MicroGreen filter

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: DdDd
Can somebody please point out to me where this magical unicorn of a micro filter is located on their cartridge filters?

Granted the sock method in cartridges needs some more evidence they work. When they bunch up, the hope is they turn black with tiny particles (catching them) as the soft polymer material snags particles, yet I can't be certain this happens enough.

The parallel path filtration is easier to see how it is effective. By inspection one sees the fluid paths. .... The sock isn't a parallel path unless its bunched up, & effective only when we confirm it snags the smaller stuff inside the foam polymer material. Two separate issues really, cartridge socks and spin-ons with discs.

As for the ability to go 30k miles (10k filters & makeup oil), it does appear all the chemicals in the DI package in a good synthetic would be shredded or chemically altered over that long a run, depending on how much short tripping is done and how much high-heat stress is applied.
... We may find that M1 Annual Protection and/or Amsoil SS would make it to 30k miles adequately using 10k Microgreens and makeup oil as needed. ............. The Oxnard government fleet has been using MicroGreens for years with cheap re-refined GroupII SN motor oil, and I wonder if their rings gum up !!!!
 
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
So this unproven theory oil filters filter better with use is now gospel through repeating it over and over?
MG says a lot about the testing, no graphs I can see, but they even put the disk on other filters and in 40 miles 85% more 5 micron particles were filtered out over the standard filters. They say. I believe they did that from the way they describe it.
The same can be said for any information, the filter rep says 80% @ 5 microns and everyone believes it. He says. Amsoil draws a graph. No one knows if any of it is true. Someone asks for data on the phone, and the data becomes fact. No it doesn't, not to me.
Then a guy on here with no agenda that it is his product he is selling, actually tests the Ultra against his Toyota copy filter, with data from Blackstone, and when the particle count is in favor of the copy filter, the thread becomes quiet. Interesting psychology more than anything.


Amsoil gives no 4548-12 number on their bypass filter (I can find) , but everyone believes micron claim.

Mfgr rep phone in/ email rep data here is interesting- When it supports ones personal position - its gospel.
When it doesn't its "incomplete, unclear" and then as a singular point gets thrown out.

Same with blackstone data.

UD
 
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4389288/Re:_microGreen_filters_anyone#Post4389288

Looks decent.

Originally Posted By: DBMaster
After almost two years, 30,000 miles, three MG filters, and 1.5 quarts of Mazda w/moly makeup oil, here it is. The original fill was M1 0W-20 AFE. Not stellar, but not terrible, either. The vehicle is a 2012 Mazda 3 w/Skyactiv engine (GDI). Perhaps, I'll just go 20,000 miles and leave it at that. Please comment!

Mi on oil 30,000
Mi on Unit 52,250
Sample Date 10/2/15
Make Up Oil Added 1.5 qt
Aluminum 12
Chromium 2
Iron 50
Copper 6
Lead 0
Tin 0
Molybdenum 295
Nickel 0
Manganese 1
Silver 0
Titanium 0
Potassium 2
Boron 60
Silicon 55
Sodium 8
Calcium 1533
Magnesium 457
Phosphorous 596
Zinc 820
Barium 0
SUS Visc @ 210F 56.5
cSt at 100C 9.20
Flashpoint (F) 370
Fuel % 0.8
Antifreeze % 0.0
Water % 0.0
Insolubles % 0.2
TBN 2.1
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Seemingly and usually otherwise smart guys lose their ability to use google when it comes to this filter.

Why are we reduced to Googling anything about the filter when the manufacturer should be supplying standardized test data that can be compared to other filters on the market? Since we are supposed to "Google" for our data about this filter, I searched for sintered Teflon filter media. What is the sintering density I'm supposed to look at to determine the filtering ability of the filter? I also Googled "oil filters", which one of those results gives me the filtering efficiency of the main element? I also Googled "external filtering sock", which one of those results tells me that the sock used on their cartridge filters won't weaken and sag like the one in the picture?

I'll tell you how it really is, seeming and usually otherwise smart guys lose their ability to think in a logical manner when it comes to this filter. Not you specifically, but it seems as though people who denigrate and dismiss any filter that doesn't provide ISO filtration data (OEM, Denso, etc.) somehow think that a singular email to one poster on an Internet board is suddenly all that ever needs to be provided. Did microGreen ever answer you when you asked for the same data? Did they ever answer me? If that data was so readily available to one person who asked, why isn't it available to others that ask the same question? Even more, if the answer is such an awesome answer that blows everyone else away, why not publish that answer on your website and in your literature?


We resort to googling because we (I) don't believe the manufacturers claims.
We dont believe their fleet claims nor the concept of the PTFE filter media.
So we check them out on our own.

