Are Amsoil EAO Filters Actually Better?

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.
Yes, go find Whip City Wrencher on YouTube and he has all kinds of videos showing the metal screen backing on the Ultra. Many members here too have shown C&P photos of the Ultra with the media torn apart so you can see the layered construction and the wire backing.

The wire backing screen is in the shape of the pleats because the screen backs every square millimeter of media. The screen and media is shaped together into the shape of pleats. The screen is not just a screen wrapped around the outside of the center tube.

So replacing the screen with a cellulose (rigid) media keeping (actually increasing) the original synthetic media in place, REDUCES the efficiency? I can't wrap my head around that one.
The Ultra without the wire screen backing is a totally different media ... so a change in performance is no surprise. But as you posted earlier (post #33), Fram claims the new media is more efficient, at least on the filter model they make the claims on.

Amsoil claims higher flow, so that makes me suspect if it will filter as fine a particle as the Fram XG does.
Flow (delta-p) doesn't necessarily correlate to efficiency. Not sure what you're saying here.

Both Fram & Amsoil advertise the same efficiency: 99% @ 20 microns.
Like said before ... probably splitting hairs on the efficiency. The Fram may be a hair better since Fram still says the Ultra is 99+ % @ 20u. The Fram Titanium (still with wire screen backing like the OG Ultra) also claims 99+ % @ 20u efficiency.
 
Old vs New Ultra ... go to time 11:00 for media construction comparison, and wire backing design.


Thanks, Zee, yes I've seen his videos, I've always thought you really can't tell much just from disassembling and looking, but for the question I had, that does answer it. New media thinner, but more of it.

The next up video on You Tube when I watched it was more interesting to me than the one you sent:



I commented that nobody noticed the Fram has a fibre gasket where the filter meets the relief valve bracket, Amsoil is metal to metal.

Amsoil does have more threads on the baseplate, though.
 
Last edited:
This may shock some here.

I really think that any decently constructed oil filter with "average" filtering ability will be just fine for most any BITOG consumer.

With the OCI's given here, good oils chosen - your filter choice will simply not impact engine life. I now cannot remember if it was Bob himself, or Tony after Bob, proposed running just a screen in place of a proper filter. Not sure if I 100% agree with that, but they are just as close to the truth vs. chasing 999999999.99999999999% down to 0.0000001µ.
 
This may shock some here.

I really think that any decently constructed oil filter with "average" filtering ability will be just fine for most any BITOG consumer.

With the OCI's given here, good oils chosen - your filter choice will simply not impact engine life. I now cannot remember if it was Bob himself, or Tony after Bob, proposed running just a screen in place of a proper filter. Not sure if I 100% agree with that, but they are just as close to the truth vs. chasing 999999999.99999999999% down to 0.0000001µ.
C’mon man … You’re going to get your neighbor all spun up 👀
 
This may shock some here.

I really think that any decently constructed oil filter with "average" filtering ability will be just fine for most any BITOG consumer.

With the OCI's given here, good oils chosen - your filter choice will simply not impact engine life. I now cannot remember if it was Bob himself, or Tony after Bob, proposed running just a screen in place of a proper filter. Not sure if I 100% agree with that, but they are just as close to the truth vs. chasing 999999999.99999999999% down to 0.0000001µ.
I'd say for the average consumer, not BITOG consumers. AC Delco filters are average, but they sacrifice efficiency for longer life. The average consumer puts gas in the car, maybe washes it, & that's about it. Oil Change? What? I'm supposed to do that? So 10-15,000 miles go by, oh I guess I need to get the oil changed, huh? AC is still filtering averagely. GM warranty is 75K? 100K? Ya, Mr/Ms Average Consumer figures, "ya the cars's old, got a lot of miles, no sense throwing money into it, let's get a new car!!"

BTW, your market is not the average consumer, because who is going to pay $20 (ok $17.60 for PC for EAO17 (PF63)) for a filter when they can get a Genuine GM filter for $3.91 (PF48) or $7.49 (PF63)?
 
Last edited:
I'd say for the average consumer, not BITOG consumers. AC Delco filters are average, but they sacrifice efficiency for longer life. The average consumer puts gas in the car, maybe washes it, & that's about it. Oil Change? What? I'm supposed to do that? So 10-15,000 miles go by, oh I guess I need to get the oil changed, huh? AC is still filtering averagely. GM warranty is 75K? 100K? Ya, Mr/Ms Average Consumer figures, ya the cars's old, got a lot of miles, no sense throwing money into it, let's get a new car!!

BTW, your market is not the average consumer, because who is going to pay $20 (ok $17.60 for PC for EAO17 (PF63)) for a filter when they can get a Genuine GM filter for $3.91 (PF48) or $7.49 (PF63)?
Even the BITOG folks who change at 10-15 miles. Or 3K. I've seen zero proof either way, but certainly no proof using this or that filter will extend engine life.

I know who my market is. I really don't sell filters often.. I don't push them at all. I tell people to buy the filter that people on THEIR forum or BITOG don't have problems with.

