Just did first oil change with microgreen filter

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: FlyingTexan
Can you please point to something that shows your window screen can FILTER 2 micron particles? Anywhere? It's not the same just because you say it is and my statement wasn't false because I made it simple and not a two page physics paper in legalese. In other words; give me a break.


All filters will filter almost any particle, it's not a sharp cutoff to the absolute particle size. My window screen will most certainly filter out 2-micron particles but at a very low efficiency.

Filtering means that out of the gross quantity of particles entering the media, some will not exit. How many is a function of the filter's efficiency.

All microGreen has said is that they filter down to 2 microns. My socks, my underwear and yes my window screens do too. The question is the efficiency which up until your new statement above has not been discussed by microGreen. My point and the point of others in this thread is that a micron rating without a corresponding efficiency is meaningless. Look up standard oil filter efficiencies vs. particle size and you will see that they all will filter even very small particles but at a greatly decreasing efficiency.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
How about efficiency when the pore size is 2 microns? I don't put more than a nickels worth of substance to the multi pass standard test differences, too short of a test with too much test dirt per time interval. A window screen doesn't collect many or any two micron particles, depending on the material of the screen, the density of the particles, and the velocity of the particles. A window screen is likely zero % efficient at catching 2 micron particles. The Microgreen disk is not like a window screen.


I guarantee my window screen exceeds 0% efficiency at 2 microns. The microGreen filter does too. So does a Fram orange can.

Up until flyingtexan posted efficiency numbers, all they gave on their website was an absolute with no efficiency.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: FlyingTexan
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: FlyingTexan
The microgreen is built heavier and filters down to 2 micron through the bypass vs the 24+ micron of what you recommended.


Where you coming up with 24+ microns?

As said, any micron size rating stated is useless without a corresponding efficiency % or beta ratio. And any efficiency % stated us useless without a corresponding micron size.


Per MicroGreen

"The full flow filter is 99%@20 microns. The microdisk is rated 99%@5 micron. The 2 micron rating of the microdisk is captured through oil analysis"


I asked where did you get the (your quote) "24+ micron" data come from?

And as kschachn mentioned, there is nothing shown on the MicroGreen website showing any specific efficiency percentage at micron size.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: kschachn

I guarantee my window screen exceeds 0% efficiency at 2 microns. The microGreen filter does too. So does a Fram orange can.


Yep ... even if 100 micron particle out of a million going through it got stuck on the screen without passing through, then technically it's been caught/filtered (0.01% efficient).

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Up until flyingtexan posted efficiency numbers, all they gave on their website was an absolute with no efficiency.


I think Uncle Dave or someone got info via email from MG, but can't recall or find the info right now. But MG certainly doesn't show the info to the public on their website.

 

[FlyingTexan]

Jesus you're just picking apart a statement I made that wasn't written to cover every angle of attack. Give me a break already and just use your head a little. You can email them to ask and they can send you a response. It's not my job to spoon feed you if you're that curious then try using google. It's not hard. I did and had no issues. Fram or anyone can make any statement and be just as accurate if you're going to stand there and try to poke holes. Any UOAs and statements from those that have used them have been very positive so give it a rest.

 

[ZeeOSix]

If you claim a statement that you found somewhere, then just post the link to show you're not blowing smoke. That's what happens here a lot ... people who make claims need to back it up unless it's a well known fact that most already know is accurate.

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I would use the Microgreen the same as any filter, just to get the bypass efficiency. I would be interested in seeing more cut open, to see if they corrected the closed ADBV I found on my MG101-1. I measured the can at about .020" which is thicker than most any. The Frams are about .013", M1 about .017". Toyota about .017". So they put a lot of steel in them.


Filters dont explode or implode often (OK, very occaisionally) so the thickness of the steel doesn't seem to matter much.

If it was a solid billet it'd do very well in the hacksaw test, and it'd be a very poor oil filter.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: FlyingTexan
Jesus you're just picking apart a statement I made that wasn't written to cover every angle of attack. Give me a break already and just use your head a little. You can email them to ask and they can send you a response. It's not my job to spoon feed you if you're that curious then try using google. It's not hard. I did and had no issues. Fram or anyone can make any statement and be just as accurate if you're going to stand there and try to poke holes. Any UOAs and statements from those that have used them have been very positive so give it a rest.


For what it's worth I have emailed them as have others on this site. And as far as I know no one has received a response, that's why I was interested in where you got those figures. I have Googled for them as well, there are no hits that I can find with that information. Where did you get it?

And no typical UOA is going to provide any information regarding filtering efficiencies as discussed in this thread, positive or otherwise.

 

[PolarisX]

Part of why I didn't run a MG filter again was the lack of information and no responses to emails. If they can be a bit more forward about things I'd run it again. I do have the say that filter has the thickest gasket I have ever seen on an old filter though!

Here is a link to my initial impressions and that resulting comments. MicroGreen Thread

 

[DBMaster]

I had been looking for a way to do truly extended OCI's since switching to synthetic oil in 1989. Based upon the 30,000 mile UOA results for my 2012 Mazda3 MG filters allow just that. So, I'm sold. Even at the old price of $15 per filter they more than pay for themselves with the savings on oil. Your experience may vary.

