FRAM vs AMSOIL

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
232
Location
South Texas
The FRAM synthetic blend XG7317 vs the AMSOIL full synthetic EaO13.

Dyson Analysis has been selected to complete the VOA and subsequent UOA's.

Royal Purple 5W40 from the same case of oil will be used for the initial VOA and both OCI's.

The vehicle is a 2007 Honda Pilot with a 3.5L iVTEC (Variable Cylinder Management) V-6 engine and 17996 miles at the OCI when I installed the FRAM XG7317. I also replaced the air filter with the basic FRAM offering and will replace it again at the next OCI.

I will pull a UOA sample at 3000/6000 miles with the XG7317 filter, change the oil and air filter, install the EaO13 filter and repeat the 3000/6000 mile UOA's.

Fair enough?

oilfilters11ak2.jpg


oilfilters12jm4.jpg


oilfilters13ng5.jpg


oilfilters14xb6.jpg
 
Quote:


Fair enough?




It would appear to be so. Will the UOA include particle counts?


..and can you make your images just a little bit bigger?
laugh.gif
(there's a "resize image" option with "for message boards" when you upload - btw. The thumbnail feature is also an option. I haven't had to use a "carriage return" since 1969 in typing class"
wink.gif
cheers.gif
 
Quote:


Quote:


Fair enough?




It would appear to be so. Will the UOA include particle counts?


..and can you make your images just a little bit bigger?
laugh.gif
(there's a "resize image" option with "for message boards" when you upload - btw. The thumbnail feature is also an option. I haven't had to use a "carriage return" since 1969 in typing class"
wink.gif
cheers.gif




nopics.gif

BIG PICS! LOL! Yeah image shack isn't reducing the images enough so I'll have to change the camera resolution.

The XG7317 is advertised as having 96% efficiency @ 10-20 microns, using the older SAE HS806 single pass test.
The EaO13 is advertised as having 98.7% efficiency @ 15 microns, using the newer ISO 4548-12 multi-pass test.

It's hard to compare the advertised efficiencies since the ratings were achieved using different test methods.
So I'll have a particle count done at the 6000 mile UOA's for each filter.

I'll update this thread with the raw data as it comes in.
 
Quote:


Quote:


Fair enough?




It would appear to be so. Will the UOA include particle counts?


..and can you make your images just a little bit bigger?
laugh.gif
(there's a "resize image" option with "for message boards" when you upload - btw. The thumbnail feature is also an option. I haven't had to use a "carriage return" since 1969 in typing class"
wink.gif
cheers.gif





Are any of the UOA outfits doing real(*) particle counts for a reasonable price.

(*) As opposed to counting at one micron level then extrapolating for the other micron levels like one company was cought doing here a year or so ago.
 
Probably not. The device used to determine particle count calculated the injection rate and amplitude of pressure build up over a fixed volume (Blackstone's) for opaque fluids (although I'm surely saying this wrong). That is, a multi-dimensional view of the change and rate of change. I imagine that the software that interprets the results was surely verified with optical methods to assemble some reasonable facsimile.

My B-S results, if just a calculation, had a drift of between 3X and 4X in progression as you went smaller beyond the first indicated particle. (iirc)

Something like

1
9
25
93
245
1400 (all pulled out of my behind)

I'm not a math wiz ..so I could find no fancy way to get these results.
dunno.gif
 
offtopic.gif
Curiousity question...Why did you chose R.P. 5w40 for that particular engine?

Given the cost differential of those filters, I look forward to your data as well...
cheers.gif
 
Quote:


Probably not. The device used to determine particle count calculated the injection rate and amplitude of pressure build up over a fixed volume (Blackstone's) for opaque fluids (although I'm surely saying this wrong). That is, a multi-dimensional view of the change and rate of change. I imagine that the software that interprets the results was surely verified with optical methods to assemble some reasonable facsimile.






The problem is, (other than the ethics of dry labbing part of a report) is that differnt types of filtration media will have different particle size profiles. At two extremes, a wire mesh will have near absolute cutoff above some particle size while a depth media will have aless absolute cutoff but catch more of the smaller stuff.

