Well hope to see the results. How long will it take you to go 20k?
Microgreen 13k
- Thread starter Pinoak
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
Maybe I'll do the mother of PC tests here to see exactly where Zee's chart falls on the truth scale... and I'm betting it's probably pretty accurate.
I've got a new Amsoil fill in my 2007 Impreza w/EJ253, and a brand new Fram Ultra 7317 on it. I don't know how long it will go, but certainly not likely to break 20k miles on that fill. I already plan on sucking a dipstick tube sample at 10k to see how the oil is doing and basing my remaining (if any) time to run it out before draining.
So, instead of the dipstick sample, I will add about a cup of Amsoil SS a week or so before the 10k mark to ensure it's all mixed up well. When I hit the 10k mark, I will then remove the FU and get my UOA sample from what's in the center tube of the filter. This should be the cleanest oil in the engine, since it just passed thru the filter and has not yet been contaminated by anything inside the engine, correct? I will then place my last remaining MG201-7 filter on the car dry, and then run it out either until the first UOA comes back and says the oil needs to be changed immediately, until the "end" of my Amsoil experiment at wherever I feel comfortable with based on the UOA results, or until I hit 20k total (10k on each filter).
I will have a PC done on the first 10k with the FU, and then do another PC with the MicroGreen UOA and post both UOAs here. It will be very elementary to see if an MG is better than FU if the ISO codes are lower, but moot since MG is no longer in business. In addition, if anything, this test will favor the FU because it gets all of the oil all of the time, and if the drain interval for the MG is very short due to oil issues, the PTFE disk will not have had much time to do its work, and I think we all agree without a doubt that the main element on the MG is nowhere near the level of the element on the FU in regards to filtering efficiency and build quality. If the MG makes it all the way to 10k, it still likely favors the FU because at 20k total there will be additional oil breakdown that has accumulated during that time.
So, short and long of it: Same car, same oil fill, two different filters with the favorite first and the obsolete filter trying to clean up after the champ, with hard data from an unbiased lab with proven PC testing. Should put an end to the swordfighting and show if Zee's research proves out. If the ISO codes are lower for the MG, PTFE disk is a win. If the numbers are even, it shows the disk merely makes the paper filter perform equally to the synthetic media of the Ultra. If the numbers are worse, it shows the MG filter in its most recently produced form was not worth the money from the get-go.
That could be a good test - thanks Subie for volunteering to do the effort as it would be interesting to see the results. I wouldn't want you to waste too much filter life over it. Couple possible suggestions to make it a more apples-to-apples test.
1) Take the used oil sample the same exact way for both filters - you said a dipstick sample, so you don't have to dump the sump. Top off the oil level after installing the new Microgreen.
2) If you think the Amsoil SS will make it to 16K miles without much degradation, then do the first PC sample, filter swap and oil top off at 8K, and then do another oil sample the same way (dipstick) for the Microgreen PC when time to do an oil change at 16K miles. That way both filters will have been ran the same mileage, and 8K is close to the 10K recommended use interval for the Microgreen.
Maybe I'll do the mother of PC tests here to see exactly where Zee's chart falls on the truth scale... and I'm betting it's probably pretty accurate.
I've got a new Amsoil fill in my 2007 Impreza w/EJ253, and a brand new Fram Ultra 7317 on it. I don't know how long it will go, but certainly not likely to break 20k miles on that fill. I already plan on sucking a dipstick tube sample at 10k to see how the oil is doing and basing my remaining (if any) time to run it out before draining.
So, instead of the dipstick sample, I will add about a cup of Amsoil SS a week or so before the 10k mark to ensure it's all mixed up well. When I hit the 10k mark, I will then remove the FU and get my UOA sample from what's in the center tube of the filter. This should be the cleanest oil in the engine, since it just passed thru the filter and has not yet been contaminated by anything inside the engine, correct? I will then place my last remaining MG201-7 filter on the car dry, and then run it out either until the first UOA comes back and says the oil needs to be changed immediately, until the "end" of my Amsoil experiment at wherever I feel comfortable with based on the UOA results, or until I hit 20k total (10k on each filter).
I will have a PC done on the first 10k with the FU, and then do another PC with the MicroGreen UOA and post both UOAs here. It will be very elementary to see if an MG is better than FU if the ISO codes are lower, but moot since MG is no longer in business. In addition, if anything, this test will favor the FU because it gets all of the oil all of the time, and if the drain interval for the MG is very short due to oil issues, the PTFE disk will not have had much time to do its work, and I think we all agree without a doubt that the main element on the MG is nowhere near the level of the element on the FU in regards to filtering efficiency and build quality. If the MG makes it all the way to 10k, it still likely favors the FU because at 20k total there will be additional oil breakdown that has accumulated during that time.
So, short and long of it: Same car, same oil fill, two different filters with the favorite first and the obsolete filter trying to clean up after the champ, with hard data from an unbiased lab with proven PC testing. Should put an end to the swordfighting and show if Zee's research proves out. If the ISO codes are lower for the MG, PTFE disk is a win. If the numbers are even, it shows the disk merely makes the paper filter perform equally to the synthetic media of the Ultra. If the numbers are worse, it shows the MG filter in its most recently produced form was not worth the money from the get-go.
That could be a good test - thanks Subie for volunteering to do the effort as it would be interesting to see the results. I wouldn't want you to waste too much filter life over it. Couple possible suggestions to make it a more apples-to-apples test.
1) Take the used oil sample the same exact way for both filters - you said a dipstick sample, so you don't have to dump the sump. Top off the oil level after installing the new Microgreen.
