Microgreen filters - intrigued

[oil_film_movies]

We'd be lucky if somebody (Champ, Mann, Fram, you listening?) buys up what's left of MicroGreen during bankruptcy, at least it's patents for the dual-path filter, and
this time do it right. It's almost there the way it is. Just better build quallity, use a full syn media like Ultra or Royal Purple or Amsoil EaO, and then put a decent hockey puck round thing in the 2-micron path.

 

[DuckRyder]

Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
We'd be lucky if somebody (Champ, Mann, Fram, you listening?) buys up what's left of MicroGreen during bankruptcy, at least it's patents for the dual-path filter, and
this time do it right. It's almost there the way it is. Just better build quallity, use a full syn media like Ultra or Royal Purple or Amsoil EaO, and then put a decent hockey puck round thing in the 2-micron path.


That is right. I actually like the idea, but the execution seems a bit flawed

 

[Ablebody]

Originally Posted by DBMaster
I am not as compulsive as the rest of you about these things. The insolubles measured fine. The TBN was still 2.1. (You do have to add about a pint of fresh oil when changing the filter.) Knowing that it's not a measure of anything meaningful, I see no varnish, residue, or sludge inside the fill hole area. I was running 10K OCIs with synthetic as far back as 1991 so I've always been a "rebel." My last vehicle was doing fine on its original engine after 353,000 miles. The purpose of the one UOA was just to see if the oil would still be considered serviceable, which it was. We are not engineers. How "good" a filter looks inside or our theories about what and what is not effective are irrelevant. Facts do not care what you think about them. I am very much enjoying performing only one full oil change every two years. I'm using this regimen with both my kids' cars as well. Neither I nor anyone I know ever keeps a car long enough to wear out the engine so why devote so much life energy to your mechanical conveyance.? I'm about tired of seeing "But, I enjoy changing my oil." I enjoy a lot of things more than that. If it's entertainment for you, go for it.

Hmm. Why waste "life energy" responding to a post and sharing information about your "mechanical conveyance" if you don't really give a crap? Seems ambivalent

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted by DuckRyder
Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
We'd be lucky if somebody (Champ, Mann, Fram, you listening?) buys up what's left of MicroGreen during bankruptcy, at least it's patents for the dual-path filter, and
this time do it right. It's almost there the way it is. Just better build quallity, use a full syn media like Ultra or Royal Purple or Amsoil EaO, and then put a decent hockey puck round thing in the 2-micron path.


That is right. I actually like the idea, but the execution seems a bit flawed



Seems V1 worked as intended, they fell out with the guy that designed it (Norb) and cheapened the build and it no longer functions to spec as claimed.


Cummins does a better version of it that works as intended - but it won't fit on much.



UD

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted by DBMaster
I have been buying mine through Amazon for some time. The minimum purchase shipping rule doesn't apply to them so shipping has always been free. The bankruptcy filing is a concern, though, many companies do it as a means of financial cleansing rather than business cessation. I might be inclined to go the FU route through the same routine if these filters become unavailable. I've wondered a good while, as have several others on this forum, if the regimen could be successful with just about ANY filter. Wouldn't that be a rub?

A chapter 11 debtor usually proposes a plan of reorganization to keep its business alive and pay creditors over time. It would be cool to know what SOMS (microgreen people) is presenting to the judge moving forward. I mean, they don't really advertise (no Frampa shilling for them...). Fleet contracts are great, but if they pushed it, they could sell to the public. Thing is, they probably don't feel like improving the thing, bad for us.

If any filter can clean it up, Ultra can. I could see doing a 30k oil change on 2 Ultra changes.

 

[UncleDave]

Ultra with a filtermag is my replacement solution.


UD

 

[Ablebody]

Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
DBMaster, very logical.
Originally Posted by rubberchicken
I never paid attention to this brand before, thinking it was just another filter, but finally paid attention at a used MCG cut open. Does the overall process really work.....I mean the concept and practice, not the cost effectiveness . Also, I see they also make cartridges and I cannot see how this idea would even work.
rubberchicken and any new poster here: put the following in Google.com to find a full list of all the many discussions on bitog:
-------------------------------------------------------
microgreen site:bobistheoilguy.com
-------------------------------------------------------
I've read quite a bit, including seeing UncleDave's video recently, and I think a person is better off getting a Fram Ultra instead. Build quality, some doubts about how they have cheapened the media, etc., are a bit problematic. The Fram Ultra is built well, very tough, full syn media, double layered media, silicone adbv, and filters 99% at 20microns, and, because of depth filtering, it gets 80% at 5 microns, and it flows pretty well as far as what Motorking and ZeeOSix have determined.

The concept of 2 paths, one a normal path, and the other a path which gets out smaller junk, with both paths converging in parallel to get a full flow across both elements, is a good concept.

