Recent Topics
Fuel storage tip
by bubbatime
11/17/17 12:39 PM
Sentury and Dextero Tires ?
by rkpatt
11/17/17 12:27 PM
Michelin Sale at BJs
by knerml
11/17/17 11:03 AM
It'll do 130 mph in third gear
by HosteenJorje
11/17/17 11:01 AM
Microsoft Surface Pro battery going bad
by Alfred_B
11/17/17 10:36 AM
Tirerack now stocks Vredestein
by Finklejag
11/17/17 10:21 AM
3800 series ll vs lll
by Duffyjr
11/17/17 10:15 AM
Used 0w20 instead of 5w40
by AVG
11/17/17 10:01 AM
your strange siblings.....
by pandus13
11/17/17 08:49 AM
2013 Camry hood strut failure while the hood is up
by windeye
11/17/17 08:01 AM
Tesla has come out with a new Roadster, 0-60 1.9
by Cujet
11/17/17 07:19 AM
Unwise to use X-30 where 5w-20 is specified?
by Sealbilly
11/17/17 06:30 AM
Timing Belt Questions
by artbuc
11/17/17 05:09 AM
Leather or cloth interior? What is your preference
by ZZman
11/17/17 04:59 AM
Take a poorly paid promotion?
by bowlofturtle
11/17/17 01:09 AM
Broke dipstick tube
by llmercll
11/16/17 10:53 PM
which is the better beta ratio?
by wuntun
11/16/17 10:52 PM
Fall Creators Update aka Update 1709
by HondaBroMike
11/16/17 09:44 PM
Recommendations for 2017 VW GTI S 2.0T
by jcost4oe
11/16/17 08:15 PM
mower hard starting after sitting
by Oldtom
11/16/17 07:51 PM
Newest Members
Cthulhu, Diesel583, btush, Davll, palebird
63424 Registered Users
Who's Online
87 registered (69GTX, 1JZ_E46, 901Memphis, 14Accent, AdamZ, 5 invisible), 2027 Guests and 12 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
63424 Members
66 Forums
273932 Topics
4552194 Posts

Max Online: 3590 @ 01/24/17 08:07 PM
Donate to BITOG
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#968446 - 08/18/07 09:22 AM FRAM vs AMSOIL
jmsbntz Offline


Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 232
Loc: South Texas
The FRAM synthetic blend XG7317 vs the AMSOIL full synthetic EaO13.

Dyson Analysis has been selected to complete the VOA and subsequent UOA's.

Royal Purple 5W40 from the same case of oil will be used for the initial VOA and both OCI's.

The vehicle is a 2007 Honda Pilot with a 3.5L iVTEC (Variable Cylinder Management) V-6 engine and 17996 miles at the OCI when I installed the FRAM XG7317. I also replaced the air filter with the basic FRAM offering and will replace it again at the next OCI.

I will pull a UOA sample at 3000/6000 miles with the XG7317 filter, change the oil and air filter, install the EaO13 filter and repeat the 3000/6000 mile UOA's.

Fair enough?







_________________________
07 Pilot
PP 5W-20
33,600
RP OF
Fram AF

93 Civic
RTS 5W-40
215,400
RP OF
OEM AF


Top
#968447 - 08/18/07 10:21 AM Re: FRAM vs AMSOIL [Re: jmsbntz]
Dr_No Offline


Registered: 07/06/07
Posts: 1231
Loc: Canada
Interseting, I might use fram extended guard in the future

Top
#968448 - 08/18/07 09:01 PM Re: FRAM vs AMSOIL [Re: jmsbntz]
Gary Allan Offline


Registered: 09/28/02
Posts: 39806
Loc: Pottstown, PA
Quote:

Fair enough?




It would appear to be so. Will the UOA include particle counts?


