Great info, just sucks I bought 4 Ea026 @ 22$ a piece. I know they are good filters, but I was under the impression they were the best. Oh well. Does anyone know if I can get M1 filters up in Canada or an equivalent ?
A comparison of Mobil 1 and Amsoil EaO oil Filters
- Thread starter btanchors
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Saab9-3
Great info, just sucks I bought 4 Ea026 @ 22$ a piece. I know they are good filters, but I was under the impression they were the best. Oh well. Does anyone know if I can get M1 filters up in Canada or an equivalent ?
The Amsoil "syntec type media" is the best in many ways when used fot their intended purposed. Otherwise it's like using a 20 foot ladder to get out of a 5 foot hole . Lots of ladder not being used and going to waste.
Great info, just sucks I bought 4 Ea026 @ 22$ a piece. I know they are good filters, but I was under the impression they were the best. Oh well. Does anyone know if I can get M1 filters up in Canada or an equivalent ?
The Amsoil "syntec type media" is the best in many ways when used fot their intended purposed. Otherwise it's like using a 20 foot ladder to get out of a 5 foot hole . Lots of ladder not being used and going to waste.
true enough and good analogy. But I come back to the point that if I spend that
Much on a filter I exepect the best no matter if I run it 100 miles or 50000 miles. Amsoil doesn't advertise " will work best under certain conditions"
Much on a filter I exepect the best no matter if I run it 100 miles or 50000 miles. Amsoil doesn't advertise " will work best under certain conditions"
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Steve S
The Amsoil "syntec type media" is the best in many ways when used fot their intended purposed. Otherwise it's like using a 20 foot ladder to get out of a 5 foot hole . Lots of ladder not being used and going to waste.
Nonsense! The Mobil 1 filters much, much better in this 5,000 mile test.....and there is ZERO EVIDENCE the Amsoil will last any longer than the mobil 1 filter. The Amsoil filter failed its intended purpose{which was suppose to combine the best,finest particle filteration AND long life....}My bet is the mobil combines its superior filteration from the beginning right on through to its 1 year suggested change interval,getting better and better along the way.....the Mobil filter is actually performing the way the Amsoil filter WAS SUPPOSE TO PERFORM
The Amsoil "syntec type media" is the best in many ways when used fot their intended purposed. Otherwise it's like using a 20 foot ladder to get out of a 5 foot hole . Lots of ladder not being used and going to waste.
Nonsense! The Mobil 1 filters much, much better in this 5,000 mile test.....and there is ZERO EVIDENCE the Amsoil will last any longer than the mobil 1 filter. The Amsoil filter failed its intended purpose{which was suppose to combine the best,finest particle filteration AND long life....}My bet is the mobil combines its superior filteration from the beginning right on through to its 1 year suggested change interval,getting better and better along the way.....the Mobil filter is actually performing the way the Amsoil filter WAS SUPPOSE TO PERFORM
Originally Posted By: qship1996
Originally Posted By: Steve S
The Amsoil "syntec type media" is the best in many ways when used fot their intended purposed. Otherwise it's like using a 20 foot ladder to get out of a 5 foot hole . Lots of ladder not being used and going to waste.
Nonsense! The Mobil 1 filters much, much better in this 5,000 mile test.....and there is ZERO EVIDENCE the Amsoil will last any longer than the mobil 1 filter. The Amsoil filter failed its intended purpose{which was suppose to combine the best,finest particle filteration AND long life....}My bet is the mobil combines its superior filteration from the beginning right on through to its 1 year suggested change interval,getting better and better along the way.....the Mobil filter is actually performing the way the Amsoil filter WAS SUPPOSE TO PERFORM
Look for George CLS's results with a real particle count and compare them to Blackstone's. The EAO in that test was amazing and it wasn't an extended OCI. I thank the OP for this test but I have to question Blackstone's results.
Originally Posted By: Steve S
The Amsoil "syntec type media" is the best in many ways when used fot their intended purposed. Otherwise it's like using a 20 foot ladder to get out of a 5 foot hole . Lots of ladder not being used and going to waste.
