where the person found the Mobil 1 filter performed better?
Although I am convinced my results are valid, I am certainly looking for ideas as to how I can make the test results as realistic as possible, short of sealing the truck in a vacuum bottle!
I think buster was referring to your earlier posts on the same testing.
I'm not saying the results aren't valid, nor am I asking for another Amsoil filter to be tested. (You can if you want, I guess). That said Gary makes a point about the way this test is performed......here are Amsoil's claims:
Quote:
Absolute Efficiency
AMSOIL Ea Oil Filters 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.
Less Restriction
AMSOIL Ea Oil Filters have significantly lower restriction than conventional cellulose media filters. Their small synthetic nanofibers trap smaller particles and hold more contaminants, resulting in lower restriction. During cold temperature warm-up periods, an EaO lube filter allows the oil to easily flow through the filter compared to a typical cellulose filter. Lower restriction decreases engine wear.
More Capacity
A filter’s capacity refers to the amount of contaminants it can hold and still remain effective. AMSOIL EaO Filters have a far greater capacity than competing filter lines. When used in conjunction with AMSOIL synthetic motor oils in normal service, EaO Filters are guaranteed to remain effective for 25,000 miles or one year, whichever comes first.
Maybe the ISO 4548-12 test is flawed???
chevrofreak,
I thought I might get a question like this, asking to try other filters! But based on Pablo's response, he still may not be convinced the Mobil 1 filters are performing better, so it sounds like I need to try the Amsoil filter again to be sure. Buster - Can you point me to the post or other info where the person found the Mobil 1 filter performed better?
Although I am convinced my results are valid, I am certainly looking for ideas as to how I can make the test results as realistic as possible, short of sealing the truck in a vacuum bottle!
I think buster was referring to your earlier posts on the same testing.
I'm not saying the results aren't valid, nor am I asking for another Amsoil filter to be tested. (You can if you want, I guess). That said Gary makes a point about the way this test is performed......here are Amsoil's claims:
Quote:
Absolute Efficiency
AMSOIL Ea Oil Filters 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.
Less Restriction
AMSOIL Ea Oil Filters have significantly lower restriction than conventional cellulose media filters. Their small synthetic nanofibers trap smaller particles and hold more contaminants, resulting in lower restriction. During cold temperature warm-up periods, an EaO lube filter allows the oil to easily flow through the filter compared to a typical cellulose filter. Lower restriction decreases engine wear.
More Capacity
A filter’s capacity refers to the amount of contaminants it can hold and still remain effective. AMSOIL EaO Filters have a far greater capacity than competing filter lines. When used in conjunction with AMSOIL synthetic motor oils in normal service, EaO Filters are guaranteed to remain effective for 25,000 miles or one year, whichever comes first.
Maybe the ISO 4548-12 test is flawed???
Maybe ISO 4548-12 is the only way Amsoil can get a high percentage like that and a third party oil analysis company that has no stake in the argument except helping their customers get valid data tests a different way? Seems to be a reasonable explanation. The ISO 4548-12 also takes capacity into account - in this test we're talking about performance regardless of capacity, so yes, the test might be flawed when viewed in this context for these purposes.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
As far as blackstone goes, they may be wrong about some things, but these tests were performed entirely on blackstone equipment so whether blackstone is better or worse than another lab is immaterial - the method was consistent, if imperfect.
I believe I stated it as such.
Quote:
In any other argument on this site these kind of data would be viewed as gospel. I believe you. You did as scientific an experiment as one man can do and I for one salute your effort. It seems the efficiency wasn't so absolute after all.
Well, if I performed this test, and the numbers were inverted, I'd surely qualify it as "In 5k tests, the X filter showed substantially better particle counts".
I don't see anyone disputing the numbers. I will, however, tend to object to "absolute" conclusions based on the data.
Quote:
So, now that we know Mobil 1 are the best
You only know that in 5k side by side tests that M1 outperformed EaO.
Again, the data is not in dispute.
As far as blackstone goes, they may be wrong about some things, but these tests were performed entirely on blackstone equipment so whether blackstone is better or worse than another lab is immaterial - the method was consistent, if imperfect.
I believe I stated it as such.
Quote:
In any other argument on this site these kind of data would be viewed as gospel. I believe you. You did as scientific an experiment as one man can do and I for one salute your effort. It seems the efficiency wasn't so absolute after all.
Well, if I performed this test, and the numbers were inverted, I'd surely qualify it as "In 5k tests, the X filter showed substantially better particle counts".
I don't see anyone disputing the numbers. I will, however, tend to object to "absolute" conclusions based on the data.
Quote:
So, now that we know Mobil 1 are the best
You only know that in 5k side by side tests that M1 outperformed EaO.
Again, the data is not in dispute.
