Second Partticle Counts Complete

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

I think he's saying that residuals may skew his results ...so he eliminated the residuals contained in the engine as much as practically possible. If he was doing 10k a piece, it might not mean as much to him ..but wouldn't be a bad practice in that case either.

---

Gary is correct here as far as my original thoughts and intent.

Recall that filters generally get more efficient with use. So it's possible that the second filter is at an advantage if the oil isn't changed prior to it's installation. With contaminants in the oil already, the second filter would sort of get "more efficient sooner", especially if it was just slightly better than the first filter and the particular combination of engine, use, and test mileage just happen to accentuate this effect.

In order to properly account for this, one would have to run another test with the order reversed.

Given self imposed time constraints, and the mileage of my commutes, I chose my test procedure accordingly.

It's likely that I could of just changed the oil and filter each test run and produced similar results, but I was trying to eliminate as much as possible any influence of the previous filter.

 

[GeorgeCLS]

Additionally, comparing particle counts from two different labs is another variable.. Also, my engine is a large V8 engine with 160,000 miles on it; this engine will very likely create more particles than a relatively small lower powered 4 or 6 cylinder engine.. Lots of variables...

However, the *change* or improvement with the Ea should be relative and comparable.
George Morrison, STLE CLS

 

[427Z06]

Another thing to keep in mind is that my Blackstone results are extrapolated from one particle size measurement.

Looking at George's data, it looks like his results are extrapolated in the same fashion.

Given the above, one will need to be careful on what conclusions are drawn.

 

[garageman402]

Quote:

---

Another thing to keep in mind is that my Blackstone results are extrapolated from one particle size measurement.

Looking at George's data, it looks like his results are extrapolated in the same fashion.

Given the above, one will need to be careful on what conclusions are drawn.

---

427,
By mid-May you'll have your results? If there is an improvement over the SuperTech numbers, would it be safe to say the Eao is a remarkable filter?
Will you start a new thread, or add to this one?

Thanks for the effort,
Bob

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

427, By mid-May you'll have your results?

---

Mid-to-End-of May or thereabouts.

Quote:

---

If there is an improvement over the SuperTech numbers, would it be safe to say the Eao is a remarkable filter?

---

I won't have a definitive conclusion until I see more data. We need comparisons with other filters, like the Pure 1, Mobil 1, K&N, Wix, etc, in different engines, oils, OCIs, environments, etc.

Keep in mind, even if the Ea0 filter turns out to be the best by a statistically significant margin, what does it really buy you? What assurances do you have that the reduction in PCs the Ea0 may provide is going to make your engine last significantly longer? Yes...Yes, I know there are numerious studies that show there's a reduction in wear with better filtered oil, but the more important question is, by how much, and how does that translate into engine longevity across the board.

We know that millions of engines did just fine for ~200K miles on nothing more that least cost API oil and the orange cans of doom. Will the Ea0 now let those same engines last 201K, 220K or 2M miles?

Ea0's real strength may be the ability to go the distance with expensive long drain oils or multiple OCIs without a filter change. Where the SuperTechs, and others, are more than adequate for 5K mile intervals.

In short, there's likely going to be a different cost/benefit ratio depending on the application.

Quote:

---

Will you start a new thread, or add to this one?

---

A new one.

Quote:

---

Thanks for the effort,
Bob

---

You're welcome. Also thank TeeDub for donating the filters.

 

[Spector]

Quote

"but the more important question is, by how much, and how does that translate into engine longevity across the board."

yep, long engine life may be meaningless, especially when the rest of the vehicle is falling apart around the engine, electronics, transmission, struts, exhaust, etc, etc etc.

 

[garageman402]

Quote:

---

Keep in mind, even if the Ea0 filter turns out to be the best by a statistically significant margin, what does it really buy you? What assurances do you have that the reduction in PCs the Ea0 may provide is going to make your engine last significantly longer? Yes...Yes, I know there are numerious studies that show there's a reduction in wear with better filtered oil, but the more important question is, by how much, and how does that translate into engine longevity across the board.

We know that millions of engines did just fine for ~200K miles on nothing more that least cost API oil and the orange cans of doom. Will the Ea0 now let those same engines last 201K, 220K or 2M miles?

