I just got my filters. A point of interest: manufacturing date is 2/11/15. That is pretty old stock. Perhaps they are not having a good sales experience. It (possibly)indicates a rather large inventory. That is generally a bad sign.
Got my Micro Green oil filter in from the 50% sale
- Thread starter PolarisX
- Start date
- Status
Has anyone cut one of these open? Could provide a useful perspective.
Originally Posted By: alternety
Has anyone cut one of these open? Could provide a useful perspective.
Yeah just do a little searching here.
Pretty nicely constructed filter.
Ive cut open several but never posted them.
UD
Has anyone cut one of these open? Could provide a useful perspective.
Yeah just do a little searching here.
Pretty nicely constructed filter.
Ive cut open several but never posted them.
UD
Last edited:
I don't know about anyone else, but I see no reason to go out of my way to order/use Microgreen filters. I can get what I need in the local stores, and I'm quite sure my car's engine will continue to be just fine without Microgreen filters.
Originally Posted By: Tony10s
I don't know about anyone else, but I see no reason to go out of my way to order/use Microgreen filters. I can get what I need in the local stores, and I'm quite sure my car's engine will continue to be just fine without Microgreen filters.
It seems like every one of these MG threads devolves into a urinating contest between MG filters and other filters - price, construction, test data, etc. To me the ONLY reason to use them is to get 30,000 miles out of my oil. If I want to change it every 10K, which is what I would do otherwise, I would use a conventional filter. As far as I know, no other spin-on filter makes the claim of oil longevity that MG does. So, if all you're looking for is your next filter, buy whatever you want. I'm sure there is some sort of cognitive strategy at work here in which everything else but what YOU choose to use must suck.
I don't know about anyone else, but I see no reason to go out of my way to order/use Microgreen filters. I can get what I need in the local stores, and I'm quite sure my car's engine will continue to be just fine without Microgreen filters.
It seems like every one of these MG threads devolves into a urinating contest between MG filters and other filters - price, construction, test data, etc. To me the ONLY reason to use them is to get 30,000 miles out of my oil. If I want to change it every 10K, which is what I would do otherwise, I would use a conventional filter. As far as I know, no other spin-on filter makes the claim of oil longevity that MG does. So, if all you're looking for is your next filter, buy whatever you want. I'm sure there is some sort of cognitive strategy at work here in which everything else but what YOU choose to use must suck.
Originally Posted By: Tony10s
I don't know about anyone else, but I see no reason to go out of my way to order/use Microgreen filters. I can get what I need in the local stores, and I'm quite sure my car's engine will continue to be just fine without Microgreen filters.
From a cost savings and filter performance perspective - If it does what they say it does nothing you buy off shelf can equal its performance.
Will your engine be fine without it - sure - but you will spend more time and money on oil and oil changes.
Short of a full external bypass no filter offers the extended sump life it does.
UD
I don't know about anyone else, but I see no reason to go out of my way to order/use Microgreen filters. I can get what I need in the local stores, and I'm quite sure my car's engine will continue to be just fine without Microgreen filters.
From a cost savings and filter performance perspective - If it does what they say it does nothing you buy off shelf can equal its performance.
Will your engine be fine without it - sure - but you will spend more time and money on oil and oil changes.
Short of a full external bypass no filter offers the extended sump life it does.
UD
Well actually Ill retract myself a bit.
Heres how I see the filter schemes from best to worst- excluding centrifuges for now.
1. External bypass - expensive, mounting concerns, potential plumbing issues
2. Dual stage stacked disk internal bypass - Cummins strata pour venturi - not available for gasoline vehicles
3. Dual stage PTFE internal bypass - Microgreen
4. Single Stage
UD
Heres how I see the filter schemes from best to worst- excluding centrifuges for now.
1. External bypass - expensive, mounting concerns, potential plumbing issues
2. Dual stage stacked disk internal bypass - Cummins strata pour venturi - not available for gasoline vehicles
3. Dual stage PTFE internal bypass - Microgreen
4. Single Stage
UD
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
With the main elements being very close both mgr claim 99%20UM from the main element the MG will likely have very similar beta ratio - so thats about a tie.
