Do it. Run whatever combination of oil and filters you want over a 30,000 mile OCI and report your UOA results. I seem to be the only one who's done that. Participants on this site don't seem to think it's enough to just say, "I'm not going to do that." They seem to feel some sort of moral imperative to prove that anyone who does it, thus doing something they won't, MUST be wrong.
microGreen Filtration
- Thread starter Ramblejam
- Start date
- Status
I hear MicroGreen filters are made in Mexico? Can anyone confirm this? If so, I will stick with Mobil 1 or try Fram Ultra(if they are made in USA).
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Particle removal becomes worse as the particles reduce in size in a non linear fashion - not 1-1
This is basically how the different types of media filter. Particle micron size on x-axis and filtering efficiency % on y-axis.
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
The reason is no other combo has proven to keep the sump in tact over 3 filter and 30K.
What other claim out there matches this much less tests out independently?
Just because nobody else has "proved" it doesn't mean there are other very efficient oil filters out there that would give the same results as the Microgreen. If the Ultra does 80% @ 5 microns (basically the red synthetic curve above) I'm betting it's going to give indistinguishable performance compared to the Microgreen.
Thats a great chart- with one filter on the Axes- not two- overlay the MG micro disk on top of that and see which covers a wider range of capture
Was it you that coined the term- strong performance produces strong claims? Dont recall but you were in the discussion (adding value as usual I enjoy your posts)
We were chatting 4548 -12 and the claim was MG must not be good because they dont print it. ( or dodge it)
If a company can't do well in something they dont publish the claim - - conversely when a company can do something they publish it through a claim.
If anyone could match their claim they'd have done so for years now, but they obviously cant.
Im betting if one could add a particle count as part of the testing it would be notably better than a single stage.
Not that a good single stage isnt good- they are great - especially per dollar- but a 2 stage has unique advantages a single stage just cannot provide.
UD
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Particle removal becomes worse as the particles reduce in size in a non linear fashion - not 1-1
This is basically how the different types of media filter. Particle micron size on x-axis and filtering efficiency % on y-axis.
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
The reason is no other combo has proven to keep the sump in tact over 3 filter and 30K.
What other claim out there matches this much less tests out independently?
Just because nobody else has "proved" it doesn't mean there are other very efficient oil filters out there that would give the same results as the Microgreen. If the Ultra does 80% @ 5 microns (basically the red synthetic curve above) I'm betting it's going to give indistinguishable performance compared to the Microgreen.
Thats a great chart- with one filter on the Axes- not two- overlay the MG micro disk on top of that and see which covers a wider range of capture
Was it you that coined the term- strong performance produces strong claims? Dont recall but you were in the discussion (adding value as usual I enjoy your posts)
We were chatting 4548 -12 and the claim was MG must not be good because they dont print it. ( or dodge it)
If a company can't do well in something they dont publish the claim - - conversely when a company can do something they publish it through a claim.
If anyone could match their claim they'd have done so for years now, but they obviously cant.
Im betting if one could add a particle count as part of the testing it would be notably better than a single stage.
Not that a good single stage isnt good- they are great - especially per dollar- but a 2 stage has unique advantages a single stage just cannot provide.
UD
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Bbonez
I hear MicroGreen filters are made in Mexico? Can anyone confirm this? If so, I will stick with Mobil 1 or try Fram Ultra(if they are made in USA).
Hecho in Mexico- but made in an iso rated factory not some homeboys in a garage- so far quality so good minus goodtimes issue/ observation.
UD
I hear MicroGreen filters are made in Mexico? Can anyone confirm this? If so, I will stick with Mobil 1 or try Fram Ultra(if they are made in USA).
Hecho in Mexico- but made in an iso rated factory not some homeboys in a garage- so far quality so good minus goodtimes issue/ observation.
UD
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
but a 2 stage has unique advantages a single stage just cannot provide.
microGreen advantages are predicated on comparison to cheap, cellulose filters that were commonly utilized by fleets. There's nothing out there demonstrating any superiority to filtration media that's being utilized in the Fram Ultra, and it's entirely reasonable to think that position of ZeeOSix (indistinguishable performance) is valid.