2) If you think the Amsoil SS will make it to 16K miles without much degradation, then do the first PC sample, filter swap and oil top off at 8K, and then do another oil sample the same way (dipstick) for the Microgreen PC when time to do an oil change at 16K miles. That way both filters will have been ran the same mileage, and 8K is close to the 10K recommended use interval for the Microgreen.
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
Maybe I'll do the mother of PC tests here to see exactly where Zee's chart falls on the truth scale... and I'm betting it's probably pretty accurate.
I've got a new Amsoil fill in my 2007 Impreza w/EJ253, and a brand new Fram Ultra 7317 on it. I don't know how long it will go, but certainly not likely to break 20k miles on that fill. I already plan on sucking a dipstick tube sample at 10k to see how the oil is doing and basing my remaining (if any) time to run it out before draining.
So, instead of the dipstick sample, I will add about a cup of Amsoil SS a week or so before the 10k mark to ensure it's all mixed up well. When I hit the 10k mark, I will then remove the FU and get my UOA sample from what's in the center tube of the filter. This should be the cleanest oil in the engine, since it just passed thru the filter and has not yet been contaminated by anything inside the engine, correct? I will then place my last remaining MG201-7 filter on the car dry, and then run it out either until the first UOA comes back and says the oil needs to be changed immediately, until the "end" of my Amsoil experiment at wherever I feel comfortable with based on the UOA results, or until I hit 20k total (10k on each filter).
I will have a PC done on the first 10k with the FU, and then do another PC with the MicroGreen UOA and post both UOAs here. It will be very elementary to see if an MG is better than FU if the ISO codes are lower, but moot since MG is no longer in business. In addition, if anything, this test will favor the FU because it gets all of the oil all of the time, and if the drain interval for the MG is very short due to oil issues, the PTFE disk will not have had much time to do its work, and I think we all agree without a doubt that the main element on the MG is nowhere near the level of the element on the FU in regards to filtering efficiency and build quality. If the MG makes it all the way to 10k, it still likely favors the FU because at 20k total there will be additional oil breakdown that has accumulated during that time.
So, short and long of it: Same car, same oil fill, two different filters with the favorite first and the obsolete filter trying to clean up after the champ, with hard data from an unbiased lab with proven PC testing. Should put an end to the swordfighting and show if Zee's research proves out. If the ISO codes are lower for the MG, PTFE disk is a win. If the numbers are even, it shows the disk merely makes the paper filter perform equally to the synthetic media of the Ultra. If the numbers are worse, it shows the MG filter in its most recently produced form was not worth the money from the get-go.
That could be a good test - thanks Subie for volunteering to do the effort as it would be interesting to see the results. I wouldn't want you to waste too much filter life over it. Couple possible suggestions to make it a more apples-to-apples test.
1) Take the used oil sample the same exact way for both filters - you said a dipstick sample, so you don't have to dump the sump. Top off the oil level after installing the new Microgreen.
2) If you think the Amsoil SS will make it to 16K miles without much degradation, then do the first PC sample, filter swap and oil top off at 8K, and then do another oil sample the same way (dipstick) for the Microgreen PC when time to do an oil change at 16K miles. That way both filters will have been ran the same mileage, and 8K is close to the 10K recommended use interval for the Microgreen.
I agree with the suggestions.
Cut a sample tube, mark it so as to insert it where the tip of the dipstick would be. Pull your sample warm after a significant drive. Top up after the filter change.
It is not the mother of all PC test and it won't end the debate, but it is another point of data and will be interesting.
A number of people here have done some PC testing, and there are a number of filters shown here that had PC scores lower than any on the chart including a Hyundai factory filter and a Bosch D+. if you do a little research.
IMO, it would be easier for a sample to be artificially low than high, for instance I believe a cold sample would be lower than a sample taken as I described because particles may fall out of suspension.
If someone was really interested in collecting some data on this a more controlled test would be in order, where variables are minimized, same mileage, same sample method, same filters and so forth. Obviously since Microgreen is defunct they probably aren't a good target.
I will be doing a major service on the Civic this weekend, I already pulled a sample and it is at Blackstone for TAN/TBN/ISO, I'll pull another before I start work for confirmation of ISO, so we will have PC data from it on an Ultra and a HAMP Shorty. The HAMP should be about the least efficient filter available for it save for maybe one of those HKS things. I do have a Microgreen so perhaps I will put it in service and see what happens. I had intended to do an A01.
Since the Subaru and Civic probably take the same filters (XG7317, MG-101-7), and you're running roughly the same mileage (Civic goes 12,000 or so) that might be a good start.
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
Maybe I'll do the mother of PC tests here to see exactly where Zee's chart falls on the truth scale... and I'm betting it's probably pretty accurate.
I've got a new Amsoil fill in my 2007 Impreza w/EJ253, and a brand new Fram Ultra 7317 on it. I don't know how long it will go, but certainly not likely to break 20k miles on that fill. I already plan on sucking a dipstick tube sample at 10k to see how the oil is doing and basing my remaining (if any) time to run it out before draining.
So, instead of the dipstick sample, I will add about a cup of Amsoil SS a week or so before the 10k mark to ensure it's all mixed up well. When I hit the 10k mark, I will then remove the FU and get my UOA sample from what's in the center tube of the filter. This should be the cleanest oil in the engine, since it just passed thru the filter and has not yet been contaminated by anything inside the engine, correct? I will then place my last remaining MG201-7 filter on the car dry, and then run it out either until the first UOA comes back and says the oil needs to be changed immediately, until the "end" of my Amsoil experiment at wherever I feel comfortable with based on the UOA results, or until I hit 20k total (10k on each filter).