..and can you make your images just a little bit bigger? (there's a "resize image" option with "for message boards" when you upload - btw. The thumbnail feature is also an option. I haven't had to use a "carriage return" since 1969 in typing class"
_________________________
http://lube-direct.com/gallan/

Top
#968449 - 08/18/07 09:19 PM Re: FRAM vs AMSOIL [Re: Gary Allan]
jmsbntz Offline


Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 232
Loc: South Texas
Quote:

Quote:

Fair enough?




It would appear to be so. Will the UOA include particle counts?


..and can you make your images just a little bit bigger? (there's a "resize image" option with "for message boards" when you upload - btw. The thumbnail feature is also an option. I haven't had to use a "carriage return" since 1969 in typing class"




BIG PICS! LOL! Yeah image shack isn't reducing the images enough so I'll have to change the camera resolution.

The XG7317 is advertised as having 96% efficiency @ 10-20 microns, using the older SAE HS806 single pass test.
The EaO13 is advertised as having 98.7% efficiency @ 15 microns, using the newer ISO 4548-12 multi-pass test.

It's hard to compare the advertised efficiencies since the ratings were achieved using different test methods.
So I'll have a particle count done at the 6000 mile UOA's for each filter.

I'll update this thread with the raw data as it comes in.

Top
#968450 - 08/18/07 11:07 PM Re: FRAM vs AMSOIL [Re: jmsbntz]
Gary Allan Offline


Registered: 09/28/02
Posts: 39806
Loc: Pottstown, PA
_________________________
http://lube-direct.com/gallan/

Top
#968451 - 08/18/07 11:46 PM Re: FRAM vs AMSOIL [Re: Gary Allan]
XS650 Offline


Registered: 12/21/03
Posts: 12385
Loc: Northern CA
Quote:

Quote:

Fair enough?




It would appear to be so. Will the UOA include particle counts?


..and can you make your images just a little bit bigger? (there's a "resize image" option with "for message boards" when you upload - btw. The thumbnail feature is also an option. I haven't had to use a "carriage return" since 1969 in typing class"




Are any of the UOA outfits doing real(*) particle counts for a reasonable price.

(*) As opposed to counting at one micron level then extrapolating for the other micron levels like one company was cought doing here a year or so ago.
_________________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.

--Mark Twain

Top
#968452 - 08/19/07 12:42 AM Re: FRAM vs AMSOIL [Re: XS650]
Gary Allan Offline


Registered: 09/28/02
Posts: 39806
Loc: Pottstown, PA
Probably not. The device used to determine particle count calculated the injection rate and amplitude of pressure build up over a fixed volume (Blackstone's) for opaque fluids (although I'm surely saying this wrong). That is, a multi-dimensional view of the change and rate of change. I imagine that the software that interprets the results was surely verified with optical methods to assemble some reasonable facsimile.

My B-S results, if just a calculation, had a drift of between 3X and 4X in progression as you went smaller beyond the first indicated particle. (iirc)

Something like

1
9
25
93
245
1400 (all pulled out of my behind)

I'm not a math wiz ..so I could find no fancy way to get these results.
_________________________
http://lube-direct.com/gallan/

Top
#968453 - 08/19/07 12:58 AM Re: FRAM vs AMSOIL [Re: Gary Allan]
Dad2leia Offline


Registered: 09/06/05
Posts: 1202
Loc: Glenshaw, PA
Curiousity question...Why did you chose R.P. 5w40 for that particular engine?

Given the cost differential of those filters, I look forward to your data as well...
_________________________
Yeah, whatever..at least for now.

Top
#968454 - 08/19/07 01:04 AM Re: FRAM vs AMSOIL [Re: Gary Allan]
XS650 Offline


Registered: 12/21/03
Posts: 12385
Loc: Northern CA
Quote:

Probably not. The device used to determine particle count calculated the injection rate and amplitude of pressure build up over a fixed volume (Blackstone's) for opaque fluids (although I'm surely saying this wrong). That is, a multi-dimensional view of the change and rate of change. I imagine that the software that interprets the results was surely verified with optical methods to assemble some reasonable facsimile.






