Microgreen - possibly stunning development!

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
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.




You sure can have 2-5 micron iron or other particles- lots of them.

This test was supposed to be from MG- the 13500K run is out of bounds for their own spec ( they picked that one to send?!?!?)

The 9K run shows an ISO code that is too dirty to match their claim - unless Im reading it wrong. (Im always open to making mistakes)

I just don't think I am.

i do agree the data is a bit strange, but it certainly doesnt make the MG look like it lives up to its promises - if they picked and chose- they picked poorly.


Meanwhile my new ultra boxes show the old 4548-12 number - but list different Ultras than the one in the box ?@?!?!

Both my filter picks are getting wonky.....

UD

 

[CharlieBauer]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Meanwhile my new ultra boxes show the old 4548-12 number - but list different Ultras than the one in the box ?@?!?!


Send MotorKing an email and he'll give you the efficiency of the specific filter you're interested in, including to the 5 micron level.

 

[CharlieBauer]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
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. .


Like many others have done, you could simply google a credible source of information to understand the micron size that wear metals in a UOA represents.

Sorry to point this out but using your own conjecture just isn't helpful because it's likely to be wrong (it is in this case).

 

[DuckRyder]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Both those MG drawings look the same to me.


The one labeled “altered” does not seem to have a bypass valve. Which is odd since I have one in the garage that I am pretty sure does.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
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.


Which amsoil test?

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
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.


I’d be happy if Microgreen posted ISO data x% @ xMicrons PER ISOXXXX I’m also reasonably certain it they had such a test that showed it was anything in the 90’s @5 microns they would say so.

I think a company that post false date with respect to a particular test is without question open to a lawsuit. I doubt a reputable corporation would give false ISO data.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
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.


This is IMO the problem with Microgreen, it is all too shady / snake oil sounding and the website is full of squishy claims.

It would seem that if the filter truly cleans so well that it allows oil which otherwise could not be run out to 30,000 miles to run for 30,000 miles they would orchestrate a controlled, documented scientific test to show that.

Instead we have some random UOAs and one posted in the testimonials section of the website.

The preponderance of the evidence is IMO not in Microgreens favor.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
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.


This has been discussed in the past here. It is generally accepted that a UOA can pick up particles upto about 5 microns depending on the method used. IIRC EdHacket posted a link to a paper describing why 5 micron may not be 5 micron in that case.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
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.


That is true, discussing horsepower with your RR friends might be considered a bit gauche. From the information available it certainly seems that the OEMs may not consider the efficiency rating to be that important.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
I think a company that post false date with respect to a particular test is without question open to a lawsuit. I doubt a reputable corporation would give false ISO data.


Exactly ... don't know why some people believe big companies can blatantly lie about their products in today's world and get away from it legally.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Meanwhile my new ultra boxes show the old 4548-12 number - but list different Ultras than the one in the box ?@?!?!


Send MotorKing an email and he'll give you the efficiency of the specific filter you're interested in, including to the 5 micron level.



I may,

Im a sales VP at a manufacturer in the TV business and don't want my reps bothered with onset twoesy stuff like this, but Ill wait a bit to see how it plays out.

Im backing up a computer and just got back from a 1K road trip - the last batch of filters arrived - along with my idemitsu 0-w20.

Ill show you a pict in a bit.

It may be every bit what the old ones were - Im hoping so and that would be great.

The info on the box itself however - is frontier gibberish.




UD

 

[CharlieBauer]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
I think a company that post false date with respect to a particular test is without question open to a lawsuit. I doubt a reputable corporation would give false ISO data.


Exactly ... don't know why some people believe big companies can blatantly lie about their products in today's world and get away from it legally.


I don't know whether Microgreen have technically broken any laws, but they are clearly being extremely misleading with their marketing.

When you theoretically have such a great product, there is no need to do that.

When you theoretically have such a great product and have had so for 10 years, then your testimonials and test results should be clear and compelling.

They clearly have the money and resources for marketing, so it doesn't make sense that the marketing and information provided isn't straightforward and doesn't clearly demonstrate results which were claimed prior to 2013.

It doesn't make sense that you only make your 99% efficiency at 5 micron claim in a single email and refer customers to inconclusive UOAs on bitog.

It doesn't make sense that you commission UOAs without TBN, that result in poor particle counts, and do so at the 9000 mile mark after an oil and filter change instead of at the 30,000 mile mark with 3 filter changes and no oil change.

So much does not add up here. It simply makes no sense to believe what they are wanting you to believe.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
I think a company that post false date with respect to a particular test is without question open to a lawsuit. I doubt a reputable corporation would give false ISO data.

Exactly ... don't know why some people believe big companies can blatantly lie about their products in today's world and get away from it legally.

I don't know whether Microgreen have technically broken any laws, but they are clearly being extremely misleading with their marketing.


I'm sure they haven't ... they know how to avoid any false advertising lawsuits. What I was talking about in my comment above is some people don't believe performance specs along with a reference known industry standard test spec. Do they really think a company in today's world can make such written claims on their box or website without risk of lawsuit? As many know, any company that withholds technical performance specs isn't that proud of them. If they were, they's be plastering them all over the place, and rightly so.