Nonsense! The Mobil 1 filters much, much better in this 5,000 mile test.....and there is ZERO EVIDENCE the Amsoil will last any longer than the mobil 1 filter. The Amsoil filter failed its intended purpose{which was suppose to combine the best,finest particle filteration AND long life....}My bet is the mobil combines its superior filteration from the beginning right on through to its 1 year suggested change interval,getting better and better along the way.....the Mobil filter is actually performing the way the Amsoil filter WAS SUPPOSE TO PERFORM
Look for George CLS's results with a real particle count and compare them to Blackstone's. The EAO in that test was amazing and it wasn't an extended OCI. I thank the OP for this test but I have to question Blackstone's results.
And this is only one test on one vehicle. Until I see many test with the same results will I be convince as being factual.
What's Mobil 1 filtering media.
What's Mobil 1 filtering media.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Mamala Bay
And this is only one test on one vehicle. Until I see many test with the same results will I be convince as being factual.
What's Mobil 1 filtering media.
From XOM:
Most conventional oil filters use a filter medium that is made of cellulose – typically wood fiber – and polyester fibers. Mobil 1 Extended Performance Oil Filters combines a mixture of synthetic micro fibers and natural fibers to produce the most efficient oil filter on the market.
The synthetic fibers in Mobil 1 Extended Performance Oil Filters yield the following key benefits:
# A much more efficient filter, removing more particles per pass through the filter than conventional filter media.
# Less resistance to oil flow, reducing the potential for the filter to restrict the flow of oil to your engine.
# A larger surface area to trap more contaminant particles, allowing the longer service intervals.
And this is only one test on one vehicle. Until I see many test with the same results will I be convince as being factual.
What's Mobil 1 filtering media.
From XOM:
Most conventional oil filters use a filter medium that is made of cellulose – typically wood fiber – and polyester fibers. Mobil 1 Extended Performance Oil Filters combines a mixture of synthetic micro fibers and natural fibers to produce the most efficient oil filter on the market.
The synthetic fibers in Mobil 1 Extended Performance Oil Filters yield the following key benefits:
# A much more efficient filter, removing more particles per pass through the filter than conventional filter media.
# Less resistance to oil flow, reducing the potential for the filter to restrict the flow of oil to your engine.
# A larger surface area to trap more contaminant particles, allowing the longer service intervals.
Originally Posted By: qship1996
Nonsense! The Mobil 1 filters much, much better in this 5,000 mile test.....and there is ZERO EVIDENCE the Amsoil will last any longer than the mobil 1 filter. The Amsoil filter failed its intended purpose{which was suppose to combine the best,finest particle filteration AND long life....}My bet is the mobil combines its superior filteration from the beginning right on through to its 1 year suggested change interval,getting better and better along the way.....the Mobil filter is actually performing the way the Amsoil filter WAS SUPPOSE TO PERFORM
Perhaps you should read this: GeorgeCLS EaO test
From another thread.
Originally Posted By: George Morrison, STLE CLS
Yes, I did test the EaO oil filter under varying pressure conditions: on my Toyota Sequoia used oil analysis/particle count which I published the results on this thread some months ago. The EaO turned in "real world" filtration performance (not laboratory constant flow) to a level of cleanliness cleaner than the Mobil 1 coming out of the bottle!!
And I would also agree that the Amsoil EaO, Mobil 1 and Pure One are superb filters with the EaO superior in every performance aspect simply due to its 100% microglass medium construction vs. the glass/cellulose blend used in the Mobil 1 and Pure 1 filters.
George Morrison, STLE CLS
Nonsense! The Mobil 1 filters much, much better in this 5,000 mile test.....and there is ZERO EVIDENCE the Amsoil will last any longer than the mobil 1 filter. The Amsoil filter failed its intended purpose{which was suppose to combine the best,finest particle filteration AND long life....}My bet is the mobil combines its superior filteration from the beginning right on through to its 1 year suggested change interval,getting better and better along the way.....the Mobil filter is actually performing the way the Amsoil filter WAS SUPPOSE TO PERFORM
Perhaps you should read this: GeorgeCLS EaO test
From another thread.