Could you really not find PTFE filter media in the 2-5 micron range?
Its readily available not at all hard to source, and even comes in circular pucks.
If you do find it is it a stretch to apply that to the concept of a dual stage filter (which is a unicorn in the gasoline world)

I think were all aligned on the sock.

Manufacturers typically only reply to those that typically support their position- we've seen this many times.

Why would they want to get into a whizzing match on the web with someone who has said they acknowledge the fleet data but dont believe this fleet manager did their homework?

The board uses the write in data/ phone in data supplied by others as gospel - what should MG be any different?

Why is it we blindly trust a number printed on a box?
Especially one that has already changed multiple times and hasn't been independently verified.

Without third party verification of claimed performance its simply that- a claim.

When third parties (like city fleets ) say they've tested a product I think that holds water better than any print on a box.

Proof- yes everyone wants it, but this board can't agree on SAE papers meanings. " It doesn't say what you think it says" is what well known posters here claim. Hard proof is a rare thing so what I look for is evidence. Multiple pieces of evidence build a stronger case than a single one.

Multiple fleets adopting it make a bette case than one. Multiple fleets have publicly, and we have evidence of wider fleet adoption.

There is a lot of evidence available that the cannister does what it claims and not a single piece I can find of tested hard data that says it doesn't.


UD
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Mfgr rep phone in/ email rep data here is interesting- When it supports ones personal position - its gospel.
When it doesn't its "incomplete, unclear" and then as a singular point gets thrown out.

Same with blackstone data.

Actually no, "Mfgr rep phone in/ email rep data" is not what it is. It is "some dude on an Internet discussion board" reporting something they said they got, something that no one else on the same board has ever been able to obtain despite having asked for it. Ridicule that as much as you wish but it is accurate. Did you get a response when you asked for the same information?

And I've seen you mention "Blackstone data" before and call it "gold standard". Which Blackstone data are you talking about exactly? Particle counts? ISO filtration data? I've never seen any of that. If you are talking about TBN, then that really has nothing to do with Blackstone per se. There are many other oil analysis labs that are quite capable of running a TBN titration. The problem is, and I know you understand this, there is nothing to compare it against. Sure you get results and they look good, but how do you know you wouldn't have gotten exactly the same results with a different filter? There's no comparison data. You're trying to prove that the oil filter was the sole cause of TBN retention but how is the effect of the filter isolated when there is nothing to compare it against?
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Mfgr rep phone in/ email rep data here is interesting- When it supports ones personal position - its gospel.
When it doesn't its "incomplete, unclear" and then as a singular point gets thrown out.

Same with blackstone data.

Actually no, "Mfgr rep phone in/ email rep data" is not what it is. It is "some dude on an Internet discussion board" reporting something they said they got, something that no one else on the same board has ever been able to obtain despite having asked for it. Ridicule that as much as you wish but it is accurate. Did you get a response when you asked for the same information?

And I've seen you mention "Blackstone data" before and call it "gold standard". Which Blackstone data are you talking about exactly? Particle counts? ISO filtration data? I've never seen any of that. If you are talking about TBN, then that really has nothing to do with Blackstone per se. There are many other oil analysis labs that are quite capable of running a TBN titration. The problem is, and I know you understand this, there is nothing to compare it against. Sure you get results and they look good, but how do you know you wouldn't have gotten exactly the same results with a different filter? There's no comparison data. You're trying to prove that the oil filter was the sole cause of TBN retention but how is the effect of the filter isolated when there is nothing to compare it against?


They replied to me promptly with the link to the thread with that data their rep stated.

Yes Polaris, Cat, many others can test for TBN.
Blackstone is this sites most often use standard.

We have evidence it works. (once again for others here - I use the word evidence)

They never claimed no other combo could achieve that result - a stacked disk product could beat it, as could a true external.

How is the burden of proof on Mincrogreen to prove no other combination could yield a similar result?

All that matters is that when their regimen is performed as advertised are the UOA results allowed continued sump life as offered by the claim.





UD
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
They replied to me promptly with the link to the thread with that data their rep stated.

So when you emailed microGreen about filtering efficiency data, instead of directly providing you with the data they refereed you to a BITOG thread? Really? How odd, that's the first time I've ever seen anything like that.

I wasn't aware you got any sort of response at all so that is my mistake. That's more than I got, maybe I should try again.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
They replied to me promptly with the link to the thread with that data their rep stated.

So when you emailed microGreen about filtering efficiency data, instead of directly providing you with the data they refereed you to a BITOG thread? Really? How odd, that's the first time I've ever seen anything like that.

I wasn't aware you got any sort of response at all so that is my mistake. That's more than I got, maybe I should try again.


They mention BITOG in their mail to Ihatetochangeoil, but didnt provide a link.

Cant hurt to try.

For what its worth I had a problem with an order once from them, they ship the replacement filter in advance of getting the return.
I could get human beings when I needed them. Better to not have a problem, but if you do they provided a satisfying fix.