[sarcarm] BTW, you shouldn't go so hard on Microgreen with all the technical facts as you might be looked at as a competitor's "company rep". [/sarcasm] Inside joke going on right now.

 

[UncleDave]

Doubt its illegal - as the lab gives the oil a green light for continued use

Sketchy and weird - yup. Seems like they may have had the holy grail and let it go.

I disagree with duckryder on one point - this is the first test that shows it it may not meet its claim - until this latest sample all the 3rd party data showed serviceable oil including my own UOA - this was the first particle count we've seen, but its a buzzer for sure.


It will be interesting to see my next two samples- Ill definitely pay for a particle count.


UD

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave

It will be interesting to see my next two samples- Ill definitely pay for a particle count.


I don't recall, but do you have PCs from previous MG filter runs to compare?

 

[DuckRyder]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
...
It will be interesting to see my next two samples- Ill definitely pay for a particle count.
...


Problem is they are far too expensive to run on a regular basis and justify.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: UncleDave

It will be interesting to see my next two samples- Ill definitely pay for a particle count.


I don't recall, but do you have PCs from previous MG filter runs to compare?


No, so there is no comparative run.

UD

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
...
It will be interesting to see my next two samples- Ill definitely pay for a particle count.
...


Problem is they are far too expensive to run on a regular basis and justify.



They are about 8-9 bones on Amazon with a microgreen coupon. about what I pay for Ultras, and way cheaper than amsoils and RPurples.

If they do what they are supposed to do they are a bargain.

UD

 

[DuckRyder]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
...
It will be interesting to see my next two samples- Ill definitely pay for a particle count.
...


Problem is they are far too expensive to run on a regular basis and justify.



They are about 8-9 bones on Amazon with a microgreen coupon. about what I pay for Ultras, and way cheaper than amsoils and RPurples.

If they do what they are supposed to do they are a bargain.

UD


LOL, particle counts - not filters.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
...
It will be interesting to see my next two samples- Ill definitely pay for a particle count.
...


Problem is they are far too expensive to run on a regular basis and justify.



They are about 8-9 bones on Amazon with a microgreen coupon. about what I pay for Ultras, and way cheaper than amsoils and RPurples.

If they do what they are supposed to do they are a bargain.

UD


LOL, particle counts - not filters.


HAHA - yeah for sure - agreed!

As long as everything else lines up I don't bother .

Its going to cost some coin - which is annoying.


UD

 

[oil_film_movies]

Well, at least the Fram Ultra is 80% at 20 microns. I'll be using that one.
Good comments above. My conclusion is that MicroGreen isn't that great. Sleazy company practices.
Purolator bad. SOMS MicroGreen bad. All others pretty good, Fram best.

 

[THafeez]

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Well, at least the Fram Ultra is 80% at 20 microns. I'll be using that one.
Good comments above. My conclusion is that MicroGreen isn't that great. Sleazy company practices.
Purolator bad. SOMS MicroGreen bad. All others pretty good, Fram best.


I thought it was 99.9 at 20 microns?

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted By: THafeez
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Well, at least the Fram Ultra is 80% at 20 microns. I'll be using that one.
Good comments above. My conclusion is that MicroGreen isn't that great. Sleazy company practices.
Purolator bad. SOMS MicroGreen bad. All others pretty good, Fram best.


I thought it was 99.9 at 20 microns?

You are correct, and my 80% at 20 microns came from looking up past posts by Jay Buckley (aka Motorking) who posts here.
Fram Ultra is also 94% at 10 microns, all are true.

Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
"According to Fram’s Technical Training Manager Jay Buckley, dirt and foreign material measuring smaller than 10 microns will be small enough to be carried in suspension in the oil and will pass through even tight bearing clearances. Material larger than 20 microns is generally considered too large to pass through tight bearing clearances although with performance engines with main bearing clearances of 0.0030-inch, this is certainly possible. But generally speaking, foreign material in the range between 10 and 20 microns will potentially do the most engine damage over time. So a filter that can efficiently filter within this range would offer distinct advantages and certainly reduce engine wear."

http://www.onallcylinders.com/2015/05/29...our-oil-filter/

“Fram Ultra Guard filter, it is 99 percent efficient at 20 microns. At 10 microns it’s 94 percent efficient.”

Very impressive!

For some comparison/context, here's what Royal Purple says about their filters:

99 percent @ 25 microns/80 percent @ 10 microns

 

[CharlieBauer]

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Well, at least the Fram Ultra is 80% at 20 microns. I'll be using that one.
Good comments above. My conclusion is that MicroGreen isn't that great. Sleazy company practices.
Purolator bad. SOMS MicroGreen bad. All others pretty good, Fram best.


Slight correction:

Original SOMS filter the best.

Microgreen based on patented SOMS technology average.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted By: THafeez
I thought it was 99.9 at 20 microns?
Ooops - I kept typing it wrong, a couple of times no less. I really meant 80% at 5 microns. Sorry