Microgreen filter, 3,000 mile dipstick

[compratio10_5]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Fram Ultra is 80% efficient at 5 microns which is almost as good as microgreen. Something to consider. Microgreen gets out more 1 to 4 micron particles one would assume.

Really? What is the published efficiency of the microGreen filter at 5 microns?


Since these published efficiency ratings are new filters at steady state laboratory conditions, do they really reflect field performance at variable flow rates, cold starts, using dispersant motor oils and aged filters? Look at the work that has been done by the Fluid Power Research Center at Oklahoma State University and by "Hy-Pro" and "Pall" Corporations to define realistic filter testing and you may begin to doubt that using a single multi-pass efficiency number is adequate to define overall filter effectiveness. Is it possible that the companies that are not advertising high Beta (filtration) ratios are being more responsible? I like this quote from a Hy-Pro Dynamic Filter Efficiency paper: "If we assume that a filter is like a black hole where all of the captured contaminant will remain trapped indefinitely, we are operating with a false sense of security.... You need to be looking at particle retention efficiency as well." At least Micro-green has a micro-filter media that has the potential to permanently trap particulate less than 20 microns in size.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: compratio10_5
Since these published efficiency ratings are new filters at steady state laboratory conditions, do they really reflect field performance at variable flow rates, cold starts, using dispersant motor oils and aged filters? Look at the work that has been done by the Fluid Power Research Center at Oklahoma State University and by "Hy-Pro" and "Pall" Corporations to define realistic filter testing and you may begin to doubt that using a single multi-pass efficiency number is adequate to define overall filter effectiveness. Is it possible that the companies that are not advertising high Beta (filtration) ratios are being more responsible? I like this quote from a Hy-Pro Dynamic Filter Efficiency paper: "If we assume that a filter is like a black hole where all of the captured contaminant will remain trapped indefinitely, we are operating with a false sense of security.... You need to be looking at particle retention efficiency as well." At least Micro-green has a micro-filter media that has the potential to permanently trap particulate less than 20 microns in size.

You say "these published efficiency ratings." Which ones are those for the microGreen filters?

 

[compratio10_5]

I have not seen published ISO 4548-12 efficiency ratings for Micro-green but I have seen advertised ratings for Fram and others. What I don't know is if a highly advertised efficiency rating means that filter will deliver better performance (less engine wear) over an a filter with equivalent construction features without the highly advertised rating. I just do not have enough information, but some of these papers refer to misleading advertising because of limitations in the scope of testing. In general, the heavy duty and industrial filter companies seem to be more forthright than the light duty companies.

 

[RooflessVW]

Originally Posted By: FlyingTexan
Originally Posted By: Bottom_Feeder
So it's a new truck with only 3800 miles on it? How dirty would you expect the oil to get?
id expect the oil after 3000miles of heavy driving/break in to not look like it just came out of a bottle

My VW is nearing 150k and the oil drains out golden/amber after 5k.

 

[goodtimes]

I put some drops of oil from two cars on this coffee filter. The left one is from a Chevy Volt, dealer oil changed in January this year, probably less than 100 miles on oil. I have used one gallon of gas in this car so far this year just using it around town. I only ran the engine because it has to run once in awhile. Filter is a Delco PF65. The darker one is from a Toyota 07 with about 3700 on Mobil 0w-30 and Toyota oil filter.

What does it tell? nothing I guess

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: compratio10_5
Since these published efficiency ratings are new filters at steady state laboratory conditions, do they really reflect field performance at variable flow rates, cold starts, using dispersant motor oils and aged filters? Look at the work that has been done by the Fluid Power Research Center at Oklahoma State University and by "Hy-Pro" and "Pall" Corporations to define realistic filter testing and you may begin to doubt that using a single multi-pass efficiency number is adequate to define overall filter effectiveness. Is it possible that the companies that are not advertising high Beta (filtration) ratios are being more responsible? I like this quote from a Hy-Pro Dynamic Filter Efficiency paper: "If we assume that a filter is like a black hole where all of the captured contaminant will remain trapped indefinitely, we are operating with a false sense of security.... You need to be looking at particle retention efficiency as well." At least Micro-green has a micro-filter media that has the potential to permanently trap particulate less than 20 microns in size.


