Microgreen - possibly stunning development!
- Thread starter CharlieBauer
- Start date
- Status
I wonder what Dr. Kule would think?
Respectfully,
Pajero!
Respectfully,
Pajero!
I’ve seen TR insoluables a couple of times at least and have never done a UOA on a MicroGreen run.
In fact a one of them was from a Motorcraft.
In fact a one of them was from a Motorcraft.
I have the filter leftover from the genset UOA- but there are two in the box.
One is a 10K removal from my lexus which has about 15k miles on its sump and a mcirogreen on it.
The other is the 169 hour filter from the genset.
one was made in 15 and one 17
Im inclined to believe the 17 Manufactured one was the genset filter, but I cannot be certain.
UD
One is a 10K removal from my lexus which has about 15k miles on its sump and a mcirogreen on it.
The other is the 169 hour filter from the genset.
one was made in 15 and one 17
Im inclined to believe the 17 Manufactured one was the genset filter, but I cannot be certain.
UD
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
An insoluble number is also a good indicator of filter effectiveness.
I'm not so sure how good of an indication the insoluble number is. Would have to get an ISO Cleanliness particle count along with every standard UOA to see how good the correlation is, if any.
An insoluble number is also a good indicator of filter effectiveness.
I'm not so sure how good of an indication the insoluble number is. Would have to get an ISO Cleanliness particle count along with every standard UOA to see how good the correlation is, if any.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
"This is why people shouldn't believe claims of filter efficiency without data"
Five stars review for you.
A better review than saying "their claims must be true because they said so" which we've heard from you.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
That review on Amazon sounds bogus. It wasn't written by an English as first language writer.
Maybe English isn't the guy's first language, but it doesn't automatically make it bogus. Are you being discriminatory?
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
An insoluble number is also a good indicator of filter effectiveness.
I'm not so sure how good of an indication the insoluble number is. Would have to get an ISO Cleanliness particle count along with every standard UOA to see how good the correlation is, if any.
It looks bogus as all get out. Not discrimination at all to say the English is bad, it's evidence of something. Read Norbert's patents and you won't see that kind of English. Let's see here, you believe Ultra 80% @ 5, no data shown. You believe all the boxes and ads, no data shown. The only data I have seen from the multi pass efficiency test is from you on the Purolator graph that shows a filter getting more efficient. Realize anyone can write a review, and that review sounds a lot like a poster here who has come and gone a few times. It is so obvious the points are from here, who else talks about a MG filter disk. Which is 100% @ 2 microns the same as your tires are 17/32 or your window screen mesh is 1/16 in. So the over 1/16 mosquitoes can't get in. You don't go ask the screen company for proof and a video of the manufacturing, now do you. What it shows is brand bias.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
"This is why people shouldn't believe claims of filter efficiency without data"
Five stars review for you.
A better review than saying "their claims must be true because they said so" which we've heard from you.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
That review on Amazon sounds bogus. It wasn't written by an English as first language writer.
Maybe English isn't the guy's first language, but it doesn't automatically make it bogus. Are you being discriminatory?
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
An insoluble number is also a good indicator of filter effectiveness.
I'm not so sure how good of an indication the insoluble number is. Would have to get an ISO Cleanliness particle count along with every standard UOA to see how good the correlation is, if any.
It looks bogus as all get out. Not discrimination at all to say the English is bad, it's evidence of something. Read Norbert's patents and you won't see that kind of English. Let's see here, you believe Ultra 80% @ 5, no data shown. You believe all the boxes and ads, no data shown. The only data I have seen from the multi pass efficiency test is from you on the Purolator graph that shows a filter getting more efficient. Realize anyone can write a review, and that review sounds a lot like a poster here who has come and gone a few times. It is so obvious the points are from here, who else talks about a MG filter disk. Which is 100% @ 2 microns the same as your tires are 17/32 or your window screen mesh is 1/16 in. So the over 1/16 mosquitoes can't get in. You don't go ask the screen company for proof and a video of the manufacturing, now do you. What it shows is brand bias.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
An insoluble number is also a good indicator of filter effectiveness.