For someone using that type of a particle test to compare different filters, the results could be misleading.
 
I don't care for the construction quality of most Frams, but that XG type looks very nicely built. It will be interesting to see your data. My bet is that in normal use you are unlikely to find statistically meaningful differences in results.
 
Quote:


Quote:


Probably not. The device used to determine particle count calculated the injection rate and amplitude of pressure build up over a fixed volume (Blackstone's) for opaque fluids (although I'm surely saying this wrong). That is, a multi-dimensional view of the change and rate of change. I imagine that the software that interprets the results was surely verified with optical methods to assemble some reasonable facsimile.






The problem is, (other than the ethics of dry labbing part of a report) is that differnt types of filtration media will have different particle size profiles. At two extremes, a wire mesh will have near absolute cutoff above some particle size while a depth media will have aless absolute cutoff but catch more of the smaller stuff.

For someone using that type of a particle test to compare different filters, the results could be misleading.




And let us not forget to include particle shape in this equation and the way that shape travels through the media. In a perfect world, all would be perfect spheres.
 
Oh, I agree with many of the objections to non-optical particle count methods ..but I also imagine that the rest of the industry is also limited by those same challenges with opaque fluids ..and I'd figure that some reasonable model was fashioned to reflect a near "real" profile. On the surface it would appear rather numb.

The alternative is the added expense of dilution to translucency, which, as you've mentioned, makes for an expensive test.


Come on, Pete, pull in some favors and do some black bag work for the good of the team (yeah, I know, what's this we stuff, whiteman
grin.gif
)

laugh.gif
 
Are any of the UOA outfits doing real(*) particle counts for a reasonable price.
(*) As opposed to counting at one micron level then extrapolating for the other micron levels like one company was cought doing here a year or so ago.



The particle count is currently $60.00 in addition to the Dyson UOA, and yes there can be issues with used oil particle counts. So I will rely on Terry's experience to guide and of course he will have my permission to share his thoughts on my raw data in this forum.
 
Quote:


offtopic.gif
Curiousity question...Why did you chose R.P. 5w40 for that particular engine?



In short, I have fellow mechanics who believe in the manufacturers recommendations and I don't. So if the engine doesn't like the heavier oil, the UOA's and Terry's interpretation should show a trend one way or the other...
 
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
crazy.gif




$9.97 for the XG7317, $12.65 for the EaO13 (preferred customer) or $16.65 retail.

Honestly, I like the full synthetic media and bypass valve design of the EaO13, so why do this? I need a hobby and this is far cheaper than my old one!
 
Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


Probably not. The device used to determine particle count calculated the injection rate and amplitude of pressure build up over a fixed volume (Blackstone's) for opaque fluids (although I'm surely saying this wrong). That is, a multi-dimensional view of the change and rate of change. I imagine that the software that interprets the results was surely verified with optical methods to assemble some reasonable facsimile.






The problem is, (other than the ethics of dry labbing part of a report) is that differnt types of filtration media will have different particle size profiles. At two extremes, a wire mesh will have near absolute cutoff above some particle size while a depth media will have aless absolute cutoff but catch more of the smaller stuff.

For someone using that type of a particle test to compare different filters, the results could be misleading.




And let us not forget to include particle shape in this equation and the way that shape travels through the media. In a perfect world, all would be perfect spheres.



Good points everyone, but this may be where my choice of a "particle generator" has an advantage over the laboratory grade particles used in filter tests. Unless my choice of oil starts causing wear problems, it should generate consistent particle sizes for the duration of both test runs.
 
In my opinion, Amsoil are the best for micron-particle filtering.... followed by Mobil-1 EP's. The Fram is designed to generate sales from Pure One or Wix/Napa Gold purchasers.
 
Microsoft has a image resize "toy". MS has it at their website. Once installed, all you do is 'right' click, and the menu will now have the option to resize, and you can pick a few smaller sizes. Even the larger size is more than adequate for forums AND they load a lot faster as well.
Called "powertoys" for Windows XP.

PS It's free and works very well.
grin.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top