Microgreen - possibly stunning development!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Quote:
The first stage is a full flow element filter that removes harmful particles between 25-40 microns in size, while a second stage microfilter removes particles down to two microns in size.

ISO 4548-12 multi-pass tests have been conducted to determine the filtration efficiency and dirt holding capacity of the convention pleated full-flow filter element inside the microGreen filter. The results demonstrate that the microGreen filter exceeds the necessary performance requirements for extended use for both filtration efficiency and capacity.

That part in red from Microgreen basically says they don't want to tell you the actual resulting ISO test xx% @ yy microns number for some reason. All they say is that the main element was ISO 4548-12 tested, but they dance around the resulting efficiency numbers.


Yes and elsewhere in their website, they now appear to be suggesting the main elements isn't a 20 micron filter - see the first quote.

This contradicts what they've shared by email and potentially confirms what Assion is claiming - 80% efficiency at 20 microns.
 
I talked to a representative about the main element and why it wasn't synthetic, he said that they were considering adding

this feature but hadn't yet. This was a while ago, can't remember how long.
 
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Isn't the honda A01 a tough guard? pretty sure thats what my ridgeline2017 uses. - maybe not.
There wouldn’t be much swing from a tough guard to an ultra - a little under the same conditioning and loading likely


The A01 is a Filtech (A US assembled Toko Roki) and the A02 is the Fram (Formally Honeywell). The A02 tested by Amsoil in the 67% range there is no reason to believe the A01 is any more efficient (in fact it is similar in construction to the Toyota filter that tested even lower). Jay has said that the A02 has different media specified by Honda than a Tough Guard. I seem to recall he actually stated the efficiency and it was in rough agreement with the Amsoil test, but cannot find it now.

A02

2Honeywella.jpg


https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/2861591

A01

A01f.jpg


https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3403948/

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Without knowing the engine miles and time on the oil its hard to say - Ive seen trace indicated several times but only take note of hours or miles when its my stuff but post always curious to see.


I don’t pay particular attention to it either, but generally the Acura turns in higher insolubles, the Honda trends slightly lower than the Acura and the 3.7 and the Harley the lowest. The Acura and the Honda have the highest miles the 3.7 significantly less and Harley still less (dang job).

Which brings me to my point:

If the insolubles are a good indicator of filter efficiency, why do they tend to trend with the engine vs the filter? If insolubles indicate filter efficiency then going from a ~65% efficient filter to a ~99% efficient filter should make a marked difference, but it does not appear to.

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Im inclined to believe Blackstone has a decent handle on filtration efficiency and performance.

UD


Maybe. I like Blackstone really I do, but sometimes they say stuff that is questionable.

It will be no secret that I just think we put WAY too much faith in UOA’s around here and that I also believe that we try to use them for things which they (at least the ones at the consumer level) were not intended to do (VOA). I believe there is a very narrow purpose and usefulness (Trending and contamination like coolant).

All of that said I belive a marked change in the insolubles on a particular engine might indicate a filtration issue.

I would like to see those used filters you have in the box cut open too, be interesting to see if there is any difference in internal construction.

Now, moving on the the discussion of data.

First of all, if the test have been done and the test prove what SOMS claims they prove on their website, why won’t they provide it publicly? I’m always skeptical in that situation.

Second, can someone explain why the ISO 4548-12 multi-pass would not apply to a particular filter? Microgreen claims an 85% reduction in 5 micron particle count after 40 miles so why would an ISO 4548-12 test not back that up?
 
Originally Posted By: das_peikko
Is Microgreen a wire backed synthetic media filter?


It has no wire mesh. I also don't know what the media is. It is green - that's all I can tell you. 8-{D>
 
Me again, seems I managed to miss some stuff.

RE Construction, the MG101-7 I have here is dated 26/1/17 the box indicates Mexico manufacturing. Externally it appears to be Champion like construction though I do not have a known Champion manufactured filter onhand to compare to. The media DOES NOT appear to be green when viewed through the louvres.

RE: ISO 4548-12, so they say it is intended for results down to 10 microns @ 99% I still don’t understand why it would be limited to 10 microns it seems like the test could indicate it if the filter could do it.
 