INL did some testing with bypass filters in gas engines (GM LS with PuraDYN systems), and hit condemnation around 15k-19k. However, the data is over a decade old now.
but a 2 stage has unique advantages a single stage just cannot provide.
microGreen advantages are predicated on comparison to cheap, cellulose filters that were commonly utilized by fleets. There's nothing out there demonstrating any superiority to filtration media that's being utilized in the Fram Ultra, and it's entirely reasonable to think that position of ZeeOSix (indistinguishable performance) is valid.
INL did some testing with bypass filters in gas engines (GM LS with PuraDYN systems), and hit condemnation around 15k-19k. However, the data is over a decade old now.
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Thats a great chart- with one filter on the Axes- not two- overlay the MG micro disk on top of that and see which covers a wider range of capture.
You'll never know. But if Microgreen has given a couple of efficiency data points of the filter as a whole (still waiting to see the numbers and don't want to go hunting for them) instead of each stage independently, then you might be able to estimate a curve in there.
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Was it you that coined the term- strong performance produces strong claims? Dont recall but you were in the discussion (adding value as usual I enjoy your posts)
We were chatting 4548 -12 and the claim was MG must not be good because they dont print it. ( or dodge it)
If a company can't do well in something they dont publish the claim - - conversely when a company can do something they publish it through a claim.
Not my coined term. If Microgreen tested per a standard test spec (ISO 4548-12 or some older spec) then why wouldn't they tout it? If it's really good then it would be something worth advertising IMO.
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Im betting if one could add a particle count as part of the testing it would be notably better than a single stage.
Not that a good single stage isnt good- they are great - especially per dollar- but a 2 stage has unique advantages a single stage just cannot provide.
ISO 4548-12 is a particle counting test. That's why seeing what the overall Microgreen 4548-12 test efficiency is (not the independent filter stage efficiency, but that's better than nothing) would be a good way to see where it stands compared to some of the high efficiency single stage filters on the market.
Thats a great chart- with one filter on the Axes- not two- overlay the MG micro disk on top of that and see which covers a wider range of capture.
You'll never know. But if Microgreen has given a couple of efficiency data points of the filter as a whole (still waiting to see the numbers and don't want to go hunting for them) instead of each stage independently, then you might be able to estimate a curve in there.
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Was it you that coined the term- strong performance produces strong claims? Dont recall but you were in the discussion (adding value as usual I enjoy your posts)
We were chatting 4548 -12 and the claim was MG must not be good because they dont print it. ( or dodge it)
If a company can't do well in something they dont publish the claim - - conversely when a company can do something they publish it through a claim.
Not my coined term. If Microgreen tested per a standard test spec (ISO 4548-12 or some older spec) then why wouldn't they tout it? If it's really good then it would be something worth advertising IMO.
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Im betting if one could add a particle count as part of the testing it would be notably better than a single stage.
Not that a good single stage isnt good- they are great - especially per dollar- but a 2 stage has unique advantages a single stage just cannot provide.
ISO 4548-12 is a particle counting test. That's why seeing what the overall Microgreen 4548-12 test efficiency is (not the independent filter stage efficiency, but that's better than nothing) would be a good way to see where it stands compared to some of the high efficiency single stage filters on the market.
Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
but a 2 stage has unique advantages a single stage just cannot provide.
microGreen advantages are predicated on comparison to cheap, cellulose filters that were commonly utilized by fleets. There's nothing out there demonstrating any superiority to filtration media that's being utilized in the Fram Ultra, and it's entirely reasonable to think that position of ZeeOSix (indistinguishable performance) is valid.
INL did some testing with bypass filters in gas engines (GM LS), and hit condemnation around 15k-19k. However, the data is over a decade old now, and not relevant to the oils of today.
There is plenty of reading to be done on the media to substantiate its claim, it just sounds like you haven't done it yet.
You can go look up the properties of PTFE filtration simply by googling- and see the properties are well within the claims MG makes and vastly superior in small particle filtration. Media blanks are most commonly sold in disks and MG didn't even have to do much work beyond determine the specific membrane type.
Do you think it an accident it was on your saturn? Cant buy this filter in a walk in store.
UD
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
but a 2 stage has unique advantages a single stage just cannot provide.
microGreen advantages are predicated on comparison to cheap, cellulose filters that were commonly utilized by fleets. There's nothing out there demonstrating any superiority to filtration media that's being utilized in the Fram Ultra, and it's entirely reasonable to think that position of ZeeOSix (indistinguishable performance) is valid.