Originally Posted By: compratio10_5
I have not seen published ISO 4548-12 efficiency ratings for Micro-green but I have seen advertised ratings for Fram and others. What I don't know is if a highly advertised efficiency rating means that filter will deliver better performance (less engine wear) over an a filter with equivalent construction features without the highly advertised rating. I just do not have enough information, but some of these papers refer to misleading advertising because of limitations in the scope of testing. In general, the heavy duty and industrial filter companies seem to be more forthright than the light duty companies.


If 10 different brand/model of oil filters were all tested per ISO 4548-12, then I'd think it's a pretty decent 'apples to apples' comparison and would show which ones would work better in the field.

Particulate retention performance might be more effected by the engine the filter is on and how that engine is used vs the filter itself.

 

[Donald]

I would say subjective and inconclusive.

The MicrogGreen is a good filter as filters go but I do not thinks it's much of a bypass. I put a bypass oil filter setup on my pickup and the Amsoil filter is huge. That's in addition to the normal oil filter which is large.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I put some drops of oil from two cars on this coffee filter.

What does it tell? nothing I guess

You'd have to do that test on the same vehicles from 0 miles to whatever on regular mileage intervals and take a photo every time to compare as the miles racked up on the oil - then repeat with different oil filters to compare, like shown in trasko-usa link.

 

[UncleDave]

Agreed Z Trasko did the blot test quite well.

New Sierra 6.2's are sweet, but if you arent towing because its new, you probably aren't being that hard on it.
Its very clean running so not much to make it darken really fast and I wouldn't be surprised if it stayed at least somewhat golden out to 7-10K
All my diesels make the oil blacker than ole coleys [censored] in just a few hours so what you are describing is normal.

The microgreeen's interesting and unique. They have lots of filter industry veterans working there.
Despite not giving the data we/I want to see, they make a unique claim of sump life.
They have won several fleet contracts at least one of which I posted up here.
They have been found on cars that members here have purchased from fleets.
We've got one member on their regimen with tested results that validate the sump life claim.
These fleet managers clearly have the resources to test and verify what they deliver and chose to use them.
Ive used them interchangeably with other high end filters for years with no ill effects, but I don't use them as described, but somewhere in between.

Agreed Donald- not much of a bypass, just a little bitty one, and not as good as the diesel versions with stacked disks, but apparently its good enough to meet their claims.

Congrats on your new killer pickup, Im overdue a new truck myself and mails like yours make we want to go drop a bunch of dough.

UD

 

[oil_film_movies]

I think most of the posters above have hit the nail on the head: MicroGreens work because parallel filtration is effective. Common sense tells us if one part of the filter is passing 1% of the flow removing down to 2 microns, and the other part is a normal filter media (99% of the flow), then, yes, more 2 to 10 micron particles are scrubbed out over time. Its simple flow. Most of us see it. That said, some solid studies would be nice, although fleet experience has been good.
Maybe kschachn and other skeptics needs more assurance that the teflon disc does indeed capture 2 micron particles???? It would be nice to see an independent test of just the teflon disc, since the parallel flow path is a physical reality.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
I think most of the posters above have hit the nail on the head: MicroGreens work because parallel filtration is effective. Common sense tells us if one part of the filter is passing 1% of the flow removing down to 2 microns, and the other part is a normal filter media (99% of the flow), then, yes, more 2 to 10 micron particles are scrubbed out over time. Its simple flow. Most of us see it. That said, some solid studies would be nice, although fleet experience has been good.
Maybe kschachn and other skeptics needs more assurance that the teflon disc does indeed capture 2 micron particles???? It would be nice to see an independent test of just the teflon disc, since the parallel flow path is a physical reality.

The main filter element also captures 2 micron particles. And "solid studies"? How about any technical information at all? That would help.

And I don't need to "see" anything, you need to face the facts that everything you posted above has nothing to back it up.

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Fram Ultra is 80% efficient at 5 microns which is almost as good as microgreen. Something to consider. Microgreen gets out more 1 to 4 micron particles one would assume.

Once again, what is the published efficiency of the microGreen filter at 5 microns? Seeing how you say the Fram is "almost as good", on what basis are you making that claim?

 

[UncleDave]

Its simple misdirection to point at what MG doesn't print and utterly ignore what they do print.

MG's claim is that you can have a valid sump life to 30K and 3 filter changes using dino.