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Isn't the honda A01 a tough guard? pretty sure thats what my ridgeline2017 uses. - maybe not.
There wouldn’t be much swing from a tough guard to an ultra - a little under the same conditioning and loading likely


The A01 is a Filtech (A US assembled Toko Roki) and the A02 is the Fram (Formally Honeywell). The A02 tested by Amsoil in the 67% range there is no reason to believe the A01 is any more efficient (in fact it is similar in construction to the Toyota filter that tested even lower). Jay has said that the A02 has different media specified by Honda than a Tough Guard. I seem to recall he actually stated the efficiency and it was in rough agreement with the Amsoil test, but cannot find it now.

A02

2Honeywella.jpg


https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/2861591

A01

A01f.jpg


https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3403948/

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Without knowing the engine miles and time on the oil its hard to say - Ive seen trace indicated several times but only take note of hours or miles when its my stuff but post always curious to see.


I don’t pay particular attention to it either, but generally the Acura turns in higher insolubles, the Honda trends slightly lower than the Acura and the 3.7 and the Harley the lowest. The Acura and the Honda have the highest miles the 3.7 significantly less and Harley still less (dang job).

Which brings me to my point:

If the insolubles are a good indicator of filter efficiency, why do they tend to trend with the engine vs the filter? If insolubles indicate filter efficiency then going from a ~65% efficient filter to a ~99% efficient filter should make a marked difference, but it does not appear to.

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Im inclined to believe Blackstone has a decent handle on filtration efficiency and performance.

UD


Maybe. I like Blackstone really I do, but sometimes they say stuff that is questionable.

It will be no secret that I just think we put WAY too much faith in UOA’s around here and that I also believe that we try to use them for things which they (at least the ones at the consumer level) were not intended to do (VOA). I believe there is a very narrow purpose and usefulness (Trending and contamination like coolant).

All of that said I belive a marked change in the insolubles on a particular engine might indicate a filtration issue.

I would like to see those used filters you have in the box cut open too, be interesting to see if there is any difference in internal construction.

Now, moving on the the discussion of data.

First of all, if the test have been done and the test prove what SOMS claims they prove on their website, why won’t they provide it publicly? I’m always skeptical in that situation.

Second, can someone explain why the ISO 4548-12 multi-pass would not apply to a particular filter? Microgreen claims an 85% reduction in 5 micron particle count after 40 miles so why would an ISO 4548-12 test not back that up?


Great C&P Im new to the honda and have been getting a slur of contrarian info. Thats helpful .

Microgreen is all over the map on the spec claim of the secondary elements. from 40 miles to 5000. Steve Kirchner said one thing, other data exists elsewhere.

I "believe" the reason that the spec changed on 4548-12 (it did with etc 2017 revision ) is the the dual stages secondaries work so slow that a 4548-12 doenst accurately or won't accurately measure them unless you run it for hundreds of hours.

I can only surmise this is why there arent any dual stages I have yet found that use that test.

With insols on the engine vs the filter - most filter are fairly close in performance, but engine vary wildly in how clean they run I haven't paid a lot of attention to the number as cross referenced against something like a 65% filter and the 99% filter, but Ill certainly be watching going forward and look at some other samples of data to see what I can find.

You, and I and everyone here don't do nearly the testing the lab does - so taking a contrarian position to the lab is always and interesting place to start given as individuals we see far less than the lab does.

On UOA testing what did Werner von Braun say - one test is worth a 1000 expert opinions, although not perfect these should be way better than guesswork.


Im going to do some more testing as its still the best way to separate what people say and what one reads, or even what I think vs. what I know to be fact.

Thanks for taking the time to post your reply.

UD
 
Gimmicks abound, so much apologetics for huckster-ridden products making sensational claims- I'd expect better from BITOG. Not even a synthetic media that allegedly tests at a [censored] poor efficiency rating? We expect small vehicle filter canisters filled with paper for 30K miles to outperform regular paper filters changed at regular change intervals, what because there's a tiny non-woven 3sq.inch 'bypass' disc sitting on the end of it? It's like an insult to bypass systems in general.

