This filter was a surprise. I expected it to be a private label version of a filter from one of the other manufacturers. What I got was Donaldson manufactured filter that is lower cost version of the Amsoil EaO11 Filter. It seems that Donaldson must be the manufacturer of the Amsoil filter.

This was a very well constructed filter that has two significant negatives in my opinion. First it has the dome end relief valve. Secondly it has a nitrile Anti-Drain Back Valve. Both components are well designed, but not of the type I prefer. The media appeared to be at least as good as the media used in the K&N, Mobil 1, and Denso Filters.

If you aren't concerned by the ADBV material and the relief valve location, this is a very good filter. I am uncomfortable using a filter with a nitrile ADBV on a Ford modular engine.

The Motorcraft MFL-820 Filter is a Mexican produced version of the original FL-820 Oil FIlter. It appears to be well made. The filter media is tightly bonded to the filter element caps. The caps themselves are steel. The inner filter support is also steel (perforated) and of a superior design to the FL-820S inner core. Unfortunately the Anti-Drain Back Valve appears to be nitrile. The relief valve is at the base end of the filter (Ford's preferred location) and is similar to the Wix style base end relief valve used in the Wix 51334 Honda Filter. The media appears to be ordinary cellulose. The media is very similar (the same?) as the media in the FL-820s, but there is more of it. It is my guess that this filter is produced by either Wix or Donaldson in Mexico.

The nitrile anti-drain back valve is the only negative for this filter. In applications where this is not important, I don't see any reason that this filter can't be used in place of the Motorcraft FL-820 Filter. As compensation for the nitrile ADBV, it does include more filter media and a stronger inner core.

This filter was donated to me. It was purchased from the Auto Barn. In cases of 12, it cost $3.95 ( http://www.autobarn.net/mot.html ). I would not use this filter, since, when shipping costs are included,  it is only a little less than a standard FL-820S Oil FIlter.

The Denso 150-1014 Oil Filter is a well made filter that is just a little different from the main stream “premium” filters (as opposed to the Amsoil Ea011 which is a lot different).  The media, relief valve, and anti-drain back valve are similar to the K&N HP-2010 and Mobil M1-210 Filters. The media is a little thinner (0.025"), but the surface area of the media is very good (comparable to the Wix 51372). Unfortunately the filter is expensive ($10.95 internet price not including shipping). The filter's price is in between the K&N and Mobil 1 Filter. I would rate its construction slightly ahead of those two filters, but all three are over-priced.

The unique features of the Denso 150-1014 Filter include:

1. Unique base gasket. The gasket is flat and thin except for a raised rounded section. Denso refers to this as a "Torque Stopper" and claims it makes proper installation and removal easier. The gasket is also pre-lubricated.
2. The base gasket is retained by having a section of the gasket fit under a flange formed in the base.
3. Stepped media. Most (all the other) filters have flutes (folds) in the media with a consistent depth. The Denso filter has groups of flutes with reduced depth spaced around the filter element. I have no idea why. Possibly it is designed to allow for better distribution of the oil flow.
4. Instead of gluing the ends of the filter media together like most other filters, Denso uses a metal clip to make the joint. They are not unique in using a metal clip (the Fram PH2, Fram TG2, and Amsoil Ea011 also use metal clips for this purpose). What is different is the location of the clip. The other filters that use the clip have it on the outside of the media. The Denso filter has it on the inside. I have no facts that allow me to say which location is better, but until I have a good reason to favor the internal location, I prefer the external clip design. I prefer glued joints over either metal clip location.
5. This is the only filter I have evaluated that was not made in the USA. It is made in Japan.

I believe this to be a very good filter, but it is over-priced in my opinion. And like most of the other filters I have evaluated, it has a dome end pressure relief valve. In my opinion, this makes the filter less desirable than the Motorcraft FL-820S. Since the Denso filter costs over three times as much as the Motorcraft FL-820S, I don't see any compelling reason to go out of your way to find this filter. If it was priced competitively with the FL-820S, I'd still prefer the FL-820S because of the relief valve design.

