Got my Micro Green oil filter in from the 50% sale

[UncleDave]

Got it - I was thinking it was matter of decimal points after the .9

I wonder how many filters got tested before they got three that good?

On another note if some guy here was pimping this filter unabatedly and attacking people that pointed out MG doesn't fully disclose things (seems they are getting better) It makes much more sense to me why you guys are fighting this thing and its tech vs embracing it like a bunch of gear heads normally would.


UD

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
I wonder how many filters got tested before they got three that good?


So you question the numbers on a filter from an acknowledged standardized test but believe the goofy information on their website and/or a special secret email?

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
I wonder how many filters got tested before they got three that good?


So you question the numbers on a filter from an acknowledged standardized test but believe the goofy information on their website and/or a special secret email?


I question all MFGRs claims until I see third party backup.

I see no reason why one parties face value claim in print is any goofier than anothers.

UD

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
I wonder how many filters got tested before they got three that good?


So you question the numbers on a filter from an acknowledged standardized test but believe the goofy information on their website and/or a special secret email?


I question all MFGRs claims until I see third party backup.

I see no reason why one parties face value claim in print is any goofier than anothers.

UD


These days, companies making false advertising claims can face some pretty bad legal action from anyone, and other companies that can prove they are false claims. That's why I think if a company doesn't have a good claims to advertise, then they don't even say so instead of just twisting or lying about it - which then becomes false advertising and open to legal action.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

I bet it you emailed them and specifically asked if those stated efficiency number are from ISO 4548-12 testing they will probably skirt the question. WIX did that to me on the phone once ... saying the information was "proprietary". That's an old excuse for hiding information they don't want you to know. There is nothing "propitiatory" about filter efficiencies, or the test method used to obtain them - unless it was some bizarre way that is not recognized as any kind of standard.



I might just do that to see if they answer me.

I agree and dont think anything is "proprietary" as I would define it anyway in terms of the media,
- but I'm guessing if they are at all telling the truth they did a lot of testing to time to select the best membrane tuned to automotive apps.
There is a lot of different product and type they could use that fits the term PTFE membrane filter.


UD

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
I wonder how many filters got tested before they got three that good?


So you question the numbers on a filter from an acknowledged standardized test but believe the goofy information on their website and/or a special secret email?


I question all MFGRs claims until I see third party backup.

I see no reason why one parties face value claim in print is any goofier than anothers.

UD


These days, companies making false advertising claims can face some pretty bad legal action from anyone, and other companies that can prove they are false claims. That's why I think if a company doesn't have a good claims to advertise, then they don't even say so instead of just twisting or lying about it - which then becomes false advertising and open to legal action.


Anyone can sue for anything but it takes tremendous energy to fight a big company prove damages and actually win anything.

Our competitors in my day job make all kinds of claims that aren't true about all kinds of TV standards they follow but it wont work when you plug it in and people just say yeah that part doesn't comply, or just don't buy it heres your 299.00 back.


UD

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Anyone can sue for anything but it takes tremendous energy to fight a big company prove damages and actually win anything.


Nah, not really these days. Just look at the way Valvoline went after ExxonMobil. All that took was a letter and a press release.

The reason companies don't publish numbers, or publish them in halfway means like microGreen is that they can't be challenged. ZeeOSix is absolutely correct that numbers published against a standardized test are the ones that can be challenged and are tested by competitors.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Anyone can sue for anything but it takes tremendous energy to fight a big company prove damages and actually win anything.


Nah, not really these days. Just look at the way Valvoline went after ExxonMobil. All that took was a letter and a press release.

The reason companies don't publish numbers, or publish them in halfway means like microGreen is that they can't be challenged. ZeeOSix is absolutely correct that numbers published against a standardized test are the ones that can be challenged and are tested by competitors.


+1 ... exactly.

 

[UncleDave]

Has anyone sued purolater and won ?


UD

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Has anyone sued purolater and won ?


What published claim are they violating?

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix


These days, companies making false advertising claims can face some pretty bad legal action from anyone, and other companies that can prove they are false claims. That's why I think if a company doesn't have a good claims to advertise, then they don't even say so instead of just twisting or lying about it - which then becomes false advertising and open to legal action.



Is the claim to preserve a sump for 30K over three filters a good claim to advertise ?

No ones challenged it so that means its valid right?

UD

 

[kschachn]

What does it mean to "preserve a sump"?

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Has anyone sued purolater and won ?


What published claim are they violating?


It would be a failure to filter to the rated standard and miles claimed because of tearing.

Has anyone ever sued a filter company and won - an individual another filter company?

Do these companies ever challenge one another?

UD

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
What does it mean to "preserve a sump"?


To maintain serviceable oil to 30K.

No one challenged their pin on disk testing they claimed to do.

UD

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix


These days, companies making false advertising claims can face some pretty bad legal action from anyone, and other companies that can prove they are false claims. That's why I think if a company doesn't have a good claims to advertise, then they don't even say so instead of just twisting or lying about it - which then becomes false advertising and open to legal action.