I mean, all the power to guys running it and even the fella who buys a brand new car to specifically abuse it (at his own risk on behalf of microgreen claims)
happy2.gif
. And what's this, we're back to using UOAs to determine total engine wear, are we? Careful not to do it only when it's convenient to the narrative.

It'd be nice to see if some type of 'control' using a similar PAO based oil (ie any Euro longlife spec) and, say, a MANN or even OEM filter would yield any different result.
 
Originally Posted By: PeterPolyol
Gimmicks abound, so much apologetics for huckster-ridden products making sensational claims- I'd expect better from BITOG. Not even a synthetic media that allegedly tests at a [censored] poor efficiency rating? We expect small vehicle filter canisters filled with paper for 30K miles to outperform regular paper filters changed at regular change intervals, what because there's a tiny non-woven 3sq.inch 'bypass' disc sitting on the end of it? It's like an insult to bypass systems in general.

I mean, all the power to guys running it and even the fella who buys a brand new car to specifically abuse it (at his own risk on behalf of microgreen claims)
happy2.gif
. And what's this, we're back to using UOAs to determine total engine wear, are we? Careful not to do it only when it's convenient to the narrative.

It'd be nice to see if some type of 'control' using a similar PAO based oil (ie any Euro longlife spec) and, say, a MANN or even OEM filter would yield any different result.


I agree about hucksterism in general.

contrary to your post- the MG regimen calls for filter change outs at 10K so they should get changed at regular intervals.

Neither the media nor the disk are designed for extended runs.


UD
 
Originally Posted By: PeterPolyol
Thanks for clarifying MGs service interval. At over $10? a piece, value proposition remains illusive



Their sales model was such that they would go on sale in groups of 3 for about 7-8 bones at regular intervals.

The sump cost change exceeds the filter price at each interval - so taken at face value there is a value proposition in there.

- if you believe them.

Thev have moved away from a direct sales model to Amazon and only a few retail outlets - and will offer a discount code on multiples

Not being able to pick them up at a store is annoying to me.

UD
 
Last edited:
Well then lucky for me as I'm no more interested in MG than I am in buying weight loss solutions from the Shopping Channel
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: PeterPolyol
Well then lucky for me as I'm no more interested in MG than I am in buying weight loss solutions from the Shopping Channel
wink.gif



I understand that position, and would understand if you didnt keep posting in this or other like posts.

Im quite impressed with the potential of PTFE as a filter membrane medium - but only when implemented and used properly.

I'm also impressed with and use the cummins version of this design using stacked cardboard disks. (no 4548-12)

As to wether either non 4548-12 tester filter works as claimed - I will let my own data and 3rd party lab data be my guide.

We have no third party UOA data that refutes its actual claim - including my most recent sample, that said we don't have a lot of data points but Im on a sharp lookout for one so by all means if you have 3rd party data on it - please post it up.


Between what is "said" - vs. what what I test observe and measure through a non biased 3rd party labs - others opinions, while always interesting, seldom enlightening, matter little to me.



UD
 
I’m going to dispense with he quotes in hopes of improving readability.

Thank you for the compliment on the C&P, I do try though clearly some of my pictures turn out better than others. I’ve been known to tell them at work if I was a professional photographer they would have to pay me more. Nonetheless I’ll keep it up as long as people find value in it.

RE: a contrarian position to the lab. I’m not sure I’m completely contrary to their position, (more on that in a minute), but whether it be a curse or a blessing (probably a curse) and my field of work - experience has conditioned me to not take data at face value.

BTW - None this is directed at anyone here specifically, and yes I’m being intentionally obscure about what exactly I do, though it doesn’t have anything to do with oil or filters.

When someone hands me data, I ask a lot of questions before I start trying to figure the data out. These questions are things like: “Who collected the data”, “Why did they collect the data”, “how did they collect the data”, “do we have any other data”, "If we have other data is it relevant”, “if there are conclusions are they valid”, "What is the population and sample size of the data”.

This kind of thinking comes from getting things like reports where the executive summary says stuff like “x improved 8% over the same period last year” but looking at the data and seeing that “x” is still a horrid result. I’mean isn’t “x” is at 38% something that should go in the executive summary? But I digress...