BTW email replies to you seem to bounce on your spam filter.
 
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).
Some of the FRAM Ultra filters used a louvred centre tube as well, while some used holes. Just depends on the model of filter.
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?
All synthetic media has the screen/is backed by a screen, doesn't matter if it has louvres or holes. This is because the media is not rigid enough to keep its shape. First Brands eliminated the screen and replaced it with synthetic blend media to save money, lol. The Titanium still appears to use the original Ultra media (along with screen backing).
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?
Per square inch of media at a given level of efficiency, a synthetic media will both flow better and have higher contaminant holding capacity. FRAM increased the surface area to try and mitigate the effects of the compromise by going to a blend media.
 
Last edited:
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?
The wire screen on the OG Ultra and the Titanium had the media backed onto it; it was in the shape of the pleats. All synthetic media filters are this way including the EaO.
 
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:View attachment 114165View attachment 114164


Fram XG10575 w/screen:View attachment 114166View attachment 114167


Here is Fram's data on the "prototype" media that replaced the old screen filters:View attachment 114168
The prototype "data" has a lot of inconsistencies in the verbiage used (like "baked onto a metal screen" rather than backed) and calling the original media a synthetic blend, which it clearly wasn't and saying the new media is true dual-layered, while the original media was true dual layered. It calls into question the accuracy of the whole thing.
 
Amsoil claims higher flow, so that makes me suspect if it will filter as fine a particle as the Fram XG does.
Higher flow than cellulose and blend medias, which is accurate. The OG Ultra and the current Titanium also benefited from this.
 
Last edited:
The prototype "data" has a lot of inconsistencies in the verbiage used (like "baked onto a metal screen" rather than backed) and calling the original media a synthetic blend, which it clearly wasn't and saying the new media is true dual-layered, while the original media was true dual layered. It calls into question the accuracy of the whole thing.
From the video that ZeeOSix posted (in post #42) it looks as though the OG media was dual layered but the more rigid layer (toward the screen) looks synthetic. The new media is thinner, & looks as though the rigid layer is cellulose. There is more of it, a lot more of it, they eliminated the screen & thinned the media. They are both dual-layered. 11:57-12:07 is where he is peeling the OG media apart.
 
Last edited:
From the video that ZeeOSix posted (in post #42) it looks as though the OG media was dual layered but the more rigid layer (toward the screen) looks synthetic
Both layers in the OG Ultra/Titanium feel the same and both are synthetic. Here are my pictures from disassembly of an XG2:
IMG_2587.jpeg

IMG_2589.jpeg

IMG_2590.jpeg

IMG_2591.jpeg

IMG_2592.jpeg

IMG_2593.jpeg

IMG_2594.jpeg

The new media is thinner, & looks as though the rigid layer is cellulose. There is more of it, a lot more of it, they eliminated the screen & thinned the media. They are both dual-layered. 12:07 is where he is peeling the OG media apart.
The new media is a cellulose blend, like the Tough Guard, PureONE, Mobil 1 filter...etc. They used more of it because it doesn't flow as well. It has a synthetic "topper" to increase holding capacity because cellulose and blend medias don't provide the same sort of true depth filtration you get with a synthetic media.
 
I really think that any decently constructed oil filter with "average" filtering ability will be just fine for most any BITOG consumer.
What's the "average" filtering ability/efficiency? Pretty open to opinions.

Even the BITOG folks who change at 10-15 miles. Or 3K. I've seen zero proof either way, but certainly no proof using this or that filter will extend engine life.
But there certainly is proof that cleaner oil will always result in less wear ... nobody can find any proof that is not true. When debris is being ground between moving parts, wear happens ... that will never change.

It's been said many times ... the longer the OCI, the better a high efficiency oil filter will be helping to keep the oil cleaner and engine wear lower. Sure, if someone is doing 3000 mile OCIs, then the filter isn't going to matter much, unless the "side reason" below comes into play.

There are also other side reasons to run a more efficient oil filter, and that's being the fact that the oil filter is the back-up to the air filter. If the air filter isn't doing a good job at keeping debris out of the engine and oil, then the oil filter is the only thing left to pick up the slack.
 
Last edited:
I'd say for the average consumer, not BITOG consumers. AC Delco filters are average, but they sacrifice efficiency for longer life. The average consumer puts gas in the car, maybe washes it, & that's about it. Oil Change? What? I'm supposed to do that? So 10-15,000 miles go by, oh I guess I need to get the oil changed, huh?
True ... 99.99999% of people driving around don't even know what a micron is, or the fact that every oil filters has an efficiency vs particle size performance curve.
 
I know who my market is. I really don't sell filters often.. I don't push them at all. I tell people to buy the filter that people on THEIR forum or BITOG don't have problems with.
They don't buy the high efficiency Amsoil filters to go along with their high mileage oil? Doing long OCIs while running a low efficiency oil filter isn't a good combination.
 
Back
Top