06 Tundra, M1 5W-30EP, Pure One w/Particle Counts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 10, 2004
Messages
780
Location
Phoenix, AZ
All,

The latest results in the continuing series...This time using a Purolator Pure One P20195 filter. First the results, then my commentary...

2010_August_Tundra_Oil_Reports.jpg


Based on this one test it doesn't appear that the Purolator Pure One is any better than the Mobil 1 filters, or the Amsoil filters. Admittedly, a lot more data would be needed to be statistically significant, but this data point is interesting considering this filter's reputation as being so efficient at filtering. For comparison, a VOA of this oil was performed by the same lab with Particle Counts over 1.5 years ago. See those results here. Looks like we still have room for improvement!

Regarding the UOA itself, note the high Flashpoint - I have never seen it this high in a UOA of Mobil 1 5W-30EP - almost equal to the VOA above. Viscosity was a tad high.

A Royal Purple 20-400 has been installed on the vehicle for the next UOA. See you all again in about three months.
 
Wow very interesting Data, I like the particle counts in particular. Looks to me the Amsoil filters are not that "efficient" at least to justify the price, I'm surprised by that. All in all great info and great looking numbers on that truck! That is my oil of choice in my civic, 5w20 flavor though.
 
For the money IMO the Pure One filter seems like a good deal, especially when you consider the price of the other two filters.
 
Originally Posted By: FZ1
I get 5 qts of M-1 EP and an M-1 filter at AZ for $38. That helps.


We get the same deal here for $30.
 
I know no one really wants to listen to the Amsoil guy, but really the B/S light method is not that great of a way to do particle counts - PLUS.........to be a valid comparison one needs to pull samples Downstream from the FF filter - and NOT from the sump. We had this discussion when this study started.

A test of the sump is a snapshot in time & reflects how the engine was used in the last duty cycle before the sample was taken. It's not an accurate assessment of filter efficiency & capacity. (All standardized filter testing is done downstream from the oil filter)
 
The problem, Pablo, is that a lot of people here question many a lab. For example, look at all the people that question Amsoil's tests where their products essentially always come first. Most people here, it seems, take Amsoil's tests with a grain of salt. What lab or what test can truly convince the skeptic at heart?
 
Would be interesting to see you run a change using the OEM oil filter. This oil is working quite well in your Tundra. I might experiment with filters but I would not change a thing as for as the oil is concerned.
 
OP thanks for posting-great info

Pablo--this is not a single data point--look at he trend over the years, and Amsoil's trend does not compare favorably with the other filters.

As they say, you can make numbers do anything.................

Steve
 
Quote:
Based on this one test it doesn't appear that the Purolator Pure One is any better than the Mobil 1 filters, or the Amsoil filters.


As I've tried to communicate before, your testing confines will not show the differences and will probably favor shorter life filters.

It all has to do with holding capacity and the perception of efficiency ratings. If you would recycle the filters, you would eventually reach the ratings that the marketing end of things promotes at making them appear "best".

Even with advanced media, a filter with the higher holding capacity with a high efficiency rating will show poorly on shorter bouts ..on the front end of the curve.

A filter's life is on a curve. Your data clearly supports that. The filters aren't near their advertised levels until the end of life. All the filters that you're using are longer life filters.

Given your insoluble level there's no reason these filters were unsuitable for continued use (as much as that would shock some) ..at least for testing purposes. This is showing that under 10k of use (under your service conditions), there is no difference of significance.


UOA:
Noise levels on everything. The UA's are exceptionally low which (oddly) make your results (which are stellar) unremarkable. I don't know if I'd like the silicon ..but there's no AL and other related metals in any amount to suggest anything sinister. Outside of the elevation and drop in silicon with the air filter change, there's no indication that there was a problem.

I think that's the highest flashpoint I've ever seen. I have seen it return to virgin level with an increase in visc. That's easy enough to reason, but I'm pretty sure this is a record holder.
 
I'm a big picture guy. Just gimmee 5 quarts M1 EP and the M1-104 filter for $38 at AZ and I'm good to go 6-7 months and 4,500 miles.
 
