Quote:
Originally Posted by motorking
So tell us why Mr. Amsoil dealer? Tell all of us how the amsoil filter stacks up to the Fram Extended Guard filter in efficiency, capacity, construction and retail price? If you need help, I can tell them, you have a lower filtering efficiency, lower dirt trapping capacity, a retail price that is 30-50% higher, a piece of perforated plastic holding up the media.
Our efficiency is a little higher, the ability to trap and hold dirt exceeds the amsoil filter by 3 grams, we use a stainless steel screen to support the filter media, your filter uses flimsy plastic.
As far as the "study" you all keep referring to, there is no part of that study where the guy actually tests the filters for well, Filtration!. He is a fan of old mopar K cars cutting open filters and offering a very unqualified opinion, nothing more. There is no part of the study where he tests filtering efficiency or capacity.
To the poster, if you want to try a state of the art extended life oil filter, email you address to me at Jay.Buckley@honeywell.com and I will send you a case of them. |
The above video was conducted by an individual who took apart many oil filters made by some of the leading manufacturers in oil filtration. In his channel, you will see that he disassembled Wix, Purolator, Bosch, Mopar, Fram, STP, Mobil 1, and Microgard oil filters. From the video, you can see that the filter housing was the thickest, the anti-drainback valve was the largest, and the filter media was held together my metal end caps. I don't see any perforated plastic anywhere.
Here is an exploded view of an EaO oil filter:
Also, Amsoil's EaO oil filters have 98.7% filtering efficiency at 15 microns (ISO 4548-12). Looking at the Fram Extended Guard oil filter, I see they have 97% filtering efficiency, also according to ISO 4548-12, but for particles greater than 20 microns.
The only thing you were correct about, was the price. However, its obvious you get what you pay for.