FRAM vs AMSOIL
- Thread starter jmsbntz
- Start date
- Status
I've always thought the FRAM XG was (is)a very good filter. I've seen it cut open before. I still think the EaO13 is a better filter though, and that's why I use one.
Nice pics too!
This is Fram's best filter and as I recall, the filter study with the bubble point tester rated this filter's performance fairly well.
I have an XG16 on my car right now; probably the first Fram that's been on in 3 or 4 years. I'd never pay the ridiculous normal price for one but I got this with some Canadian Tire promotion sale for around $6 so I didn't hesitate. I knew it was a good filter and worth the $6.
I have an XG16 on my car right now; probably the first Fram that's been on in 3 or 4 years. I'd never pay the ridiculous normal price for one but I got this with some Canadian Tire promotion sale for around $6 so I didn't hesitate. I knew it was a good filter and worth the $6.
" How will you get them back together to use? "
A talented TIG welder operator could probably do it
.
A talented TIG welder operator could probably do it
Isn't the 25,000 mile with Amsoil oil?Quote:
What price did you pay for each filter. I think Fram say's 7.5K limit and Eao is 25K. Gary will factor that in
Quote:
Isn't the 25,000 mile with Amsoil oil?Quote:
What price did you pay for each filter. I think Fram say's 7.5K limit and Eao is 25K. Gary will factor that in
From the Amsoil website, "AMSOIL EaO Filters are not guaranteed for 25,000 miles when used with any oil other than AMSOIL Motor Oil and should be changed according to vehicle OEM recommendations."
I skipped the 3k UOA and decided I'll do one UOA and particle count at 5K for each filter. I'm coming up on the first 5K soon...
That Amsoil filter looks impressive
, but that delta math equation on their box frightens me. I dont want to do home work while doing an oil change.
You can resize and image in MS Paint. Just like on the resize image button and type in the % change you want.
You can resize and image in MS Paint. Just like on the resize image button and type in the % change you want.
The filter somehow magically knows the oil is not made by Amsoil...
Quote:
The filter somehow magically knows the oil is not made by Amsoil...I use these filters (with PP!), but come on now.
Me too. Not much of a leap to infer that it should probably work well with other comparable oils. Although I plan to run mine for roughly 10-12k miles (not 25k).
Tempest, 4esorselrahc,
Guys, I was just pointing out the AMSOIL position on mileage vs. oil BRAND used.
I understand the implication as:
We are not going to pay for your engine in the event it suffers from an oil related failure if you don't follow our recommendations.
Guys, I was just pointing out the AMSOIL position on mileage vs. oil BRAND used.
I understand the implication as:
We are not going to pay for your engine in the event it suffers from an oil related failure if you don't follow our recommendations.
In other news...
I'll be sending the RP 5W40 VOA and FRAM 5K UOA to Dyson Analysis on Monday.
I'll be sending the RP 5W40 VOA and FRAM 5K UOA to Dyson Analysis on Monday.
Nice im looking forward to this
The Fram XG7317 and Royal Purple 5W40 UOA are below. The green numbers are the Royal Purple 5W40 VOA. The VOA Sulfate By Product = 25 but was inadvertently left off the combined results sheet...
No particle count was done because with 5013 miles on the oil it was too dark for the laser to get a good read. I changed the oil and screwed on the EaO13 but decided to leave the air filter in place to eliminate that variable. Now it could be argued that leaving it in place increased the efficiency if the EaO13 shows better Si results, but I'll take my chances. I may do a 1500 mile particle count with the EaO13 to eliminate the dark oil problem and then repeat with the XG7317.
Shell 87 octane fuel with no additives, 80 miles round trip to work 5 days a week, weekend trips hit and miss lately, 5 mile trips to the grocery store and dropping kids off several times a week etc.
No particle count was done because with 5013 miles on the oil it was too dark for the laser to get a good read. I changed the oil and screwed on the EaO13 but decided to leave the air filter in place to eliminate that variable. Now it could be argued that leaving it in place increased the efficiency if the EaO13 shows better Si results, but I'll take my chances. I may do a 1500 mile particle count with the EaO13 to eliminate the dark oil problem and then repeat with the XG7317.
Shell 87 octane fuel with no additives, 80 miles round trip to work 5 days a week, weekend trips hit and miss lately, 5 mile trips to the grocery store and dropping kids off several times a week etc.
Round one results...
"James, this will be a good repeatable RELATIVE reference for the testing even though breaking out the individual particle count may be impossible we will have a good reference to compare the EaO to, provided the engine burn is similar etc.
21mg/L = roughly NAS 6 for the clean (new) RP 5w40.
63 mg/L = NAS 8 for the used oil with Fram OF and RP 5w40.
