Probably because when using 2 digits you don’t have to be as accurate as you do when using 3 digits. If they claimed, say, 99.5%, they would have to show accuracy to within 0.1%. 99+% they only have to be accurate within 1%
Are Amsoil EAO Filters Actually Better?
- Thread starter garageman402
- Start date
I'm talking about this ISO efficiency test ... I think you seen it .. ?
Would you all like to see ISO 4548-12 Oil Filter Lab Testing Comparison, Efficiency & Capacity, Pressure vs Flow, Bubble Point, and Burst?
I have this as a “watched” thread, so if you do happen to start a new one, could you put a note or link in this one to direct followers to the new thread? Thanks!! Yes, no problem I can do that.
bobistheoilguy.com
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Yep, just couldn't recall the list of filters tested, didn't think the TG was on the list. Would have been interesting to see if there was much of a difference. Of course we'd both like to see the current Ultra vs the OG one.
Yes, I'd like to see a test of the new XG too. Fram did release data showing the new media was MORE efficient than the one it replaced. Eliminating the wire screening allowed for more media, so they said.
I'd like Andrew to run more tests, but he does this for a living, and I guess we only got one freebie. Believe it or not, he got some negative reactions on here. I think he's done with doing favors here. Maybe during the pandemic he had some free time? He did contract Covid while running the tests...... I know I appreciated his efforts, I was really surprised by the results. Fram, of all companies, has the most efficient filter. Granted, it may plug up faster, but I use oversize, & change it often.
Anyway, I did decide to go with a couple of Amsoil filters, just wondered if anyone had any more detailed numbers on their efficiency, besides the advertised "99% @ 20u"
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Yes, but the e-mail that was shared with that information had details about the original XG wrong in it, so there were some red flags. We discussed it in one of the very long threads on the subject, that's why I think it would be really good to see some actual test data.
And that's a cute angle they took about it allowing more media, but the reality is that it requires more media because a blend doesn't flow as well as fully synthetic at the same efficiency
Yeah, he did the board one heck of a favour and I'm not sure he was properly recognized for it. I haven't seen him post anything in ages. I'd love to see the EaO, TG and current XG tested.
As I think I mentioned earlier, here's a goldie oldie from AMSOIL, 98.7% at 15 microns:
Fram aka... the new championship owmers can " claim" whatever they want...
Real truth is... The new TG Fram Ultra is still 99 percent at 20 microns.
But it is 74 percent at 10 microns... Which is still quite good.
However which is less than real OG Fram Ultra which was 80 percent at 5 microns...
It has seemed that new Fram owners a) cheapened a great product...
And b) their people made up information that clearly was not accurate or true to justify the new ownership cheapening the former product.
Ya, that's a golden oldie alright, the EAO17 doesn't exist yet. Lol. Think those numbers are still true? 98.7% @ 15u?Yes, but the e-mail that was shared with that information had details about the original XG wrong in it, so there were some red flags. We discussed it in one of the very long threads on the subject, that's why I think it would be really good to see some actual test data.
And that's a cute angle they took about it allowing more media, but the reality is that it requires more media because a blend doesn't flow as well as fully synthetic at the same efficiency
Yeah, he did the board one heck of a favour and I'm not sure he was properly recognized for it. I haven't seen him post anything in ages. I'd love to see the EaO, TG and current XG tested.
As I think I mentioned earlier, here's a goldie oldie from AMSOIL, 98.7% at 15 microns:
View attachment 113666
Here is the 98-100% efficiency graph. The Old XG (with the metal screen) did better than 99.80% @15u. This was only tested on one size filter across 5 brands (Wix was so bad it was off the chart at this level). Coincidentally this is the size I use on 2 vehicles.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
I mean, based on what we see with the OG XG, it doesn't seem to be any sort of stretch to expect that, or better, from a filter that's at least 99% at 20 microns using synthetic media, which the chart from Ascent that you've posted well-highlights.
