Amsoil Eao Oil Filter test results: incredible!

[georgeseq]

Certainly cost vs. reward should enter the equation. There are those of us that simply want to "use the best" in our high cost vehicles. From a lube engineer's perspective, I have experienced again and again the long term benefits of "clean oil" vs. not so clean. And the price vs. overall cost scenario.

So, yes, for someone who wishes to use the lowest priced oil and filters, the Amsoil EaO oil filter is not for you..... Note, I did not say "lowest cost"...

For that person who wants to have the absolute best oil filter at a reasonable (to me) cost of around $12.00 and then use it for 10,000 mile drain intervals, then the EaO filter is *the* filter at this point in time. And no, the EaO filters are not as readily available as WalMart goods, so, again, definitely not for everyone.....
George Morrison, STLE CLS
(NOT an Amsoil dealer, never have been: no association whatever other than now using their oil filters)

[DJ]

And, keeping your oil clean is the cheapest engine longevity insurance you can buy.

Consider it in terms of cost per mile. As a "back of the envelope" check, consider driving 150,000 miles and changing the oil every 5,000 miles. Using the Amsoil filter ($15 or so) vs. the OEM Toyota filter ($5 or so) costs an extra $300 or so over those miles, which is an additional cost of 0.2 cents per mile. Compare that to the cost of gas. At 17 miles per gallon and $2.25 per gallon, that's about 13 cents per mile.

Methinks the additional cost for the additional insurance is peanuts.

Now, consider the advantages when you finally sell the vehicle. Look at it from the point of view of a prospective buyer. If he can buy two vehicles, namely yours and one other, that are identical in all respects except that yours has had exceptional care of the engine oil, which of the two would he want? Would he pay an additional $300 or more for yours?

There is no substitute for good maintenance, and sometimes the benefits are a mite hidden. But they are real.

[bikol-ini]

heres pix of my amsoil dual filtration,

[Hugemoose]

Originally Posted by bikol-ini

heres pix of my amsoil dual filtration,

If I had the 200 bucks to spend I'd get me one of those. Very nice little systems! Love the idea and I'm sure it looks good if you try to sell the truck too.

[rcbuzzb]

"..costs an extra $300 or so over those miles.."

Would it not require less frequent intervals? (Better numbers then, from both fewer filters and less quarts?)

[DJ]

Originally Posted by rcbuzzb

"..costs an extra $300 or so over those miles.."

Would it not require less frequent intervals? (Better numbers then, from both fewer filters and less quarts?)

What it "requires" is an endless argument in which I will not participate.

My comment was:

Consider it in terms of cost per mile. As a "back of the envelope" check, consider driving 150,000 miles and changing the oil every 5,000 miles.

My "back of the envelope" check showed that the additional cost of using the Amsoil filter vs. the Toyota OEM filter was, as an engineer might say, "buried in the noise". As additional longevity insurance for an engine, George's enthusiasm is well founded. At my average driving rate of 50 miles per day, the additional cost is ten cents per day. I think I can stand that.

[jeffb]

interesting stuff here.

curious to know how the additional filtration is demonstrated to be actually beneficial.
or to say, at what point is "clean" clean enough..
I am not disputing the numerical demonstration of benefits, but does the motor know the difference?
If it does, at what point does the return meet the investment?
200k?300k?
The best for the sake of the best is a respectable end , one that we see less and less of in manufacturing these days, but then the market seems to have shifted to value. Tool "a" or appliance "b" is engineered sufficiently to adequately perfom in it's most likely implementation.

New Car-itis fades as door dings dimple, coffee dribbles, and children ooze.
Commitments wane. I question after a time how many actually address maintenance without a presenting issue. Not all, or even many, are like the hounds patrolling these pages that we are.

We need these products on our shelves for the collective good: Conservation
above all.I can credit card an Amsoil product faster than a 5 mile drive to wal-mart, yet I do business on foot more often than not. If they were there I would be more inclined to buy them, but not. Demand would increase, production would rise, costs decrease, but not... The "free" market has a drawback or two, just glancing this way...oh well

[THarms]

Originally Posted by jeffb

interesting stuff here.

curious to know how the additional filtration is demonstrated to be actually beneficial.
or to say, at what point is "clean" clean enough..
I am not disputing the numerical demonstration of benefits, but does the motor know the difference?

In general, particles less than 10µ are too small to do damage as they stay hydrodynamic in the oil layer between the piston and the cylinder wall or in the oil layer formed between the bearing and the bearing race in other parts of the engine. For particles sizes above 10µ, it comes down to a combination of size, the actual count of particles, and the composition/hardness of the particles in the fluid that drives the wear rates.