That doesn't means they are telling the truth about anything.

I am completely with you in that I don't like how they post their data and think they could get lot more out of places like this if they went along with what everyone else does.

I also run a bunch of other filters and check each order lot with a filter cut of a random one from an order to see what if anything has changed quality or build wise. MG changed a bunch over time.

UD
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn

How exactly have you found their filters "exceptional"? The cartridge filters are clearly deficient in design, and we've also seen issues with the construction of the canister filters and the ADV. The company publishes no useful ISO filtration data, and has not responded to several requests for additional information from both myself and at least one other person from this board. So unless you have run ISO filtration tests and can provide the results, how do you make the statement that they are exceptional? What supported argument can you make that they do a better job filtering oil than does a Fram Ultra? Or even an orange can for that matter?

I too have an engineering background. The reason you see no fault in what they've stated is because they haven't stated anything that documents proof of performance. Kind of like the additive companies, if you make your claims nebulous and ultimately unprovable by the end user then you can't be held to any specific performance claim.


I find their product exception because even though some can't seem to understand their design it does work. I purchased two initially given their cheaper than expected price on amazon and cut one open. The housing was thicker, the filter had more filtering medium, and it was of higher quality that other similarly priced filters.

I came here to post my findings on the Microgreen to-date. I did not at any point compare it to the performance of any other filter. I simply stated that the performance of this filter was exceptional as it has high build quality and very good filtration. How do I know it provides very good filtration? This is my 8th vehicle I've personally owned and I've never had oil look this good at this interval. Had the filtration not performed well the oil would not look like it had just come from the bottle. Sometimes you don't need all the lab equipment in the world to make a simple observation. I can also look at the pressure gauge to determine flow. Lack of filtration would be indicated by a drop in pressure. Not enough flow and pressure would be too high.

As far as the design and people pointing to it's "Obvious flaws". The whole point of having a canister is the pressure is applied equally outward to all parts of the housing. Since the housing doesn't budge the opposing force then pushes the oil through the filter. Since the system maintains constant pressure it comes down to the 2nd medium used at the top of the system for finer filtration. The only question is "Does the upper medium allow oil to flow through at xx psi". If the answer is yes and XX psi is reached within the system then oil DOES go through the bypass. Does it go through at the same rate? Absolutely not but it does bypass. Videos of used filters being cut open show carbon deposits on the bypass filter.

What gets me is how easy it is for people to shout it down stating there's no proof it works when there are several people using them and so far no proof they don't work. Sometimes the simple observations are all that's needed. I'll get a UOA done at the recommended oil change interval but again I've never seen oil look so clean.

Also why does everyone seem think I'm running this for 30k miles without oil changes? I've never once stated such. Plan on changing it at 7500 as in the manual.
 
If you look in the dictionary of common phrases for the term "dead horse" you will find a picture of a microGreen filter.
 
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
So this unproven theory oil filters filter better with use is now gospel through repeating it over and over?
MG says a lot about the testing, no graphs I can see, but they even put the disk on other filters and in 40 miles 85% more 5 micron particles were filtered out over the standard filters. They say. I believe they did that from the way they describe it.
The same can be said for any information, the filter rep says 80% @ 5 microns and everyone believes it. He says. Amsoil draws a graph. No one knows if any of it is true. Someone asks for data on the phone, and the data becomes fact. No it doesn't, not to me.
Then a guy on here with no agenda that it is his product he is selling, actually tests the Ultra against his Toyota copy filter, with data from Blackstone, and when the particle count is in favor of the copy filter, the thread becomes quiet. Interesting psychology more than anything.


Amsoil gives no 4548-12 number on their bypass filter (I can find) , but everyone believes micron claim.

Mfgr rep phone in/ email rep data here is interesting- When it supports ones personal position - its gospel.
When it doesn't its "incomplete, unclear" and then as a singular point gets thrown out.

Same with blackstone data.

UD


The Fram Ultra must win all now seems to be the consensus. When it doesn't, or has a defect, the thread gets buried fast. That's fine,almost everyone tends to defend what they spent money to buy, but there are extremes.
The disk on my MG appeared to be something other than sintered. More like a dense fiber. MG says the disk is patented, so maybe the patent info can be found and on the whole filter as well. If not done already.
 
Originally Posted By: FlyingTexan
Sometimes you don't need all the lab equipment in the world to make a simple observation. I can also look at the pressure gauge to determine flow. Lack of filtration would be indicated by a drop in pressure. Not enough flow and pressure would be too high.


Actually, the higher the pressure reading the higher the flow through the engine's oiling system if the oil is at a constant temperature. If the pressure gauge was before the oil filter, then you would see the filter's flow resistance effect the observed oil pressure. But I don't know of any vehicle that puts the oil pressure sensor before the filter.