I'm not so sure how good of an indication the insoluble number is. Would have to get an ISO Cleanliness particle count along with every standard UOA to see how good the correlation is, if any.
agreed An ISO test would bet best, but an insol is helpful.
Blackstone centrifuges the oil to get the insol #.
UD
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
An insoluble number is also a good indicator of filter effectiveness.
I'm not so sure how good of an indication the insoluble number is. Would have to get an ISO Cleanliness particle count along with every standard UOA to see how good the correlation is, if any.
agreed An ISO test would bet best, but an insol is helpful.
Blackstone centrifuges the oil to get the insol #.
UD
1st, not worth quoting your messed up job on quotes ...
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
It looks bogus as all get out. Not discrimination at all to say the English is bad, it's evidence of something. Read Norbert's patents and you won't see that kind of English.
Don't back peddle making excuses for your biased discrimination ... shouldn't matter how you "interpret" the English, it doesn't automatically mean it's bogus. Use some other qualifier.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Let's see here, you believe Ultra 80% @ 5, no data shown.
That came from Jay, who represents Fram. What he says in a forum is just as binding as if Fram had published it on their website because he represents Fram. Doubt he's going to make stuff up or lie and put his job and reputation on the line.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
You believe all the boxes and ads, no data shown.
Yes, I do believe data on boxes and on manufacuters websites when they reference the ISO 4548-12 test spec. They are open to lawsuits for false advertising if other filter companies or even an every day consumer can prove they are making false claims. Doubt any company with any brains is going to risk a lawsuit.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The only data I have seen from the multi pass efficiency test is from you on the Purolator graph that shows a filter getting more efficient.
You must be confused with something else I've posted, because I've never shown that data. Go find it and link it up. Maybe you're confused with the M+H graph showing a decrease in efficiency with use.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Realize anyone can write a review, and that review sounds a lot like a poster here who has come and gone a few times. It is so obvious the points are from here, who else talks about a MG filter disk.
Dude, did you see the paper the OP linked to (this one - LINK ) ... he's was a contributor to the Microgreen filter design technical paper - look at the top of page 1. If he doesn't talk like that, I don't know who would.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
It looks bogus as all get out. Not discrimination at all to say the English is bad, it's evidence of something. Read Norbert's patents and you won't see that kind of English.
Don't back peddle making excuses for your biased discrimination ... shouldn't matter how you "interpret" the English, it doesn't automatically mean it's bogus. Use some other qualifier.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Let's see here, you believe Ultra 80% @ 5, no data shown.
That came from Jay, who represents Fram. What he says in a forum is just as binding as if Fram had published it on their website because he represents Fram. Doubt he's going to make stuff up or lie and put his job and reputation on the line.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
You believe all the boxes and ads, no data shown.
Yes, I do believe data on boxes and on manufacuters websites when they reference the ISO 4548-12 test spec. They are open to lawsuits for false advertising if other filter companies or even an every day consumer can prove they are making false claims. Doubt any company with any brains is going to risk a lawsuit.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The only data I have seen from the multi pass efficiency test is from you on the Purolator graph that shows a filter getting more efficient.
You must be confused with something else I've posted, because I've never shown that data. Go find it and link it up. Maybe you're confused with the M+H graph showing a decrease in efficiency with use.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Realize anyone can write a review, and that review sounds a lot like a poster here who has come and gone a few times. It is so obvious the points are from here, who else talks about a MG filter disk.
Dude, did you see the paper the OP linked to (this one - LINK ) ... he's was a contributor to the Microgreen filter design technical paper - look at the top of page 1. If he doesn't talk like that, I don't know who would.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
1st, not worth quoting your messed up job on quotes ...
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
It looks bogus as all get out. Not discrimination at all to say the English is bad, it's evidence of something. Read Norbert's patents and you won't see that kind of English.
Don't back peddle making excuses for your biased discrimination ... shouldn't matter how you "interpret" the English, it doesn't automatically mean it's bogus. Use some other qualifier.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Let's see here, you believe Ultra 80% @ 5, no data shown.