I will have a PC done on the first 10k with the FU, and then do another PC with the MicroGreen UOA and post both UOAs here. It will be very elementary to see if an MG is better than FU if the ISO codes are lower, but moot since MG is no longer in business. In addition, if anything, this test will favor the FU because it gets all of the oil all of the time, and if the drain interval for the MG is very short due to oil issues, the PTFE disk will not have had much time to do its work, and I think we all agree without a doubt that the main element on the MG is nowhere near the level of the element on the FU in regards to filtering efficiency and build quality. If the MG makes it all the way to 10k, it still likely favors the FU because at 20k total there will be additional oil breakdown that has accumulated during that time.
So, short and long of it: Same car, same oil fill, two different filters with the favorite first and the obsolete filter trying to clean up after the champ, with hard data from an unbiased lab with proven PC testing. Should put an end to the swordfighting and show if Zee's research proves out. If the ISO codes are lower for the MG, PTFE disk is a win. If the numbers are even, it shows the disk merely makes the paper filter perform equally to the synthetic media of the Ultra. If the numbers are worse, it shows the MG filter in its most recently produced form was not worth the money from the get-go.
That could be a good test - thanks Subie for volunteering to do the effort as it would be interesting to see the results. I wouldn't want you to waste too much filter life over it. Couple possible suggestions to make it a more apples-to-apples test.
1) Take the used oil sample the same exact way for both filters - you said a dipstick sample, so you don't have to dump the sump. Top off the oil level after installing the new Microgreen.
2) If you think the Amsoil SS will make it to 16K miles without much degradation, then do the first PC sample, filter swap and oil top off at 8K, and then do another oil sample the same way (dipstick) for the Microgreen PC when time to do an oil change at 16K miles. That way both filters will have been ran the same mileage, and 8K is close to the 10K recommended use interval for the Microgreen.
I agree with the suggestions.
Cut a sample tube, mark it so as to insert it where the tip of the dipstick would be. Pull your sample warm after a significant drive. Top up after the filter change.
It is not the mother of all PC test and it won't end the debate, but it is another point of data and will be interesting.
A number of people here have done some PC testing, and there are a number of filters shown here that had PC scores lower than any on the chart including a Hyundai factory filter and a Bosch D+. if you do a little research.
IMO, it would be easier for a sample to be artificially low than high, for instance I believe a cold sample would be lower than a sample taken as I described because particles may fall out of suspension.
If someone was really interested in collecting some data on this a more controlled test would be in order, where variables are minimized, same mileage, same sample method, same filters and so forth. Obviously since Microgreen is defunct they probably aren't a good target.
I will be doing a major service on the Civic this weekend, I already pulled a sample and it is at Blackstone for TAN/TBN/ISO, I'll pull another before I start work for confirmation of ISO, so we will have PC data from it on an Ultra and a HAMP Shorty. The HAMP should be about the least efficient filter available for it save for maybe one of those HKS things. I do have a Microgreen so perhaps I will put it in service and see what happens. I had intended to do an A01.
Since the Subaru and Civic probably take the same filters (XG7317, MG-101-7), and you're running roughly the same mileage (Civic goes 12,000 or so) that might be a good start.
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
A number of people here have done some PC testing, and there are a number of filters shown here that had PC scores lower than any on the chart including a Hyundai factory filter and a Bosch D+ if you do a little research.
I'd suspect the Hyundai OEM filter (probably no better than the Bosch D+) and the Bosch D+ (rated at 99% @ 40 microns like the Purolator Boss) would not have stellar PCs due to their low ISO 4548-12 efficiency rating.
On a side note for you DuckRyder, I wanted to comment about possibly why some XGs are showing worse than expected PCs. I've noticed in some C&Ps of them that the sealing ring area where the bypass/leaf spring assy seals doesn't always seem to have a strong impression all the way around that sealing ring, or even a spot where there isn't an impression. Maybe it's possible that there is some slight dirty oil leakage going on in that area on some models - ? Maybe you have some photos that can verify that or not.
A number of people here have done some PC testing, and there are a number of filters shown here that had PC scores lower than any on the chart including a Hyundai factory filter and a Bosch D+ if you do a little research.
I'd suspect the Hyundai OEM filter (probably no better than the Bosch D+) and the Bosch D+ (rated at 99% @ 40 microns like the Purolator Boss) would not have stellar PCs due to their low ISO 4548-12 efficiency rating.
On a side note for you DuckRyder, I wanted to comment about possibly why some XGs are showing worse than expected PCs. I've noticed in some C&Ps of them that the sealing ring area where the bypass/leaf spring assy seals doesn't always seem to have a strong impression all the way around that sealing ring, or even a spot where there isn't an impression. Maybe it's possible that there is some slight dirty oil leakage going on in that area on some models - ? Maybe you have some photos that can verify that or not.
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
A number of people here have done some PC testing, and there are a number of filters shown here that had PC scores lower than any on the chart including a Hyundai factory filter and a Bosch D+ if you do a little research.
I'd suspect the Hyundai OEM filter (probably no better than the Bosch D+) and the Bosch D+ (rated at 99% @ 40 microns like the Purolator Boss) would not have stellar PCs due to their low ISO 4548-12 efficiency rating.
On a side note for you DuckRyder, I wanted to comment about possibly why some XGs are showing worse than expected PCs. I've noticed in some C&Ps of them that the sealing ring area where the bypass/leaf spring assy seals doesn't always seem to have a strong impression all the way around that sealing ring, or even a spot where there isn't an impression. Maybe it's possible that there is some slight dirty oil leakage going on in that area on some models - ? Maybe you have some photos that can verify that or not.
