Microgreen filter, 3,000 mile dipstick

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
It would be interesting to do the same 30K mile run on the oil (same care, same oil brand & viscosity) with changing an Ultra every 10K miles (or even every 15K miles) with UOAs at the the same mileage intervals conducted with the Microgreen setup to see the differences.
It does seem there would be a high level of 0.1 microns to 4 micron particles (soot, silica, etc.) getting past the air filter and rings into the oil that an Ultra would keep passing. Over time of course. We do need that comparison between Ultra vs. MicroGreen in a long term oil test, checking for those very small particles to see if they have built up.

Without that study, I'll accept parallel filtration as basically valid and just go with getting more of the tiny stuff out as the best way to go. Why not, since MicroGreen isn't much more expensive at all.

 

[kschachn]

Hey movies,

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.

That part about "almost as good as microgreen"... Where is the microGreen data again?

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
It does seem there would be a high level of 0.1 microns to 4 micron particles (soot, silica, etc.) getting past the air filter and rings into the oil that an Ultra would keep passing. Over time of course. We do need that comparison between Ultra vs. MicroGreen in a long term oil test, checking for those very small particles to see if they have built up.

Without that study, I'll accept parallel filtration as basically valid and just go with getting more of the tiny stuff out as the best way to go. Why not, since MicroGreen isn't much more expensive at all.

It really needs to be mentioned that you're completely guessing that the Ultra would pass any different particle sizes as compared to the microGreen. You point out that "we do need that comparison" yet make claims that one is better or worse than the other. By what basis do you make that statement? Parallel filtration may well be valid. But show us that the microGreen implementation gets "more of the tiny stuff out".

You know that someone who keeps posting unsubstantiated statements and ignores anyone questioning them is the definition of a troll, right?

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
It does seem there would be a high level of 0.1 microns to 4 micron particles (soot, silica, etc.) getting past the air filter and rings into the oil that an Ultra would keep passing. Over time of course. We do need that comparison between Ultra vs. MicroGreen in a long term oil test, checking for those very small particles to see if they have built up.

Without that study, I'll accept parallel filtration as basically valid and just go with getting more of the tiny stuff out as the best way to go. Why not, since MicroGreen isn't much more expensive at all.

It really needs to be mentioned that you're completely guessing that the Ultra would pass any different particle sizes as compared to the microGreen. You point out that "we do need that comparison" yet make claims that one is better or worse than the other. By what basis do you make that statement? Parallel filtration may well be valid. But show us that the microGreen implementation gets "more of the tiny stuff out".

You know that someone who keeps posting unsubstantiated statements and ignores anyone questioning them is the definition of a troll, right?


Well, you are the expert on trolling. You wrote the book. You might have invented it as you make it a constant annoying habit.

Wrong yet again. You are making a continual habit of being wrong. Fram Ultra is 80% 4548-12 at 5 microns, which is evidence smaller particles get through, and also its a single stage oil filter, not having any dual path to get the smaller stuff.

Obvious to all but you kschachn..... Sad.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Well, you are the expert on trolling. You wrote the book. You might have invented it as you make it a constant annoying habit.

Wrong yet again. You are making a continual habit of being wrong. Fram Ultra is 80% 4548-12 at 5 microns, which is evidence smaller particles get through, and also its a single stage oil filter, not having any dual path to get the smaller stuff.

Obvious to all but you kschachn..... Sad.

So what is the evidence that the microGreen does better? That's the claim you made and I was wondering by what basis you said that.

And if I'm a troll and stuff I say or do is "sad", please point out any technical statement I've made that is incorrect.

 

[UncleDave]

Id love to see an extended test with both of these filters as Z mentions.

"Fram Ultra is 80% 4548-12 at 5 microns"

Was this actually printed by Fram?



UD

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Id love to see an extended test with both of these filters as Z mentions. "Fram Ultra is 80% 4548-12 at 5 microns" Was this actually printed by Fram? UD
Not officially. Motorking (Jay Buckley) leaked it from Fram tests. I trust him.
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
The 80% @5 microns comes from Fram if you ask the technical director Motorking who is a member here or email them for the information. You can contact Motorking directly if you look at his username. He also said the entire Fran Ultra lineup is up to 99.9 @20 microns now but it's not published yet.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Id love to see an extended test with both of these filters as Z mentions.

