Second Partticle Counts Complete

[TeeDub]

One thing I'd like to point out about this 93% reduction in particles is that it's a function of both better filtration AND reduced engine wear.

From the moment you put the new oil in the engine and install the EAO oil filter, you are doing a significantly better job of removing wear causing particles that are generated from ADHESIVE wear, ie metal to metal contact. These particles - particularly the larger ones - will continue to circulate and cause additional ABRASIVE wear.

So the key here is that the filter is not just doing better job of removing the wear particles that are generated, but that it is significantly reducing the rate at which these particles are being generated in the first place and controlling the mechanism of abrasive wear. I would expect this to manifest itself primarily as reduced valvetrain wear, along with perhaps some reduction in ring/cylinder wear. These are the two regions in an engine that function with very thin AW films and are most susceptable to abrasive wear from silicon, wear metal particles and agglomerated soot particles.

TS

 

[GeorgeCLS]

Regarding many cycles. From my experience, glass/synthetic media holds up much better than cellulose, with signficantly higher rated pressures from new and then on...
George Morrison, STLE CLS

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

OEM oil filter PC vs. Amsoil EaO57 Oil filter PC
>4 Microns = 1,817 particles, 128 particles
>6 microns = 990 particles, 70 particles
>14 microns = 168 particles, 12 particles
>25 microns = 34 particles, 2 particles
>50 microns = 3 particles, 0 particles
>100 microns = 0 particles, 0 particles

---

Here's something interesting:

>4 Microns 1,817/128 = 14.2
>6 microns 990/70 = 14.1
>14 microns 168/12 = 14
>25 microns 34/2 = 17

Is this data extrapolated from one measurement?

 

[harry j]

Quote:

---

One thing I'd like to point out about this 93% reduction in particles is that it's a function of both better filtration AND reduced engine wear.

From the moment you put the new oil in the engine and install the EAO oil filter, you are doing a significantly better job of removing wear causing particles that are generated from ADHESIVE wear, ie metal to metal contact. These particles - particularly the larger ones - will continue to circulate and cause additional ABRASIVE wear.

So the key here is that the filter is not just doing better job of removing the wear particles that are generated, but that it is significantly reducing the rate at which these particles are being generated in the first place and controlling the mechanism of abrasive wear. I would expect this to manifest itself primarily as reduced valvetrain wear, along with perhaps some reduction in ring/cylinder wear. These are the two regions in an engine that function with very thin AW films and are most susceptable to abrasive wear from silicon, wear metal particles and agglomerated soot particles.

TS

---

Well said, superior filtration keeps an engine from being it's own worst enemy.

 

[harry j]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Yes Bob, I have noticed a momentary noise opon startup, less than a second at most. We have the same engine, and you know that they start instantly and jump to 1,600 RPM just like that. A quick flowing oil and the Eao filter is a needed combination in this engine. I don't think the ADBV is designed to maintain a residual pressure on the oil system. That is you will have to get pressur

ized oil to the bearing areas and this takes time.

---

Thanks Harry,

Bob,
I use the Amsoil 0W-30 oil and the engine really loves it. One of the first things I noticed was how quickly the oil pressure was established. The gas mileage increased and the engine felt more peppy. No more dark oil smudge on the back bumper. No oil usage. A trip to NY on 5w30 Castrol GTX, with 85,000 miles on the engine, I used 3 Qts of oil (3,000 miles). After using the 0W-30 oil, doing the same trip, NO OIL CONSUMED! I had 135,000 miles on the engine for the second trip. If you try this oil, please let me know how it performs in your engine.

Regards,
Harry

I understand it's not holding residual pressure, I just wish it would hold oil in the filter so that on the initial startup the oil in the filter can be pushed into the galley instead of compressing the air in the filter and sending that through the bearings. I agree that a fast flowing oil is needed.

Did you say you're using 0w-30? How is that working out? We have about the same mileage (210,000). The factory calls for 5w30 dino, so I presume that a lower viscosity synthetic would hold up better under heat, and be faster flowing during cold starts. We are in about the same climate minus the humidity..........