 

[goodtimes]

FWIW the bypass filters usually state some kind of micron number ability and that would be at 100% I think. It would be pretty hard to do the standard efficiency test on just the bypass disk. I would accept their claim of 2-3 micron porosity of the disk. The idea is still good they have, except on mine the ADBV was closed tight, and that is sort of no good.

 

[sir1900]

Originally Posted By: DBMaster
I had been looking for a way to do truly extended OCI's since switching to synthetic oil in 1989. Based upon the 30,000 mile UOA results for my 2012 Mazda3 MG filters allow just that. So, I'm sold. Even at the old price of $15 per filter they more than pay for themselves with the savings on oil. Your experience may vary.


What was the TBN after 30,000 miles and what oil did you use?

 

[DBMaster]

Originally Posted By: sir1900
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
I had been looking for a way to do truly extended OCI's since switching to synthetic oil in 1989. Based upon the 30,000 mile UOA results for my 2012 Mazda3 MG filters allow just that. So, I'm sold. Even at the old price of $15 per filter they more than pay for themselves with the savings on oil. Your experience may vary.


What was the TBN after 30,000 miles and what oil did you use?


TBN was 2.1. I used M1 AFE 0W-20. The Extended Performance version wasn't available to me at the beginning of the run. That's what I am using now. Here is the thread I started right after the UOA. I made a mistake on the quantity of make-up oil. It was only 1.0 quarts (0.5 quarts for each of the first two filter changes).

MG UOA

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: FlyingTexan
Jesus you're just picking apart a statement I made that wasn't written to cover every angle of attack. Give me a break already and just use your head a little. You can email them to ask and they can send you a response. It's not my job to spoon feed you if you're that curious then try using google. It's not hard. I did and had no issues. Fram or anyone can make any statement and be just as accurate if you're going to stand there and try to poke holes. Any UOAs and statements from those that have used them have been very positive so give it a rest.


For what it's worth I have emailed them as have others on this site. And as far as I know no one has received a response ....


Uncle Dave did and got a response that he posted in this thread ... you were making comments in that thread too and saw what Uncle Dave had relayed from MG. If MG will give the xx% @ yy um in an email, I puzzled why they don't put that information on their website and tout it up? Because they have no real recognized test standard to back up their claims as you mentioned?

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4164269/1

 

[goodtimes]

How can a microgreen be correctly tested with the multi pass test, when the test loads the filter to capacity in four hours, at an accelerated rate? It has two filters inside.

 

[Garak]

They could still report the results with the test conducted as indicated.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Uncle Dave did and got a response that he posted in this thread ... you were making comments in that thread too and saw what Uncle Dave had relayed from MG. If MG will give the xx% @ yy um in an email, I puzzled why they don't put that information on their website and tout it up? Because they have no real recognized test standard to back up their claims as you mentioned?

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4164269/1


Oops. I vaguely did recall that thread but not enough to find it. Thanks.

To be clear though, the response wasn't to UncleDave but to user Ihatetochangeoil who got it in an email. There was some confusion about whether the stated results were obtained via the standard ISO test, and when others (including myself) emailed microGreen to obtain verification none of us got a response. At least I know I didn't. So Ihatetochangeoil's response is unique as far as I've seen.

Response

The whole "The 2 micron rating of the microdisk is captured through oil analysis and you can even find customers who have posted their results on BITOG" doesn't make sense (and I am aware of their TBN retention claims) and that made me suspect the entire thing. Sure, a particle count can be part of an "oil analysis" but no one here on Bitog has done the ISO test for filtering efficiency as far as I know.

But thanks for digging that up and it was my fault I didn't remember it.

 

[goodtimes]

I don't believe that they tested the pleated media and disk separately with the iso test. One thing about emails and phone calls, maybe it's true, maybe it isn't. It isn't in writing on their literature. Since the disk is 2-3 microns porosity it stands to reason 100% of anything larger is taken out with time. Until the disk is full.

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted By: PolarisX
Part of why I didn't run a MG filter again was the lack of information and no responses to emails. If they can be a bit more forward about things I'd run it again. I do have the say that filter has the thickest gasket I have ever seen on an old filter though!

Here is a link to my initial impressions and that resulting comments. MicroGreen Thread


A quote from that linked thread

Originally Posted By: DBMaster

Q: Will extending the drain intervals and using oil up to 30,000 miles have a negative effect on the additive package in the oil?
A: The microGreen filter is unique in that it captures particles as small as two microns in size. In a traditional filter, these small particles are not removed and, therefore, deplete the additive package...

Extensive on-road testing and oil analyses clearly indicate that using the microGreen oil filter, even after 30,000 miles, does not adversely affect the viscosity, wear metals and oxidation (TAN/TBN) levels in the oil.


I wonder if particulates do in fact significantly deplete the additive package. They are solids, so, although the surfaces will probably be acidic, it seems possible that most of the acid groups are on the inside.

I'd also wonder whether a filter can in fact be said to "remove" particles. Strictly speaking, they are still in contact with the oil which flows past them. As they start to form a "filter cake" then the effective surface area will be much reduced, but the filter is becoming clogged by that point.

"does not adversely affect" could be lawyer-speak for "has no effect". Same, but different.