That came from Jay, who represents Fram. What he says in a forum is just as binding as if Fram had published it on their website because he represents Fram. Doubt he's going to make stuff up or lie and put his job and reputation on the line.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
You believe all the boxes and ads, no data shown.
Yes, I do believe data on boxes and on manufacuters websites when they reference the ISO 4548-12 test spec. They are open to lawsuits for false advertising if other filter companies or even an every day consumer can prove they are making false claims. Doubt any company with any brains is going to risk a lawsuit.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The only data I have seen from the multi pass efficiency test is from you on the Purolator graph that shows a filter getting more efficient.
You must be confused with something else I've posted, because I've never shown that data. Go find it and link it up. Maybe you're confused with the M+H graph showing a decrease in efficiency with use.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Realize anyone can write a review, and that review sounds a lot like a poster here who has come and gone a few times. It is so obvious the points are from here, who else talks about a MG filter disk.
Dude, did you see the paper the OP linked to (this one - LINK ) ... he's was a contributor to the Microgreen filter design technical paper - look at the top of page 1. If he doesn't talk like that, I don't know who would.
Fantasy Land. Excuses. But back to reality, still no data shown and you believe it anyway. But when there is hard data from Blackstone, the source, but not fitting your agenda, the data must be a mistake you say. Can't be you are wrong, it's Blackstone, you say with no evidence. Selective believing according to if it fits your very strong agenda or not.
The Purolator efficiency data was not data. That's interesting.
It could be Norbert, but I say it is unlikely. Norbert is smarter than that if one reads his work. You can't tell me what to think so probably need to stop trying. I doubt you have the world experiences I have had, and for you to say I discriminate isn't going to fly. If you can't understand what I was saying about looking for evidence, it isn't my problem. Too bad they have censoring here.
1st, not worth quoting your messed up job on quotes ...
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
It looks bogus as all get out. Not discrimination at all to say the English is bad, it's evidence of something. Read Norbert's patents and you won't see that kind of English.
Don't back peddle making excuses for your biased discrimination ... shouldn't matter how you "interpret" the English, it doesn't automatically mean it's bogus. Use some other qualifier.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Let's see here, you believe Ultra 80% @ 5, no data shown.
That came from Jay, who represents Fram. What he says in a forum is just as binding as if Fram had published it on their website because he represents Fram. Doubt he's going to make stuff up or lie and put his job and reputation on the line.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
You believe all the boxes and ads, no data shown.
Yes, I do believe data on boxes and on manufacuters websites when they reference the ISO 4548-12 test spec. They are open to lawsuits for false advertising if other filter companies or even an every day consumer can prove they are making false claims. Doubt any company with any brains is going to risk a lawsuit.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The only data I have seen from the multi pass efficiency test is from you on the Purolator graph that shows a filter getting more efficient.
You must be confused with something else I've posted, because I've never shown that data. Go find it and link it up. Maybe you're confused with the M+H graph showing a decrease in efficiency with use.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Realize anyone can write a review, and that review sounds a lot like a poster here who has come and gone a few times. It is so obvious the points are from here, who else talks about a MG filter disk.
Dude, did you see the paper the OP linked to (this one - LINK ) ... he's was a contributor to the Microgreen filter design technical paper - look at the top of page 1. If he doesn't talk like that, I don't know who would.
Fantasy Land. Excuses. But back to reality, still no data shown and you believe it anyway. But when there is hard data from Blackstone, the source, but not fitting your agenda, the data must be a mistake you say. Can't be you are wrong, it's Blackstone, you say with no evidence. Selective believing according to if it fits your very strong agenda or not.
The Purolator efficiency data was not data. That's interesting.
It could be Norbert, but I say it is unlikely. Norbert is smarter than that if one reads his work. You can't tell me what to think so probably need to stop trying. I doubt you have the world experiences I have had, and for you to say I discriminate isn't going to fly. If you can't understand what I was saying about looking for evidence, it isn't my problem. Too bad they have censoring here.