I would like to comment on the excellent Customer Service that Amsoil provided. I ordered the filter via the web on Tuesday night and it was waiting for me at home Thursday after work.

There is nothing cheap about this filter, either in cost or quality of construction. Despite this I am not in love with this filter.

The overall layout of this filter is very similar to most of the filters I have evaluated. However, the media is truly unique. Like the Mobil M1-210, Amsoil claims to use “synthetic” media. However, the Mobi1 "synthetic" media looks about the same as the cellulose media in the FL-820S. The same cannot be said for the "Full Synthetic Media" used in the Ea011 Filter. Not only is the Ea011 media a pure white color, it feels completely different. Unfortunately it also appears to be very soft and flexible, more like a cashmere sweater than the stiff paper-like filter media in the other “premium” filters. It also peels apart easily. These characteristics of the media appear to have forced some unique additions to the filter. The media is bonded to a stiff steel wire mesh which stiffens it considerably. And the joint between the ends of the media is sealed with a crimped metal clip, rather than being glued as is the case for most other “premium” filters. I like the wire reinforcement. I am not impressed with the metal clip joining the ends of the media. I am of the opinion that this joint might loosen under some condition and allow unfiltered oil to pass through. I am also not impressed with the surface area or total volume of the media.  The Ea011 has less than 60% of the surface area and total volume of the filter media in the M1-210 filter. If you combine this with the claimed high efficiency and tight micron rating, I cannot see how you can expect this filter to be good for 25,000 miles as claimed by Amsoil. It may be that the unique media has a very high capacity for holding contaminants, but I doubt it can hold two or three times the amount that the Mobil 1 M1-210 Filter can.

Like the M1-210 Filter, the Ea011 Filter has a dome end relief valve. The design of the relief valve is very similar to the M1-210 valve, but it appears to be made with better materials. I don't like the position of the valve, since I feel when the relief valve is open, oil will pass by the dirty side of the filter, through the relief valve, and into the engine. Not only will the oil be unfiltered in this scenario, it may actually pick-up additional contaminants as it flows past the dirty side of the filter.

The Anti-Drain Back Valve is the preferred silicone type. It is the best ADBV design of any filter I have evaluated, barely beating out the FL-820S ADBV for this “honor.”.

I was somewhat concerned that the base gasket was not properly retained. It was very easily removed despite the presence of a number of crimps around the gaskets OD. Amsoil claims that the gasket is lubricated to ensure easy removal. This appears to be the case.

The other components of the filter are all first rate. The base is very very heavy. The actual filter element end caps are solid. The inner metal core is an unusual and elaborate design that appears intended to direct the oil towards the outlet while imparting a swirling motion. I am not sure what this might do, but it is an interesting detail. Whether effective or not, it certainly gives the filter an air of technological superiority. The filter media was tightly potted in the ends caps. For the other filters I have taken apart, I was able to pull the end caps away from the inner core after I cut through the media. This was not the case with the Ea011 Filter. I had to saw through the inner core to get a look at the relief valve. Many other filters use a simple formed sheet metal spring to provide the force to hold the filter element to the base. The Ea011 filter used a heavy coil spring for this function. This provided a solid seal between the filter element and the base.

OK, so what's not to like? Well, first and foremost is the cost. Even without shipping this filter cost 60% more than the Mobil 1 M1-210 Filter and nearly five times as much as the FL-820S. The shipping cost for the Ea011 was more than the total cost of the FL-820S. Next, I am just not in love with the filter media. Amsoil claims a 98.7% filter efficiency at 15 microns, and this is very good. But is it necessary? And if this is true (and I have no reason to believe it isn't), it seems likely the media will load up with very small particles very quickly. If this is the case, I can't imagine the filter has enough capacity to go for 25,000 miles without going into bypass mode. And finally I am uneasy about using any filter on my Ford with the relief valve on the dome end of the filter. Ford wants it at the base end, and I believe that is where it should be.