Ea0's real strength may be the ability to go the distance with expensive long drain oils or multiple OCIs without a filter change. Where the SuperTechs, and others, are more than adequate for 5K mile intervals.

In short, there's likely going to be a different cost/benefit ratio depending on the application.

---

I'm thinking that a better filtering filter, combined with a superior synthetic, will allow you to use a lower vis oil, increasing fuel mileage. For instance, if you normally use a 10w30 conventional, a synthetic in 5w30 or even 0w-30, will show an improvement in fuel mileage, while still affording better protection at higher temps. Add in the saved costs by extending the OCI and filter CI, and I think it would be cost-effective from the get-go.

I originally thought that the synthetic would be a better lubricant (more slippery), and improve mileage, but switching from 5w30 Chevron to 5w30 Redline in my Honda hasn't really shown much difference. Maybe a 0w-30?

We (Northern) Californians are now seeing $3/gal gas, so every MPG counts!! I just got gas at Costco, reg is $2.939, premium $3.089. The ARCO down the street is $2.939 and $3.159. People in SF are now paying around $3.30 for reg.

-Bob

 

[TeeDub]

Bob,

I think your analysis is spot on....this filter combined with a 0w-20 or 0w30 long drain synthetic should generate very low wear rates - even over extended OCI's...

The improved filtration should also mitigate oxidative thickening over long OCI's and help maintain high fuel efficiency, much like a bypass filter setup.

Ted

 

[SWHeat]

Quote:

---

Quote

"but the more important question is, by how much, and how does that translate into engine longevity across the board."

yep, long engine life may be meaningless, especially when the rest of the vehicle is falling apart around the engine, electronics, transmission, struts, exhaust, etc, etc etc.

---

Ha, then why even bother doing the filter testing? That "deeper" question should be the beginning of another independent thread, IMHO. Kill Joy.

 

[4esorselrahc]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote

"but the more important question is, by how much, and how does that translate into engine longevity across the board."

yep, long engine life may be meaningless, especially when the rest of the vehicle is falling apart around the engine, electronics, transmission, struts, exhaust, etc, etc etc.

---

Ha, then why even bother doing the filter testing? That "deeper" question should be the beginning of another independent thread, IMHO. Kill Joy.

---

I agree, this is sort of veering off course.

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

I agree, this is sort of veering off course.

---

I'd say it's right on course. People are exclaiming all types of virtues for this filter in this, and many threads, even before a reasonable amount of testing data has been collected.

For example:

Quote:

---

I'm thinking that a better filtering filter, combined with a superior synth, will allow you to use a lower vis oil, increasing fuel mileage.

---

Gee wiz...now this filter is increasing one's gas mileage.

Hey, I'm as happy as the next guy that someone may actually be producing a better filter. But I'm just not yet ready to attribute supernatural powers to them.

 

[garageman402]

Quote:

---

I'd say it's right on course. People are exclaiming all types of virtues for this filter in this, and many threads, even before a reasonable amount of testing data has been collected.

For example:

Quote:

---

I'm thinking that a better filtering filter, combined with a superior synth, will allow you to use a lower vis oil, increasing fuel mileage.

---

Gee wiz...now this filter is increasing one's gas mileage.

Hey, I'm as happy as the next guy that someone may actually be producing a better filter. But I'm just not yet ready to attribute supernatural powers to them.

---

No, the filter is not improving the fuel mileage, the lower vis oil is. However, I would want that thinner oil to be as clean as possible, to avoid engine damage.

In a free society, facts are going to come in willy-nilly, it's the nature of independent reasearch and a free press. The preliminary findings are pretty encouraging, and hopefully future findings will reinforce this. I know some people here have gone absolutely ga-ga over this filter, but, after all, we are BITOGers

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

No, the filter is not improving the fuel mileage, the lower vis oil is. However, I would want that thinner oil to be as clean as possible, to avoid engine damage.

---

How much are you going to effect the MFT by using a lower viscosity of oil? 0.1-0.5 microns?