Fram Ultra, per ISO testing:
99% @ 20 microns
94% @ 10 microns
80% @ 5 microns
If you are not satisfied with what is printed on the box, or posted by their Technical Training Manager, please contact:
Jay Buckley
(248) 808-4551
[email protected]
99% @ 20 microns
94% @ 10 microns
80% @ 5 microns
If you are not satisfied with what is printed on the box, or posted by their Technical Training Manager, please contact:
Jay Buckley
(248) 808-4551
[email protected]
Anybody want to email Norbert to ask him more questions?
[email protected]
Which filters did he test?
Does he think all of them have been economized? Is it possible that fleet customers are getting the original style still while consumers are getting economized ones?
What was the efficiency at 5 microns?
Is there a way to identify the original vs economized filters? From the inside. From the outside.
Maybe invite him to post here. Can point him to UOAs with high TBN in the recent past. Is it possible those were on pre 2013 filters?
[email protected]
Which filters did he test?
Does he think all of them have been economized? Is it possible that fleet customers are getting the original style still while consumers are getting economized ones?
What was the efficiency at 5 microns?
Is there a way to identify the original vs economized filters? From the inside. From the outside.
Maybe invite him to post here. Can point him to UOAs with high TBN in the recent past. Is it possible those were on pre 2013 filters?
Excellent idea! I was thinking, "we could get the truth." Then I remembered.
Respectfully,
Pajero!
Respectfully,
Pajero!
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Fantasy Land. Excuses. But back to reality, still no data shown and you believe it anyway. But when there is hard data from Blackstone, the source, but not fitting your agenda, the data must be a mistake you say. Can't be you are wrong, it's Blackstone, you say with no evidence. Selective believing according to if it fits your very strong agenda or not.
You can't seen to understand much that I say ... it's pretty clear that if a company puts a spec on a box or on their website they better have some technical data to back it up in court if there happens to be a false advertising lawsuit against them. You believe what Microgreen puts on their box or website without them sending you all the technical test data they used to make those claims, so why not believe anybody elses claims that at least have an ISO test spec (unlike Microgreen) listed on their box or website?
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The Purolator efficiency data was not data. That's interesting.
Don't know what you're referring to, so you might want to explain yourself.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
You can't tell me what to think so probably need to stop trying.
Your confused, nobody is trying to 'tell you what to think'. It's called a different point of view from yours.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I doubt you have the world experiences I have had ...
Post up your education and experience if you think so. That might actually be the 'Fantasy Land' you refer to.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
... and for you to say I discriminate isn't going to fly. If you can't understand what I was saying about looking for evidence, it isn't my problem.
No amount of excuses or back peddling will change how you come across.
Fantasy Land. Excuses. But back to reality, still no data shown and you believe it anyway. But when there is hard data from Blackstone, the source, but not fitting your agenda, the data must be a mistake you say. Can't be you are wrong, it's Blackstone, you say with no evidence. Selective believing according to if it fits your very strong agenda or not.
You can't seen to understand much that I say ... it's pretty clear that if a company puts a spec on a box or on their website they better have some technical data to back it up in court if there happens to be a false advertising lawsuit against them. You believe what Microgreen puts on their box or website without them sending you all the technical test data they used to make those claims, so why not believe anybody elses claims that at least have an ISO test spec (unlike Microgreen) listed on their box or website?
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The Purolator efficiency data was not data. That's interesting.
Don't know what you're referring to, so you might want to explain yourself.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
You can't tell me what to think so probably need to stop trying.
Your confused, nobody is trying to 'tell you what to think'. It's called a different point of view from yours.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I doubt you have the world experiences I have had ...
Post up your education and experience if you think so. That might actually be the 'Fantasy Land' you refer to.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
... and for you to say I discriminate isn't going to fly. If you can't understand what I was saying about looking for evidence, it isn't my problem.
No amount of excuses or back peddling will change how you come across.
I've seen that review and emailed him before. I was not surprised when I never got a response at all.
I wouldn't accuse him of bad English. I'd accuse him of incoherency. That's definitely a red flag.
I wouldn't accuse him of bad English. I'd accuse him of incoherency. That's definitely a red flag.
He is about 80 years old right?