Heres the filter that I pulled the PC counts on:
Cut Open Fram XG7317 - 12,045 mi
Here is the D+
Bosch Distance Plus D3323 and Particle Count
Here is the factory filter (he did run a filter mag)
Particle count testing of various oil filters
FWIW
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
A number of people here have done some PC testing, and there are a number of filters shown here that had PC scores lower than any on the chart including a Hyundai factory filter and a Bosch D+ if you do a little research.
I'd suspect the Hyundai OEM filter (probably no better than the Bosch D+) and the Bosch D+ (rated at 99% @ 40 microns like the Purolator Boss) would not have stellar PCs due to their low ISO 4548-12 efficiency rating.
On a side note for you DuckRyder, I wanted to comment about possibly why some XGs are showing worse than expected PCs. I've noticed in some C&Ps of them that the sealing ring area where the bypass/leaf spring assy seals doesn't always seem to have a strong impression all the way around that sealing ring, or even a spot where there isn't an impression. Maybe it's possible that there is some slight dirty oil leakage going on in that area on some models - ? Maybe you have some photos that can verify that or not.
Heres the filter that I pulled the PC counts on:
Cut Open Fram XG7317 - 12,045 mi
Here is the D+
Bosch Distance Plus D3323 and Particle Count
Here is the factory filter (he did run a filter mag)
Particle count testing of various oil filters
FWIW
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
A number of people here have done some PC testing, and there are a number of filters shown here that had PC scores lower than any on the chart including a Hyundai factory filter and a Bosch D+ if you do a little research.
I'd suspect the Hyundai OEM filter (probably no better than the Bosch D+) and the Bosch D+ (rated at 99% @ 40 microns like the Purolator Boss) would not have stellar PCs due to their low ISO 4548-12 efficiency rating.
On a side note for you DuckRyder, I wanted to comment about possibly why some XGs are showing worse than expected PCs. I've noticed in some C&Ps of them that the sealing ring area where the bypass/leaf spring assy seals doesn't always seem to have a strong impression all the way around that sealing ring, or even a spot where there isn't an impression. Maybe it's possible that there is some slight dirty oil leakage going on in that area on some models - ? Maybe you have some photos that can verify that or not.
Heres the filter that I pulled the PC counts on:
Cut Open Fram XG7317 - 12,045 mi
Here is the D+
Bosch Distance Plus D3323 and Particle Count
Here is the factory filter (he did run a filter mag)
Particle count testing of various oil filters
FWIW
Looking at the pics of the filter dried on page 2, it's hard to tell for sure but one area of the impression ring doesn't look so prominent.
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
A number of people here have done some PC testing, and there are a number of filters shown here that had PC scores lower than any on the chart including a Hyundai factory filter and a Bosch D+ if you do a little research.
I'd suspect the Hyundai OEM filter (probably no better than the Bosch D+) and the Bosch D+ (rated at 99% @ 40 microns like the Purolator Boss) would not have stellar PCs due to their low ISO 4548-12 efficiency rating.
On a side note for you DuckRyder, I wanted to comment about possibly why some XGs are showing worse than expected PCs. I've noticed in some C&Ps of them that the sealing ring area where the bypass/leaf spring assy seals doesn't always seem to have a strong impression all the way around that sealing ring, or even a spot where there isn't an impression. Maybe it's possible that there is some slight dirty oil leakage going on in that area on some models - ? Maybe you have some photos that can verify that or not.
Heres the filter that I pulled the PC counts on:
Cut Open Fram XG7317 - 12,045 mi
Here is the D+
Bosch Distance Plus D3323 and Particle Count
Here is the factory filter (he did run a filter mag)
Particle count testing of various oil filters
FWIW
Looking at the pics of the filter dried on page 2, it's hard to tell for sure but one area of the impression ring doesn't look so prominent.
Originally Posted by Pinoak
...
Looking at the pics of the filter dried on page 2, it's hard to tell for sure but one area of the impression ring doesn't look so prominent.
I think i would have noticed that. I am pretty sure I no longer have that element, but I might have some other pictures or be able to crop that area from a larger original. Will look tomorrow or Monday... gonna be a busy day tomorrow, car is spread from one end of garage to the other right now...
...
Looking at the pics of the filter dried on page 2, it's hard to tell for sure but one area of the impression ring doesn't look so prominent.
I think i would have noticed that. I am pretty sure I no longer have that element, but I might have some other pictures or be able to crop that area from a larger original. Will look tomorrow or Monday... gonna be a busy day tomorrow, car is spread from one end of garage to the other right now...
Last edited:
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
Here is the D+
Bosch Distance Plus D3323 and Particle Count
No way I could buy into that PC. No filter rated at 99% @ 40μ is going to have a PC better than a 2μ full blown bypass filtering system (not talking Microgreen), or a Frantz bypass system. Methodology of retrieving oil samples can definately skew results - ie, diptick tube off top of the sump a day or more after engine shutdown.
That's why our suggestions that Subie uses the dipstick tube method on both filter runs, and with the suction tube only as long as the dipstick to retrieve samples very shortly after shutdown is critical.
Here is the D+
Bosch Distance Plus D3323 and Particle Count
No way I could buy into that PC. No filter rated at 99% @ 40μ is going to have a PC better than a 2μ full blown bypass filtering system (not talking Microgreen), or a Frantz bypass system. Methodology of retrieving oil samples can definately skew results - ie, diptick tube off top of the sump a day or more after engine shutdown.
That's why our suggestions that Subie uses the dipstick tube method on both filter runs, and with the suction tube only as long as the dipstick to retrieve samples very shortly after shutdown is critical.