"Fram Ultra is 80% 4548-12 at 5 microns"

Was this actually printed by Fram?

This is the actual post by Motorking:

Post

 

[UncleDave]

Yeah.....thats what I thought.

If we allow write in specs from Manufacturers vs printed specs the MG wins big.

Heres what MG replied to I hatetochange oil

Thank you for your inquiry. 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 and you can even find customers who have posted their results on BITOG. The Fram Ultra that you mention lists their efficiency as 99%@ >20 microns on the page link you listed. We’re not trying to start anything, but it’s worth mentioning since that is a slight contrast vs. what is being stated below and many filters would be able to claim 99% @ >20 microns.

If we take each manufactures written claim at face value the MG destroys the FU @ 5 microns.





UD

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave

Yeah.....thats what I thought.

If we allow write in specs from Manufacturers vs printed specs the MG wins big.

Heres what MG replied to I hatetochange oil

Thank you for your inquiry. 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 and you can even find customers who have posted their results on BITOG. The Fram Ultra that you mention lists their efficiency as 99%@ >20 microns on the page link you listed. We’re not trying to start anything, but it’s worth mentioning since that is a slight contrast vs. what is being stated below and many filters would be able to claim 99% @ >20 microns.

If we take each manufactures written claim at face value the MG destroys the FU @ 5 microns.


That part I agree with. But saying that the microdisk is "rated 99%@ 5 micron" is a bit different than what Motorking said isn't it? Does "rated at" equal "The FRAM Ultra is over 80% efficient@5 microns"? How long does that microdisk retain that rating as opposed to an entire full-flow filter?

Also we did ask ihatetochangeoil to post his response which I don't believe ever was given. Call me a troll or a skeptic or whatever you wish, but an unverified email (from a company that never responded to you nor me IIRC) is a little different than a post by the actual representative from a company.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: UncleDave

Yeah.....thats what I thought.

If we allow write in specs from Manufacturers vs printed specs the MG wins big.

Heres what MG replied to I hatetochange oil

Thank you for your inquiry. 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 and you can even find customers who have posted their results on BITOG. The Fram Ultra that you mention lists their efficiency as 99%@ >20 microns on the page link you listed. We’re not trying to start anything, but it’s worth mentioning since that is a slight contrast vs. what is being stated below and many filters would be able to claim 99% @ >20 microns.

If we take each manufactures written claim at face value the MG destroys the FU @ 5 microns.


That part I agree with. But saying that the microdisk is "rated 99%@ 5 micron" is a bit different than what Motorking said isn't it? Does "rated at" equal "The FRAM Ultra is over 80% efficient@5 microns"? How long does that microdisk retain that rating as opposed to an entire full-flow filter?

Also we did ask ihatetochangeoil to post his response which I don't believe ever was given. Call me a troll or a skeptic or whatever you wish, but an unverified email (from a company that never responded to you nor me IIRC) is a little different than a post by the actual representative from a company.



That was I hatetochangeoils posted response - its as verified as anyone elses write in,

It seems like its "different" when it doesn't support your position, Its seems clear to me what both sides mean.




UD

 

[oil_film_movies]

I hadn't seen the 99% at 5 microns claim for the sintered teflon hockey puck inside the microgreen filter. Interesting, and its consistent with the material used. I cut one open a while back and I'd go with that rating for that small-porosity material. Believable. Not incredible.

Claims, whether by Marketing Depts on websites, Jay "MotorKing", or some humanoid writing about their MG correspondence, can be believable if consistent with the materials and fluid paths we obviously see. We could call them all liars I guess. I usually don't!!!

 

[UncleDave]

It is consistent with the material used which is why I find the resistance to this product quite interesting.

When their pet brands are challenged everyone gets befuddled and unable to use google to learn anything.