Sorry, GeorgeCLS, didn't mean to hijack your thread

Thanks again for a "real world" test of the Eao. Wonder how it holds up under many, many pressure impulse fatigue cycles?

Bob

---

 

[harry j]

Bob,
I just want to add one thing, the improvemenets kept getting better for 4 or 5 oil changes with the 0W-30, until it reached a plateau, that is, I am thinking, all the stuff that was coating the ring lands and the insides of the engine, were purged. I first changed to the 0W-30 at 118,000 miles. The Eao was first put in at 168,000 miles. I wish this stuff was available from the start.

Regards,
Harry

 

[garageman402]

Quote:

---

One thing I'd like to point out about this 93% reduction in particles is that it's a function of both better filtration AND reduced engine wear.

From the moment you put the new oil in the engine and install the EAO oil filter, you are doing a significantly better job of removing wear causing particles that are generated from ADHESIVE wear, ie metal to metal contact. These particles - particularly the larger ones - will continue to circulate and cause additional ABRASIVE wear.

So the key here is that the filter is not just doing better job of removing the wear particles that are generated, but that it is significantly reducing the rate at which these particles are being generated in the first place and controlling the mechanism of abrasive wear. I would expect this to manifest itself primarily as reduced valvetrain wear, along with perhaps some reduction in ring/cylinder wear. These are the two regions in an engine that function with very thin AW films and are most susceptable to abrasive wear from silicon, wear metal particles and agglomerated soot particles.

TS

---

TS,

What you wrote in the "Amsoil EAO filter Microns" thread seems to contradict, or discredit, the statement made in this thread.




Re: Amsoil EAO filter Microns [Re: Ugly3]
#843103 - 03/07/07 05:39 AM
Reply Quote Quick Reply

The primary reason for the EAO filter is to control the levels of organic and inorganic solids over greatly extended drain intervals, when using Amsoils synthetics. This is necessary to keep the wear rates down and to minimize thickening from the formation of insoluble polymers (total solids), in the oil.

If you are changing oil every 3k-5k miles there is NO NEED for this level of filtration. In other words, engine wear is NOT going to be the limiting factor in determining vehicle life. We have a saying in engineering that "better is often the enemy of good".



Do you think the Eao filter will decrease wear even if the oil is changed every 3-5K? Some studies have shown that particles in the 1-3 micron range can contribute to wear in the piston ring area, hence the desire for a bypass system. I feel the more particles you can remove from the oil stream, the better the lubrication will be.

-Bob

 

[garageman402]

Quote:

---

Regarding many cycles. From my experience, glass/synthetic media holds up much better than cellulose, with signficantly higher rated pressures from new and then on...
George Morrison, STLE CLS

---

Thanks George,

So would the fact that my K&N oil filter advertises: "Over 150,000 Pressure Impulse Fatigue Cycles, 2 1/2 times more durable than other oil filters", indicate that it uses glass/synthetic media? It also advertises: "Resin-impregnated filter media provides maximum filtering surface for contaminant removal". Could it be resin-impregnated cellulose? I imagine the "other" oil filters are paper......

-Bob

 

[garageman402]

Quote:

---

Bob,
I use the Amsoil 0W-30 oil and the engine really loves it. One of the first things I noticed was how quickly the oil pressure was established. The gas mileage increased and the engine felt more peppy. No more dark oil smudge on the back bumper. No oil usage. A trip to NY on 5w30 Castrol GTX, with 85,000 miles on the engine, I used 3 Qts of oil (3,000 miles). After using the 0W-30 oil, doing the same trip, NO OIL CONSUMED! I had 135,000 miles on the engine for the second trip. If you try this oil, please let me know how it performs in your engine.

Regards,
Harry

---

Harry,

I noticed an improvemnet in fuel mileage when I switched from a 10w-30 dino to 5w30 M1 in my V6 Camaro. Thought it was the synthetic improving the mileage, but I think it was the lower viscosity. I have been running Redline 5w30 in the Civic for about 2 months, have not noticed an improvement over the 5w30 HG dino that was in it before.

