That's a really sad email.
Can you post up the two oil analysis?
Can you post up the two oil analysis?
Microgreen - possibly stunning development!
- Thread starter CharlieBauer
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Look at microGreen Go!
CC
Customer Care
Wed 1/17, 2:00 PM
Oil Analysis Report '16 Ford Fusion.pdf
131 KB
Oil Analysis Report '17 Ford Mustang.pdf
124 KB
2 attachments (254 KB)
We haven't seen you in a while! microGreen has improved since you last ordered!
microGreen has grown more popular and expanded vastly in the last couple years!
As we always say "The Proof is in the Pudding!" So, attached for your review are two customer
oil filter analysis reports that prove our filtration can extend the life of your oil!
Our filters are proven to extend oil interval changes up to 30,000 miles.
However, just doubling your current change interval will make a huge difference!
The results will show themselves!
We have lowered our pricing! The average price is $11.99 now for our oil filters.
Our air and fuel filters are reduced at 30% off.
http://www.microgreenfilter.com/
We now offer a 10% discount when you buy 3 oil filters! Just use promo code 3PKDIS17 at checkout.
We hope to see you again!
Customer Care
SOMS Technolgoies
11.99 is no bargain.I was buying these for $8.90 apiece two years ago.Does anyone know what these were selling for in 2012? I could swear I recall these filters selling for $24 each. Would not surprise me if they go under within two years unless someone buys the patents or they go back to the original design.
Does anyone have pics of one they cut open from 2012?Which filters were some of you using? I was using MG101-1, MG201-1, AND MG201-7. I may have a pic of one I cut open a few months ago,I hope I did not delete it.
Look at microGreen Go!
CC
Customer Care
Wed 1/17, 2:00 PM
Oil Analysis Report '16 Ford Fusion.pdf
131 KB
Oil Analysis Report '17 Ford Mustang.pdf
124 KB
2 attachments (254 KB)
We haven't seen you in a while! microGreen has improved since you last ordered!
microGreen has grown more popular and expanded vastly in the last couple years!
As we always say "The Proof is in the Pudding!" So, attached for your review are two customer
oil filter analysis reports that prove our filtration can extend the life of your oil!
Our filters are proven to extend oil interval changes up to 30,000 miles.
However, just doubling your current change interval will make a huge difference!
The results will show themselves!
We have lowered our pricing! The average price is $11.99 now for our oil filters.
Our air and fuel filters are reduced at 30% off.
http://www.microgreenfilter.com/
We now offer a 10% discount when you buy 3 oil filters! Just use promo code 3PKDIS17 at checkout.
We hope to see you again!
Customer Care
SOMS Technolgoies
11.99 is no bargain.I was buying these for $8.90 apiece two years ago.Does anyone know what these were selling for in 2012? I could swear I recall these filters selling for $24 each. Would not surprise me if they go under within two years unless someone buys the patents or they go back to the original design.
Does anyone have pics of one they cut open from 2012?Which filters were some of you using? I was using MG101-1, MG201-1, AND MG201-7. I may have a pic of one I cut open a few months ago,I hope I did not delete it.
Below is a copy and paste from papers..........
[image removed]
[image removed]
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
That's a really sad email.Can you post up the two oil analysis?
That's a really sad email.Can you post up the two oil analysis?
Originally Posted By: Toptierpao
11.99 is no bargain.I was buying these for $8.90 apiece two years ago.Does anyone know what these were selling for in 2012? I could swear I recall these filters selling for $24 each. Would not surprise me if they go under within two years unless someone buys the patents or they go back to the original design.
Does anyone have pics of one they cut open from 2012?Which filters were some of you using? I was using MG101-1, MG201-1, AND MG201-7. I may have a pic of one I cut open a few months ago,I hope I did not delete it.
They were expensive back a few years ago. I recall being "forced" to buy 2 for like $30 or so. You couldn't just buy one. Then they started going on sale on Amazon for around $11 for one, right about the time the AT&T fleet contract ended, ... coincidentally.... hee-hee.
Now the email I recently got from SOMS proclaims how great the last 2 years have been. Yeah, right.... Sales people, pinocchios.