This sites denizens also selectively changes its burden of proof when it comes to the MG - one example was a fleet deal where they described a microgreen but didnt use the actual name.

One readers said - "if it only said microgreen id believe it."

Then I dug out of the doc that they did use a microgreen and stated it - and instantaneously the burden of proof changed to " it doesn't say they only used a microgreen"

Odd from such a group of normally objective and obviously very smart guys I agree with 99% of the time.

When it coms to this filter - guys here lose their minds.



UD

 

[DBMaster]

Ah, the controversy continues. I use them and I do the 30,000 mile OCIs. One UOA was enough to tell me that small particles were kept plenty low and TBN was maintained. I don't even care if another filter would do a similar job. None make that claim - yet. In the meantime I pay competitive prices for MG filters because I buy them on sale. I also enjoy producing far less waste oil. It's an accomplishment for me since I always tend to overthink things.

 

[goodtimes]

The Microgreen has to work because of the fine filter disk. No full flow filter could flow and filter so finely unless it has a part of it made into a fine filter, like the Microgreen does. My problem with the one I bought was the adbv was hard against the end cap inside. MG 101-1. I have it sitting on my desk still as a paperweight. If that issue wasn't there I would throw away every filter I have and start buying Microgreens. I think other models may be OK and maybe they lengthened the end cap neck on the 101, but I have no way to tell if they have.

 

[kschachn]

It's not that it is inconsistent with the material used, nor is it because it is violating some sort of physical law. It is that there is no published data to show it works as intended. What if that sintered Teflon disk clogs up in the first five minutes of operation? That's what I'm trying to say, so what if it's "rated" at a filtering spec - how does that rating hold up in actual use? This is what an ISO test would show, and put the filter on level ground with any other filter tested to the same spec. Why should I be reduced to having to Google for things and then make a bunch of unsubstantiated assumptions based on an Internet search?

But really, I have pretty much ceased to care. If everyone wishes to "believe it works" based on no readily available and publicly published data then so be it. This conversation has digressed from "where is any ISO data" to an argument over someone's personal trustworthiness. For that I apologize as it's likely my fault. I just distrust any private conversation for which no one produces even a copy of that conversation.

But I'm gonna give up because I need to I think. If everyone believes that it "must work" or "has to work" or anything along that line then so be it.

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
It is consistent with the material used which is why I find the resistance to this product quite interesting.

When their pet brands are challenged everyone gets befuddled and unable to use google to learn anything.

This sites denizens also selectively changes its burden of proof when it comes to the MG - one example was a fleet deal where they described a microgreen but didnt use the actual name.

One readers said - "if it only said microgreen id believe it."

Then I dug out of the doc that they did use a microgreen and stated it - and instantaneously the burden of proof changed to " it doesn't say they only used a microgreen"

Odd from such a group of normally objective and obviously very smart guys I agree with 99% of the time.

When it coms to this filter - guys here lose their minds.

 

[goodtimes]

If someone puts a new window screen in, and a friend comes over and says how do you know it works to keep flies out, is what I see here. If the disk clogs, then that is what cutting open and checking it every 10k is for. If it's clogged, run it less until it isn't. It still works. Some engines may clog it right away, some may never clog it. As for documentation, all I see about the Fram is 80% @ 5 microns is someone saying it, and Toyota is 51% efficient, Honda etc etc, is someone drawing and posting a graph. I don't have trouble believing Microgreens claim on the disk either. At least I can see the disk.

 

[Corelokt]

If 5 micron and less is the goal, why not just a bypass filter?

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: Corelokt
If 5 micron and less is the goal, why not just a bypass filter?


Because the plumbing associated with doing so is expensive and often difficult.

This capacity built into a spin on is very convenient if priced right.

Its a tiny bypass that wont hold much hence the 10K changeout spec.

kschachn- the data we do have show it works as claimed not the opposite.

If DB's results showed otherwise Id be panning it. If ANYONES results show it doesn't work as claimed Ill pan it.

 

[Corelokt]

Makes sense re the bypass. I run them for coolant and trans, but oil plumbing g is a pia.