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
A number of people here have done some PC testing, and there are a number of filters shown here that had PC scores lower than any on the chart including a Hyundai factory filter and a Bosch D+ if you do a little research.
I'd suspect the Hyundai OEM filter (probably no better than the Bosch D+) and the Bosch D+ (rated at 99% @ 40 microns like the Purolator Boss) would not have stellar PCs due to their low ISO 4548-12 efficiency rating.
On a side note for you DuckRyder, I wanted to comment about possibly why some XGs are showing worse than expected PCs. I've noticed in some C&Ps of them that the sealing ring area where the bypass/leaf spring assy seals doesn't always seem to have a strong impression all the way around that sealing ring, or even a spot where there isn't an impression. Maybe it's possible that there is some slight dirty oil leakage going on in that area on some models - ? Maybe you have some photos that can verify that or not.
Heres the filter that I pulled the PC counts on:
Cut Open Fram XG7317 - 12,045 mi
Here is the D+
Bosch Distance Plus D3323 and Particle Count
Here is the factory filter (he did run a filter mag)
Particle count testing of various oil filters
FWIW
Wow that D+ pc is off the charts.
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
A number of people here have done some PC testing, and there are a number of filters shown here that had PC scores lower than any on the chart including a Hyundai factory filter and a Bosch D+ if you do a little research.
I'd suspect the Hyundai OEM filter (probably no better than the Bosch D+) and the Bosch D+ (rated at 99% @ 40 microns like the Purolator Boss) would not have stellar PCs due to their low ISO 4548-12 efficiency rating.
On a side note for you DuckRyder, I wanted to comment about possibly why some XGs are showing worse than expected PCs. I've noticed in some C&Ps of them that the sealing ring area where the bypass/leaf spring assy seals doesn't always seem to have a strong impression all the way around that sealing ring, or even a spot where there isn't an impression. Maybe it's possible that there is some slight dirty oil leakage going on in that area on some models - ? Maybe you have some photos that can verify that or not.
Heres the filter that I pulled the PC counts on:
Cut Open Fram XG7317 - 12,045 mi
Here is the D+
Bosch Distance Plus D3323 and Particle Count
Here is the factory filter (he did run a filter mag)
Particle count testing of various oil filters
FWIW
Wow that D+ pc is off the charts.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.rangerxlt.com/images/forums/vehicles/Civic/20XG7317p.jpg "[Linked Image]")
I still think I would have noticed a lack of seal, I'm in the habit of looking. I also note it was holding oil when cut apart as evidenced by the first pictures.
Because of the way the leaf is shaped there is going to be a change in the impression in this area.
I agree the sampling method and timing is paramount.
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
I still think I would have noticed a lack of seal, I'm in the habit of looking. I also note it was holding oil when cut apart as evidenced by the first pictures.
Because of the way the leaf is shaped there is going to be a change in the impression in this area.
I agree the sampling method and timing is paramount.
Yeah looking at the blown up pic it looks like it left the impression all around. Could be that the ultra media just doesn't preform any better than average.
I still think I would have noticed a lack of seal, I'm in the habit of looking. I also note it was holding oil when cut apart as evidenced by the first pictures.
Because of the way the leaf is shaped there is going to be a change in the impression in this area.
I agree the sampling method and timing is paramount.
Yeah looking at the blown up pic it looks like it left the impression all around. Could be that the ultra media just doesn't preform any better than average.
Originally Posted by Pinoak
Yeah looking at the blown up pic it looks like it left the impression all around. Could be that the ultra media just doesn't preform any better than average.
Highly doubt that for multiple other indicators (ie, ISO 4548-12 rating, other PCs of Ultras). Inconsistency of PCs can be caused by many things. The impression around the end cap gasket is definitely weaker in one area compared to the rest of the sealing impression. The filter still holding oil when cut open isn't an indicator of that end cap seal performing perfectly or not.
Yeah looking at the blown up pic it looks like it left the impression all around. Could be that the ultra media just doesn't preform any better than average.
Highly doubt that for multiple other indicators (ie, ISO 4548-12 rating, other PCs of Ultras). Inconsistency of PCs can be caused by many things. The impression around the end cap gasket is definitely weaker in one area compared to the rest of the sealing impression. The filter still holding oil when cut open isn't an indicator of that end cap seal performing perfectly or not.
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
Heres the filter that I pulled the PC counts on:
Cut Open Fram XG7317 - 12,045 mi
Here is the D+
Bosch Distance Plus D3323 and Particle Count
Here is the factory filter (he did run a filter mag)
Particle count testing of various oil filters
FWIW
So I'm wondering if Blackstone still uses the same PC test method they did back 8~9 years ago? Jim Allen had a post in one of those threads explaining their PC test methodology. Sounds like back then at least they didn't use any kind of actual particle optical counting devices like used in the ISO 4548-12 test. Not sure what Blackstone uses these day to do PC testing.
Heres the filter that I pulled the PC counts on:
Cut Open Fram XG7317 - 12,045 mi
Here is the D+
Bosch Distance Plus D3323 and Particle Count
Here is the factory filter (he did run a filter mag)
Particle count testing of various oil filters
FWIW
So I'm wondering if Blackstone still uses the same PC test method they did back 8~9 years ago? Jim Allen had a post in one of those threads explaining their PC test methodology. Sounds like back then at least they didn't use any kind of actual particle optical counting devices like used in the ISO 4548-12 test. Not sure what Blackstone uses these day to do PC testing.
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Pinoak
Yeah looking at the blown up pic it looks like it left the impression all around. Could be that the ultra media just doesn't preform any better than average.