I don’t believe insolubles on a wear monitoring UOA is a very good indicator of oil filter effectiveness.
If someone wanted to prove or disprove MG’s effectiveness a series of particle counts compared to a similar series of non MG particle counts would go a ways toward that.
Also MG doesn’t tout this filter as an extended life filter, they want you to change the filter every 10,000 and the oil every 30,000. I don’t think their cost and waste saving analysis holds up when extended OCI/FCI are factored in.
The bigger question for me is - does it really matter? We all get all wrapped up in oil filter and oil effectiveness when oil and filter related failures are somewhat rare in the grand scheme of things and in fact many cars go many hundreds of thousands of miles with questionable maintenance using very average oil and filters.
I don’t believe insolubles on a wear monitoring UOA is a very good indicator of oil filter effectiveness.
If someone wanted to prove or disprove MG’s effectiveness a series of particle counts compared to a similar series of non MG particle counts would go a ways toward that.
Also MG doesn’t tout this filter as an extended life filter, they want you to change the filter every 10,000 and the oil every 30,000. I don’t think their cost and waste saving analysis holds up when extended OCI/FCI are factored in.
The bigger question for me is - does it really matter? We all get all wrapped up in oil filter and oil effectiveness when oil and filter related failures are somewhat rare in the grand scheme of things and in fact many cars go many hundreds of thousands of miles with questionable maintenance using very average oil and filters.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
It looks bogus as all get out. Not discrimination at all to say the English is bad, it's evidence of something. Read Norbert's patents and you won't see that kind of English. Let's see here, you believe Ultra 80% @ 5, no data shown. You believe all the boxes and ads, no data shown. The only data I have seen from the multi pass efficiency test is from you on the Purolator graph that shows a filter getting more efficient. Realize anyone can write a review, and that review sounds a lot like a poster here who has come and gone a few times. It is so obvious the points are from here, who else talks about a MG filter disk. Which is 100% @ 2 microns the same as your tires are 17/32 or your window screen mesh is 1/16 in. So the over 1/16 mosquitoes can't get in. You don't go ask the screen company for proof and a video of the manufacturing, now do you. What it shows is brand bias.
In my experience, patent lawyers write the applications, not the inventors. The final application will often bear little resemblance to the initial disclosure and I've known some prolific inventors (some of useful ideas, some not so much) who had absolutely terrible language skills.
The application will generally be reviewed many times with the inventor, but the preferred language for a US patent doesn't have much in common with typical written or spoken English and it can be pretty painful to read...kind of like poring through Shakespeare if you aren't familiar with English from 1600.
It looks bogus as all get out. Not discrimination at all to say the English is bad, it's evidence of something. Read Norbert's patents and you won't see that kind of English. Let's see here, you believe Ultra 80% @ 5, no data shown. You believe all the boxes and ads, no data shown. The only data I have seen from the multi pass efficiency test is from you on the Purolator graph that shows a filter getting more efficient. Realize anyone can write a review, and that review sounds a lot like a poster here who has come and gone a few times. It is so obvious the points are from here, who else talks about a MG filter disk. Which is 100% @ 2 microns the same as your tires are 17/32 or your window screen mesh is 1/16 in. So the over 1/16 mosquitoes can't get in. You don't go ask the screen company for proof and a video of the manufacturing, now do you. What it shows is brand bias.
In my experience, patent lawyers write the applications, not the inventors. The final application will often bear little resemblance to the initial disclosure and I've known some prolific inventors (some of useful ideas, some not so much) who had absolutely terrible language skills.
The application will generally be reviewed many times with the inventor, but the preferred language for a US patent doesn't have much in common with typical written or spoken English and it can be pretty painful to read...kind of like poring through Shakespeare if you aren't familiar with English from 1600.