As far as pictures of MicroGreens over the past few years, just google these terms: microgreen oil filter cut site:bobistheoilguy.com
11.99 is no bargain.I was buying these for $8.90 apiece two years ago.Does anyone know what these were selling for in 2012? I could swear I recall these filters selling for $24 each. Would not surprise me if they go under within two years unless someone buys the patents or they go back to the original design.
Does anyone have pics of one they cut open from 2012?Which filters were some of you using? I was using MG101-1, MG201-1, AND MG201-7. I may have a pic of one I cut open a few months ago,I hope I did not delete it.
They were expensive back a few years ago. I recall being "forced" to buy 2 for like $30 or so. You couldn't just buy one. Then they started going on sale on Amazon for around $11 for one, right about the time the AT&T fleet contract ended, ... coincidentally.... hee-hee.
Now the email I recently got from SOMS proclaims how great the last 2 years have been. Yeah, right.... Sales people, pinocchios.
As far as pictures of MicroGreens over the past few years, just google these terms: microgreen oil filter cut site:bobistheoilguy.com
Guys, Microgreen have just provided proof that their filters DO NOT perform as they claim.
The cleanliness codes from the two UOAs they shared with oil_film_movies are:
Ford Fusion: 17/16/14
Ford Mustang: 18/17/15
Cleanliness codes for M1 & Hyundai OEM filters are:
M1: 15/14/12
Hyundai OEM: 17/17/14
Source: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/2531272/1
Here's a quick guide on interpreting cleanliness codes: http://www.precisionfiltration.com/products/iso-4406-cleanliness-code.asp
In short, lower numbers are better.
In other words, a Microgreen filter is only as good as a Hyundai OEM filter.
In other words, a M1 filter is about 4 times better than a microgreen filter at 4 microns, 6 microns and 14 microns.
Seeing that a M1 filter is supposed to be 99% at 30 microns (may have been at 25 microns back in 2011), Assion's claims of Microgreen being a 99% filter at 40 microns and a 82% filter at 20 microns seems in the right ballpark.
The cleanliness codes from the two UOAs they shared with oil_film_movies are:
Ford Fusion: 17/16/14
Ford Mustang: 18/17/15
Cleanliness codes for M1 & Hyundai OEM filters are:
M1: 15/14/12
Hyundai OEM: 17/17/14
Source: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/2531272/1
Here's a quick guide on interpreting cleanliness codes: http://www.precisionfiltration.com/products/iso-4406-cleanliness-code.asp
In short, lower numbers are better.
In other words, a Microgreen filter is only as good as a Hyundai OEM filter.
In other words, a M1 filter is about 4 times better than a microgreen filter at 4 microns, 6 microns and 14 microns.
Seeing that a M1 filter is supposed to be 99% at 30 microns (may have been at 25 microns back in 2011), Assion's claims of Microgreen being a 99% filter at 40 microns and a 82% filter at 20 microns seems in the right ballpark.
Examine the data again and the conclusion is not so cut and dried.
The hyundai and M1 filters samples were at 2500 and 2700 miles vs 13,500 miles for the microgreen.
The MG was 3500 OVER its prescribed change out.
It also appears that was the original factory fill on the MG as the run states the age of the machine at 13500 miles.
Quite a difference in mileage between the two sample and a miss on the prescribed change out.
UD
The hyundai and M1 filters samples were at 2500 and 2700 miles vs 13,500 miles for the microgreen.
The MG was 3500 OVER its prescribed change out.
It also appears that was the original factory fill on the MG as the run states the age of the machine at 13500 miles.
Quite a difference in mileage between the two sample and a miss on the prescribed change out.
UD
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Examine the data again and the conclusion is not so cut and dried.
The hyundai and M1 filters samples were at 2500 and 2700 miles vs 13,500 miles for the microgreen.
The MG was 3500 OVER its prescribed change out.
It also appears that was the original factory fill on the MG as the run states the age of the machine at 13500 miles.
Quite a difference in mileage between the two sample and a miss on the prescribed change out.
UD
The 9000 mile particle count analysis on the Fusion is within the changeout prescribed by Microgreen and the resulting iso cleanliness code is the same as the Hyundai OEM filter.
Sorry UD but the data does not lie. The iso cleanliness code results for microgreen should be better.