Probably could research the standards given on particle counts, or search threads, but what do the numbers, say 1000, stand for in units? parts per volume, per weight, per million? Thank you. The counts do seem to progress logically, and over many tests. I do think it tells something because of that. It seems particles, solids, would be a toughy, like was said, from the mid pan stationary is different from filter outlet. It also seems particles will try and find the stagnant hiding places in engine nooks and crannies, and settle there awhile, trying not to be found or evicted.
 
Somewhat
32.gif


Particle counts are particle counts on a given volume of fluid. They employ a dilution factor on translucent fluids, I dunno about opaque. The standard is "a standard" so it's a comparative. That's how you get the ISO 14/17/etc.

This tests uses a membrane (pore blockage) and a fixed volume plunger. The upramp in pressure ..that curve, is modeled. It's not a optical counting of the particles. Some don't regard this as accurate, but I'd have to figure given the expense of the equipment and the need for getting PC on opaque fluids ..that it's not junk science. It may not be ideal, but it's got to produce something resembling actual particle counts. I'm sure that repeatability between this process and laser optical using translucent fluids on both were used to construct the software's interpretation of the pressure curve

You appear to be suggesting that the reason for a leveling off is due to some settling out. I see no reason to think that this is the case. I'm pretty sure that the previous M1 was in it's flat spot of its curve and would produce a decent up tick @ 15k. The previous EaO appear to not yet peak.

The early EaO's did poorly. I would like to call them flukes. I'd probably put any filter in the (optimally) 15k range potential. The EaO having the distinction of 25k potential. It's curve should be over a longer span of mileage. If used under one year, all three of these filters would be pretty much a waste of money.
 
More commentary from the OP:

I did this study for fun, not to satisfy any particular agenda (other than my own curiosity). Also - it's important to keep this information in perspective. ALL of these filters will do a fine job of protecting your engine.

One other reason I did this study is to try to obtain some useful data to discuss. It bugs me when I come across statements like, "Yeah, I installed brand X filter and it did a great job" etc., etc., without any data whatsoever to really indicate how well the filter really worked.

That said, Pablo and Gary Allan both have legitimate and valid criticisms of this study. To try to partially address Pablo's concern, I tried to use multiple samples of the Mobil 1 and Amsoil filters, and alternated between them. I agree with his statement that Blackstone's method is not a true count of particles within each range, but rather, extrapolated data. I do disagree that this fact makes the study worthless.

It is interesting, for example, that the first two Amsoil filters did so poorly. I have to agree with Gary Allan that there must have been something wrong with those two filters - i.e., the poor showing may have been a "fluke". Both those filters were purchased in the same order from Amsoil, making it likely they were produced from the same lot. Oil filters are certainly not a precision manufactured item, so variance among samples must be a common occurance, complicating getting repeatable and useful results in any study.

Also - to partially address Gary Allan's comment that I'm using the wrong type of filter for the short intervals - note that the Purolator is NOT marketed as an extended interval filter, plus it costs half what the Mobil 1 costs, and only a third what the Amsoil filter costs. Yet it did about as well as the others. I really want to stay away from any real el-cheapo filters as I don't want to harm the truck.

So - where to go from here? I'll do this for a couple more filters - as I indicated, the Royal Purple is currently on the vehicle - I may try one of those Bosch premium filters next.

As I said, I agree there are valid criticisms of this study. What I would like to see is for someone to take the lessons learned from this study, and to take it a couple steps further and start another study. I've tried to do everything I can to eliminate as many variables as I can in the study, short of operating the engine in a lab setting, and I certainly don't have the resources to do that (Although I would *love* to be able to try it!). Still, I've sunk over $800 worth of analysis services, and several years into this on my own - I'm sure others out there might have some good ideas for a better study. Any takers?
 
No better ideas. Just,thanks again,for your trouble and expense. The study is interesting to me,at least,and helped me conclude that my M1 EP and M1 filter was an acceptable choice for my use. Thanks,again!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top