My moneys on the MG as the one that would have the lowest particle count and retain the highest TBN over time.
UD
Hold on a minute. TBN is total base number, which refers to the oil's ability to counteract the acidic byproducts of combustion. These acids are not particulate matter, and thus aren't trapped by any filter. The argument that MicroGreen preserves TBN by not making the oil work so hard suspending particles seems quite contrary to how TBN actually works.
With the main elements being very close both mgr claim 99%20UM from the main element the MG will likely have very similar beta ratio - so thats about a tie.
My moneys on the MG as the one that would have the lowest particle count and retain the highest TBN over time.
UD
Hold on a minute. TBN is total base number, which refers to the oil's ability to counteract the acidic byproducts of combustion. These acids are not particulate matter, and thus aren't trapped by any filter. The argument that MicroGreen preserves TBN by not making the oil work so hard suspending particles seems quite contrary to how TBN actually works.
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
It seems like every one of these MG threads devolves into a urinating contest between MG filters and other filters - price, construction, test data, etc. To me the ONLY reason to use them is to get 30,000 miles out of my oil.
Said claim is highly suspicious. Oil's don't wear out primarily from excessive suspended particles which could otherwise be removed by a filter. Sheering, oxidation and acid build-up are more significant factors, and the filter doesn't help those.
Magic solutions unique to one parts supplier are always highly suspect. Pick up an 1970s JC Whitney catalog sometime if you want a walk down automotive voodoo lane.
It seems like every one of these MG threads devolves into a urinating contest between MG filters and other filters - price, construction, test data, etc. To me the ONLY reason to use them is to get 30,000 miles out of my oil.
Said claim is highly suspicious. Oil's don't wear out primarily from excessive suspended particles which could otherwise be removed by a filter. Sheering, oxidation and acid build-up are more significant factors, and the filter doesn't help those.
Magic solutions unique to one parts supplier are always highly suspect. Pick up an 1970s JC Whitney catalog sometime if you want a walk down automotive voodoo lane.
Originally Posted By: wgtoys
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
With the main elements being very close both mgr claim 99%20UM from the main element the MG will likely have very similar beta ratio - so thats about a tie.
My moneys on the MG as the one that would have the lowest particle count and retain the highest TBN over time.
UD
Hold on a minute. TBN is total base number, which refers to the oil's ability to counteract the acidic byproducts of combustion. These acids are not particulate matter, and thus aren't trapped by any filter. The argument that MicroGreen preserves TBN by not making the oil work so hard suspending particles seems quite contrary to how TBN actually works.
Bypasses preserve TBN by keeping the particulates out of the oil - the aggregation of small particle starts a chemical reaction that results in TBN depletion.
Also the add pack stays healthier as it doest have to work at keeping the particles suspended.
This is why bypasses are able to greatly extend OCI's beyond their immediate sump extension capacity.
There are many threads here about bypasses ability to do this in the bypass section.
David Newton, and I Hate to change oil have a great thread about the actual benefit of a bypass in general being one of extending engine life vs greatly extending the OCI.
UD
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
With the main elements being very close both mgr claim 99%20UM from the main element the MG will likely have very similar beta ratio - so thats about a tie.
My moneys on the MG as the one that would have the lowest particle count and retain the highest TBN over time.
UD
Hold on a minute. TBN is total base number, which refers to the oil's ability to counteract the acidic byproducts of combustion. These acids are not particulate matter, and thus aren't trapped by any filter. The argument that MicroGreen preserves TBN by not making the oil work so hard suspending particles seems quite contrary to how TBN actually works.
Bypasses preserve TBN by keeping the particulates out of the oil - the aggregation of small particle starts a chemical reaction that results in TBN depletion.
Also the add pack stays healthier as it doest have to work at keeping the particles suspended.
This is why bypasses are able to greatly extend OCI's beyond their immediate sump extension capacity.
There are many threads here about bypasses ability to do this in the bypass section.
David Newton, and I Hate to change oil have a great thread about the actual benefit of a bypass in general being one of extending engine life vs greatly extending the OCI.