And if the goal is the cleanest oil possible because it is thin, one could argue to just change it more frequently. That would keep the oil on average much more cleaner than the improvements we've seen in this filter to date.

Look at George's data with the OEM filter. Notice how much lower the particle count is for the shorter interval:

http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=818040

 

[garageman402]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

No, the filter is not improving the fuel mileage, the lower vis oil is. However, I would want that thinner oil to be as clean as possible, to avoid engine damage.

---

How much are you going to effect the MFT by using a lower viscosity of oil? 0.1-0.5 microns?

And if the goal is the cleanest oil possible because it is thin, one could argue to just change it more frequently. That would keep the oil on average much more cleaner than the improvements we've seen in this filter to date.

Look at George's data with the OEM filter. Notice how much lower the particle count is for the shorter interval:

http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=818040

---

I don't know how much the MFT will be affected by the 0w30 as opposed to a 5w30, but I think ( I have no proof) it will improve mileage. I saw an increase when I went from a 10w30 to 5w30. I appreciate the higher film strength in a synth. I don't think I would have trusted a 5w30 conventional to replace a 10w30 conventional.

Yes, I suppose changing more frequently would also keep clean oil in the crankcase, but why would you want to when this filter keeps it cleaner than new oil? Reference George's earlier posts in this thread regarding that issue. The MPG savings would disappear in increased costs of more frequent OCs.

It would seem that clean oil would be better than dirty oil, and the consensus here seems to be that the Eao keeps oil cleaner.

The OEM filter in George's analysis allowed 100 and 50 micron particles to circulate. How long would a particle that size have to stay in the oil to start causing damage? What if it formed immediately after changing the oil? Then you would have to change oil every day.

I would just feel more comfortable with a filter that has shown superior cleaning ability.

Bob

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

I don't know how much the MFT will be affected by the 0w30 as opposed to a 5w30.

---

Grades indicate little as far as gasoline economy. You need to be talking in terms of HTHS, FMs, and Kinematic Viscosities.

Quote:

---

I saw an increase when I went from a 10w30 to 5w30.

---

Good...then use the 5w30. But that has little to do with the filter.

Quote:

---

I appreciate the higher film strength in a synthetic. I don't think I would have trusted a 5w30 conventional to replace a 10w30 conventional.

---

What evidence do you have that the 5w30 synthetic your using has a higher film strength than another 10w30 conventional? Further, please define "Film Strength" for me. What are the dimensions of "Film Strength"? I'll give you a hint...there aren't any. It's like saying it's "warm outside"...extremely vague and relative.

Quote:

---

Yes, I suppose changing more frequently would also keep clean oil in the crankcase, but why would you want to when this filter keeps it cleaner than new oil? Reference George's earlier posts in this thread regarding that issue.

---

As mentioned before, you hinging all your follow on logic based on ONE PC whose values are most likely extrapolated. It could be the case the pore blockage method used had a filtering particle size just below a critical level for the OEM filter and just above the Ea0 filter. This would skew all the data allowing a particular filter to look much better than it really is. I still contend we need more data under different circumstances before we start making blanket statements.

Quote:

---

The MPG savings would disappear in increased costs of more frequent OCs.

---

Not necessarily. If your train of logic contains a falsehood, the conclusion is likely faulty.

Quote:

---

It would seem that clean oil would be better than dirty oil, and the consensus here seems to be that the Eao keeps oil cleaner.

---

The only consensus I see here is a small group a people making unsubstantiated claims that this filter is second only to the next coming of a particular deity.

Quote:

---

The OEM filter in George's analysis allowed 100 and 50 micron particles to circulate. How long would a particle that size have to stay in the oil to start causing damage? What if it formed immediately after changing the oil? Then you would have to change oil every day.

---

I addressed this several times already. At this point I think you really need to study up on what various particle counts really entail. In short, your extrapolating from an extrapolation.

Quote:

---

I would just feel more comfortable with a filter that has shown superior cleaning ability.

Bob

---

Whatever floats your boat. But keep in mind that people will still question the cost benefit ratio as I don't see a wealth of evidence substantiating what you consider a forgone conclusion.

