A comparison of Mobil 1 and Amsoil EaO oil Filters

[jmsbntz]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
The largest question is why the latest so very low?

I'm still not certain what to make of it. Interesting that the wear numbers are so even.

1. I think the engine has (or is nearing) the point where break-in wear is leveling off.

2. Based on the UOA results the engine didn't know the difference between these oil filters, at least not at this mileage.

 

[mpersell]

There have been some posts of UOAs where the Si count was up but the wear was not increased. Blackstone mentioned this was a non-harmful Si. Does this same Si contribute to the particle count?

 

[Gary Allan]

Good question, mpersell. I hope to shed more light on this in a future UOA. If everything was reduced to the particle level ..there would be no particle count since everything would be too small ...and the ppm's for all elements would skyrocket.

That is, currently the two readings aren't indexed for size in one ..and content/composition in the other. Many of the particles you see in PC (or allegedly there in PC) may be inert...or they may be elements. You don't know

 

[va3ux]

That's a pretty good test. Well done !!

 

[qship1996]

I wonder if some of the particles found in the EAO filtered oil sample could be a result of the synthetic filter element shedding or breaking down releasing particles into the oil????

 

[Johnny_Law]

M1 fist and Amsoil second:

Sorry, but transferring the data form the microscope to the computer to the image part and then to photo bucket resulted in substantial loss of clarity.

 

[Gary Allan]

Well ..what did your visual take on the image show compared to what we see now? I'm looking at a forest underbrush scene as seen at ground level with some blades of grass in the way. One with a blue-green filter over the lens ..the other a very pale (?) yellow (frost?).

Edit: Thanks for sharing this unique view!

 

[Johnny_Law]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Well ..what did your visual take on the image show compared to what we see now? I'm looking at a forest underbrush scene as seen at ground level with some blades of grass in the way. One with a blue-green filter over the lens ..the other a very pale (?) yellow (frost?).

Edit: Thanks for sharing this unique view!

Neither filter is very uniform, as far as what many refer to as oil holes or pores. Second when measuring 10 separate strand sizes the average was within 0.0005 of an inch in thickness between the two brands. I messed it up the order though, Amosil is first and M1 is second. All the white synthetic materials have a blue background due to the lighting.

 

[Gary Allan]

When you get down to that view, they do look like "gross chaos" in how they manage the fine level of filtration. One would expect the opposite.

"We've advanced our designs by throwing fibers into the vortex of a jet turbine exhaust onto a 10'x10' sticky pad. We then peel back the pad and dissolve the sticky part producing the finest media that one can buy";.

 

[G-MAN]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I don't know if 15-microns is the standard for testing automotive filters at or not?


20 micron is the industry standard, and a typical filter is 50% to 80% efficient at 20 micron. The PureOne is rated 99.9% efficient at 20 micron (and it's one of the most restrictive filters on the market).

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: G-MAN
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I don't know if 15-microns is the standard for testing automotive filters at or not?


20 micron is the industry standard, and a typical filter is 50% to 80% efficient at 20 micron. The PureOne is rated 99.9% efficient at 20 micron (and it's one of the most restrictive filters on the market).


I have heard this restriction thing about Pure One before but is this the rumor mill run amuck or is it documented someplace?

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I don't know if 15-microns is the standard for testing automotive filters at or not?


20 micron is the industry standard, and a typical filter is 50% to 80% efficient at 20 micron. The PureOne is rated 99.9% efficient at 20 micron (and it's one of the most restrictive filters on the market).


I have heard this restriction thing about Pure One before but is this the rumor mill run amuck or is it documented someplace?


I tried getting flow data from Purolator Tech Dept on their PureONE filters, and all they could say is that it was "proprietary data". I told them they don't have to give me all their secretes, just some basic data to help determine how they flow. They would give ZERO information on the flow performance. They did however give filtration data ... and the PureONE has a very good beta ratio.

if you believe this chart (generated by ACDelco), you can see that the PureONE flows as good as any other top tier filter. That's about the only flow data I've ever seen on a Purolator. I would imaging ACDelco did the same test on all the filters shown in the chart, so at least it's a like test comparison ... guess it's better than hearing "proprietary data" as a response.