Estimate of used oil sample stands at:
5-15 micron - 15-25 micron - 25-50 micron -
Relative value of the EaO particles weighed will be very interesting.
Feel free to post this result.
Note too that the lab techs suggest the dyes in the RP are what are screwing up the laser reading capability to particle count. Frankly in automotive oils especially used oil the add pack and combustion byproduct are the main culprits to reflecting the beam rendering it useless. Why hydraulic fluids are usually more clear or the dye lighter in coloration."
Terry
"James, this will be a good repeatable RELATIVE reference for the testing even though breaking out the individual particle count may be impossible we will have a good reference to compare the EaO to, provided the engine burn is similar etc.
21mg/L = roughly NAS 6 for the clean (new) RP 5w40.
63 mg/L = NAS 8 for the used oil with Fram OF and RP 5w40.
Estimate of used oil sample stands at:
5-15 micron - 15-25 micron - 25-50 micron -
Relative value of the EaO particles weighed will be very interesting.
Feel free to post this result.
Note too that the lab techs suggest the dyes in the RP are what are screwing up the laser reading capability to particle count. Frankly in automotive oils especially used oil the add pack and combustion byproduct are the main culprits to reflecting the beam rendering it useless. Why hydraulic fluids are usually more clear or the dye lighter in coloration."
Terry
this fram looks half ways decent. i used to run fram, but after doing enough research though, i would run a wix or purolator before id use a fram. i personally recommend mobil 1/ k n, or wix. i've used mobil 1, and wix. there well built for extended oil change intervals. monil one is bullet proof
Good info here, patiently waiting for the next round of results.
Round two! The fuel dilute increase is probably from extended city driving while Christmas shopping after Thanksgiving as well as a Bio-Plus fuel conditioner clean-up phase (double treat rate) in the last 3000 miles of this OCI.
James, finally results ! Note: because the lab was so happy to get the laser to read they forgot to weigh the filter patch to compare to the other tests. Please do share with my friends at BITOG or elsewhere.
The laser worked on this run so we have actual micronic values compared to the weighed levels from the earlier filters test. This was as standardized as we could get with the particle count capability at hand and for darker motor oils.
From this data the EaO shows it cleaned the oil to VOA levels (possibly better) since oil adds would have activated and filmed/adhered to the engine.
Roughly 3 times less particles in suspension in the RP oil this test. Note lab made mistake on listing scale last time even after I queried so data for all tests is in 100ml scale.
NAS 1638 (1964) probably the best chart to guide. Whatever relative measure the EaO is impressive.
Second remark is that fuels dilute was worse this run so results are biased against EaO. Another reason lower copper in spectral exam indeed was reduced wear particles in suspension.
Test 2 EaO laser micron count oil sample stands at:
>2 - 52249/100ml
>5 - 9843
>15 - 517
>25 - 107
>50 - .7
>100 -.1
At YOUR service, Terry
James, finally results ! Note: because the lab was so happy to get the laser to read they forgot to weigh the filter patch to compare to the other tests. Please do share with my friends at BITOG or elsewhere.
The laser worked on this run so we have actual micronic values compared to the weighed levels from the earlier filters test. This was as standardized as we could get with the particle count capability at hand and for darker motor oils.
From this data the EaO shows it cleaned the oil to VOA levels (possibly better) since oil adds would have activated and filmed/adhered to the engine.
Roughly 3 times less particles in suspension in the RP oil this test. Note lab made mistake on listing scale last time even after I queried so data for all tests is in 100ml scale.
NAS 1638 (1964) probably the best chart to guide. Whatever relative measure the EaO is impressive.
Second remark is that fuels dilute was worse this run so results are biased against EaO. Another reason lower copper in spectral exam indeed was reduced wear particles in suspension.
Test 2 EaO laser micron count oil sample stands at:
>2 - 52249/100ml
>5 - 9843
>15 - 517
>25 - 107
>50 - .7
>100 -.1
At YOUR service, Terry
Could someone please summarize the results for us? I don't know what I'm looking at--thanks!
I work in polymer research, so all this data is making me wet, but it begs one large question, and I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm truly curious.
I would agree from the numbers that the AMSOIL filter is much better at filtering oil, no question.
BUT, is there any data to show that the delta particulate can be traced to actual early engine failure? In other words, does filtration to this level really mean a longer lasting engine, or are we just looking at better filtration that is negligible in real world driving?
Either way, this is a very interesting subject.
I would agree from the numbers that the AMSOIL filter is much better at filtering oil, no question.
BUT, is there any data to show that the delta particulate can be traced to actual early engine failure? In other words, does filtration to this level really mean a longer lasting engine, or are we just looking at better filtration that is negligible in real world driving?
Either way, this is a very interesting subject.
Last edited:
- Status