 

[GeorgeCLS]

I disagree with 427 regarding his statement that little can be derived from one set of comparative oil sample results. On the contrary, what the two samples did was confirm what is an industry recognized set of standards. That accepted standard bieng that a cellulose/paper oil filter element is essentially a >30 micron oil filter and that a microglass element can effectively filter down to 1 microns with a 99.97% efficiencies when properly configured.
Thus the one set of sample results confirmed what has been confirmed thousands of times by both laser and pour blockage: that the microglass element is 90%+ more efficient in the So, the single EaO test confirmed that:
1. The filter media is indeed a full microglass element.
2. The filter very effectively filters to 10 microns, far below what a comparable cellulose would filter.
3. As a result of the confirmation that it is a full glass media, the filter will flow much, much better than a comparable cellulose or cellulose/glass blend, espcially so during sub freezing temperatures where a cellulose can be completely blocked due to water expansion in its fiber make up. Additionally the dirt holding capacity for the filter should be roughly 4 times that of the cellulose filter, given years of comparative testing done by the industrial filter manufacturers.
4. In hydraulic systems composed of pumps, servo valves, piping, gaskets and drive motors, the reduction of one ISO code has been shown to extend component life by 25%. The reduction of the 10 to 30 micron abrasive particulates (SAE papers published by Detroit Diesel, Cummins have shown that in diesel engines, the 10 to 30 micron particulate is *the* abrasive particle size) by 90%+ will have a significant long term affect on wear.
5. Particulates in engine oil are catalysts for oxidation. A reduction of particulates in the oil can enable longer oil life along with more effective additization performance as some additives will cling to particulates and stop being effective.

So is this going to enable 427's 427 run a gazillion miles? Probably not. But can having ultra clean oil be beneficial in many more ways than thought possible? Every day I work with hydraulic systems that failures are reduced or totally eliminated through the use of ultra clean hydraulic fluids. By just lowering an ISO code 1 number, cutting the particulate numbers in half, yes, identifiable wear rate reductions and corresponding increases in component life takes place. We are reducing ISO codes by a factor of 4.
I think we could safely say that our engine and components are going to derive benefits from that level of cleanliness.

So, yes, an awful lot of good, valid, useful informatin can be derived from that one test result. (which was two, by the way, as I indicated the oil was actually clean enough to run a laser with comparable results to the pore blockage of the Amsoil EaO)
George Morrison, STLE CLS

 

[Gary Allan]

What I think 427Z06 is saying is that it's a little early to be trading in the good old Chevy for the brand new offering from the planet Futura. Your results are encouraging and suggest that this filter is a substantial cut above other offerings ...enough to perhaps justify the premium that it demands in cost.

What he's objecting to is the "sight unseen" celebration that has this filter lasting 3-5 times longer (depending on who's posting) and how it will cure the common cold and relieve the heartbreak of Psoriasis ..all while adding fiber to your diet.

I'm sure that we've heard the term "One swallow does not the summer make". Simply stated, it's a little hard to construct a monumental institution on the results of one test. So, before all the other filter manufacturers close up shop due to lack of interest, 427 recommends reading the book ..and maybe even wait for the movie.

As encouraging as this one showing is, I think everyone would agree that you don't bet the bank on a trial of one and call it worthy justification for blind faith. Bandwagon-like behavior is what the internet produces as a side effect in great abundance and I think that you're viewing it as 427 just being a conversational obstacle ...while he's just objecting to para-mass hysteria that would find few followers in any bona fide research facility or R&D dept.

co-associate: How's it going on the jigawatt amplifier?
associate: I got to 5.7!!
co-associate: Did you get awarded the grant extension?
associate: Not until I can get it to last for 20 events of XX hours of duration.
co-associate: How many events does it last now at the prescribed duration?
associate: I'll tell you when I get to ONE ...I'm currently at 5 minutes.
co-associate: I bet your professor was please, huh?
associate: He was please yesterday with 5.7. He then asked me what have I done for him today.

 

[4esorselrahc]

It does support the reason I bought one though. Better filtration than the average joe...Hey...that rhymes.

 

[okiedokie]

Some people are just contrarians and like to play the devil's advocate, otherwise known as a "skeptic."