UD
Originally Posted By: wgtoys
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
It seems like every one of these MG threads devolves into a urinating contest between MG filters and other filters - price, construction, test data, etc. To me the ONLY reason to use them is to get 30,000 miles out of my oil.
Said claim is highly suspicious. Oil's don't wear out primarily from excessive suspended particles which could otherwise be removed by a filter. Sheering, oxidation and acid build-up are more significant factors, and the filter doesn't help those.
Magic solutions unique to one parts supplier are always highly suspect. Pick up an 1970s JC Whitney catalog sometime if you want a walk down automotive voodoo lane.
DBmasters UOA's show it works exactly as they claim.
UD
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
It seems like every one of these MG threads devolves into a urinating contest between MG filters and other filters - price, construction, test data, etc. To me the ONLY reason to use them is to get 30,000 miles out of my oil.
Said claim is highly suspicious. Oil's don't wear out primarily from excessive suspended particles which could otherwise be removed by a filter. Sheering, oxidation and acid build-up are more significant factors, and the filter doesn't help those.
Magic solutions unique to one parts supplier are always highly suspect. Pick up an 1970s JC Whitney catalog sometime if you want a walk down automotive voodoo lane.
DBmasters UOA's show it works exactly as they claim.
UD
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Bypasses preserve TBN by keeping the particulates out of the oil - the aggregation of small particle starts a chemical reaction that results in TBN depletion.
Also the add pack stays healthier as it doest have to work at keeping the particles suspended.
In the thread that you and I discussed this (that you are always so eager to point out), it can't be the aggregates themselves but instead the adsorbed chemical complexities that are present on the surface. The ones we created in a lab were often composed of sulfur compounds and in the presence of water and heat would affect the TBN of the oil.
The part I don't understand is that since the particles are only mechanically sequestered (as opposed to chemically neutralized) they are still exposed to the oil stream as it passes through the filter. This continues to give opportunity for a chemical reaction to take place. How that preserves the TBN is unclear to me and I've never seen a discussion or explanation for it.
Another thing I think is discounted by all bypass filter sellers is the substantial makeup oil that is added during the advertised mileage. So with a microGreen you are supposed to change the filter but leave the oil in place, correct?
Bypasses preserve TBN by keeping the particulates out of the oil - the aggregation of small particle starts a chemical reaction that results in TBN depletion.
Also the add pack stays healthier as it doest have to work at keeping the particles suspended.
In the thread that you and I discussed this (that you are always so eager to point out), it can't be the aggregates themselves but instead the adsorbed chemical complexities that are present on the surface. The ones we created in a lab were often composed of sulfur compounds and in the presence of water and heat would affect the TBN of the oil.
The part I don't understand is that since the particles are only mechanically sequestered (as opposed to chemically neutralized) they are still exposed to the oil stream as it passes through the filter. This continues to give opportunity for a chemical reaction to take place. How that preserves the TBN is unclear to me and I've never seen a discussion or explanation for it.
Another thing I think is discounted by all bypass filter sellers is the substantial makeup oil that is added during the advertised mileage. So with a microGreen you are supposed to change the filter but leave the oil in place, correct?
Oh and by the way, the carbon aggregates produced by a light hydrocarbon will likely have an average overall rotational diameter of 100 to 200 nanometers. They do agglomerate but it is a weak attraction and the agglomeration is as easily broken as it is made. They can be trapped by a filter but wouldn't cause mechanical damage to an engine.
To my eye, and holding one in my hand, it looks well built.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Bypasses preserve TBN by keeping the particulates out of the oil - the aggregation of small particle starts a chemical reaction that results in TBN depletion.
Also the add pack stays healthier as it doest have to work at keeping the particles suspended.
In the thread that you and I discussed this (that you are always so eager to point out), it can't be the aggregates themselves but instead the adsorbed chemical complexities that are present on the surface. The ones we created in a lab were often composed of sulfur compounds and in the presence of water and heat would affect the TBN of the oil.