The pressure gauge is typically after the oil filter, so the only time you could tell the effect of the oil filter on pressure & flow going into the engine is when the oil pump is in pressure relief, which is very hard to do unless the oil is very cold and the engine RPM is high.
 
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
So this unproven theory oil filters filter better with use is now gospel through repeating it over and over?
MG says a lot about the testing, no graphs I can see, but they even put the disk on other filters and in 40 miles 85% more 5 micron particles were filtered out over the standard filters. They say. I believe they did that from the way they describe it.
The same can be said for any information, the filter rep says 80% @ 5 microns and everyone believes it. He says. Amsoil draws a graph. No one knows if any of it is true. Someone asks for data on the phone, and the data becomes fact. No it doesn't, not to me.
Then a guy on here with no agenda that it is his product he is selling, actually tests the Ultra against his Toyota copy filter, with data from Blackstone, and when the particle count is in favor of the copy filter, the thread becomes quiet. Interesting psychology more than anything.


You believe MG because they said it, but you don't believe Amsoil or WIX or Purolator when they divulge or show info/data?

I've called WIX about the efficiency of their XP to confirm if their "50% @ 20 microns" claim was true or not. WIX tech line guy said it was true. So should I not believe him and believe some WIX XP fanboy on this chat board instead?

If you can't believe the information given on the phone by the company's Tech Dept then I guess you can't believe anything ever said or written by any company - LoL.
 
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
MG says the disk is patented, so maybe the patent info can be found and on the whole filter as well. If not done already.

https://www.google.com/patents/US7048848
https://www.google.com/patents/US6605215
https://www.google.com/patents/US8123942
I might read some of that later. I think it just states whats obvious to engineers: Split the fluid path, one goes into the main media, & the other goes into a microfilter disc or frisbee mat of fibers. Not rocket science. Some oil gets filtered on each pass, and after a while it gets around to all the fluid. Easy concept.
 
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Originally Posted By: Johnny2Bad
The canister filters are slightly more efficient because even the passenger car "short" versions have more media than spin-ons.
A "canister" is a spin-on. A cartridge gets inserted into a permanent housing.


Tell that to Chevrolet or GM. They refer to them as "spin on" and "canister element" filters at the parts counter and in the parts catalogs. The "canister" is the housing that holds the filter. A "spin-on" filter contains both the filter element and the canister (the outer housing that holds the filter).
 
Yes, you are correct. We at BITOG might use the terminology more precisely, but yes, that's what most of the parts catalogues called them, a "canister element" when we had a 1951 Chevy grain truck with a cartridge filter.
 
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Granted the sock method in cartridges needs some more evidence they work. When they bunch up, the hope is they turn black with tiny particles (catching them) as the soft polymer material snags particles, yet I can't be certain this happens enough.

The parallel path filtration is easier to see how it is effective. By inspection one sees the fluid paths. .... The sock isn't a parallel path unless its bunched up, & effective only when we confirm it snags the smaller stuff inside the foam polymer material. Two separate issues really, cartridge socks and spin-ons with discs.

Haha, nice attempt to try and defend an unmitigated disaster of a design.

Sheesh.
 
The company is called SOMS Technologies (Spin-On Microfilter System). They should have stuck with their core strength. But, this happens a lot, as we have seen with Mobil 1. Brand extensions are not always successful.
 
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
The company is called SOMS Technologies (Spin-On Microfilter System). They should have stuck with their core strength. But, this happens a lot, as we have seen with Mobil 1. Brand extensions are not always successful.

Well there is a big difference between a clear failure in design that has the potential to be harmful to your engine and one that is apparently a marketing failure. No one is suggesting that the M1 AP is in any way dangerous or doesn't do what it claims. It's the price that makes it unattractive.
 
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
MG says the disk is patented, so maybe the patent info can be found and on the whole filter as well. If not done already.

https://www.google.com/patents/US7048848
https://www.google.com/patents/US6605215
https://www.google.com/patents/US8123942
I might read some of that later. I think it just states whats obvious to engineers: Split the fluid path, one goes into the main media, & the other goes into a microfilter disc or frisbee mat of fibers. Not rocket science. Some oil gets filtered on each pass, and after a while it gets around to all the fluid. Easy concept.

I'm unfamiliar with the patent assignments in your links, is that the design of the microGreen filter?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Zee09
Outgunned For The Day
Replies
10
Views
624
53' Stude
F
Oil filter for B58 engine?
Replies
6
Views
1K
drtyler
FordFETruck
Premium Guard 10575 - potential issue
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
ZeeOSix
BISCUT
Fram Ultra XG9688 Before HPL Cleaner and Post HPL OCI 5200Miles
4 5 6
Replies
117
Views
5K
ZeeOSix
dedonderosa
2010 Rav4. ST9972 FILTER
2
Replies
30
Views
974
nthach
Back
Top