[DJ]

"..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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[georgeseq]

Yes, and I very much like the "knee of the curve" at the 10 micron region in that when one starts to get *really* low on microns, (below 5 microns generally accepted) one can begin to filter VI improver. So, the 10 micron "knee" is excellent.
Some MIT type did an inside study for Detroit some years ago and the 10 to 30 micron particulate size was deemed "the killer" particulate range for diesel engines. And with our hydrodynamic lubrication, that size spectrum makes sense in terms of increasing wear rates.
So, I am quite happy with a pretty close to beta 200 (absolute) 10 micron oil filter.
George Morrison, STLE CLS
NOT an Amsoil dealer, no affiliation whatever..... Just an EaO user with Mobil 1 stamped on my forehead.....

 

[ktate2002]

Thank you George. I recognized my oversight...I wasn't looking beyond the filter! Appreciate the explanation.

 

[mln]

Suggestions to were we can have our oil analyzed George?

 

[georgeseq]

One place I am rather partial to is index, primarily in that I get back results and we can then discuss. And I work there.. Hopefully no conflict of interest... The problem with oil analysis results is they can be a bunch of meaningless numbers and not easily interpreted. I review between 200 and 300 a day so the numbers begin to take on meaning. There are many other labs in the U.S., Amsoil being associated with one whose name escapes me at this moment.

More importantly is the sample capture procedure. A sterile four ounce sample bottle is included in the kit. Keep the top on until the last minute of capture. There are two ways of capturing a sample: either during an oil change or with a 'thief', a vacuum device specifically designed to obtain a sample through the dipstick with no mechanicals touching the engine oils.

If sampled during an oil change, we do NOT want the first oil out of the hole, nor the oil from the filter. We want to see what the engine is seeing, so a mid-stream sample is the name of the game. Remove the plug, let a quart or so flow out then stick the bottle into and out of the stream. Cap immediately and you now have a representative engine oil sample. Fill out the info, UPS or Fedex (never mail: takes forever!) and in a few days you will have an e-mail back with your results.
Which oil sample kit? The basic $16.00 is all one needs unless one is going to do particle counts as I did, then it is considerably more in that now a human being is involved in the process.

George Morrison, STLE CLS

 

[DJ]

My '00 Tundra has 97,2xx miles on it and I've been using Mobil 1 5W-30 Truck & SUV oil for a long time now. I've been running the EAO57 Amsoil filter since the last change, about 2,200 miles ago.

The difference between using the Amsoil filter and the Toyota OEM filter is clearly visible just by looking at the oil on the dipstick. The oil looks like I just put it in. It is clear and light gold in color, with no sign whatever of the darkening that occurred by this many miles when using the Toyota filter.

My '01 Sequoia has 66,1xx miles on it, using the same oil and filter. The oil on its dispstick looks exactly like that on the Tundra's.

That means the darkening they usually experienced was not deterioration of the oil, it was crud in the oil, which the Amsoil filter removes but the Toyota filter doesn't.

I'm sold.

It's gonna be interesting to see the difference at 5,000 miles.

 

[2000LtdKen]

George,

I was looking at this filter on the Amsoil website. They say you can go 25k miles using this filter along with the Amsoil engine oils. Do you think I can go that distance using Mobil 1 and the Eao filter?

Thanks,

Ken

 

[2000LtdKen]

I am running Amsoil 5w-30 and EAO filter. After 3000 miles my oil also looks golden on the dipstick. Anyone else using these filters?

Ken

 

[ericb]

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.

Now THIS is what the focus should be. Think of the huge reduction in the consumption of petroleum products if everyone used a superior oil filter and extended the change intervals! Not only would we be using a finite resource at a reduced rate, but we would also lower the by-products of the refining process. I've heard that the standard in Europe is 10K oil changes and they've done that by raising the specs for motor oils so they last longer.

 

[HOGWILD]

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.

Give them time i am sure they will be along soon!

 

[HJSimpson]

I am running Amsoil 5w-30 and EAO filter. After 3000 miles my oil also looks golden on the dipstick. Anyone else using these filters?

Ken

I have 80,000 miles on my 2003. I just ran a Amsoil EaO57 filter and 0w-30 oil for 14,700 miles, almost one year. Had the oil analyzed by Blackstone. TBN was 2.2, you want it over 1.0. It starts around 12 and goes down over time. Elemental analysis was normal. Silicon was a touch high, but I work at a chemical plant that manufactures sub-micron silica, go figure. I change oil once/year but have the analysis done so I can catch any problems that develop.

The analysis is postmortem (at oil change). So I am open to some risk during the year if problems develop a few months in. I could crawl under the truck and sample every 3-6 months for monitoring. But, I would rather change it while I was under there and use less expensive oil.