Highly doubt that for multiple other indicators (ie, ISO 4548-12 rating, other PCs of Ultras). Inconsistency of PCs can be caused by many things. The impression around the end cap gasket is definitely weaker in one area compared to the rest of the sealing impression. The filter still holding oil when cut open isn't an indicator of that end cap seal performing perfectly or not.
If that's the case then fram should address the problem. Maybe think about moving away from the leaf spring/bypass combo.
I thought intially that the far center area of the ring looked less prominent. After seeing the blown up pic it just looks like it's do to lighting and angle. Also Duck Ryder the one that cut it open and inspected it said it looked good. It sounds like he's not the type to overlook something like that.
It may be simply that the ultra media is just average in efficiency. All the more reason to buy up any of those remaining MGs if one is looking for extra fine filtering.
Originally Posted by Pinoak
Yeah looking at the blown up pic it looks like it left the impression all around. Could be that the ultra media just doesn't preform any better than average.
Highly doubt that for multiple other indicators (ie, ISO 4548-12 rating, other PCs of Ultras). Inconsistency of PCs can be caused by many things. The impression around the end cap gasket is definitely weaker in one area compared to the rest of the sealing impression. The filter still holding oil when cut open isn't an indicator of that end cap seal performing perfectly or not.
If that's the case then fram should address the problem. Maybe think about moving away from the leaf spring/bypass combo.
I thought intially that the far center area of the ring looked less prominent. After seeing the blown up pic it just looks like it's do to lighting and angle. Also Duck Ryder the one that cut it open and inspected it said it looked good. It sounds like he's not the type to overlook something like that.
It may be simply that the ultra media is just average in efficiency. All the more reason to buy up any of those remaining MGs if one is looking for extra fine filtering.
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Pinoak
Yeah looking at the blown up pic it looks like it left the impression all around. Could be that the ultra media just doesn't preform any better than average.
Highly doubt that for multiple other indicators (ie, ISO 4548-12 rating, other PCs of Ultras). Inconsistency of PCs can be caused by many things. The impression around the end cap gasket is definitely weaker in one area compared to the rest of the sealing impression. The filter still holding oil when cut open isn't an indicator of that end cap seal performing perfectly or not.
They are pretty much ALL like that, they always have a lighter impression in the area between the leafs, same goes for A02, TG, PH.
I trust my PC data, my sample method was sound, the test repeated fairly shortly afterward. Within the margin of error for the test the ISO cleanliness code is what this particular Ultra produced.
Now we can argue the filter was bad, or the sample method was bad, or everyone else sample method is bad. But we don't really know, it may be that most of the other counts I've run across are a relatively few miles, maybe the oil is cleaner because its newer... We may find that the HAMP does even worse which would still align with your hypothesis...
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
Heres the filter that I pulled the PC counts on:
Cut Open Fram XG7317 - 12,045 mi
Here is the D+
Bosch Distance Plus D3323 and Particle Count
Here is the factory filter (he did run a filter mag)
Particle count testing of various oil filters
FWIW
So I'm wondering if Blackstone still uses the same PC test method they did back 8~9 years ago? Jim Allen had a post in one of those threads explaining their PC test methodology. Sounds like back then at least they didn't use any kind of actual particle optical counting devices like used in the ISO 4548-12 test. Not sure what Blackstone uses these day to do PC testing.
I will ask, I believe I read that their machine that forced the oil through pores broke and they are optical counting now, but I'm not positive.
Originally Posted by Pinoak
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Pinoak
Yeah looking at the blown up pic it looks like it left the impression all around. Could be that the ultra media just doesn't preform any better than average.
Highly doubt that for multiple other indicators (ie, ISO 4548-12 rating, other PCs of Ultras). Inconsistency of PCs can be caused by many things. The impression around the end cap gasket is definitely weaker in one area compared to the rest of the sealing impression. The filter still holding oil when cut open isn't an indicator of that end cap seal performing perfectly or not.
If that's the case then fram should address the problem. Maybe think about moving away from the leaf spring/bypass combo.
I thought intially that the far center area of the ring looked less prominent. After seeing the blown up pic it just looks like it's do to lighting and angle. Also Duck Ryder the one that cut it open and inspected it said it looked good. It sounds like he's not the type to overlook something like that.
It may be simply that the ultra media is just average in efficiency. All the more reason to buy up any of those remaining MGs if one is looking for extra fine filtering.
I don't think there is anything "wrong" with that filter, guess we will see when the HAMP test comes back what the relative efficiency was.
I realize we are pretty far off topic here, apologies.
Originally Posted by Pinoak
Yeah looking at the blown up pic it looks like it left the impression all around. Could be that the ultra media just doesn't preform any better than average.
Highly doubt that for multiple other indicators (ie, ISO 4548-12 rating, other PCs of Ultras). Inconsistency of PCs can be caused by many things. The impression around the end cap gasket is definitely weaker in one area compared to the rest of the sealing impression. The filter still holding oil when cut open isn't an indicator of that end cap seal performing perfectly or not.
They are pretty much ALL like that, they always have a lighter impression in the area between the leafs, same goes for A02, TG, PH.
I trust my PC data, my sample method was sound, the test repeated fairly shortly afterward. Within the margin of error for the test the ISO cleanliness code is what this particular Ultra produced.
Now we can argue the filter was bad, or the sample method was bad, or everyone else sample method is bad. But we don't really know, it may be that most of the other counts I've run across are a relatively few miles, maybe the oil is cleaner because its newer... We may find that the HAMP does even worse which would still align with your hypothesis...