 

[G-MAN]

Purolator specifically warns on their web site against using a PureOne on motorcycles because it may be too restrictive. They don't warn against using the regular Purolator filters on a bike.

 

[Steve S]

But then,,, odds are using any proper speced oil and oil filter at the factor recommended oil change intervals the Tundra will outlast btanchors ownership . Even without all the $$$$ spent on the fancy oil and filters and the UOAs. I know the I want to send the wornout truck to the wrecking yard with an engine with minimal engine deposits or when I sell it at 10% of what I paid for it it should run like new for the next owner. Or I am going to keep it for ever [or untill the $4000.00 trans job when the value of the vehicle is $2000.00]. But experimenting is fun though.

 

[blackdiamond]

Originally Posted By: btanchors
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.


While it's possible that an Amsoil EaO filter may be better over the long haul, many people don't go much beyond 5,000 miles. If I had a known sludger or unmaintained engine I wouldn't go more than 5,000 miles making the extra cost of the Amsoil less worthwile. It seems that the senario you propose a long drain interval would be a poor choice anyways.

Does it makes sense to leave more particles in the oil for the first 5,000 miles in hopes of making back the difference on a long run. It makes more sense to change the filter more since the real goal is to eliminate junk in the oil.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
If I had a known sludger or unmaintained engine I wouldn't go more than 5,000 miles making the extra cost of the Amsoil less worthwile


Use of a top tier filter over 3-5k is a waste anyway, unless the 3-5k is with some radical mismatch of fuel to mileage (taxi/etc). You're dumping the sump before any substantial accumulation of particles are present. Generally speaking, that is. The case for the top tier filter would be that you may use an oil that needs to be changed at 5k ..but the filter may not.

You may be doing a service duty that can achieve a one year oci with the right oil, but you choose not to use that oil. The filter can handle that length of service under those conditions.

Quote:
Does it makes sense to leave more particles in the oil for the first 5,000 miles in hopes of making back the difference on a long run. It makes more sense to change the filter more since the real goal is to eliminate junk in the oil.


It comes down to costs and the total particles over a 5k period. No one should be using a M1 or EaO over 5k. It's a waste of money.

In this 5k test, the M1 surely appears to be ahead of the EaO. A 10k test may not show this to be true.

 

[FZ1]

Some of us are not trying to get "max value" of $10-20 a year relative to a $25,000 automobile. I'll run a medium priced filter and synthetic oil (M1 and PP) and dump it every 6 mos at about 4000-4500 miles. Hey,I'm a big picture guy. Lol.

 

[blackdiamond]

Originally Posted By: FZ1
Some of us are not trying to get "max value" of $10-20 a year relative to a $25,000 automobile. I'll run a medium priced filter and synthetic oil (M1 and PP) and dump it every 6 mos at about 4000-4500 miles. Hey,I'm a big picture guy. Lol.


Agreed. A lot of us are willing to pay more for a higher quality product with a full understanding that we may never realize any tangible benefit.

It seems that the M1 filter is removing more particles than the Amsoil over this 5k test period and minimizing particles in the oil is good, so the M1 should provide a "cleaner" oil for this OCI.

It would be nice to see a wider range of filters tested, but it would be nearly impossible for any one person to do.

 

[glenncof]

This flow data could be true on PureONE. Probably fresh, new filters.

PureONEs generally have more media area in the teardowns I have seen. This would help flow and provide more holding capacity . But fine filtering certainly 'will' load the media more quickly.

Do same testing on ones with 5K or 10K miles and there may be a 'much different' story.

M1 claims x2 holding capacity but the media is not pure synth so I'm suspicious especially relative to a PureONE.

If I'm an EaO engineer I might lean toward going the distance and less on finer filtration. The benefit of going finer seem small compared to potential warranty claims arising from loaded filters given they could be used on dirty engines for lots of miles.

 

[qship1996]

So, is there any oil filter that outperforms the Mobil 1 in filtration, or is it still "king of the hill"?