Gary Allan - I agree - and I should have been more careful in my earlier conclusions - This result MAY NOT be the same in longer intervals! Also, as I mentioned earlier, this test does nothing to examine resistance to oil flow, the quality of the backflow valve, etc. Perhaps the main reason I went with 5K test intervals is because my Tundra requires engine oil changes at no longer than 5K to meet the terms of its warranty. I might be inclined to test out to 7.5K otherwise, but not while the truck is under warranty. Although filtering is the primary purpose of the filter, there are several secondary characteristics that are also very important, that I did not address in this test.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
I would say that using the filter 10k at each instance ..or even 15k would not have violated your warranty ..or at least not induced any "fear factor" into your boat rocking.
Again, it's really unfortunate for me to be representing the product in this instance. When I've done my bypass valve testing, we had a great group of engineers (XS650 is still here) that were highly critical of home grown testing. Not for the effort ..or even the conditions that they were performed under ..just how you qualified the conclusions. If there was a trap door for data to escape, they blew you out of the water (kindly). You then learned, rather quickly, to construct your rhetoric to concede any limitations in advance.
You learned to really ..really be careful when you post "this proves" and often choose, "This suggests to me.." in exchange.
..but if you haven't ditched the filters in question, I'd put them in plastic bags and put them back in service at some later date. On my bypass valve testing, I had a 9k PureOne sent to me from another member. It took that long in service to be a blip on my differential pressure gauge that I installed.
Testing like this is expensive for the DIY types like us. While a few hundred dollars isn't going to break most banks, there are other places for it to go in productivity.
A preferred method is some optical laser thingie ...but this is apparently only valid with translucent fluids. Once the oil is opaque, then dilution agents need to be employed. This makes the pore blockage method more practical for the lab who does this as an added test.
http://www.oilanalysis.com/article_detail.asp?articleid=851&relatedbookgroup=oilanalysis
Again, thanks a bunch for this
Again, it's really unfortunate for me to be representing the product in this instance. When I've done my bypass valve testing, we had a great group of engineers (XS650 is still here) that were highly critical of home grown testing. Not for the effort ..or even the conditions that they were performed under ..just how you qualified the conclusions. If there was a trap door for data to escape, they blew you out of the water (kindly). You then learned, rather quickly, to construct your rhetoric to concede any limitations in advance.
You learned to really ..really be careful when you post "this proves" and often choose, "This suggests to me.." in exchange.
..but if you haven't ditched the filters in question, I'd put them in plastic bags and put them back in service at some later date. On my bypass valve testing, I had a 9k PureOne sent to me from another member. It took that long in service to be a blip on my differential pressure gauge that I installed.
Testing like this is expensive for the DIY types like us. While a few hundred dollars isn't going to break most banks, there are other places for it to go in productivity.
A preferred method is some optical laser thingie ...but this is apparently only valid with translucent fluids. Once the oil is opaque, then dilution agents need to be employed. This makes the pore blockage method more practical for the lab who does this as an added test.
http://www.oilanalysis.com/article_detail.asp?articleid=851&relatedbookgroup=oilanalysis
Again, thanks a bunch for this
Interesting results, I'd like to see how the newly painted Pure One's stack up. Seems the Mobil 1 filters are the way to go, and are priced a [censored] of a lot better than the Amsoil filters. I'll stick to the Mobil 1 filters. Thanks for posting the results and saving me some $$$$.
Frank D
Frank D
Very interesting test. Thanks to the OP who did this.
It's funny how quickly people jump ship over one test. I've been running M1 filters on the girlfriend's Murano with ACD and the test makes me feel better about it. But for the TL and it's 20,000 mile filter changes I'm sticking with the EAO.
Gary- Any link to your bypass test? That sounds like some good reading.
It's funny how quickly people jump ship over one test. I've been running M1 filters on the girlfriend's Murano with ACD and the test makes me feel better about it. But for the TL and it's 20,000 mile filter changes I'm sticking with the EAO.
Gary- Any link to your bypass test? That sounds like some good reading.
No ship jumping here, I use them along with Pure One's. I was thinking of trying the Amsoil filters but see no benefit.
Frank D
Frank D
I am thankful for all the thoughtful comments on these test results. After thinking through this more, I would like to offer some thoughts on why you might NOT want to conclude the Mobil 1 filters are "better" than the EaO. I think BuickGN and Gary Allan have the right idea.
Consider the vehicle in this test: A new vehicle in excellent condition, that has used Mobil 1 since the 1,000 mile mark. The first test began with oil that was installed at the 5,000 mile mark. The engine is running well and has no operational issues; also, because of the "newness" of the engine, and frequent oil changes with synthetic, I would venture to say the engine is likely very clean internally. This is the environment in which this test has run.