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
Heres the filter that I pulled the PC counts on:
Cut Open Fram XG7317 - 12,045 mi
Here is the D+
Bosch Distance Plus D3323 and Particle Count
Here is the factory filter (he did run a filter mag)
Particle count testing of various oil filters
FWIW
So I'm wondering if Blackstone still uses the same PC test method they did back 8~9 years ago? Jim Allen had a post in one of those threads explaining their PC test methodology. Sounds like back then at least they didn't use any kind of actual particle optical counting devices like used in the ISO 4548-12 test. Not sure what Blackstone uses these day to do PC testing.
I will ask, I believe I read that their machine that forced the oil through pores broke and they are optical counting now, but I'm not positive.
Originally Posted by Pinoak
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Pinoak
Yeah looking at the blown up pic it looks like it left the impression all around. Could be that the ultra media just doesn't preform any better than average.
Highly doubt that for multiple other indicators (ie, ISO 4548-12 rating, other PCs of Ultras). Inconsistency of PCs can be caused by many things. The impression around the end cap gasket is definitely weaker in one area compared to the rest of the sealing impression. The filter still holding oil when cut open isn't an indicator of that end cap seal performing perfectly or not.
If that's the case then fram should address the problem. Maybe think about moving away from the leaf spring/bypass combo.
I thought intially that the far center area of the ring looked less prominent. After seeing the blown up pic it just looks like it's do to lighting and angle. Also Duck Ryder the one that cut it open and inspected it said it looked good. It sounds like he's not the type to overlook something like that.
It may be simply that the ultra media is just average in efficiency. All the more reason to buy up any of those remaining MGs if one is looking for extra fine filtering.
I don't think there is anything "wrong" with that filter, guess we will see when the HAMP test comes back what the relative efficiency was.
I realize we are pretty far off topic here, apologies.
Originally Posted by Pinoak
It may be simply that the ultra media is just average in efficiency. All the more reason to buy up any of those remaining MGs if one is looking for extra fine filtering.
So you're saying you believe the PCs for the Microgreens but not for the Ultras or Boss? I'm searching for reasons why PCs might not correlate with rated efficiency, but one of those reasons isn't an automatic "well maybe the media is at fault", especially when there are PCs that seem to correlate pretty well with the rated efficiency numbers. Do you really believe that if Fram, Purolator, WIX or whoever tested their filters and they officially advertise the ISO 4548-12 efficiency, that they are not being truthful about that efficiency rating?
It may be simply that the ultra media is just average in efficiency. All the more reason to buy up any of those remaining MGs if one is looking for extra fine filtering.
So you're saying you believe the PCs for the Microgreens but not for the Ultras or Boss? I'm searching for reasons why PCs might not correlate with rated efficiency, but one of those reasons isn't an automatic "well maybe the media is at fault", especially when there are PCs that seem to correlate pretty well with the rated efficiency numbers. Do you really believe that if Fram, Purolator, WIX or whoever tested their filters and they officially advertise the ISO 4548-12 efficiency, that they are not being truthful about that efficiency rating?
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Pinoak
It may be simply that the ultra media is just average in efficiency. All the more reason to buy up any of those remaining MGs if one is looking for extra fine filtering.
So you're saying you believe the PCs for the Microgreens but not for the Ultras or Boss? I'm searching for reasons why PCs might not correlate with rated efficiency, but one of those reasons isn't an automatic "well maybe the media is at fault", especially when there are PCs that seem to correlate pretty well with the rated efficiency numbers. Do you really believe that if Fram, Purolator, WIX or whoever tested their filters and they officially advertise the ISO 4548-12 efficiency, that they are not being truthful about that efficiency rating?
I thought we got past your graph and it's limited data. I was referring data in general. It doesn't appear there is much benefit in using the ultra over a less expensive cellulose or blended Media. The mg clearly demonstrates Superior filtration at the smaller micron sizes and equal or better 20 and above or so.
To ansew an earlier question you asked, I was interested in mg because I believe there is sufficient evidence to show it can work as claimed. That is that by keeping the oil cleaner 2 microns and below with the microdisk and filtering like a regular full flow with the media, it can enable the oci to be extended extensively. I haven't seen any evidence that can be done with only a full flow filter of any kind.
Originally Posted by Pinoak
It may be simply that the ultra media is just average in efficiency. All the more reason to buy up any of those remaining MGs if one is looking for extra fine filtering.
So you're saying you believe the PCs for the Microgreens but not for the Ultras or Boss? I'm searching for reasons why PCs might not correlate with rated efficiency, but one of those reasons isn't an automatic "well maybe the media is at fault", especially when there are PCs that seem to correlate pretty well with the rated efficiency numbers. Do you really believe that if Fram, Purolator, WIX or whoever tested their filters and they officially advertise the ISO 4548-12 efficiency, that they are not being truthful about that efficiency rating?
I thought we got past your graph and it's limited data. I was referring data in general. It doesn't appear there is much benefit in using the ultra over a less expensive cellulose or blended Media. The mg clearly demonstrates Superior filtration at the smaller micron sizes and equal or better 20 and above or so.
To ansew an earlier question you asked, I was interested in mg because I believe there is sufficient evidence to show it can work as claimed. That is that by keeping the oil cleaner 2 microns and below with the microdisk and filtering like a regular full flow with the media, it can enable the oci to be extended extensively. I haven't seen any evidence that can be done with only a full flow filter of any kind.
Originally Posted by Pinoak
I thought we got past your graph and it's limited data. I was referring data in general. It doesn't appear there is much benefit in using the ultra over a less expensive cellulose or blended Media. The mg clearly demonstrates Superior filtration at the smaller micron sizes and equal or better 20 and above or so.