I also find that sometimes people reach conclusions, and while the conclusions may ultimately prove correct frequently several steps in the process are skipped.

So, if you ask me if I agree with Werner Von Braun my answer is “maybe” or “it depends”. Generally though I would say one UOA viewed in a vacuum is worthless, mainly because the sample size is too small, the population too large and the variables too great. Unit averages and Universal averages are an attempt to address this. If actions have been taken or pure circumstance have reduced these factors, then a smaller sample size may have increased value.

But see we recently learned from the Harley Street Rod UOA that not all results are added to the universal averages. So we have filtered data without full knowledge of the filter applied, do we not?

So, now that I’ve gone off on that little tyrade/tangent lets try a practical application:

RE: Blackstones positon on insolubles:

https://www.blackstone-labs.com/what-is-oil-analysis.php

Says in part:
Quote:
This test tells you how good a job the oil filter is doing, and to what extent the oil has oxidized.


https://www.blackstone-labs.com/what-are-insolubles.php

Says in part:
Quote:
Excessive insolubles can form in an engine oil if the oil: is running hot, is receiving more than a normal amount of contamination, is suffering more (or more severe) heat cycles than is normal, is being run longer than a typical use cycle, or, on the other side of the coin, if oil filtration is marginal or relatively ineffective.


and if you click on the gas/diesel explanation on: https://www.blackstone-labs.com/report-explanation.php and hover over “insolubles” it says
Quote:
Solids formed by oil oxidation and blow-by past the rings.


So, some of those pesky questions are “Who wrote that”, “Why did they write it”.

So assuming anyone is still with me, I hope this might help explain why I don’t agree with:

Quote:
An insoluble number is also a good indicator of filter effectiveness.


But might agree something like:

Quote:
Oil filtration is a factor to look at related to a high insolubles reading.


Or put another way. A low insolubles number could just mean that the engine isn’t really producing any insolubles (and thus has nothing to do with the filter).
 
I watched this youtube.com Microgreen propaganda video. It shows a Rio Rancho Police vehicle, (City where I live). I know the fleet manager. I can assure you that Microgreen was never used on a fleet vehicle belonging to the Rio Rancho Police Dept. Furthermore; it's a violation of city policy to photograph city vehicles and publish them without permission.

It must be a stock photo from internet.

The City of Rio Rancho uses NAPA parts and brands for everything. They still change oil at 3,000 miles (severe service) for all fleet vehicles.

*On a side note. Per opinions of all four mechanics: The Rio Rancho P.D. uses Dodge Chargers since Ford quit making Crown Victoria. The Chargers are better made for emergency response vs Ford. The Chevrolet Impalas were the worst, literally falling apart in pursuit driving.



Respectfully,

Pajero!
 
Same on ditching quotes-

Originally Posted By: DuckRyder


Or put another way. A low insolubles number could just mean that the engine isn’t really producing any insolubles (and thus has nothing to do with the filter).


I well understand sample sizes and actually run them a a lot as well as research 3rd party example from which you can learn a lot about a given platforms record.

I agree that a low output producing engine could alter insolubles.

One of benefit of blackstone over polaris basic test is that they give you free historicals your platform and you get a lot of value knowing what the averages should be and when a combo for whatever reason performs significantly better than average -

you never have less that eat least 2 data point an usually more built up against the average they give you.

If they are tainting the data I get it - if they take the high and low out then maybe not so bad- I don't know.

I totally agree one of anything is not enough - except to run the combo again and see if the results match and continue to do so.

I get your throught train and think you and I are closer aligned in most things that the mail chain makes it appear.

UD
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: UncleDave

Between what is "said" - vs. what what I test observe and measure through a non biased 3rd party labs - others opinions, while always interesting, seldom enlightening, matter little to me.



UD


Well I wish you good luck with your 'scientific hard-facts and lab-data driven' venture, apparently. I understand you are invested in a statistical conclusion proving MG filters practical value, and shall not trouble you further with opposing opinion.
 
Im out to make no alliance with any particular brand - just protect my expensive commercial and personal equipment.



UD
 
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
It has no wire mesh. I also don't know what the media is. It is green - that's all I can tell you. 8-{D>


Thank You. I appreciate the answer.
smile.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top