Who's calling for "worthy justification and blind faith?" It's a just a good example with facts to back it up. There is nothing here to reasonably refute the poster's conclusions. Stop trying. All this philosphical hogwash and what-if nonsense is dumb. Sheeeesh.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:

---

It does support the reason I bought one though. Better filtration than the average joe...Hey...that rhymes.

---

Sure. If I have a notion to do something ...I'm going to accept things that support my choice and tend to not consider that which would put that choice in doubt. That's simple human nature ..if you think about it. If you pluck your money down on a set of roller rockers due to some dynamometer graph that someone showed you, you "need" to see that. Is the test result "real"? Most likely. Is it something to hold a parade over and start a campaign to promote it as the "must have" wallet drain of choice for all who consider themselves savvy and you're an idiot if you don't join in??

I hope that this filter is "all that". I really do. High end filtration is very expensive. Bringing SYNTEQ/NANO-FIBER media to the consumer level is something that hasn't been done before, IIRC. The distribution for such offerings is somewhat limited to industrial applications and tend to dictate prices that are just way out of whack with what the single end user is going to ante up for. Amsoil's unique niche market makes this possible and I'm glad this evolution occurred.

I'm a "beyond user" of Amsoil products ...so I surely want this filter to be everything that all of you are assuming it is now. That said, I want to be able to answer every challenge that someone can present to me with some depth of conviction. That requires a little more then the results of one test.

Quote:

---

Some people are just contrarians and like to play the devil's advocate, otherwise known as a "skeptic."

---

Is there something wrong with being convinced to a reasonable degree before putting one's personal seal of approval on something? I'm quite sure that you've got some opinions that are cast in stone about certain products (cars, appliances, etc.) that couldn't be changed with a ton of supporting evidence to the contrary. Likewise, if you've had favorable experience with said products, you would tend to discount those who say otherwise.

Was your good or bad experience "false"? No. Was it "the truth"? Yes. Does it totally discount all others assertions, which are just as "real and truthful" .......only to you. Does it bolster all those who had results that you, yourself, support in either factual experience or opinion ......only to yourself and those who hold such "belief".

As you can see, lots of factual evidence can swing both ways.

Quote:

---

Who's calling for "worthy justification and blind faith?"

---

You already had it. If I'm correct, you're a user of this filter before George got his test results in. You had to ...just to justify this level of defense of the results. Nothing unusual there. I'd find it atypical if you bought one and said that you didn't make a wise choice.

Quote:

---

It's a just a good example with facts to back it up.

---

It's one example with one set of data. You could compare that to one dyno run on one engine. Is the data "real" ..sure.

Again, the data is very encouraging. You're encouraged. So, am I

Quote:

---

There is nothing here to reasonably refute the poster's conclusions. Stop trying.

---

That's what a defense attorney says in the courtroom. It doesn't work that way in academia and elsewhere. Data is assigned the term "proof" only after it has been subjected to the most torturous gauntlet of critical review. Again, the data offered, so far, is encouraging that this is a substantially superior product.

Quote:

---

All this philosophical hogwash and what-if nonsense is dumb. Sheeeesh.

---

Well, I've got two tickets on the Space Shuttle where you are assured a 100% fatality rate every 200 missions. I'd say that 199 events would be enough to be "proof" that it's safe transportation to many ..many people. Some of them highly learned engineers. That's a statistic (sorta pulled out of my behind - the number isn't researched for "truth") and not my "belief". Being "smart" resulted in shock and awe at unexpected results. Being "dumb" says that you never say that you've got a grip on it all ...especially with just one successful test.

Again, I'm "beyond a user of Amsoil products" (hint-hint-wink-wink) ..but I'm not going to over promote something on one suggestive data point. I would prefer to have more firm footing before I proclaim something as the second coming of sliced bread. At best, you'll hear me saying, as you've heard someone like Terry state (in other words), that current data suggests that this product is taking automotive filtration to a higher standard in full flow filtration and that further testing will be forthcoming that will hopefully confirm/support expectations.

If that's "hogwash" ...then so be it

Again, I hope George's second run and 427's first run show like comparisons in their given environments. I want this to work too.