Assion is right.
Examine the data again and the conclusion is not so cut and dried.
The hyundai and M1 filters samples were at 2500 and 2700 miles vs 13,500 miles for the microgreen.
The MG was 3500 OVER its prescribed change out.
It also appears that was the original factory fill on the MG as the run states the age of the machine at 13500 miles.
Quite a difference in mileage between the two sample and a miss on the prescribed change out.
UD
The 9000 mile particle count analysis on the Fusion is within the changeout prescribed by Microgreen and the resulting iso cleanliness code is the same as the Hyundai OEM filter.
Sorry UD but the data does not lie. The iso cleanliness code results for microgreen should be better.
Assion is right.
Im old and slow so help me out.
9K and 13.5K both MG's filter right but different cars - These two vehicles won't put out the same particles.
The comparison runs are an M1 2.5K miles and a Hyundai OEM@ 2.7K miles from a different car yet again that puts out different particles.
I don't see how you make a comparison between these 4 samples ?
We need to see the same car with the same mileage and an ISO test to say what it does and doesnt filter as well as.
UD
9K and 13.5K both MG's filter right but different cars - These two vehicles won't put out the same particles.
The comparison runs are an M1 2.5K miles and a Hyundai OEM@ 2.7K miles from a different car yet again that puts out different particles.
I don't see how you make a comparison between these 4 samples ?
We need to see the same car with the same mileage and an ISO test to say what it does and doesnt filter as well as.
UD
Last edited:
UD, it's not about how many particles are put out, it's about how many particles the filter captures. Yes the performance will differ by mileage intervals and different filters will perform differently and also perform differently according to micron size but that simply does not explain the microgreen's poor performance.
However, I did discover something as I was continuing my research and was intrigued by the excellent M1 filter performance that I linked to as well as the very good Hyundai filter performance.
For both the Hyundai and M1, the user used a filter mag.
That is a really really interesting discovery because that means the filter mag is achieving something similar to bypass filtration.
Here are a couple of other links that may help you get the filter performance into context:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4141146/1
http://www.kleenoilusa.com/index.php/tests
However, I did discover something as I was continuing my research and was intrigued by the excellent M1 filter performance that I linked to as well as the very good Hyundai filter performance.
For both the Hyundai and M1, the user used a filter mag.
That is a really really interesting discovery because that means the filter mag is achieving something similar to bypass filtration.
Here are a couple of other links that may help you get the filter performance into context:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4141146/1
http://www.kleenoilusa.com/index.php/tests
Not quite - because some vehicles put out much more than others - so any comparison needs at min the same vehicle.
Its about the particles put out vs the one you capture (see insol measurement as a filter performance guide in a UOA ) and comparing ANY two filters the way you are make the conclusion meaningless.
WAAY different mileage and different vehicles.
if you want to get a bit interesting you can extrapolate the numbers by the mileage and then look at the discrepancy, 4X the mileage 4x the particles - but we know particles arent always linear so only rough conclusions can be made.
To the filtermag -We know (if we believe filtermags testing claims) that it can drop between 1 and 3 ISO codes.
The "Magnets do nothing" guys have no effective reply to this.
If we believe manufacturers - Im skeptical so I run my own tests.
UD
Its about the particles put out vs the one you capture (see insol measurement as a filter performance guide in a UOA ) and comparing ANY two filters the way you are make the conclusion meaningless.
WAAY different mileage and different vehicles.
if you want to get a bit interesting you can extrapolate the numbers by the mileage and then look at the discrepancy, 4X the mileage 4x the particles - but we know particles arent always linear so only rough conclusions can be made.
To the filtermag -We know (if we believe filtermags testing claims) that it can drop between 1 and 3 ISO codes.
The "Magnets do nothing" guys have no effective reply to this.
If we believe manufacturers - Im skeptical so I run my own tests.
UD
Last edited:
The mileage and particles being produced are non factors within reasonable limits. A microgreen is supposed to perform to 10,000 miles and is supposed to filter 99% of ALL particles at 5 microns. The 9000 mile iso cleanliness code of 17/16/14 does not support that claim. There is nothing in either UOA to suggest there is anything unusual that is making the filter not perform within it's design.
