06 Tundra, M1 5W-30EP, Pure One w/Particle Counts
- Thread starter btanchors
- Start date
- Status
For my use the Pure One filter is the best value, followed by a Mobil 1 filter. Both are usually part of some AAP or AZ sale and I'm happy with that. If I were driving 2000 miles a month normal service I might see things differently. IMO my type of driving requires shorter intervals and a good filter for trapping small junk early on. I'd rather not wait for a high capacity filter to start loading up to work better.
Even though I may very well have used more M1 oils and their filters than anyone here at BITOG, I no longer will pay their asking price for their filters.($12.99) Instead I would go with Bosch or Pure 1 with a straight out purchase. However I do try to take advantage of the sales at AZ or AAP when M1 oils and filter combos are on sale.
I don't think I used the word "worthless".
I just don't think the results are anywhere near conclusive or repeatable. They are interesting, to say the least.
How could one EaO34 be the worst and another be near the best? Bad filter? Maybe. It happens. But same media. Hmm...
Some M1's are good and some so-so.....same media....Hmm....
I don't think the filters are varying that much. As I said - it's differing sump conditions and non-repeatability of the test. Not the filter.
A suggestion for a valid test would be to sample (somehow!?!?) at the filter output and use an ASTM approved particle count method.
I just don't think the results are anywhere near conclusive or repeatable. They are interesting, to say the least.
How could one EaO34 be the worst and another be near the best? Bad filter? Maybe. It happens. But same media. Hmm...
Some M1's are good and some so-so.....same media....Hmm....
I don't think the filters are varying that much. As I said - it's differing sump conditions and non-repeatability of the test. Not the filter.
A suggestion for a valid test would be to sample (somehow!?!?) at the filter output and use an ASTM approved particle count method.
As Gary mentioned all the levels are so low!
True, but the levels are pretty close to the Universal Averages, as well. This engine just seems to be a very low wearing engine - could probably run Molasses as motor oil and come out OK!
Pabs what's the filter efficiency on a given EAO?? i don't think i have ever heard.
Originally Posted By: daman
Pabs what's the filter efficiency on a given EAO?? i don't think i have ever heard.
Name is Pablo or Paul.
Quote:
Absolute Efficiency
AMSOIL Ea Oil Filters (EaO) have the best efficiency rating in the automotive/light-truck market. 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 media range from 40 to 80 percent efficiency.
Amsoil EaO
Pabs what's the filter efficiency on a given EAO?? i don't think i have ever heard.
Name is Pablo or Paul.
Quote:
Absolute Efficiency
AMSOIL Ea Oil Filters (EaO) have the best efficiency rating in the automotive/light-truck market. 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 media range from 40 to 80 percent efficiency.
Amsoil EaO
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Name is Pablo or Paul.
yea i know....
that good huh,,you would think it would have showed better results even in a short run,or is that rating only after a certain amount of mileage when the filter loads like you say.
no other syn filter has a rating that good,strange.
Name is Pablo or Paul.
yea i know....
that good huh,,you would think it would have showed better results even in a short run,or is that rating only after a certain amount of mileage when the filter loads like you say.
no other syn filter has a rating that good,strange.
Originally Posted By: btanchors
True, but the levels are pretty close to the Universal Averages, as well. This engine just seems to be a very low wearing engine - could probably run Molasses as motor oil and come out OK!
If you want to go by metal PPM it's much better than average. About 40% better.
True, but the levels are pretty close to the Universal Averages, as well. This engine just seems to be a very low wearing engine - could probably run Molasses as motor oil and come out OK!
If you want to go by metal PPM it's much better than average. About 40% better.
Originally Posted By: Capa
The problem, Pablo, is that a lot of people here question many a lab. For example, look at all the people that question Amsoil's tests where their products essentially always come first. Most people here, it seems, take Amsoil's tests with a grain of salt. What lab or what test can truly convince the skeptic at heart?
Good point. I look at it this way, run a test long enough and you'll get the results you want to see. Not my phrase but it has a lot of truth. Make your own test and you see the results you want to see, every time. That might be a phrase of mine, I use it a lot in my business when talking about products sales men are pushing. Those statements go for lots of things sold today.
The problem, Pablo, is that a lot of people here question many a lab. For example, look at all the people that question Amsoil's tests where their products essentially always come first. Most people here, it seems, take Amsoil's tests with a grain of salt. What lab or what test can truly convince the skeptic at heart?
Good point. I look at it this way, run a test long enough and you'll get the results you want to see. Not my phrase but it has a lot of truth. Make your own test and you see the results you want to see, every time. That might be a phrase of mine, I use it a lot in my business when talking about products sales men are pushing. Those statements go for lots of things sold today.
Originally Posted By: daman
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Name is Pablo or Paul.
yea i know....
that good huh,,you would think it would have showed better results even in a short run,or is that rating only after a certain amount of mileage when the filter loads like you say.
no other syn filter has a rating that good,strange.
Well according to some that efficiency isn't that great
- But really, that's one of the reasons I question sump testing. Amsoil didn't just dry lab the numbers. But when you look at the info above in depth with some background knowledge without bias - what better results would you expect? You can't at all compare sump testing to ISO 4548-12 or other controlled testing.
Didn't mean to be sensitive, but the "Pabs" thing was originally meant as insult, so I don't exactly dig it.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Name is Pablo or Paul.
yea i know....
that good huh,,you would think it would have showed better results even in a short run,or is that rating only after a certain amount of mileage when the filter loads like you say.
no other syn filter has a rating that good,strange.
Well according to some that efficiency isn't that great
Didn't mean to be sensitive, but the "Pabs" thing was originally meant as insult, so I don't exactly dig it.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: daman
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Name is Pablo or Paul.
yea i know....
that good huh,,you would think it would have showed better results even in a short run,or is that rating only after a certain amount of mileage when the filter loads like you say.
no other syn filter has a rating that good,strange.
Well according to some that efficiency isn't that great
- But really, that's one of the reasons I question sump testing. Amsoil didn't just dry lab the numbers. But when you look at the info above in depth with some background knowledge without bias - what better results would you expect? You can't at all compare sump testing to ISO 4548-12 or other controlled testing.
Didn't mean to be sensitive, but the "Pabs" thing was originally meant as insult, so I don't exactly dig it.
That efficiency is great IMO.... but im not up on any testing procedures,i look at the filters multi pass efficiency rating at at leat 20 microns and do my own judging,good enough for me.
oh and the pabs thing was not meant to be an insult,,,just the contrary,i nickname friends!
Originally Posted By: daman
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Name is Pablo or Paul.
yea i know....
that good huh,,you would think it would have showed better results even in a short run,or is that rating only after a certain amount of mileage when the filter loads like you say.
no other syn filter has a rating that good,strange.
Well according to some that efficiency isn't that great
Didn't mean to be sensitive, but the "Pabs" thing was originally meant as insult, so I don't exactly dig it.
That efficiency is great IMO.... but im not up on any testing procedures,i look at the filters multi pass efficiency rating at at leat 20 microns and do my own judging,good enough for me.
oh and the pabs thing was not meant to be an insult,,,just the contrary,i nickname friends!
- Status
Similar threads