The part I don't understand is that since the particles are only mechanically sequestered (as opposed to chemically neutralized) they are still exposed to the oil stream as it passes through the filter. This continues to give opportunity for a chemical reaction to take place. How that preserves the TBN is unclear to me and I've never seen a discussion or explanation for it.
Another thing I think is discounted by all bypass filter sellers is the substantial makeup oil that is added during the advertised mileage. So with a microGreen you are supposed to change the filter but leave the oil in place, correct?
If your definition of "substantial makeup oil" is replacing the oil in the filter thats thrown away and any needed oil consumed during the normal course of running then yes-sure it help - if not no. To my mind "substantial" makeup oil is a partial drain and fill.
If makeup oil the amount of the filter and top up worked as well for other single stage spin ons they would claim extended sump capacity - no?
Im guessing the PTFE disk is hydrophilic, as is most bypass media in general they sequester moisture.
As to the science behind it working even BITOG doesn't make it clear, but what is clear is that bypasses greatly extend (even with a large enough sump indefinitely extend OCI's) There are entire fleets of trucks that have never had an oil change and live on makeup oil and filter changes only.
Just because you (Or I for that matter ) dont fully understand why, or can't figure it out, doesn't mean that it doesn't work.
Whats interesting is that no other (spin on) oil filter makes this claim of extending sump life. Why is that?
Based the claim =veracity formula you and z06 proffer about iso test disclosure - thats because they can't do it.
If it were snake oil DB's UOA's would likely have shown depleted TBN and increased TAN beyond recommended running and MG would be sued for fraud.
UD
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Bypasses preserve TBN by keeping the particulates out of the oil - the aggregation of small particle starts a chemical reaction that results in TBN depletion.
Also the add pack stays healthier as it doest have to work at keeping the particles suspended.
In the thread that you and I discussed this (that you are always so eager to point out), it can't be the aggregates themselves but instead the adsorbed chemical complexities that are present on the surface. The ones we created in a lab were often composed of sulfur compounds and in the presence of water and heat would affect the TBN of the oil.
The part I don't understand is that since the particles are only mechanically sequestered (as opposed to chemically neutralized) they are still exposed to the oil stream as it passes through the filter. This continues to give opportunity for a chemical reaction to take place. How that preserves the TBN is unclear to me and I've never seen a discussion or explanation for it.
Another thing I think is discounted by all bypass filter sellers is the substantial makeup oil that is added during the advertised mileage. So with a microGreen you are supposed to change the filter but leave the oil in place, correct?
If your definition of "substantial makeup oil" is replacing the oil in the filter thats thrown away and any needed oil consumed during the normal course of running then yes-sure it help - if not no. To my mind "substantial" makeup oil is a partial drain and fill.
If makeup oil the amount of the filter and top up worked as well for other single stage spin ons they would claim extended sump capacity - no?
Im guessing the PTFE disk is hydrophilic, as is most bypass media in general they sequester moisture.
As to the science behind it working even BITOG doesn't make it clear, but what is clear is that bypasses greatly extend (even with a large enough sump indefinitely extend OCI's) There are entire fleets of trucks that have never had an oil change and live on makeup oil and filter changes only.
Just because you (Or I for that matter ) dont fully understand why, or can't figure it out, doesn't mean that it doesn't work.
Whats interesting is that no other (spin on) oil filter makes this claim of extending sump life. Why is that?
Based the claim =veracity formula you and z06 proffer about iso test disclosure - thats because they can't do it.
If it were snake oil DB's UOA's would likely have shown depleted TBN and increased TAN beyond recommended running and MG would be sued for fraud.
UD
Last edited:
MG filters getting an over 100 post thread, that's pretty good. I like them except for two issues on mine. Too much glue was scattered inside the center tube, and on mine I can see no way the adbv opens without it bypassing. So I wouldn't use the one I had. Seems to me the disk is plenty thick. The science behind toilet paper filters holding water has to do with surface tension differences between oil and water and the fact oil is lighter than water and floats on the more tightly absorbed water. So the water stays captured in the paper fibers while the oil passes through. Something like that. The MG disk wouldn't hold much water.
- Status