No one else makes that claim Ive ever seen.

As a matter of fact all other filters I have seen tell you not to deviate from the manufacturers OCI's.

Heres a cut and paste this from the Fram Ultra page. 1 Follow recommended change intervals as noted in your vehicle owner's manual.

Great that they post 4545-12 #'s, they still tell you to throw away your sump at the MFGR's OCI - so it must not be able to match the MG's performance or they would make an equal or greater sump life claim.

Has any one sued MG for false advertising and won?
Any blown Engines?
Any UOA's showing their scheme doesn't work.
Any fleet guys claiming its [censored]?


UD

 

[kschachn]

The amount of unsubstantiated and almost irrational dedication to the nonexistent claims on that website is almost amusing. In regards to the 30,000 mile interval for filter change, this is what they say:

Quote:
The results indicate that not only can the microGreen filter effectively clean the oil; it maintains that cleanliness level to 30,000 miles. One car using the microGreen filter traveled over 72,000 miles without an oil change and demonstrated excellent results throughout.

Quote:
Our high performance filters enable you to drive up to 30,000 miles without needing to change the oil.

It's the usual "up to" along with a vague "maintains that cleanliness level". This means nothing, and if you can't see that it doesn't then I really don't know what else to tell you. Such claims could be made by any other oil filter company, correct? The reason no one has sued microGreen is because there is no specific claim anywhere that can be litigated. If you don't claim something specific then you mitigate the chance of a lawsuit. If they claimed specific filtration efficiencies then those can be tested - but since they do not then it is hard to argue against.

And "fleet guys". Those fleet guys signing contracts with microGreen ought to be terminated for entering into agreements for which there is no substantiation. "Our high performance filters enable you to drive up to 30,000 miles without needing to change the oil"... you would sign a contract based on that? I wouldn't.

If there aren't blown engines then that proves microGreen filters do not harm the engine. But likewise there is no proof they are any better than any other filter. By the way, there aren't any UOAs that show the filters work either. The one person on here whom you used to cite has admitted he has never run another filter to provide a control for the long TBN retention claim.

 

[UncleDave]

Yet no one has challenged their claim as invalid, and they pick up fleet contracts the end result being filter ending up on our posters autos purchased from fleets.

Do you think the fleets that use their regimen bothered to run controls or not?



UD

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Yet no one has challenge their claim as invalid, and they pick up fleet contracts the end result being filter ending up on our posters autos purchased from fleets.

Do you think the fleets that use their regimen bothered to run controls or not?

Which claim would be challenged? That you can drive "up to" 30,000 miles? Or this one?

Quote:
The results indicate that not only can the microGreen filter effectively clean the oil; it maintains that cleanliness level to 30,000 miles. One car using the microGreen filter traveled over 72,000 miles without an oil change and demonstrated excellent results throughout.

What "cleanliness level" are they talking about exactly? What is a cleanliness level anyway? Are they referring to some standardized test? Of course they can "clean the oil", they are an oil filter and one would assume this is compared to no oil filter at all.

 

[UncleDave]

The 30K on one sump claim.

Why do you think a fleet manager would adopt them?

UD

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
The 30K on one sump claim.

Why do you think a fleet manager would adopt them?

Price? A nice dinner? Cool color? A slick marketing brochure? Because they thought they were being smarter than the average bear? No clue. But if you equate adoption to some as yet undisclosed performance benefit then that's quite a leap.

By the way, do you even know if they still have fleet contracts?

 

[kschachn]

Let's turn this around. I'm not a lawyer (and I don't think you are either), but let's say you are. Also let's say you wished to challenge microGreen's claims as made on their website. What specific demonstrable claim would you challenge?

 

[UncleDave]

Since a microgreen ended up on Rablejams used fleet car its likely that contract is still in place.

Fleet manager for the city of Oxnard published his findings on the MG and switched the fleet over, maybe it was because of T-shirts and promotion and bribery.

More likely its because the filter does what it claims.

UD

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Let's turn this around. I'm not a lawyer (and I don't think you are either), but let's say you are. Also let's say you wished to challenge microGreen's claims as made on their website. What specific demonstrable claim would you challenge?


Id go about challenging the same way Id challenge any claim - testing the claim against a control.

Do you think any of the fleet managers tested its claimed? Or were they all bribed?

UD