So I received my Amsoil filters. The first thing I noticed is the tiny, pushed out outlets in the center tube. Are these the "louvers" people are talking about? They are tiny!! The Fram tube is perforated with actual holes, big enough to see the screen that used to be there (in the XG). So Fram eliminated the screen, and replaced it with a rigid non-synthetic media layer because the holes were big enough to suck the synthetic media through them? They put a small synthetic layer on top of that? Amsoil's answer is to make the holes in the tube so small they have the same opening as a wire screen would? So they can use way more synthetic media without worrying about it staying in place?
I used question marks because I'm theorizing here, I have no solid evidence, just what I've read. But seeing those tiny "louvers" inside the Amsoil got me thinking. Am I on the right track? A full synthetic media will flow and filter more efficiently than non-synthetic (Cellulose?) media? The cellulose media in the Fram wouldn't help with the filtration?
I used question marks because I'm theorizing here, I have no solid evidence, just what I've read. But seeing those tiny "louvers" inside the Amsoil got me thinking. Am I on the right track? A full synthetic media will flow and filter more efficiently than non-synthetic (Cellulose?) media? The cellulose media in the Fram wouldn't help with the filtration?
Sounds like you're another "Amsoil louver victim".
Louvers - Again, AMSOIL EaO filters
So, pre-install inspection with the EaO that went on the RAM 1500, had all the louvers open, but I wasn't super impressed with how open they were. Also, it was a bit loose on the threads, but seems they aren't cut very deep, as I checked the other cans and they appear the same. I went and...
bobistheoilguy.com
Please post a picture of the inside tube. "Tiny" is subjective. Thanks.
Good morning Pablo. Yes, it is subjective, but because of the sheer amount of them, it looks as though they used that as a substitute for a screen. I have pics of the inside of a Fram, too, for comparison:
Amsoil EAO17:
Fram XG10575 w/screen:
Here is Fram's data on the "prototype" media that replaced the old screen filters:
Those louvers are quite open. And yes, flow will be great, better than those holes. You are not a victim! Ha.
Thanks for the pics
Thanks for the pics
Those louvers look OK, as Pablo mentioned.Good morning Pablo. Yes, it is subjective, but because of the sheer amount of them, it looks as though they used that as a substitute for a screen. I have pics of the inside of a Fram, too, for comparison:
Amsoil EAO17:
Louvers are not a substitute for a backing screen that's used on some full synthetic media. Regardless if the center tube has holes or louvers, if a full synthetic media wasn't supported correctly it would not hold it's shape of spaced pleats as oil flowed through the media.
So what would be supporting it? A wire mesh in the same shape as the pleats? In Fram’s case they use a ridged media, but before that, they had a wire screen not formed to the pleats, but more like expanded metal wrapped around the core. So how would the full synthetic media be supported in the Amsoil filter if it’s not the tube?
So Amsoil has had issues with the louvers not being punched all the way through? Pablo, how is the full synthetic media supported?
Typically a screen.
Like said above, if a synthetic media needs a wire or nylon screen backing for support, then it needs it for support regardless if the center tube has holes or louvers. If it didn't have any ridged backing support, the pleats would deform all over the place when oil flow causes force on the pleats.
I closely looked inside the XG9100 I have which still has the screen. Date code 2119 (4-29-22), so they haven't switched all their lines yet, I presume. It does appear the screen follows the pleats. When I first looked I really didn't pay attention, I was just looking to confirm the screen existed. So replacing the screen with a synthetic blend (rigid) media keeping (actually increasing) the original synthetic media in place, REDUCES the efficiency? I can't wrap my head around that one.
Amsoil claims higher flow, so that makes me suspect if it will filter as fine a particle as the Fram XG does.
You can see parts with no screen visible, where it follows the media in a pleat:
Amsoil claims higher flow, so that makes me suspect if it will filter as fine a particle as the Fram XG does.
You can see parts with no screen visible, where it follows the media in a pleat:
Last edited:
Similar threads