Who might consider this filter? I think it might be a great break-in filter. I could see using it for the first 1000 miles on a freshly rebuilt engine. I could also see it being used by someone who changes oil frequently. I cannot see it being the best filter for extended oil changes, although this is exactly what Amsoil claims it is good for. I could be completely wrong in this impression. It all depends on the characteristics of the media The Ea011 media is unlike any  other media I have seen so far, and it may be that it is so much superior, that it can make up for it's lack of volume. The filter is so different I am having a hard time saying it is truly better. However, there is no doubt in my mind that this is one of the most expensive to manufacture filters. Only the Donaldson P550965 and Motorcraft FL-820S filter are close in terms of manufacturing costs.

I have seen it claimed on the internet that the Amsoil Ea011 filter is produced by Wix (Affinia Group). This seemed logical, since in addition to their private label filters, Amsoil is now also selling Wix filters (they used to sell Hastings fitlers). However, after evaluating the Donald P550965 Filter it is obvious that the Donaldson Filter and the Amsoil EaO11 Filter were manufactured by the same supplier. Since Donaldson claims to manufacture their filter, I assume they also manufacture the Amsoil FIlter. Donaldson is a major manufacturer of filter media. I believe Donaldson is responsible for the interesting media used in the Amsoil EaO11 Filter. Since filter manufacturers exchange production and parts, it is possible another company makes the Amsoil filter but I doubt it.

The construction of this filter was almost the same as the Fleetguard LF3681. However, the media was completely different and that makes this a very interesting filter. Fleetguard calls the media "StrataPore." It appears to be similar to the media used in the Amsoil EaO11 Oil Filter.The Fleetguard LF16002 filter has significantly more of this "synthetic" media than the Amsoil filter. Like the Ea011, the media is a pure white color and feels completely different than any other media. It is very soft and flexible, more like a cashmere sweater than the stiff paper-like filter media in the other “premium” filters. Like the EaO11 media, the media is bonded to a mesh which stiffens it considerably. The LF16002 mesh appears to be some sort of plastic, but appears to be similar to the EaO11 mesh otherwise. For the LF16002, the media is both glued and crimped at the joint (as opposed to the EaO11 media which was just crimped). The FL16002 filter has almost 60% more media surface area than the EaO11.  So, if you like the EaO11 media, you should love the LF16002.

Like the Ea011 Filter, the LF16002 has a dome end relief valve. The design of the relief valve is very similar to the EaO11 valve. I consider the dome end relief valve a negative, but not a mjor one.

The biggest drawback to the LF16002 FIlter is the nitrile Anti-Drain Back Valve. It is identical to the ADBV used by the cheaper Fleetguard LF3681 Filter. It is not even a particularly good nitrile design. This is the only factor that keeps me from recommending the LF16002 Filter. If you aren't concerned by this, and/or have an engine that is not sensitive to ADBV design, then this filter is worth considering.

This filter is a private label version of a Purolator filter sold by Pep Boys. It has reduced cost features when compared to the Purolator PureOne PL24651 and the Purolator Premium Plus L24651. The basic construction is the similar except for the following changes:

1. Thinner Media (0.24" vs 0.030" for the PL24651 and 0.24" for the L24651 )
2. Nitrile Anti-Drain Back Valve (Silicone for the PL24651 / Nitrile for the L24651)
3. Lower cost ($2.99 vs $3.24 for the L24651 and $5.88 for the PL24651)
4. Shorter lenght of media (78" vs 93" for the L24651 and PL24651)

The dome end relief valve and nitrile anti-drain back valve are negative features of this filter. So why would anyone pick this filter over the higher quality PL24651 or the slightly more expensive L24551? Cost is the only reason. If you are willing to go cheap and buy the Purolator L24651 Filter then you might as well buy this filter  or the Advance AA2 instead.There is less total filter media in the PPL-24651 and AA2 than in the L24651, but as long as you are changing your oil every 3000 miles, I don't think this will be a problem. The FL-820S is still a better choice than this filter even if cost is a major consideration.

This filter is a private label filter made in China by an unknow manufacturer. If the can was not labeled "Made in China" it would be easy to mistake this filter for a private label filter made by Purolator or Wix. The only odd thing about this filter was the density of the media. Although the media appearance is similar to other lower cost filters with cellulose media, the density is much greater. I believe this is a bad thing, but without flow rate information and filtering efficiency information, it is hard to know for sure. I see no reason to go out of your way to purchase this filter - even if you live in Canada.

This filter is another version of a Purolator filter. It has reduced cost features when compared to the Purolator PureOne PL24651 and the Purolator Premium Plus L24651. The basic construction is the similar except for the following changes:

1. Thinner Media (0.23" vs 0.030" for the PL24651 and 0.24" for the L24651 )
2. Nitrile Anti-Drain Back Valve (Silicone for the PL24651 / Nitrile for the L24651)
3. FIlter Can has a grip coating on the outside (all over, not just the end)
4. Lower cost ($2.88 vs $3.24 for the L24651 and $5.88 for the PL24651)
5. Inner Core is like the Motorcraft FL-820S, not like the L24651 and PL24651
6. Shorter lenght of media (80" vs 93" for the L24651 and PL24651)

The dome end relief valve and nitrile anti-drain back valve are negative features of this filter. So why would anyone pick this filter over the higher quality PL24651 or the slightly more expensive L24551? Cost is the only reason. If you are willing to go cheap and buy the Purolator L24651 Filter then you might as well buy this filter instead.There is less total filter media in the AA2 than in the L24651, but as long as you are changing your oil every 3000 miles, I don't think this will be a problem. The FL-820S is still a better choice than this filter even if cost is a major consideration.

The Fram TG2 is an upgraded and more expensive variation of the Fram PH2. The changes are:

1. Silicone Anti-drain back valve (same design, different material)
2. Improved filter media. The media is thicker, longer, and, according to the advertising, made from a "combination glass and synthetic media."
3. The pressure relief valve includes a wire mesh screen dome over the pressure relief valve. Fram claims this provides back-up filtration during cold operation. The mesh is so open it looks of dubious value to me.

This filter has the same cheap looking paper end caps as the PH2 that I believe are prone to leaking unfiltered oil past the media. I also think the anti-drain back valve is likely to let oil by-pass the filter element in many cases. And like most of the other filters, the relief valve is on the dome end. If you are willing to buy a filter of this quality, don't go half-way; buy the $1.50 Pro-Tec 159. The Pro-Tec 159’s filter media is not as good, but there is less chance of unfiltered oil by-passing the filter element.

This is the "Leading National Brand" filter that other manufacturers like to compare their filter to.

I have a hard time figuring out where to place this filter in the pantheon of FL-820S-like filters. The filter media is clearly superior to the Pro-Tec 159, but the PH2's paper end caps, cheap feeling anti-drain back valve, and weird relief valve are inferior to the comparable components in the much cheaper ProTec 159. The paper end caps are at least better bonded to the filter media than the Wal*Mart ST2's fabric end caps. And the Fram PH2 has separate anti-drain back and relief valves instead of the combo valve in the ST2.

Fram claims a 96% single pass and a 94% multi-pass filter efficiency for the PH2, but since they don't provide the micron rating, I have no idea what that means. I am sure it is 100% efficient at removing marbles. (Note - The efficiency rating is actually based on measurements of the larger PH8A).

The relief valve is different from anything else I have seen (except for the Fram TG2). It is mounted in the top retainer leaf spring. It fits the upper paper end cap relatively well, but I believe there is some leakage of dirty oil around the relief valve body during normal operation. Likewise, I suspect there is some leakage past the paper end cap at the base end. The paper end caps are relatively flexible, as is the ADBV. I believe that they will deform enough to allow some leakage under normal operating conditions.

The filter can includes flats for a cap wrench and an anti-slip coating, which are nice features, but they don't effect the actual filtering performance. It also appears the base gasket includes a lubricant which is a nice feature. Unfortunately it is only loosely retained to the base.

Since the Fram PH2 filter cost more than a Motorcraft FL-820S and is clearly inferior, I can't see any reason to purchase it. This filter is proof that advertising works!