Now, consider another scenario - perhaps a high-mileage vehicle with questionable maintenance history, or perhaps, one of the engine models that is known to have sludge problems. In this environment, the oil is likely to have more insolubles circulating in the oil, therefore the filter has more impurities to filter out.
Chances are, the filter that filters better will plug up sooner. If you perform the test before the filter plugs up, I would venture to speculate the Mobil 1 might test out better. But in the same conditions, the Amsoil filter might filter longer before it plugs. In that scenario, I would much rather have the Amsoil filter in my vehicle, if it is kept on longer than the point at which the Mobil 1 filter would plug and go into bypass frequently.
So - it's not always a simple choice, even with data such as what I have provided!
Consider the vehicle in this test: A new vehicle in excellent condition, that has used Mobil 1 since the 1,000 mile mark. The first test began with oil that was installed at the 5,000 mile mark. The engine is running well and has no operational issues; also, because of the "newness" of the engine, and frequent oil changes with synthetic, I would venture to say the engine is likely very clean internally. This is the environment in which this test has run.
Now, consider another scenario - perhaps a high-mileage vehicle with questionable maintenance history, or perhaps, one of the engine models that is known to have sludge problems. In this environment, the oil is likely to have more insolubles circulating in the oil, therefore the filter has more impurities to filter out.
Chances are, the filter that filters better will plug up sooner. If you perform the test before the filter plugs up, I would venture to speculate the Mobil 1 might test out better. But in the same conditions, the Amsoil filter might filter longer before it plugs. In that scenario, I would much rather have the Amsoil filter in my vehicle, if it is kept on longer than the point at which the Mobil 1 filter would plug and go into bypass frequently.
So - it's not always a simple choice, even with data such as what I have provided!
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
The Donaldson SYNTEQ media that Amsoil uses is designed for use in Diesel engines..... which have far more in the way of "contamination" issues; and the repercussions of that contamination (hard carbon getting into bearings for example....) can be much more severe..... And much more expensive to repair.
The media performs exceptionally well (the best) in the Cummins 10-micron test. I don't actually know why Amsoil touts the results of the 15-micron test, given that the media itself is tested by Donaldson using the 10-micron test. I would imagine it's because of the higher percentage number, that the consumer will compare to filters like the M1 or or PureONE....... I don't know if 15-microns is the standard for testing automotive filters at or not?
This is something that seems to be a lot more "standardized" in the diesel world, where all the filters have data at one or both of the flow rates for the 10-Micron Cummins test. Making picking the "best" filter for your application a lot easier......
I also don't know if there are (significant) manufacturing differences between the Donaldson SYNTEQ filters and the AMSOIL EaO's........
The media performs exceptionally well (the best) in the Cummins 10-micron test. I don't actually know why Amsoil touts the results of the 15-micron test, given that the media itself is tested by Donaldson using the 10-micron test. I would imagine it's because of the higher percentage number, that the consumer will compare to filters like the M1 or or PureONE....... I don't know if 15-microns is the standard for testing automotive filters at or not?
This is something that seems to be a lot more "standardized" in the diesel world, where all the filters have data at one or both of the flow rates for the 10-Micron Cummins test. Making picking the "best" filter for your application a lot easier......
I also don't know if there are (significant) manufacturing differences between the Donaldson SYNTEQ filters and the AMSOIL EaO's........
Originally Posted By: btanchors
I would tend to think that the longer you run any filter, the better it gets...
Also - another consideration is how many contaminants each filter can hold before it goes into bypass...I don't know of a practical way I can test that, though!
Somebody should get into the market of selling used oil filters then! Or have manufacturers start pre filtering their filters? Or just never change your filter? It should be filtering great after a few years!
I would tend to think that the longer you run any filter, the better it gets...
Also - another consideration is how many contaminants each filter can hold before it goes into bypass...I don't know of a practical way I can test that, though!
Somebody should get into the market of selling used oil filters then! Or have manufacturers start pre filtering their filters? Or just never change your filter? It should be filtering great after a few years!
Originally Posted By: mcrn
Originally Posted By: btanchors
I would tend to think that the longer you run any filter, the better it gets...
Also - another consideration is how many contaminants each filter can hold before it goes into bypass...I don't know of a practical way I can test that, though!
Somebody should get into the market of selling used oil filters then! Or have manufacturers start pre filtering their filters? Or just never change your filter? It should be filtering great after a few years!
I am just joking with you! I know what you meant!
Originally Posted By: btanchors
I would tend to think that the longer you run any filter, the better it gets...
Also - another consideration is how many contaminants each filter can hold before it goes into bypass...I don't know of a practical way I can test that, though!
Somebody should get into the market of selling used oil filters then! Or have manufacturers start pre filtering their filters? Or just never change your filter? It should be filtering great after a few years!
I am just joking with you! I know what you meant!
- Status
Similar threads