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
It looks bogus as all get out. Not discrimination at all to say the English is bad, it's evidence of something. Read Norbert's patents and you won't see that kind of English. Let's see here, you believe Ultra 80% @ 5, no data shown. You believe all the boxes and ads, no data shown. The only data I have seen from the multi pass efficiency test is from you on the Purolator graph that shows a filter getting more efficient. Realize anyone can write a review, and that review sounds a lot like a poster here who has come and gone a few times. It is so obvious the points are from here, who else talks about a MG filter disk. Which is 100% @ 2 microns the same as your tires are 17/32 or your window screen mesh is 1/16 in. So the over 1/16 mosquitoes can't get in. You don't go ask the screen company for proof and a video of the manufacturing, now do you. What it shows is brand bias.
In my experience, patent lawyers write the applications, not the inventors. The final application will often bear little resemblance to the initial disclosure and I've known some prolific inventors (some of useful ideas, some not so much) who had absolutely terrible language skills.
The application will generally be reviewed many times with the inventor, but the preferred language for a US patent doesn't have much in common with typical written or spoken English and it can be pretty painful to read...kind of like poring through Shakespeare if you aren't familiar with English from 1600.
That's true, I thought of that too. But he still wouldn't say things like MG refuses to test, that language comes from threads here. Anyway it doesn't matter, I just wouldn't jump to believe it's him, an 80 year old who decides to slam the product he invented on an Amazon review. Sounds more like the guy here who made up a story about working in an oil filter company or another one who gets thrown off periodically.
I'm going to check if they have a filter for my new car, I like the idea of the 2 micron disk as a bypass filter. I bought them before and I didn't like the adbv pressed up against the endcap. On the particular model, 101-1. They seem like very nice people and I like they support cancer research selling their pink filters.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
It looks bogus as all get out. Not discrimination at all to say the English is bad, it's evidence of something. Read Norbert's patents and you won't see that kind of English. Let's see here, you believe Ultra 80% @ 5, no data shown. You believe all the boxes and ads, no data shown. The only data I have seen from the multi pass efficiency test is from you on the Purolator graph that shows a filter getting more efficient. Realize anyone can write a review, and that review sounds a lot like a poster here who has come and gone a few times. It is so obvious the points are from here, who else talks about a MG filter disk. Which is 100% @ 2 microns the same as your tires are 17/32 or your window screen mesh is 1/16 in. So the over 1/16 mosquitoes can't get in. You don't go ask the screen company for proof and a video of the manufacturing, now do you. What it shows is brand bias.
In my experience, patent lawyers write the applications, not the inventors. The final application will often bear little resemblance to the initial disclosure and I've known some prolific inventors (some of useful ideas, some not so much) who had absolutely terrible language skills.
The application will generally be reviewed many times with the inventor, but the preferred language for a US patent doesn't have much in common with typical written or spoken English and it can be pretty painful to read...kind of like poring through Shakespeare if you aren't familiar with English from 1600.
That's true, I thought of that too. But he still wouldn't say things like MG refuses to test, that language comes from threads here. Anyway it doesn't matter, I just wouldn't jump to believe it's him, an 80 year old who decides to slam the product he invented on an Amazon review. Sounds more like the guy here who made up a story about working in an oil filter company or another one who gets thrown off periodically.
I'm going to check if they have a filter for my new car, I like the idea of the 2 micron disk as a bypass filter. I bought them before and I didn't like the adbv pressed up against the endcap. On the particular model, 101-1. They seem like very nice people and I like they support cancer research selling their pink filters.
Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Fram Ultra, per ISO testing:
99% @ 20 microns
94% @ 10 microns
80% @ 5 microns
If you are not satisfied with what is printed on the box, or posted by their Technical Training Manager, please contact:
Jay Buckley
(248) 808-4551
[email protected]
The point is people, not me, believing the box without data, but then disbelieving other claims by saying no data. In this case, MG. You can go ask for the data, be good to see it. Data isn't a man saying it of course. I have no problem with the box or website claims myself. Or MG's claims about their disk. All good for me.
Fram Ultra, per ISO testing:
99% @ 20 microns
94% @ 10 microns
80% @ 5 microns
If you are not satisfied with what is printed on the box, or posted by their Technical Training Manager, please contact:
Jay Buckley
(248) 808-4551
[email protected]
The point is people, not me, believing the box without data, but then disbelieving other claims by saying no data. In this case, MG. You can go ask for the data, be good to see it. Data isn't a man saying it of course. I have no problem with the box or website claims myself. Or MG's claims about their disk. All good for me.