The cartridge filter with the green sponge covering might work, but this compay just doesn't seem trustworthy enough to take their word for its performance without indepedent testing.

What it comes down to is I'm not quite trusting SOMS (Microgreen company), especially after they lost their big AT&T fleet contract for cause.

Then, we find out SOMS is filing for bankruptcy.
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/25707985/SOMS_Technologies_LLC
https://businessbankruptcies.com/cases/soms-technologies-llc

Fram Ultra is the pick over the MicroGreen. They could have made it work. They didn't execute the idea or design correctly.

Lol, it always becomes a fram ultra advertisment around here. That company must really love you guys. Or maybe some of you are a little more invested than just brand loyal.
Anyway, show us where the 5u at 80% is published by fram.
Why is soms untrustworthy?
I bet it would be refreshing if most threads didn't become a fram comparison/infomercial of sorts lol

 

[UncleDave]

Im no particular friend of Fram or anyone - and have run many microgreens.

The latest ISO counts they proffered themselves show that the filter did not scrub down to the claimed 2 microns - it was a barney fife move by them that cost them my confidence in them along with designer claiming the new build didn't work.

It may make the claim that you can retain enough TBN for 3 OCI's and have evidence the modern ones actually do this -and we have that evidence here - whats cloudy is where did the old stop and teh new begin and they have made no effort to set any record straight. Other manufacturers here that allow their reps to give us the straight scoop and participate in the forum.

Microgreen have given us specs privately that are great -and very likely from the V1 design, but they won't participate publicly at all or revisit in subsequent mails.

Like Fram or not, Jay is available to the group and a straight shooter.
MG is silent in the face of their own self-made controversy.

Most will tell you they are untrustworthy because they submit no 4548-12 - that particular test isn't supposed to be run on a filter in this micron rating.
Cummins doesnt either but no one doubts the veracity of their claims.

Without knowing more - Ill simply stick to the most available price perf leader and add a magnet - for me thats the ultra -
If I could get the amsoil off the shelf nearby for a competitive price I would prob buy that.

Seems like they indeed had the holy grail with good experienced people and the a killer product - and still managed to blow it, bummer.




UD

 

[ZeeOSix]

Obviously hints of a reincarnation when someone gets upset when the word Ultra is seen. Dynomite !

 

[Ablebody]

If any filter can clean it up, Ultra can. I could see doing a 30k oil change on 2 Ultra changes.[/quote]

You could be the one to test that out.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted by Ablebody
If any filter can clean it up, Ultra can. I could see doing a 30k oil change on 2 Ultra changes. You could be the one to test that out.


You'd only need one change out as they rate at 20K now but no thanks here on that.

The whole ability to do that was based on the containment of 2-15 micron particles that stopped runaway oxidation and particle regeneration - which effects everything else like TBN.
Take that capability away the OCI becomes highly contaminated over that length of time - bad for things like timing chains and valve trains specifically.


Wanna make any filter better?
Add mag for even better results and take it up with Jim Fitch if you disagree - but that's another thread.
Take a top line filter add a filter mag which shave off 1-3 ISO codes or better yet - contacts mags in the dome - that's pretty close to the original microgreen proposition.



UD

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted by Ablebody
Lol, it always becomes a fram ultra advertisment around here. That company must really love you guys. Or maybe some of you are a little more invested than just brand loyal.

The Ultra is a great product, on the facts alone. If you know of a filter that is built better, and has a better 4548-12 performance, then spit it out. Tell us. You can't, is the problem you're having!
Originally Posted by Ablebody
Anyway, show us where the 5u at 80% is published by fram.
Motorking of Fram told us that. It is consistent with depth-filtering using the thick mat they use in an Ultra, along with the published 99.5% at 20 microns.
Originally Posted by Ablebody
Why is soms untrustworthy?
They appear to be a little evasive when it comes to performance facts.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted by UncleDave
Add mag for even better results and take it up with Jim Fitch if you disagree - but that's another thread.
Take a top line filter add a filter mag which shave off 1-3 ISO codes or better yet - contacts mags in the dome - that's pretty close to the original microgreen proposition.

Doubting just getting iron out a bit will do anything to get silicon sand particles out, or anything else but fe. Not the same as a 2 micron filter for sure. ......

.... would be my choice, at least in configuration. Although, to "duplicate" the MicroGreen scheme, one would need a 1 or 2 micron filtering 'ring' inside there.
With the in-line module like that, you could use any spin-on oil filter mounted on it, an Ultra best.
To me, a magnet is best as a drain plug, not in the flow.

 

[Ablebody]

Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
Originally Posted by Ablebody
Lol, it always becomes a fram ultra advertisment around here. That company must really love you guys. Or maybe some of you are a little more invested than just brand loyal.