INL did some testing with bypass filters in gas engines (GM LS), and hit condemnation around 15k-19k. However, the data is over a decade old now, and not relevant to the oils of today.
There is plenty of reading to be done on the media to substantiate its claim, it just sounds like you haven't done it yet.
You can go look up the properties of PTFE filtration simply by googling- and see the properties are well within the claims MG makes and vastly superior in small particle filtration. Media blanks are most commonly sold in disks and MG didn't even have to do much work beyond determine the specific membrane type.
Do you think it an accident it was on your saturn? Cant buy this filter in a walk in store.
UD
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Thats a great chart- with one filter on the Axes- not two- overlay the MG micro disk on top of that and see which covers a wider range of capture.
You'll never know. But if Microgreen has given a couple of efficiency data points of the filter as a whole (still waiting to see the numbers and don't want to go hunting for them) instead of each stage independently, then you might be able to estimate a curve in there.
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Was it you that coined the term- strong performance produces strong claims? Dont recall but you were in the discussion (adding value as usual I enjoy your posts)
We were chatting 4548 -12 and the claim was MG must not be good because they dont print it. ( or dodge it)
If a company can't do well in something they dont publish the claim - - conversely when a company can do something they publish it through a claim.
Not my coined term. If Microgreen tested per a standard test spec (ISO 4548-12 or some older spec) then why wouldn't they tout it? If it's really good then it would be something worth advertising IMO.
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Im betting if one could add a particle count as part of the testing it would be notably better than a single stage.
Not that a good single stage isnt good- they are great - especially per dollar- but a 2 stage has unique advantages a single stage just cannot provide.
ISO 4548-12 is a particle counting test. That's why seeing what the overall Microgreen 4548-12 test efficiency is would be a good way to see where it stands to some of the high efficiency single stage filters on the market.
Yes Im aware 4548 is a particle test -Should have been more specific Id like to see the used oil analysis return a particle count down to 2 microns - I rarely see this.
Id love for them to publish the 4548data and wonder if they are hiding something from us, but the data back to date is all good.
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Thats a great chart- with one filter on the Axes- not two- overlay the MG micro disk on top of that and see which covers a wider range of capture.
You'll never know. But if Microgreen has given a couple of efficiency data points of the filter as a whole (still waiting to see the numbers and don't want to go hunting for them) instead of each stage independently, then you might be able to estimate a curve in there.
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Was it you that coined the term- strong performance produces strong claims? Dont recall but you were in the discussion (adding value as usual I enjoy your posts)
We were chatting 4548 -12 and the claim was MG must not be good because they dont print it. ( or dodge it)
If a company can't do well in something they dont publish the claim - - conversely when a company can do something they publish it through a claim.
Not my coined term. If Microgreen tested per a standard test spec (ISO 4548-12 or some older spec) then why wouldn't they tout it? If it's really good then it would be something worth advertising IMO.
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Im betting if one could add a particle count as part of the testing it would be notably better than a single stage.
Not that a good single stage isnt good- they are great - especially per dollar- but a 2 stage has unique advantages a single stage just cannot provide.
ISO 4548-12 is a particle counting test. That's why seeing what the overall Microgreen 4548-12 test efficiency is would be a good way to see where it stands to some of the high efficiency single stage filters on the market.
Yes Im aware 4548 is a particle test -Should have been more specific Id like to see the used oil analysis return a particle count down to 2 microns - I rarely see this.
Id love for them to publish the 4548data and wonder if they are hiding something from us, but the data back to date is all good.
Last edited:
Sigh. Put up or shut up. I don't know why I'm even attracted to the MG threads. I'm using them on three vehicles now; mine, my daughter's, and my son's. Since I am the only one in multiple generations who has the mechanic bug I like the fact that their cars have good oil and require minimal attention. In 30,000 miles the three of us are producing 1/6 of the waste oil that most BITOGers are. That's without sacrificing the lubricating qualities of the oil. That alone makes it worthwhile to me. I'm talking about thirteen gallons less waste oil in 90,000 miles of combined driving. It wouldn't take long for that to add up, would it?
You keep telling us about all this data out there UncleDave, and have been unable to provide any of it.