If you say the graph is "limited data" then so is the Microgreen data on that graph (especially if the PC data came from MG as UD indicated), and therefore has no more validity than the other 4 filter lines on the graph. The Microgreens on the graph do not show "equal or better 20 or above". Its below about 8μ that they show a better PC. At 21μ the Microgreen is basically the same as the Boss and RA no name filter.
So what "data in general" are you referring to? Is ISO 4548-12 data in general?
Originally Posted by Pinoak
To ansew an earlier question you asked, I was interested in mg because I believe there is sufficient evidence to show it can work as claimed. That is that by keeping the oil cleaner 2 microns and below with the microdisk and filtering like a regular full flow with the media, it can enable the oci to be extended extensively. I haven't seen any evidence that can be done with only a full flow filter of any kind.
Sufficient evidence from Microgreen? Or someone independant that ran their oil 30K miles with UOAs and PCs at every 10K miles or so? Are you actually going to run your oil to 30K and do UOAs and PCs along the way? If so, that would be interesting to share.
I don't doubt the Microgreens perform like the PC plots show (better below 8μ), but I also don't really doubt the other 4 PCs on the plot either for now. If you doubt one, you have to doubt them all at this point.
I thought we got past your graph and it's limited data. I was referring data in general. It doesn't appear there is much benefit in using the ultra over a less expensive cellulose or blended Media. The mg clearly demonstrates Superior filtration at the smaller micron sizes and equal or better 20 and above or so.
If you say the graph is "limited data" then so is the Microgreen data on that graph (especially if the PC data came from MG as UD indicated), and therefore has no more validity than the other 4 filter lines on the graph. The Microgreens on the graph do not show "equal or better 20 or above". Its below about 8μ that they show a better PC. At 21μ the Microgreen is basically the same as the Boss and RA no name filter.
So what "data in general" are you referring to? Is ISO 4548-12 data in general?
Originally Posted by Pinoak
To ansew an earlier question you asked, I was interested in mg because I believe there is sufficient evidence to show it can work as claimed. That is that by keeping the oil cleaner 2 microns and below with the microdisk and filtering like a regular full flow with the media, it can enable the oci to be extended extensively. I haven't seen any evidence that can be done with only a full flow filter of any kind.
Sufficient evidence from Microgreen? Or someone independant that ran their oil 30K miles with UOAs and PCs at every 10K miles or so? Are you actually going to run your oil to 30K and do UOAs and PCs along the way? If so, that would be interesting to share.
I don't doubt the Microgreens perform like the PC plots show (better below 8μ), but I also don't really doubt the other 4 PCs on the plot either for now. If you doubt one, you have to doubt them all at this point.
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Pinoak
I thought we got past your graph and it's limited data. I was referring data in general. It doesn't appear there is much benefit in using the ultra over a less expensive cellulose or blended Media. The mg clearly demonstrates Superior filtration at the smaller micron sizes and equal or better 20 and above or so.
If you say the graph is "limited data" then so is the Microgreen data on that graph (especially if the PC data came from MG as UD indicated), and therefore has no more validity than the other 4 filter lines on the graph. The Microgreens on the graph do not show "equal or better 20 or above". Its below about 8μ that they show a better PC. At 21μ the Microgreen is basically the same as the Boss and RA no name filter.
So what "data in general" are you referring to? Is ISO 4548-12 data in general?
Originally Posted by Pinoak
To ansew an earlier question you asked, I was interested in mg because I believe there is sufficient evidence to show it can work as claimed. That is that by keeping the oil cleaner 2 microns and below with the microdisk and filtering like a regular full flow with the media, it can enable the oci to be extended extensively. I haven't seen any evidence that can be done with only a full flow filter of any kind.
Sufficient evidence from Microgreen? Or someone independant that ran their oil 30K miles with UOAs and PCs at every 10K miles or so? Are you actually going to run your oil to 30K and do UOAs and PCs along the way? If so, that would be interesting to share.
I don't doubt the Microgreens perform like the PC plots show (better below 8μ), but I also don't really doubt the other 4 PCs on the plot either for now. If you doubt one, you have to doubt them all at this point.
Lol
Originally Posted by Pinoak
I thought we got past your graph and it's limited data. I was referring data in general. It doesn't appear there is much benefit in using the ultra over a less expensive cellulose or blended Media. The mg clearly demonstrates Superior filtration at the smaller micron sizes and equal or better 20 and above or so.
If you say the graph is "limited data" then so is the Microgreen data on that graph (especially if the PC data came from MG as UD indicated), and therefore has no more validity than the other 4 filter lines on the graph. The Microgreens on the graph do not show "equal or better 20 or above". Its below about 8μ that they show a better PC. At 21μ the Microgreen is basically the same as the Boss and RA no name filter.
So what "data in general" are you referring to? Is ISO 4548-12 data in general?
Originally Posted by Pinoak
To ansew an earlier question you asked, I was interested in mg because I believe there is sufficient evidence to show it can work as claimed. That is that by keeping the oil cleaner 2 microns and below with the microdisk and filtering like a regular full flow with the media, it can enable the oci to be extended extensively. I haven't seen any evidence that can be done with only a full flow filter of any kind.
Sufficient evidence from Microgreen? Or someone independant that ran their oil 30K miles with UOAs and PCs at every 10K miles or so? Are you actually going to run your oil to 30K and do UOAs and PCs along the way? If so, that would be interesting to share.
I don't doubt the Microgreens perform like the PC plots show (better below 8μ), but I also don't really doubt the other 4 PCs on the plot either for now. If you doubt one, you have to doubt them all at this point.
Lol
- Status