Originally Posted By: George Morrison, STLE CLS
Yes, I did test the EaO oil filter under varying pressure conditions: on my Toyota Sequoia used oil analysis/particle count which I published the results on this thread some months ago. The EaO turned in "real world" filtration performance (not laboratory constant flow) to a level of cleanliness cleaner than the Mobil 1 coming out of the bottle!!
And I would also agree that the Amsoil EaO, Mobil 1 and Pure One are superb filters with the EaO superior in every performance aspect simply due to its 100% microglass medium construction vs. the glass/cellulose blend used in the Mobil 1 and Pure 1 filters.
George Morrison, STLE CLS
Man, it is hard to believe that GeorgeCLS' test was that long ago (Feb 2007). Did he not have a more recent one as well that had similar results? Going back and forth a couple of times between filters?
Time is flying by.... Good thread, interesting results. I give two thumbs down to the Blackstone pore blockage method. Yet, with the one data point they used (and then extrapolated the other numbers), the M1 filter did a better job at 5K, no doubt.
It would be interesting to see George's methodology used with the M1 filter and the EaO filter.
Time is flying by.... Good thread, interesting results. I give two thumbs down to the Blackstone pore blockage method. Yet, with the one data point they used (and then extrapolated the other numbers), the M1 filter did a better job at 5K, no doubt.
It would be interesting to see George's methodology used with the M1 filter and the EaO filter.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
My bet is
That's the key word here. Again, one swallow does not the summer make.
My bet is
That's the key word here. Again, one swallow does not the summer make.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: Mamala Bay
And this is only one test on one vehicle. Until I see many test with the same results will I be convince as being factual.
Well, don't discount the data just because it's counter to our belief. Let's accept it FWIW.
I've stolen this from another tester on another board.
Let's say we're at a stadium and we go to the rest rooms. We're both waiting for our significant others and note that there's a line for the ladies room. What's the problem? We're chatting and suggest reasons why. Maybe they put make up on ..play with their hair ..have more stuff to take off/adjust to use the facilities ..etc..
..but ..we're dancing all around the problem ..which is ..the line at the ladies room is too long.
In this head to head test, M1 bested EaO in terms of particle counts over a 5000 mile span.
And this is only one test on one vehicle. Until I see many test with the same results will I be convince as being factual.
Well, don't discount the data just because it's counter to our belief. Let's accept it FWIW.
I've stolen this from another tester on another board.
Let's say we're at a stadium and we go to the rest rooms. We're both waiting for our significant others and note that there's a line for the ladies room. What's the problem? We're chatting and suggest reasons why. Maybe they put make up on ..play with their hair ..have more stuff to take off/adjust to use the facilities ..etc..
..but ..we're dancing all around the problem ..which is ..the line at the ladies room is too long.
In this head to head test, M1 bested EaO in terms of particle counts over a 5000 mile span.
So if a filter's efficiency increases with use and the capacity is greater in the amsoil then wouldn't the mobil always have better performance due to it's steeper efficiency improvement curve over time? The unknown here is which one would outlast the other before going into bypass... Amsoil claims it's filter would outlast Mobil's but also claimed that the filtration would be better.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Well, that's sorta a, pardon the expression, one dimensional extension of a "truth". It's sorta like saying, Canadians are friendly people ..and because someone's a Canadian they must be friendly.
So you're sorta extending the tendency of filters to improve in efficiency as they age to say "well, since it's ahead now ..it will always be so". This may or may not be the case. Nor can I say it's the case with the EaO.
I will agree that we don't know which one will reach its holding capacity soonest.
What I will tell you that, according to my testing, I doubt any of you are ever reaching the holding capacity of any filter. A filter bypassing is more dependent upon your oil pump limits and the visc of your oil then the "restriction" of the filter. It's only when the visc/oil pump volume set up a "at limits" situation that you've got bypass potential. As a filter saturatates, your PSID can be exaggerated, but I'd find it hard to see any real bypass activity being a big player.