Please look at the other links I provided to see what kind of ISO cleanliness codes one can achieve with regular and bypass filtering.
The SWRI tested Kleenoil bypass and got to 14/11 (6 micron and 14 micron) vs 16/14 for the 9000 mile Microgreen.
The Amsoil EA filter achieved the following compared to 18/17/15 for the 13.5k microgreen. Remember, the Amsoil is a 20 micron filter and has no seperate bypass element designed specifically to filter below that. The three numbers are for filtering efficiency at 4, 6 & 14 microns.
14.4k 19/18/16 - almost as good as the 13.5k microgreen at similar mileage.
21.9k 16/15/12 - better than both microgreens at double the mileage
33.3k 14/13/10 - way better than microgreen after 30k on one filter vs 10k on a microgreen. This is what bypass filtration should look like.
41.4k 16/15/13 - still better than microgreen at 4 times the mileage.
Please look at the other links I provided to see what kind of ISO cleanliness codes one can achieve with regular and bypass filtering.
The SWRI tested Kleenoil bypass and got to 14/11 (6 micron and 14 micron) vs 16/14 for the 9000 mile Microgreen.
The Amsoil EA filter achieved the following compared to 18/17/15 for the 13.5k microgreen. Remember, the Amsoil is a 20 micron filter and has no seperate bypass element designed specifically to filter below that. The three numbers are for filtering efficiency at 4, 6 & 14 microns.
14.4k 19/18/16 - almost as good as the 13.5k microgreen at similar mileage.
21.9k 16/15/12 - better than both microgreens at double the mileage
33.3k 14/13/10 - way better than microgreen after 30k on one filter vs 10k on a microgreen. This is what bypass filtration should look like.
41.4k 16/15/13 - still better than microgreen at 4 times the mileage.
I don't think we can compare bypasses to spin ons -
The amsoil comparison doenst work because the MG gets switched out every 10K - exposing afresh disk. Unless Im not understanding your test procedure. We know w single stages decrease in performance time so Im having a hard time understanding how the codes are dropping
The 9K run is off the mark they set for themselv for sure if I do the math - Which model was that? Im curious to run the comparison.
I wonder if they say it needed 10% more scrub time - still wouldn't add up.
The 9K run is interesting indeed.
UD
The amsoil comparison doenst work because the MG gets switched out every 10K - exposing afresh disk. Unless Im not understanding your test procedure. We know w single stages decrease in performance time so Im having a hard time understanding how the codes are dropping
The 9K run is off the mark they set for themselv for sure if I do the math - Which model was that? Im curious to run the comparison.
I wonder if they say it needed 10% more scrub time - still wouldn't add up.
The 9K run is interesting indeed.
UD
Last edited:
Here is a picture of an MG201-7 that was cut open in October of 2017 which is surely that of the cheapened filters.The micro disks of the altered filters are made from cheap material and do not filter anywhere near the originals.Also below are pics of the spin on filter in its original design as well as one of the altered filters.
Last edited:
Both those MG drawings look the same to me.
As far as the Amsoil getting better and better test, the MG didn't get the same chance. The Amsoil test was what kind of test and who did it? It doesn't make much sense to me.
As for efficiency data, where is that original data on anything? We are being told results of the data. Some say the result has to be true or they would be sued, some say the results aren't true because it looks fishy, etc. I can write xyz@xyz microns by blah blah blah test, so what. Second hand info to believe me. On and on it goes like a merry go round.
As far as the Amsoil getting better and better test, the MG didn't get the same chance. The Amsoil test was what kind of test and who did it? It doesn't make much sense to me.
As for efficiency data, where is that original data on anything? We are being told results of the data. Some say the result has to be true or they would be sued, some say the results aren't true because it looks fishy, etc. I can write xyz@xyz microns by blah blah blah test, so what. Second hand info to believe me. On and on it goes like a merry go round.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Both those MG drawings look the same to me.
As far as the Amsoil getting better and better test, the MG didn't get the same chance. The Amsoil test was what kind of test and who did it? It doesn't make much sense to me.
As for efficiency data, where is that original data on anything? We are being told results of the data. Some say the result has to be true or they would be sued, some say the results aren't true because it looks fishy, etc. I can write xyz@xyz microns by blah blah blah test, so what. Second hand info to believe me. On and on it goes like a merry go round.