[GPtimes2]

If this is represenative of microns (witch I assume it is since Georges test uses this measure)-

In general, particles less than 10µ are too small to do damage

And we revisit his results-

Results:

OEM oil Filter Amsoil EaO Filter
>4 microns= 1817 particles/ML 128 particles/ML
>6 microns= 990 particles/ML 70 particles/ML
>14 microns = 168 particles/ML 12 particles/Ml
>25 microns = 34 particles/Ml 2 particles/ML
>50 microns = 3 particles/ML 0 particles/Ml

Then it looks like the Eao is doing a significant job of getting rid of the big stuff.
I say thanks George for your efforts (I have seen your reports on the deisel truck forums, witch were very usefull to me)!

[mln]

Do they make these for the 5.7L yet?

[mln]

Originally Posted by mln

Do they make these for the 5.7L yet?

I just got off the phone with Amsoil. There is no EAO oil filter available for the 5.7L engine. They didn't even know if they were going to make one.

[THarms]

Originally Posted by mln

I just got off the phone with Amsoil. There is no EAO oil filter available for the 5.7L engine. They didn't even know if they were going to make one.

Trust me... if there is a growing mkt for the Eao filter for the 5.7L engine, Amsoil will have a filter made for it within a matter of time. Give them 6-9mths and check back.

[ktate2002]

Originally Posted by georgeseq

I just completed a real world test comparing the new Amsoil EaO 57 oil filter vs. our OEM oil filter. Ran the OEM filter 1550 miles and captured an engine oil sample and ran a particle count on that oil. Changed the filter (only, not oil) and installed an Amsoil EaO 57 oil filter and then ran 1550 miles, again, sampled, ran analysis..

Results:

OEM oil Filter Amsoil EaO Filter
>4 microns= 1817 particles/ML 128 particles/ML
>6 microns= 990 particles/ML 70 particles/ML
>14 microns = 168 particles/ML 12 particles/Ml
>25 microns = 34 particles/Ml 2 particles/ML
>50 microns = 3 particles/ML 0 particles/Ml

Thus the Eao yielded over a 93% reduction in particulates vs. the OEM oil filter... The ISO cleanliness levels were 18/17/15 for the OEM and 14/13/11 for the Amsoil EaO filter. From a lube engineer's perspective, if I can reduce the ISO cleanliness one or two numbers, I am very happy. To achieve a 4 reduction over a quality oil filter, incredible... The used oil from my Sequoia was cleaner than the oil that came out of the quarts I used to fill the engine!
My Sequoia has 160,000 miles on it, original owner/driver/ME.......
NOTE: I do not now nor ever have had any affiliation with Amsoil.. My paycheck is relative to several major oil brands, who make filter also, but nothing with the performance level of the EaO.....
Simply the best oil filter currently available, from my testing and experience, by a huge, huge margin.
George Morrison, STLE CLS

I don't have a full appreciation for the proper protocol in posting yet, so please understand I don't intend to upset anyone. I'm not an engineer, but isn't this experiment flawed from the start? It would seem to me that the majority of particulates, especially the larger ones, were in fact captured by the OEM filter, thus unfair advantage was given to the Amsoil filter. What are you thoughts on this position?

[georgeseq]

Regarding the excellent comment "but isn't this experiment flawed from the start? It would seem to me that the majority of particulates, especially the larger ones, were in fact captured by the OEM filter, thus unfair advantage was given to the Amsoil filter. What are you thoughts on this position?"

What we are analyzing here is a dynamic system which is continually creating a full spectrum of wear and contamination particles. The OEM filter captured what it was able to capture from the system. However, the large particles are not "gone" forever from the system. They are constantly being created. So when I sampled the EaO, its spectrum of capture related what its affect on a system which is constantly creating the same levels of contaminants the Eao filter's performance is then directly relatable to the performance of the OEM filter.
In other words, from my many years of experience with working hydraulic and engine systems which constantly create a spectrum of wear metals and contaminants at a very predictable rate, the test (although I would not use the results to write a PhD paper!) confirm what was a recognized potential filtration efficiency with the full microglass EaO vs. the accepted performance of a paper element.
So normally I would not have even published the results but the one analysis did confirm accepted performance of each types of filter medium.
Again, good question......
George Morrison, STLE CLS

[DJ]

Good answer, George.

Testing the oil measures what is in the oil, not what has been removed by the filter. So, the simple fact that the particle concentration declined at all sizes of particles when the OEM filter was replaced by the Amsoil filter means that the Amsoil filter removes the contaminants at a faster rate than they are generated by the engine, and that means the particle contamination should not build up over time, at least until the filter becomes clogged. The fact that the particle contamination is extremely low with the Amsoil filter means that it is very efficient at removing contaminants. The fact that the "knee of the curve" (of concentration of particle vs size of particle) is at a very small particle size means that the Amsoil filter is efficient even at very small particle sizes.

Damned near the ideal filter, ain't it?

I'm now running it on my '00 Tundra (96,xxx miles) and my wife's '01 Sequoia (65,xxx miles) and I've lengthened the oil change interval to 5,000 miles, both running Mobil 1 Truck and SUV at 5W-30. I just might get it tested at the next change.