Naturally YMMV (note qualification)
So you're sorta extending the tendency of filters to improve in efficiency as they age to say "well, since it's ahead now ..it will always be so". This may or may not be the case. Nor can I say it's the case with the EaO.
I will agree that we don't know which one will reach its holding capacity soonest.
What I will tell you that, according to my testing, I doubt any of you are ever reaching the holding capacity of any filter. A filter bypassing is more dependent upon your oil pump limits and the visc of your oil then the "restriction" of the filter. It's only when the visc/oil pump volume set up a "at limits" situation that you've got bypass potential. As a filter saturatates, your PSID can be exaggerated, but I'd find it hard to see any real bypass activity being a big player.
Naturally YMMV (note qualification)
No, I'm thinking - as many scientists do - that the efficiency of a filter will increase in accordance with a power law model. As the pores are plugged, there are less pores for trash to pass through, as bigger pores are partially clogged, littler pores are created. If the pores are smaller on the M1, which as I believe the data indicate they are, then the efficiency of that filter starts off higher and will only improve as it's pores are plugged. If the EaO has greater surface area, then it stands to reason that there are more total pores. With more pores to start with, it's efficiency would improve more slowly.
I really enjoy these discussions, Gary. You're a very knowledgeable guy and I always have fun. Hopefully these feelings are reciprocated.
I really enjoy these discussions, Gary. You're a very knowledgeable guy and I always have fun. Hopefully these feelings are reciprocated.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Absolutely, pal.
That's true of conventional media. You've got a pore distribution that's quite variable. When you get into more advanced medias, this isn't always the case. Now in our subject at hand, we're led to believe that both are advanced medias and therefore should trump our normal conventions that are tendencies of conventional cellulose medias.
As we can see, at this point anyway, not all advanced medias are created equal.
btw- In a true particle count, both of these filters should have a distinct cutoff that's rather abrupt.
That's true of conventional media. You've got a pore distribution that's quite variable. When you get into more advanced medias, this isn't always the case. Now in our subject at hand, we're led to believe that both are advanced medias and therefore should trump our normal conventions that are tendencies of conventional cellulose medias.
As we can see, at this point anyway, not all advanced medias are created equal.
btw- In a true particle count, both of these filters should have a distinct cutoff that's rather abrupt.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Gary:
The M1 media is a synthetic and cellulose hybrid.... It would be interesting to see how that actually looks under a microscope........
The M1 media is a synthetic and cellulose hybrid.... It would be interesting to see how that actually looks under a microscope........
Good points as always. The uniformity of synthetic media should have a sharp cutoff wheras the cellulose would have a smoother taper due to it's nonuniform pore size. This could be part of the advantage of the 'hybrid' M1, but could also be it's handicap in the very extended OCI.
We're going to need somebody with a scanning electron microscope... Anybody work at a lab or have access to a university SEM?
What we really need is an inside man at Donaldson... Somebody that would know the nature of the different media and could say, "Ok, this one sux, this one is terrible, this one is decent, this one uses alien technology."
We're going to need somebody with a scanning electron microscope... Anybody work at a lab or have access to a university SEM?
What we really need is an inside man at Donaldson... Somebody that would know the nature of the different media and could say, "Ok, this one sux, this one is terrible, this one is decent, this one uses alien technology."
my guess is a lot of PMs went to the original poster--eh--?
This actually just makes me curious about other Champion Labs filters.
The K&N is often touted as having superior filter media to the M1. If The M1 performs so well (and regardless of if it is actually superior to the AMSoil filter), does this mean that the K&N can be expected to perform even better?
The K&N is often touted as having superior filter media to the M1. If The M1 performs so well (and regardless of if it is actually superior to the AMSoil filter), does this mean that the K&N can be expected to perform even better?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: steve20
my guess is a lot of PMs went to the original poster--eh--?
my guess is a lot of PMs went to the original poster--eh--?
- Status
Similar threads