I have a stockpile of 3 gals of Redline, and 3 cars to use it in, so any switch to Amsoil won't be right away, but I will let you know when I do switch

-Bob

 

[427Z06]

I think some of you guys are jumping the gun here. We have one data point of real world testing on these filters. Further, it looks like some of this data may be extrapolated.

 

[garageman402]

Quote:

---

I think some of you guys are jumping the gun here. We have one data point of real world testing on these filters. Further, it looks like some of this data may be extrapolated.

---

427Z06,
Aren't you in the middle of an Eao test right now? Still a tentative finish date of May? Could you post the intial results you have? Was it the SuperTech you were previously testing?

Thanks,
Bob

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I think some of you guys are jumping the gun here. We have one data point of real world testing on these filters. Further, it looks like some of this data may be extrapolated.

---

427Z06,
Aren't you in the middle of an Eao test right now? Still a tentative finish date of May? Could you post the intial results you have? Was it the SuperTech you were previously testing?

Thanks,
Bob

---

Yes and yes.

Well...I could, but my data is based on fresh oil from an engine that was oil flushed beforehand, therefore it's not really comparable to the data here, or in the other threads that I'm aware of. I think it would be best to post the resultant data together so someone doesn't mistakenly take it out of context.

But if you just "gotsta know"

http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...0893#Post820893

 

[GeorgeCLS]

427 (I am sorry, I do not know your name), regarding your question of total solids. I have no idea what you are asking, therefore cannot answer it.. As you know, part of my job as a lube engineer is working with sophisticated filtration and in all my 30+ years, we have never discussed total solids, nor tested for same.. Since I am not concerned with soot or other ultra ultra fine contaminants in my gasoline engine, with the primary reason for particle counting being filter efficiency, reduction of abrasive components, PC and Spectro are fine with me..
A true total solids test is also very, very expensive....
George Morrison, STLE CLS

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

I have no idea what you are asking, therefore cannot answer it.

---

Well...it's Blackstone Lab lingo, maybe there's a more appropriate term for it.

http://www.blackstone-labs.com/what_are_insolubles.html

No biggie. However, could you tell us more about the particle count method used for your data. Is it comparable to Blackstone Lab's procedure?

 

[GeorgeCLS]

The method used for PC for both test results was pore blockage, the only methodology that can be used with used engine oil. On the second sample the lab did run a laser and actually got readings close to the pore blockage but it was done only on my insistence as the visual generally returns bogus numbers with used engine, gear, and water based hydraulic fluids.
As a comparative, since both tests were completed using the same test procedures, certainly acceptable, from my professional experience. Additionally, the EaO returned a 93% reduction compared with the cellulose, which, again, is what I generally experience when changing a system from cellulose to microglass.. So, the results were in accordance with what one would "expect" from a syntheic media, however, real world filtration results can vary considerably from company published performance. So, I was pleasantly surprised to see performance for the EaO to be in line with what it theoretically should return IF it is indeed a full synthetic/microglass element, which it obviously is given the test results.
I review literally hundreds of pore blockage PC results (water glycol hydraulic)each week and make decisions based on the results.. Pore blockage results can be valid and usable if performed properly by a professional...
George Morrison, STLE CLS

 

[harry j]

Quote:

---

The method used for PC for both test results was pore blockage, the only methodology that can be used with used engine oil. On the second sample the lab did run a laser and actually got readings close to the pore blockage but it was done only on my insistence as the visual generally returns bogus numbers with used engine, gear, and water based hydraulic fluids.
As a comparative, since both tests were completed using the same test procedures, certainly acceptable, from my professional experience. Additionally, the EaO returned a 93% reduction compared with the cellulose, which, again, is what I generally experience when changing a system from cellulose to microglass.. So, the results were in accordance with what one would "expect" from a syntheic media, however, real world filtration results can vary considerably from company published performance. So, I was pleasantly surprised to see performance for the EaO to be in line with what it theoretically should return IF it is indeed a full synthetic/microglass element, which it obviously is given the test results.
I review literally hundreds of pore blockage PC results (water glycol hydraulic)each week and make decisions based on the results.. Pore blockage results can be valid and usable if performed properly by a professional...
George Morrison, STLE CLS

---

George,

Unscientifically speaking, the Eao sure keeps my oil clean!