Is the claim to preserve a sump for 30K over three filters a good claim to advertise ?

No ones challenged it so that means its valid right?

UD


It is a good claim if it actually happens as they say. It's possible people or other companies have verified the claim somehow.

I'm talking more about the efficiency claims. Per the MG email it was 99% @ 20 microns for the primary media, and 99% @ 2 microns for the bypass media disk. What I'm saying is under what test spec do they get those numbers? And since they don't list any kind of efficiency test spec, then one could say those efficiency numbers don't really mean anything. If MG listed a test spec, then they would have to live up to because someone could then verify if their claim is true or not.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Has anyone sued purolater and won ?


What published claim are they violating?


It would be a failure to filter to the rated standard and miles claimed because of tearing.

Has anyone ever sued a filter company and won - an individual another filter company?

Do these companies ever challenge one another?

UD


All of the Purolator media tearing would be categorized as product defect/failure within the specified use period per their warranty. All one might be able to do is sue over a new replacement oil filter, and of course could sue over engine damage if it could be proven the failed filter caused such damage.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix


It is a good claim if it actually happens as they say. It's possible people or other companies have verified the claim somehow.

I'm talking more about the efficiency claims. Per the MG email it was 99% @ 20 microns for the primary media, and 99% @ 2 microns for the bypass media disk. What I'm saying is under what test spec do they get those numbers? And since they don't list any kind of efficiency test spec, then one could say those efficiency numbers don't really mean anything. If MG listed a test spec, then they would have to live up to because someone could then verify if their claim is true or not.



I know you are talking about efficiency claims.

You and Kschachn (love to know what that stands for) are taking the position MG isn't disclosing their testing metrics, actually it seems like your position is that partially disclose and Kschachn is they disclose noting no data at all. Nothing

Thats fine, you've both explained to me why you feel the way you feel.
I understand your positions ell your more so than Kschchn's ,

Even though I don't agree It's ok to disagree as long as we are civil.

Your supposition is that if it could perform as per the test and they they would post it or put it on a box, but that it can't so its a fraud and they don't.they are telling alf truths and misdirecting because they don't state the data the way you wish to see it.

- but by that same logic if any other filter could match the microgreen stated capability to maintain serviceable oil over 3 filter to 30K they would.

If it is really the only filter that can match that claim and does (it must or someone would have sued them because all it takes is a press release)

-- does any other test actually matter?

So a published claim without lawsuit or 3rd party verification = credence?

UD

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix


All of the Purolator media tearing would be categorized as product defect/failure within the specified use period per their warranty. All one might be able to do is sue over a new replacement oil filter, and of course could sue over engine damage if it could be proven the failed filter caused such damage.


If someone could prove Purolater knew of a design defect then it would go down differently than at warranty claim. It would then be false advertising.

UD

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix


All of the Purolator media tearing would be categorized as product defect/failure within the specified use period per their warranty. All one might be able to do is sue over a new replacement oil filter, and of course could sue over engine damage if it could be proven the failed filter caused such damage.


If someone could prove Purolater knew of a design defect then it would go down differently than at warranty claim. It would then be false advertising.

UD


LoL ... why do you think Purolator never confessed that there was a problem?

Their lawyers know how to cover up in a situation like that.

Purolator didn't want some kind of class action lawsuit slapped on them from thousands of customers. Can you imagine if Purolator came out with a statement that they knew there was a design/material/manufacturing flaw that could tear the media and cause dirty oil to not be filtered ... and told customers to not use their filters for X amount of time until they fixed the problem?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave

I know you are talking about efficiency claims.

Your supposition is that if it could perform as per the test and they they would post it or put it on a box, but that it can't so its a fraud and they don't.they are telling alf truths and misdirecting because they don't state the data the way you wish to see it.

- but by that same logic if any other filter could match the microgreen stated capability to maintain serviceable oil over 3 filter to 30K they would.

If it is really the only filter that can match that claim and does (it must or someone would have sued them because all it takes is a press release)

-- does any other test actually matter?

So a published claim without lawsuit or 3rd party verification = credence?

UD


MG gave the efficiency numbers of the filtering elements ... it's just that they don't/won't give an associated test spec. With numbers that good, I don't see why they wouldn't also say what test was used to get the numbers if it was a recognized standard test method. You really should email them and specifically ask for the test spec/procedure used.

As far as going 30K miles on some high mileage oil with 3 filters (running 10K miles on each filter), it would be interesting to also do that with a normal high efficiency filter like the Ultra (only using 2 since they are rated for 15K miles) or similar filter that can go 10K with 3 filters used. It may be that the results would basically be the same. MG is trying to break in to an "ecological" way to use oil by going with 30K oil changes. Other filter companies don't want to get into that business and recommend running engine oil for 3+ times longer than most vehicle manufacturers recommend running oil. That would put the liability with them instead of the vehicle manufacturer.

I'm curious if MG has some kind of "warranty" that says if their filter doesn't meet the claim of being able to run oil for 30K miles, and engine damage occurs, will they cover the repair costs?