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
I don't know why I'm even attracted to the MG threads.
Neither do I.
My original question in this thread had nothing to do with drain intervals and waste, but you brought it up, and UncleDave keeps beating that same drum.
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
I don't know why I'm even attracted to the MG threads.
Neither do I.
My original question in this thread had nothing to do with drain intervals and waste, but you brought it up, and UncleDave keeps beating that same drum.
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
Sigh. Put up or shut up. I don't know why I'm even attracted to the MG threads. I'm using them on three vehicles now; mine, my daughter's, and my son's. Since I am the only one in multiple generations who has the mechanic bug I like the fact that their cars have good oil and require minimal attention. In 30,000 miles the three of us are producing 1/6 of the waste oil that most BITOGers are. That's without sacrificing the lubricating qualities of the oil. That alone makes it worthwhile to me. I'm talking about thirteen gallons less waste oil in 90,000 miles of combined driving. It wouldn't take long for that to add up, would it?
There is an establishment here that wont even talk about its "potential" upside in open amenable discussion which says a lot about established narratives.
UD
Sigh. Put up or shut up. I don't know why I'm even attracted to the MG threads. I'm using them on three vehicles now; mine, my daughter's, and my son's. Since I am the only one in multiple generations who has the mechanic bug I like the fact that their cars have good oil and require minimal attention. In 30,000 miles the three of us are producing 1/6 of the waste oil that most BITOGers are. That's without sacrificing the lubricating qualities of the oil. That alone makes it worthwhile to me. I'm talking about thirteen gallons less waste oil in 90,000 miles of combined driving. It wouldn't take long for that to add up, would it?
There is an establishment here that wont even talk about its "potential" upside in open amenable discussion which says a lot about established narratives.
UD
Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
You keep telling us about all this data out there UncleDave, and have been unable to provide any of it.
You can look up DB masters used oil analysis.
You can look up PTFE disks
Every micro green discussion everyone here "forgets" every other ones with links etc.
UD
You keep telling us about all this data out there UncleDave, and have been unable to provide any of it.
You can look up DB masters used oil analysis.
You can look up PTFE disks
Every micro green discussion everyone here "forgets" every other ones with links etc.
UD
Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
I've reviewed both, and it has nothing to do with my original question that started this thread.
You know what? You are correct. These MG threads devolve quickly. I pledge not to post in one again unless someone asks me a direct question. Thank you very much.
I've reviewed both, and it has nothing to do with my original question that started this thread.
You know what? You are correct. These MG threads devolve quickly. I pledge not to post in one again unless someone asks me a direct question. Thank you very much.
Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
I've reviewed both, and it has nothing to do with my original question that started this thread.
I addressed your original post. #4321870
Was your saturn maintained by a fleet manager? Why did he use one?
UD
I've reviewed both, and it has nothing to do with my original question that started this thread.
I addressed your original post. #4321870
Was your saturn maintained by a fleet manager? Why did he use one?
UD
Last edited:
If the filter outlet pipe has a 1/2" ID and the bypass outlet has a 1/8" ID, then the little bypass outlet flows 1/16th of the total oil flow. If a filter is running at 16 qts/min oil flow, then the bypass is at 1 qt/min. So it takes 5 minutes to circulate the entire 5 qt sump through the bypass. On the highway going 60 mph the disk would filter all the oil every 5 miles. Just using easy numbers, not actually measuring the ID's. With it said 1 gram of harmful dirt is generated every 1000 miles, or 1000 mins at 60 mph, it can be seen very little isn't caught by the disk at any moment. In 1000 miles the disk filters all the oil 200 times in this example. I think my arithmetic is about right, someone can correct it if not.
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
I addressed your original post. #4321870
You responded with error and assumption.
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Is 5 miles or minutes " a very long time" to scrub the whole sump down to 5 micron or better?
I guess each guy has his own definition of a "very long time."
Again, more error and assumption. Steve Kirchner (SOMS COO from 2008 - 2011) has publicly stated a very different time. Given the known rate at which oil completely cycles within an engine, and knowing what he said led me to post this question in the first place (that maybe I was overlooking something).
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
These MG threads devolve quickly.
Yeah, true here. Hoped someone else would chime in with good data, but it didn't happen. Oh well.
I addressed your original post. #4321870
You responded with error and assumption.