The Ultra is a great product, on the facts alone. If you know of a filter that is built better, and has a better 4548-12 performance, then spit it out. Tell us. You can't, is the problem you're having!
Originally Posted by Ablebody
Anyway, show us where the 5u at 80% is published by fram.
Motorking of Fram told us that. It is consistent with depth-filtering using the thick mat they use in an Ultra, along with the published 99.5% at 20 microns.
Originally Posted by Ablebody
Why is soms untrustworthy?
They appear to be a little evasive when it comes to performance facts.

Tell him to have fram publish that info and then I'll believe it.wix and puro and Baldwin probably some others publish a nominal rating.
I would like to determine which filter is better for me. Which is really the best is just speculation. I am trying to determine if the microgreen is really deserving of the bashing some of y'all are giving it or if it's really just fine
We have one guy that's posted on this thread that's on his 3rd 30k oci worth microgreen. So that seems pretty telling to me to me.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
Originally Posted by UncleDave
Add mag for even better results and take it up with Jim Fitch if you disagree - but that's another thread.
Take a top line filter add a filter mag which shave off 1-3 ISO codes or better yet - contacts mags in the dome - that's pretty close to the original microgreen proposition.

Doubting just getting iron out a bit will do anything to get silicon sand particles out, or anything else but fe. Not the same as a 2 micron filter for sure. ......

.... would be my choice, at least in configuration. Although, to "duplicate" the MicroGreen scheme, one would need a 1 or 2 micron filtering 'ring' inside there.
With the in-line module like that, you could use any spin-on oil filter mounted on it, an Ultra best.
To me, a magnet is best as a drain plug, not in the flow.



that spin on solution offers an excellent performance - but adds an additional sealing surface as well as added length that on may not have.

I prefer linctexs buttons in the base end for an inflow solution as it also contacts the stream directly and one can observe what's being removed without destroying the device or filter.

I understand the drain plug preference but of all the magnetic assistance solutions - but it get the least flow.

True that solution can only catch ferrous material where the MG puck theoretically catches any object down to 2 microns but in terms of an improvement it is certainly that.


UD

 

[oil_film_movies]

About the MagnaFilter picture above, I really meant to convey that it would be cool if it had a 2-micron small element in the mount. Then, it would be a modular, separable equivalent to what MicroGreen attempts to do. A magnet in there is a bonus, but there needs to be a fine filter inside that filters a small amount of the flow.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Nominal efficiency rating is pretty useless, especially when there are more than one way to define it. And WIX doesn't actually say it's the 'nominal efficiency' ... they just say "Micron Rating" which could mean anything.

Someone here emailed Purolator a while back asking what the efficiency breakdown was on the PureOne, and Purolator said it was 95% at 8u. So not a stretch to see that the Ultra can be 85% at 5u. The PureOne was pretty efficient, basically paralleled the Ultra's efficiency and that's why many guys who liked the high efficiency PureOne jumped to the Ultra when the tearing media started showing up 4+ years ago.

 

[Ablebody]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Nominal efficiency rating is pretty useless, especially when there are more than one way to define it. And WIX doesn't actually say it's the 'nominal efficiency' ... they just say "Micron Rating" which could mean anything.

Someone here emailed Purolator a while back asking what the efficiency breakdown was on the PureOne, and Purolator said it was 95% at 8u. So not a stretch to see that the Ultra can be 85% at 5u. The PureOne was pretty efficient, basically paralleled the Ultra's efficiency and that's why many guys who liked the high efficiency PureOne jumped to the Ultra when the tearing media started showing up 4+ years ago.

Before when I posted the pure one nominal rating>5 you said it means at 50% so that seems relavent. Does that mean it should catch the 5 micron particles completely around every other passing?

 

[ZeeOSix]

I could be nominal efficiency ... but it just said "Micron Rating" which could really mean anything. It could mean it will catch some of the >5 micron particles with no implied efficiency.

Here's an example where "nominal efficiency" (Nominal Micron Rating) makes no sense. The WIX website shows "Nominal Micron Rating" to be 21 microns. Yet the beta ratio info shows it's 50% @ 6u and 95% at 20u. WIX always did kind of make up their own definitions of efficiency.

http://wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=36104

 

[Ablebody]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
I could be nominal efficiency ... but it just said "Micron Rating" which could really mean anything. It could mean it will catch some of the >5 micron particles with no implied efficiency.

Here's an example where "nominal efficiency" (Nominal Micron Rating) makes no sense. The WIX website shows "Nominal Micron Rating" to be 21 microns. Yet the beta ratio info shows it's 50% @ 6u and 95% at 20u. WIX always did kind of make up their own definitions of efficiency.

http://wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=36104

Yes that is kinda screwy.