Harry

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

The method used for PC for both test results was pore blockage, the only methodology that can be used with used engine oil. On the second sample the lab did run a laser and actually got readings close to the pore blockage but it was done only on my insistence as the visual generally returns bogus numbers with used engine, gear, and water based hydraulic fluids.
As a comparative, since both tests were completed using the same test procedures, certainly acceptable, from my professional experience. Additionally, the EaO returned a 93% reduction compared with the cellulose, which, again, is what I generally experience when changing a system from cellulose to microglass.. So, the results were in accordance with what one would "expect" from a syntheic media, however, real world filtration results can vary considerably from company published performance. So, I was pleasantly surprised to see performance for the EaO to be in line with what it theoretically should return IF it is indeed a full synthetic/microglass element, which it obviously is given the test results.
I review literally hundreds of pore blockage PC results (water glycol hydraulic)each week and make decisions based on the results.. Pore blockage results can be valid and usable if performed properly by a professional...
George Morrison, STLE CLS

---

Thanks for the comprehensive answer.

However, given the data you posted from the pore blockage method, it looks to me like the values are being extrapolated for some of the different particle sizes. I believe the odds are quite large against two different filters, with supposedly different medias, providing a 14-to-1 ratio for the same particle size for the two samples.

 

[garageman402]

Quote:

---

Yes and yes.

Well...I could, but my data is based on fresh oil from an engine that was oil flushed beforehand, therefore it's not really comparable to the data here, or in the other threads that I'm aware of. I think it would be best to post the resultant data together so someone doesn't mistakenly take it out of context.

But if you just "gotsta know"

http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...0893#Post820893

---

Thanks 427,

I didn't realize George had done a PC in a previous thread. Guess that explains the misspelling of "partticle".

So you say that doing a flush before performing a test will skew the results? Wouldn't a "clean" start be more fair? When George did his test, did he start with a freshly-flushed engine? If not, that may explain the high counts with an OEM paper element, but the Eao cleaned up that mess. As I said before, that in itself says a lot.

I guess when your Eao test is performed, we will have two independent results, and a definitive answer.

Thanks for the effort. BTW, when you get the results, will you start a new thread, or add to this one?

-Bob

 

[Gary Allan]

I think he's saying that residuals may skew his results ...so he eliminated the residuals contained in the engine as much as practically possible. If he was doing 10k a piece, it might not mean as much to him ..but wouldn't be a bad practice in that case either.

 

[garageman402]

Quote:

---

I think he's saying that residuals may skew his results ...so he eliminated the residuals contained in the engine as much as practically possible. If he was doing 10k a piece, it might not mean as much to him ..but wouldn't be a bad practice in that case either.

---

Right, but he prefaced the results with a warning that a flush was done prior to the test. The test was 4K miles with a SuperTech filter, and the results were lower than George's test with an OEM filter. So if George did not flush prior to testing, these results (George vs. 427) can't be compared.......

I copied this from a previous thread:

Quote:

---

Re: Second Particle Count OEM filter [Re: Gary Allan]
#820893 - 02/09/07 10:16 AM
Reply Quote Quick Reply

Here's a SuperTech ST7317 run on a Honda J30A1 for 4K miles. Note that a very short mileage oil and filter flush proceeded this run.

ISO Code(2) 16/12
NAS 1638 Class
ISO Code(3) 16/15/13

>= 2µ....934
>= 5µ....346
>= 10µ....95
>= 15µ....37
>= 25µ.....8
>= 50µ.....0
>= 100µ....0

The same type of procedure is now being run on an Amsoil Ea0.

---