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Is 5 miles or minutes " a very long time" to scrub the whole sump down to 5 micron or better?
I guess each guy has his own definition of a "very long time."
Again, more error and assumption. Steve Kirchner (SOMS COO from 2008 - 2011) has publicly stated a very different time. Given the known rate at which oil completely cycles within an engine, and knowing what he said led me to post this question in the first place (that maybe I was overlooking something).
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
These MG threads devolve quickly.
Yeah, true here. Hoped someone else would chime in with good data, but it didn't happen. Oh well.
Steve said 40 miles iirc.
You say Im in error but offer no data of your own. Pretty easy out.
What is a very long time? Thats kinda vague wouldn't you say?
Are you ever going to answer why you think your saturn had one on it OR can we only talk about the original post.
Its your thread so I guess you control what we discuss.
UD
You say Im in error but offer no data of your own. Pretty easy out.
What is a very long time? Thats kinda vague wouldn't you say?
Are you ever going to answer why you think your saturn had one on it OR can we only talk about the original post.
Its your thread so I guess you control what we discuss.
UD
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
If the filter outlet pipe has a 1/2" ID and the bypass outlet has a 1/8" ID, then the little bypass outlet flows 1/16th of the total oil flow. If a filter is running at 16 qts/min oil flow, then the bypass is at 1 qt/min. So it takes 5 minutes to circulate the entire 5 qt sump through the bypass. On the highway going 60 mph the disk would filter all the oil every 5 miles. Just using easy numbers, not actually measuring the ID's. With it said 1 gram of harmful dirt is generated every 1000 miles, or 1000 mins at 60 mph, it can be seen very little isn't caught by the disk at any moment. In 1000 miles the disk filters all the oil 200 times in this example. I think my arithmetic is about right, someone can correct it if not.
It's not that simple. What flows through the micro-disc will be solely dependent on what it's flow resistance is with whatever delta-p is across the filter, regardless of the inlet/outlet holes assuming they are much larger than actually needed. The inlet/outlet holes are not there to control flow rate.
This is one thing I was going to point out earlier. Early in this thread UD said the MG filter flows 1~3% of the total flow through the micro-disc. I'm assuming those numbers are from MG, and if so I'm wondering how they've come up with that - purely by calculations on paper, or by actual lab measurements.
Assuming the micro-disc does flow 2% (middle of 1~3), and if cruising down the road at 60 MPH at 2000 RPM gives the oil pump output of 2 GPM with a sump of 5 qts of oil, then it would take the pump 0.625 min (37.5 sec) to circulate the 5 qts through the filter. It would therefore take 31.25 min (50 times longer) to circulate 5 qts worth through the micro-disc.
If the filter outlet pipe has a 1/2" ID and the bypass outlet has a 1/8" ID, then the little bypass outlet flows 1/16th of the total oil flow. If a filter is running at 16 qts/min oil flow, then the bypass is at 1 qt/min. So it takes 5 minutes to circulate the entire 5 qt sump through the bypass. On the highway going 60 mph the disk would filter all the oil every 5 miles. Just using easy numbers, not actually measuring the ID's. With it said 1 gram of harmful dirt is generated every 1000 miles, or 1000 mins at 60 mph, it can be seen very little isn't caught by the disk at any moment. In 1000 miles the disk filters all the oil 200 times in this example. I think my arithmetic is about right, someone can correct it if not.
It's not that simple. What flows through the micro-disc will be solely dependent on what it's flow resistance is with whatever delta-p is across the filter, regardless of the inlet/outlet holes assuming they are much larger than actually needed. The inlet/outlet holes are not there to control flow rate.
This is one thing I was going to point out earlier. Early in this thread UD said the MG filter flows 1~3% of the total flow through the micro-disc. I'm assuming those numbers are from MG, and if so I'm wondering how they've come up with that - purely by calculations on paper, or by actual lab measurements.
Assuming the micro-disc does flow 2% (middle of 1~3), and if cruising down the road at 60 MPH at 2000 RPM gives the oil pump output of 2 GPM with a sump of 5 qts of oil, then it would take the pump 0.625 min (37.5 sec) to circulate the 5 qts through the filter. It would therefore take 31.25 min (50 times longer) to circulate 5 qts worth through the micro-disc.
- Status
