Amsoil BE series -vs- EaBP series?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
990
Location
Louisiana
I have a question for the Amsoil reps. On my '06 Ram CTD my oil is staying visibly cleaner with the BE series bypass filters as compared to the EaBP bypass filters?

I've read on a few forums where people have stated this, but I actually tried it myself. I 'acquired' a BE90 filter to see if the oil was actually staying cleaner with it as compared to the EaBP filters.

With the EaBP filter my oil would instantly turn pitch black on my dipstick, whereas with the BE bypass filters the oil still has some transparency to it and I'm still able to view the dipstick behind the oil even after 1500 miles on the oil.

That to me insinuates that the BE is pulling out more soot than the 'new & improved' EaBP filters. I'm now with the other guys....what's going on?
 
You can study the effect with some used oil analysis paying attention to particle counts and soot/insoluble levels.

Has anyone dissected the new and compared it to the old?
 
I haven't used the new media yet. I did use the BE110 on a gas engine. Translucent for over 12.5k ..honey-red colored (probably fuel did it) Delvac 1
dunno.gif


I really liked the concept of the old style.

They don't offer an image of the cutaway EaBP110 on the Amsoil site that I can find
dunno.gif


I'd tend to reason it like you did, Hog-man ..but I can't see Amsoil putting out a lessor product when they have no issue with cost. They're not shy about what they charge
dunno.gif
 
I have been reading the same thing.

And I have been stewing on it. I am not going to profess to totally understand and know what "visible soot" is. Perhaps one of the brain power brokers can give a one or two page paper on what makes up the visible soot range in diesel motor oil.

Let's take a look at the filters for a second....in theory, that is. On paper the Ea should be holding smaller particles - but these are not what makes up the visible portion of what we call visually dirty oil. The suggestion to run a particle count on both is a great idea, and should sort it out. The BE's do catch and hold water and water related (by)products, and it's been said the Ea's don't. This is due do the depth and type and mode of winding of the media.

If it's true the Ea is holding more and smaller particles than the BE, then what gives?
Perhaps the visual darkening is more of a chemical change or rather the BE's design holds this ethereal darkening agent due to it's physical design and media, even though it may not catch such minute particles.
Just a thought.
 
Does visibly dark oil = high soot solids?

Is the visibly dark oil a function of some partially burned hydrocarbon compound? Does tho older BE capture and hold this stuff?
 
About the only thing that would settle the matter is a PC of decent length. Michael Sparks did a PC on a BE filter. A distinct cut off at the >5um level. Tons of small stuff ..but nothing >10um ..to speak of anyway. I think he had it in use about 25k on a gas engine.
dunno.gif
 
I have cut open a couple of BE 's they are really interesting .The element is like layers of the stuff peg boards are made of With a big spring for pressure to compres the discs "stacked disc." I don't see how much debris can get through them.
 
Stacked Discs are still used by most ALL bypass filter manufactures. I remember Ralph Wood taking about wood, newspapers, toliet paper, and the like.

I can see where the Amsoil EaoBp would filter better and last longer, but....it may be quite true that the above materials remove, hold, and more slowly filter the oil and hold the sustances like, diesel fuel, soot, water, and other afterproduct nasty's better
puke.gif
 
In one of the last couple amsoil magazines, the one that offered the chrome collectors version of the EaBP, they had a cutaway photo of the EaBP. It looked more like an EaO filter than the old BP wood fiber filter. I prefer the old design better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom