[Cut Open] Microgreen 301-1

[Nate1979]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
They give blanket ISO spec on their website & claim 2

The tester- DBmaster and I already posted that on another thread and you know this.


Remember the rock catcher thread? Te thread where Nate and you said Bypass level filtration was "hogwash and couldn't have any effect on TBN - then you recanted and Nate went away after Z06 agreed with me.



UD

What is the ISO spec on their website? I don't find it. List it here for all of us.

Bypass level filtration doesn't affect TBN in a gas engine. Still don't agree with that. Filtering out particles does not have an affect on the chemistry of acids/bases that directly change the TBN. Bypass level filtration on a diesel which may remove soot will help prevent the TBN from falling faster because soot can cause acid formation.

If you have a reference that bypass filtration affects TBN in a gas engine post it again. I must have missed it.



Dnewton talks about this at length in the bypass forum. let your fingers do some walking and read up about how it works.

They claim 2 micron filtering - thats their spec.

They claim a blanket ISO filtration spec 4548 on their site. not " - ". (we've gone over this)

http://www.microgreenfilter.com/microgreen_element_oil_filter


are you refuting DB masters blackstone tests?

If you guys don't like it thats one thing - but refuting 3rd party tests is an interesting stance.

Seems like you guys pick and choose which 3rd party claim verifications you like and those you don't.

The filter either performed as claimed or it didnt.

DB master put his money where his mouth is and demonstrated it did.

...any other filter do what he did?

UD





My problem with your statement is that you are giving proof to MG filter with a single data point with no control or comparison to other filters or oils.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3884986/1

This is not proof. This is an single anecdotal point.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
anyone can say anything.


Exactly, and in this case the manufacturer is saying "This includes testing under ISO protocol ISO-4548" which you are defending to the death in this thread as meaning something, which it does not.

Complete the sentence game:

"This includes testing under ISO protocol ISO-4548" but we didn't test the filtration part of that test.

"This includes testing under ISO protocol ISO-4548" but we only did the parts that showed us what we wanted to see.

"This includes testing under ISO protocol ISO-4548" but the results were so poor that we aren't going to publish them.

"This includes testing under ISO protocol ISO-4548" and the results were mediocre.

"This includes testing under ISO protocol ISO-4548" but we only did the protocol part and not the actual test.

"This includes testing under ISO protocol ISO-4548" and the results were spectacular but we aren't going to tell anyone what the actual results were.

Which one is it?

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
My problem with your statement is that you are giving proof to MG filter with a single data point with no control or comparison to other filters or oils.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3884986/1

This is not proof. This is an single anecdotal point.


OK, I went back and re-read that thread. That's the one that is being held up here as proof that Microgreen filters perform at some specified level?

One UOA on one engine? Not that a UOA would tell anything anyway, but that has nothing that makes or breaks a case for the filter. All that UOA says is that it doesn't appear the engine is suffering from any obvious problems (that might be revealed by a UOA), and there is no coolant nor excessive fuel in the oil. That is it.

 

[kschachn]

Never mind. It's not worth beating the horse any more.

 

[ZeeOSix]

spasm3 emailed MicroGreen asking for efficiency numbers.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4079512/Re:_[Cut_Open]_Microgreen_301-#Post4079512

 

[DBMaster]

I'm not really into all this dissection of filter specs or UOA. That was my first UOA, ever. All I wanted to find out was if the oil was still serviceable after 30,000 miles. I would not be at all surprised to learn that there are other filters, if changed at 10,000 mile intervals, that would result in having serviceable oil after 30,000 miles. My thought was that it was safer to go with a filter that at least CLAIMED that capability and had some real world experience.

I liked the idea of cutting down on the waste oil stream I created. A regional Amsoil guy told me that an automobile engine would have a tough time "wearing out" a synthetic oil. You have to change it mostly because it gets dirty or the additives are depleted.

Producing meaningful study results definitely takes more than a sample size of one, of course. I did not set out to do anything beyond deciding whether or not to follow this regimen in the future, which I am doing.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
My problem with your statement is that you are giving proof to MG filter with a single data point with no control or comparison to other filters or oils.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3884986/1

This is not proof. This is an single anecdotal point.


OK, I went back and re-read that thread. That's the one that is being held up here as proof that Microgreen filters perform at some specified level?

One UOA on one engine? Not that a UOA would tell anything anyway, but that has nothing that makes or breaks a case for the filter. All that UOA says is that it doesn't appear the engine is suffering from any obvious problems (that might be revealed by a UOA), and there is no coolant nor excessive fuel in the oil. That is it.


Show me a UOA that proves their marketing is wrong or erroneous - just one.

The things been around of years and no one has showed that it doesnt work as claimed.

We've got more evidence it works as claimed than not. I'd be happy to laugh it off it testing showed it didnt work as claimed.

Whats all the "finish the sentence" folderol about?

I would think a bunch of data driven guys would be more interested in checking it out.


UD

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
[Show me a UOA that proves their marketing is wrong or erroneous - just one.

The things been around of years and no one has showed that it doesnt work as claimed.

We've got more evidence it works as claimed than not. I'd be happy to laugh it off it testing showed it didnt work as claimed.

Whats all the "finish the sentence" folderol about?

I would think a bunch of data driven guys would be more interested in checking it out.


I'm not sure if you are deliberately being obtuse on the whole Blackstone-type UOA thing, or you actually do believe it is an appropriate tool for demonstrating the performance of this or any oil filter. It is not. So from that standpoint your challenge for someone to produce one that proves their marketing claims are false is a meaningless statement.

The real question is where are the multi/single-pass filtration tests that demonstrate the filtering capabilities of the filter? Perhaps you would rather continue asking for something that is meaningless, I don't really know.

And to your point that the things have been around for years and no one has shown that they don't work as advertised should be rephrased to say that no one has shown that they do work as advertised. Apparently not even the manufacturer thinks they do since they give no data on their product (and decline to do so when asked).

My "finish the sentence" statements show the uselessness of their claim as posted on the website. It would be akin to a pharmaceutical company saying "We tested this drug" without ever providing the results of the test to the FDA. So along that line, which of my statements in that list is the correct one?

 

[goodtimes]

Fram says they do the multi pass efficiency test in four hours. That is like driving 240 miles at 60mph. I will throw a fly in the mix by saying that is too much debris added in too short of a time to rate an oil filter's efficiency correctly. In a 6k OCI running at 60mph steady, which is very conservative use, no idling etc, gives 100 hours of filtering. Four and a hundred hours aren't giving the same real time efficiency result the way I see it. Now Walmart is even on the efficiency game with 95% on the box. I also see they say beta of 75 is the max for the test abilities, which is 98.67%.
Plus the test is run in four hours which loads the filter with debris to the point of an increased delta p. Or in other words, not the way most people here use a filter.

http://www.framcatalog.com/RelatedInfo.aspx?b=F&f=FRAM/2Now_a_Fluid_Filter_Rating.pdf

 

[WellOiled]

Kohen - thanks for the cut & post.

 

[WellOiled]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
My problem with your statement is that you are giving proof to MG filter with a single data point with no control or comparison to other filters or oils.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3884986/1

This is not proof. This is an single anecdotal point.


OK, I went back and re-read that thread. That's the one that is being held up here as proof that Microgreen filters perform at some specified level?

One UOA on one engine? Not that a UOA would tell anything anyway, but that has nothing that makes or breaks a case for the filter. All that UOA says is that it doesn't appear the engine is suffering from any obvious problems (that might be revealed by a UOA), and there is no coolant nor excessive fuel in the oil. That is it.

Kschachn - thanks for writing truth. All filter manufacturers should submit their product to current filter test standards and make the results available. The UOA is not the correct tool for proper oil filter evaluation.

 

[UncleDave]

The real question is does the MG perform to it's claim or not.

Anything else subterfuge- you can inject all kind of other questions, but their claim is whats being addressed - not a litany of the standards.

Remember the claim MG makes is that you will have serviceable oil to 30K with 3 filters.

There seems to be an concerted effort to change their claim to a filtering standard.

We have at least one documented series of tests with our pet lab that sows it performs as advertised - you can say anything you want, but the tests we have shows it works.

Why is it the test data we do have is so cavalierly thrown out or minimized?



UD

 

[WellOiled]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Fram says they do the multi pass efficiency test in four hours. That is like driving 240 miles at 60mph. I will throw a fly in the mix by saying that is too much debris added in too short of a time to rate an oil filter's efficiency correctly. In a 6k OCI running at 60mph steady, which is very conservative use, no idling etc, gives 100 hours of filtering. Four and a hundred hours aren't giving the same real time efficiency result the way I see it. Now Walmart is even on the efficiency game with 95% on the box. I also see they say beta of 75 is the max for the test abilities, which is 98.67%.
Plus the test is run in four hours which loads the filter with debris to the point of an increased delta p. Or in other words, not the way most people here use a filter.

http://www.framcatalog.com/RelatedInfo.aspx?b=F&f=FRAM/2Now_a_Fluid_Filter_Rating.pdf

Goodtimes - thanks for the post and link. The paper is 10 years old. I submit that particle counters have improved in the last 10 years.

In order to design and produce quality products companies have to resort to accelerated testing to stay on time and budget as well as stay competitive. Accelerated testing is here to stay.

I applaud companies like Fram who test their product using current industry test standards. All the other filter makers should do the same. This way people potentially can make better purchasing choices.

 

[UncleDave]

Whats is frams test procedure for their 2 stage filters- or filters with a built in bypass?

UD

 

[WellOiled]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Whats is frams test procedure for their 2 stage filters- or filters with a built in bypass?

UD

UncleDave - to my knowledge Fram does not offer a combined full flow filter with a bypass filter.

The test is not a Fram test, it is an industry standard test. The test could be run on any filter.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
The real question is does the MG perform to it's claim or not.
The real question (which has been posed in earlier posts) is if the added oil that happens due to the two filter changes during the 30K is what extended the TBN to the point of being able to run the oil 30K as opposed to the filter itself.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
We have at least one documented series of tests with our pet lab that shows it performs as advertised - you can say anything you want, but the tests we have shows it works.

Why is it the test data we do have is so cavalierly thrown out or minimized?


Nah, it doesn't as I have pointed out repeatedly as have others in this thread. You apparently have some other, higher reason for believing that it does or you wouldn't continue to try and make the point.

You are illustrating the target audience this filter is marketed to, however.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
The real question is does the MG perform to it's claim or not.
The real question (which has been posed in earlier posts) is if the added oil that happens due to the two filter changes during the 30K is what extended the TBN to the point of being able to run the oil 30K as opposed to the filter itself.


It is everything. Just look at all the bypass filter literature, the influence of makeup oil is a key component of longevity claims even if it isn't directly stated.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Fram says they do the multi pass efficiency test in four hours. That is like driving 240 miles at 60mph. I will throw a fly in the mix by saying that is too much debris added in too short of a time to rate an oil filter's efficiency correctly. In a 6k OCI running at 60mph steady, which is very conservative use, no idling etc, gives 100 hours of filtering. Four and a hundred hours aren't giving the same real time efficiency result the way I see it. Now Walmart is even on the efficiency game with 95% on the box. I also see they say beta of 75 is the max for the test abilities, which is 98.67%. Plus the test is run in four hours which loads the filter with debris to the point of an increased delta p. Or in other words, not the way most people here use a filter.

http://www.framcatalog.com/RelatedInfo.aspx?b=F&f=FRAM/2Now_a_Fluid_Filter_Rating.pdf


Good info given in the Fram link you provided, and as already said, it is from 2006 so a bit dated. The multi-pass test method probably wasn't around very long back in 2006.

As far as the accelerated rate at which the filter is loaded with debris, I really see no reason why that would change the efficiency of the oil filter if it took 4 hours to load it up or 4 years. I highly doubt all these filter councils, etc would adopt and approve a test procedure that didn't give some accurate representation of the filter's real performance in use. That was the whole purpose of inventing the multi-pass test in the first place.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Whats is frams test procedure for their 2 stage filters- or filters with a built in bypass?

UD


Says right on Fram's website that they use ISO 4548-12 for efficiency testing, which seems to be the standard to use these days.

Give MicorGreen a call or email and ask them which test spec they use, and if they can give you a "xx% @ y microns".