The comparisons against the other filters arent the thing to note - thats a bit facile with so many differences and unknowns.
Its the microgreen quote vs the microgreen submission that stands out-
The ISO codes on the 9K run don't match the claim they gave us of 99% at 5 Microns - and it seems as though they fronted the data themselves- if true a foolish a barney fife like move.
Unless Im reading it wrong - Charlie Bauer is right about that - as is Norb
Im open to not interpreting the ISO data or missing something but if you do the math on the codes - its off the marl.
will be interesting to see what my own particle counts say - if they match the claim- its at best selective, and if they don't it multiple pieces refuting their claim.
We have one piece of data that says he's right - first I've seen and it cant be ignored- unless I start selectively ignoring data - and thats never worked out well for me anyway.
UD
Both those MG drawings look the same to me.
As far as the Amsoil getting better and better test, the MG didn't get the same chance. The Amsoil test was what kind of test and who did it? It doesn't make much sense to me.
As for efficiency data, where is that original data on anything? We are being told results of the data. Some say the result has to be true or they would be sued, some say the results aren't true because it looks fishy, etc. I can write xyz@xyz microns by blah blah blah test, so what. Second hand info to believe me. On and on it goes like a merry go round.
The comparisons against the other filters arent the thing to note - thats a bit facile with so many differences and unknowns.
Its the microgreen quote vs the microgreen submission that stands out-
The ISO codes on the 9K run don't match the claim they gave us of 99% at 5 Microns - and it seems as though they fronted the data themselves- if true a foolish a barney fife like move.
Unless Im reading it wrong - Charlie Bauer is right about that - as is Norb
Im open to not interpreting the ISO data or missing something but if you do the math on the codes - its off the marl.
will be interesting to see what my own particle counts say - if they match the claim- its at best selective, and if they don't it multiple pieces refuting their claim.
We have one piece of data that says he's right - first I've seen and it cant be ignored- unless I start selectively ignoring data - and thats never worked out well for me anyway.
UD
Last edited:
Bear in mind also that the UOAs do not have TBN.
Microgreen paid for UOAs for oil they claim can go 30,000 miles because of their filters, and didn't get TBN?
Also wear metals in the UOA are in the 2 to 5 micron range. The bypass filter is supposed to be filtering down to 2 microns and is supposed to be 99% efficient at 5 microns. Yet wear metals, tested between 2 and 5 microns, are quite a bit higher than normal.
Microgreen paid for UOAs for oil they claim can go 30,000 miles because of their filters, and didn't get TBN?
Also wear metals in the UOA are in the 2 to 5 micron range. The bypass filter is supposed to be filtering down to 2 microns and is supposed to be 99% efficient at 5 microns. Yet wear metals, tested between 2 and 5 microns, are quite a bit higher than normal.
The missing TBN make no sense to me -
Ive never seen a full ISO count without TBN - TAN maybe but not TBN so the data is weird that way.
My last UOA with MG was 169 hours in a genset and 9.9 TBN remained - pretty impressive.
UD
Ive never seen a full ISO count without TBN - TAN maybe but not TBN so the data is weird that way.
My last UOA with MG was 169 hours in a genset and 9.9 TBN remained - pretty impressive.
UD
Last edited:
It is all too imprecise. This test there, that test here, confusing. How samples are taken, who did the test, what else is going on in the scene? That's why we have courts, to piece together conflicting statements and try to get to the bottom of what is true.
I don't think wear metals can be 2-5 microns, or even one micron in size. Wear metals should be individual or small groups of atoms/molecules being scraped away. Microns is too large IMO, unless the engine is shot. .
Roll Royce used to not state HP, they would say HP is adequate. You bought the name RR. I am coming around to that idea as well. OE and forget about it. Set it and forget it.
I don't think wear metals can be 2-5 microns, or even one micron in size. Wear metals should be individual or small groups of atoms/molecules being scraped away. Microns is too large IMO, unless the engine is shot. .
Roll Royce used to not state HP, they would say HP is adequate. You bought the name RR. I am coming around to that idea as well. OE and forget about it. Set it and forget it.
- Status
Similar threads