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
He is about 80 years old right?
I don’t believe insolubles on a wear monitoring UOA is a very good indicator of oil filter effectiveness.
If someone wanted to prove or disprove MG’s effectiveness a series of particle counts compared to a similar series of non MG particle counts would go a ways toward that.
Also MG doesn’t tout this filter as an extended life filter, they want you to change the filter every 10,000 and the oil every 30,000. I don’t think their cost and waste saving analysis holds up when extended OCI/FCI are factored in.
The bigger question for me is - does it really matter? We all get all wrapped up in oil filter and oil effectiveness when oil and filter related failures are somewhat rare in the grand scheme of things and in fact many cars go many hundreds of thousands of miles with questionable maintenance using very average oil and filters.
A true ISO particle count between two filter is really the next step, but an insol test is a more generalized version of that. Call it a poor mans particle count.
Per Blackstone - The insolubles test is a fair measure of how fast the oil is oxidizing and receiving contaminants, and how effectively the system's oil filtration is functioning.
diesels put out more contaminants (soot) than gas autos and this measurement becomes critical as 2-10M particles starts to accumulate that are below the filters threshold.
The sub threshold particles wether by themselves or agglomerated will spin out into the insol test showing you what is going round and round your oil an not trapped by the filter.
Can you tell me why you don't think this is at least a good indicator of filter effectiveness when Blackstone does? - I don't seek argument but understanding.
Agreed for incredibly lightly loaded commuter cars and low HP econoboxes it may not matter much at all -
I see guys all the time here touting high miles attained - without a leak down test series showing how tight it is - it means nothing - ZIP. It could be completely clapped out but " run great"!
As almost any engine can attain high high miles/ hours, but only a select few are still tight at that higher hours. Many are likely gross polluters.
for higher HP per CC/CI engines and engines experiencing higher loads like trucks, boats, and motorhome - secondary wear is a real occurrence and all the little things you to help start to matter towards a long tight life.
UD
He is about 80 years old right?
I don’t believe insolubles on a wear monitoring UOA is a very good indicator of oil filter effectiveness.
If someone wanted to prove or disprove MG’s effectiveness a series of particle counts compared to a similar series of non MG particle counts would go a ways toward that.
Also MG doesn’t tout this filter as an extended life filter, they want you to change the filter every 10,000 and the oil every 30,000. I don’t think their cost and waste saving analysis holds up when extended OCI/FCI are factored in.
The bigger question for me is - does it really matter? We all get all wrapped up in oil filter and oil effectiveness when oil and filter related failures are somewhat rare in the grand scheme of things and in fact many cars go many hundreds of thousands of miles with questionable maintenance using very average oil and filters.
A true ISO particle count between two filter is really the next step, but an insol test is a more generalized version of that. Call it a poor mans particle count.
Per Blackstone - The insolubles test is a fair measure of how fast the oil is oxidizing and receiving contaminants, and how effectively the system's oil filtration is functioning.
diesels put out more contaminants (soot) than gas autos and this measurement becomes critical as 2-10M particles starts to accumulate that are below the filters threshold.
The sub threshold particles wether by themselves or agglomerated will spin out into the insol test showing you what is going round and round your oil an not trapped by the filter.
Can you tell me why you don't think this is at least a good indicator of filter effectiveness when Blackstone does? - I don't seek argument but understanding.
Agreed for incredibly lightly loaded commuter cars and low HP econoboxes it may not matter much at all -
I see guys all the time here touting high miles attained - without a leak down test series showing how tight it is - it means nothing - ZIP. It could be completely clapped out but " run great"!
As almost any engine can attain high high miles/ hours, but only a select few are still tight at that higher hours. Many are likely gross polluters.
for higher HP per CC/CI engines and engines experiencing higher loads like trucks, boats, and motorhome - secondary wear is a real occurrence and all the little things you to help start to matter towards a long tight life.
UD
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