The problem is, (other than the ethics of dry labbing part of a report) is that differnt types of filtration media will have different particle size profiles. At two extremes, a wire mesh will have near absolute cutoff above some particle size while a depth media will have aless absolute cutoff but catch more of the smaller stuff.

For someone using that type of a particle test to compare different filters, the results could be misleading.
_________________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.

--Mark Twain

Top
#968455 - 08/19/07 02:05 AM Re: FRAM vs AMSOIL [Re: XS650]
wgtoys Offline


Registered: 12/11/06
Posts: 1395
Loc: California
I don't care for the construction quality of most Frams, but that XG type looks very nicely built. It will be interesting to see your data. My bet is that in normal use you are unlikely to find statistically meaningful differences in results.

Top
#968456 - 08/19/07 03:06 AM Re: FRAM vs AMSOIL [Re: XS650]
Pete C. Offline


Registered: 01/18/05
Posts: 938
Loc: Zip 28056
Quote:

Quote:

Probably not. The device used to determine particle count calculated the injection rate and amplitude of pressure build up over a fixed volume (Blackstone's) for opaque fluids (although I'm surely saying this wrong). That is, a multi-dimensional view of the change and rate of change. I imagine that the software that interprets the results was surely verified with optical methods to assemble some reasonable facsimile.






The problem is, (other than the ethics of dry labbing part of a report) is that differnt types of filtration media will have different particle size profiles. At two extremes, a wire mesh will have near absolute cutoff above some particle size while a depth media will have aless absolute cutoff but catch more of the smaller stuff.

For someone using that type of a particle test to compare different filters, the results could be misleading.




And let us not forget to include particle shape in this equation and the way that shape travels through the media. In a perfect world, all would be perfect spheres.
_________________________
... ahhhh, it's great to be old! AND Retired...

Top
#968457 - 08/19/07 03:33 AM Re: FRAM vs AMSOIL [Re: Pete C.]
Gary Allan Offline


Registered: 09/28/02
Posts: 39806
Loc: Pottstown, PA
Oh, I agree with many of the objections to non-optical particle count methods ..but I also imagine that the rest of the industry is also limited by those same challenges with opaque fluids ..and I'd figure that some reasonable model was fashioned to reflect a near "real" profile. On the surface it would appear rather numb.

The alternative is the added expense of dilution to translucency, which, as you've mentioned, makes for an expensive test.


Come on, Pete, pull in some favors and do some black bag work for the good of the team (yeah, I know, what's this we stuff, whiteman )

_________________________
http://lube-direct.com/gallan/

Top
#968458 - 08/19/07 03:41 AM Re: FRAM vs AMSOIL [Re: Gary Allan]
LargeCarManX2 Offline


Registered: 09/23/06
Posts: 2279
Loc: Up here in the NorthWest
What price did you pay for each filter. I think Fram say's 7.5K limit and Eao is 25K. Gary will factor that in
_________________________
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
Sir Winston Churchill

Top
#968459 - 08/19/07 04:03 AM Re: FRAM vs AMSOIL [Re: XS650]
jmsbntz Offline


Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 232
Loc: South Texas
Are any of the UOA outfits doing real(*) particle counts for a reasonable price.
(*) As opposed to counting at one micron level then extrapolating for the other micron levels like one company was cought doing here a year or so ago.



The particle count is currently $60.00 in addition to the Dyson UOA, and yes there can be issues with used oil particle counts. So I will rely on Terry's experience to guide and of course he will have my permission to share his thoughts on my raw data in this forum.

Top
#968460 - 08/19/07 04:32 AM Re: FRAM vs AMSOIL [Re: Dad2leia]
jmsbntz Offline


Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 232
Loc: South Texas
Quote:

Curiousity question...Why did you chose R.P. 5w40 for that particular engine?



In short, I have fellow mechanics who believe in the manufacturers recommendations and I don't. So if the engine doesn't like the heavier oil, the UOA's and Terry's interpretation should show a trend one way or the other...

Top
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >