Got my Micro Green oil filter in from the 50% sale

[Sayjac]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
...I'm curious if MG has some kind of "warranty" that says if their filter doesn't meet the claim of being able to run oil for 30K miles, and engine damage occurs, will they cover the repair costs?

That is a good question, there is at least one bitog thread starter that says not. A google search of this site starting with 'MicroGreen refuses liability' will lead to the anecdotal thread.

While a vehicle is still under the manufacturer's warranty, anything beyond their oil and/or filter recommendation 'could' put the warranty at risk. In the event of catastrophic engine failure, having coverage by the filter manufacturer would be a must.

That said, some might not care about that thinking it to be a low probability issue. But 'imo', it is a consideration one should at least take into account when or if considering going beyond vehicle manufacturer's recommendations.

 

[dlundblad]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
If Fram can make Ultra in U.S. and has retail price of $10 then why Micro Green at twice the price can't be made in U.S ?

I was about to buy a few to try, but the made in Mexico is a turn off.


These are my thoughts. A US option available for less is a no brainer IMO.

I use Fram and WIX both, but will do my best at finding US made whenever possible.

Sadly, the air filters for the tractors are Mexican/ Chinese regardless.

 

[goodtimes]

The MG has a much thicker can and complex construction. I bet they tried to find a USA supplier. The Ultra does not have the thicker can, it is the same as the TG except for the element. Doesn't cost that much more to make an Ultra. MG can't force a company to make it for them, they have to find one that will.

 

[UncleDave]

IHTCO sent an email titled - "Microgreen filters efficiency ratings per ISO 4548-12."
MG answered (condensed)- The full flow filter is 99%@20 microns. The microdisk is rated 99%@5 microns

On their website they say - 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.

They add - By conducting a Pin-on-Disk (ASTM G99) test at an independent certified laboratory, the lubricity and protective properties of the oil were assessed. New oil, oil filtered by the microGreen filter for 72,000 miles and oil filtered by a conventional filter were analyzed. Results indicate that oil filtered by the microGreen filter has equivalent oil film quality to new oil.

In the use tab. Then they reccomend their 30K regimen - They are quite clear so there is no wiggle room asterisks, or weasel words so its a definite claim of performance over time.

They also claim ISO 9001 certification.

So they clearly make a claim that no one has yet debunked, challenged or equalled, and since its so easy to challenge claims, and or sure for false advertising - we must then conclude based on lack of official challenge its true and it works as billed.

Agreed it would be interesting to see if anyone else could match this performance with dino as they claim they can and still have a serviceable sump. From what I know no one has remotely come close to this. We know of a few Amsoil runs to 25K on their horrifically expensive oil and filters, but no one trying this with dino.

As to their specific claims under their warranty FAQ they state - " Our limited warranty covers the use of the microGreen filter throughout the extended service life that we have recommended, up to the cost of replacing the engine."

Thats pretty straightforward.

I dont think any filter company has ever been found liable for any damages caused by a filter product. Do you know of a case where anyone has gotten anything more than a replacement filter? since SOMS have been selling this thing a while (since 09 I think) and we've heard no related issues and we have 3 pieces of data from DB Master that show it performs as claimed.

To my point one the purolater piece -its that products fall short of their claims and guarantees constantly - and yet no one sued them.

I will write them and see if they reply to me.


UD

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: Sayjac
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
...I'm curious if MG has some kind of "warranty" that says if their filter doesn't meet the claim of being able to run oil for 30K miles, and engine damage occurs, will they cover the repair costs?

That is a good question, there is at least one bitog thread starter that says not. A google search of this site starting with 'MicroGreen refuses liability' will lead to the anecdotal thread.

While a vehicle is still under the manufacturer's warranty, anything beyond their oil and/or filter recommendation 'could' put the warranty at risk. In the event of catastrophic engine failure, having coverage by the filter manufacturer would be a must.

That said, some might not care about that thinking it to be a low probability issue. But 'imo', it is a consideration one should at least take into account when or if considering going beyond vehicle manufacturer's recommendations.



Actually they are pretty clear at least on this new website

http://www.microgreenfilter.com/Site/Customer-Service/warranty.aspx

Heres the first paragraph.

We stand behind our product, but in the unlikely event that your vehicle is damaged as a result of using the microGreen filter, SOMS Technologies LLC (SOMS) offers protection. Our limited warranty covers the use of the microGreen filter throughout the extended service life that we have recommended, up to the cost of replacing the engine.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The MG has a much thicker can and complex construction. I bet they tried to find a USA supplier. The Ultra does not have the thicker can, it is the same as the TG except for the element. Doesn't cost that much more to make an Ultra. MG can't force a company to make it for them, they have to find one that will.


Agreed on can,
Agreed on construction tech.
Id bet you are right about trying to find a us supplier.

The can- in my truck I care about thickness and exposure, in my car its fine because it protected - plus a magnet performs better on an FU because of that.

A FU with a filtermag is one whopping powerful combo.
I'd also bet that the stuff caught up in that ptfe disk in the mg is mostly iron making the FU/FM a nearly equivalent combo, with a full ISO drop.

The question of supplier is more about the actual company than the location.
If I buy 3M product I trust Im getting what I bought regardless of which factory it came from.

Shoddy little plants anywhere in the world that can't do paperwork and carry any compliance standards are what I worry about.

MG's choice must clearly be able to prove iso9001 compliance or they would be sued right away for fraud.
Haven't seen that yet.

Would I prefer AND pay more for an American made product - you bet I would. As an American vendor -
I support my own.

Id bet the prices they got back from US companies were simply a bunch higher.
We and Ill bet the American companies need to pay a US based living wage not a third world hamlet.

Ive witnessed many different sizes of their parts for a while now and find them substantively equal or better than the parts Ive seen from everywhere else for since I been 7 - but no one cares about what I say (and I understand and get that with zero emotion).

Ill be watching this whole thing over time.

UD

 

[Nate1979]

Their warranty is very sketchy. Do they honestly think that you can run the oil to 30k and not void your warranty? And that the MM Act will cover you when running the MG filter as they describe? If you have an oil related failure running to 30k as prescribed by MG good luck collecting from anyone. Will MG take responsibility, blame the oil, blame the user, etc?

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Their warranty is very sketchy. Do they honestly think that you can run the oil to 30k and not void your warranty? And that the MM Act will cover you when running the MG filter as they describe? If you have an oil related failure running to 30k as prescribed by MG good luck collecting from anyone. Will MG take responsibility, blame the oil, blame the user, etc?


It reads as clear as any other manufacturers warranty Ive seen.

They honestly do seem to think they can meet their claim that they put in writing-
They proffer multiple data points as evidence it works, we've seen evidence here it works.

According KSCHn and Z06 it really easy to sue if they are lying, and that because the MG doesn't score well on the ISO test they don't print it in such a way that it constitutes a claim,

SO MG offer a different claim instead one of a sump run time claim.(30K 3 filter on dino with serviceable oil as independently tested)

If they were lying another manufacturer would sue them for false advertising,
- and we've seen no lawsuits against the MG printed claim - so by that logic path the regimen MG claims/print is valid.

The next question becomes can any other filter match the MG claim regardless of what the tests it may have scored well or not.

 

[Sayjac]

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Their warranty is very sketchy. Do they honestly think that you can run the oil to 30k and not void your warranty? And that the MM Act will cover you when running the MG filter as they describe? If you have an oil related failure running to 30k as prescribed by MG good luck collecting from anyone. Will MG take responsibility, blame the oil, blame the user, etc?

I agree.

One MAJOR difference in other filter manufacturers warranty, NONE of them say to take the filter (or oil) beyond what the vehicle manufacturer recommends. Example, Fram says footnote one *Follow recommended change intervals as noted in your vehicle owner's manual." That would be in line with MM act too.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: Sayjac
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Their warranty is very sketchy. Do they honestly think that you can run the oil to 30k and not void your warranty? And that the MM Act will cover you when running the MG filter as they describe? If you have an oil related failure running to 30k as prescribed by MG good luck collecting from anyone. Will MG take responsibility, blame the oil, blame the user, etc?

I agree.

One MAJOR difference in other filter manufacturers warranty, NONE of them say to take the filter (or oil) beyond what the vehicle manufacturer recommends. Example, Fram says footnote one *Follow recommended change intervals as noted in your vehicle owner's manual. That would be in line with MM act too.


Yes thats different.

So are their products.

No other manufacturers have a dual stage offering/ built in bypass offering.

Does "sketchy" mean unclear? Or unbelievable ?

I don't think you can make a case for their warranty statement being unclear.

It sounds more like you don't believe it can deliver and they wouldn't make good on it but you have no evidence much less proof of it can't on the contrary you have evidence it does, in the form of one of our posters tests.




UD

 

[PolarisX]

This would be a great time for someone from MG to chime in. Maybe someone should just email them the link to this post?

 

[Nate1979]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Originally Posted By: Sayjac
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Their warranty is very sketchy. Do they honestly think that you can run the oil to 30k and not void your warranty? And that the MM Act will cover you when running the MG filter as they describe? If you have an oil related failure running to 30k as prescribed by MG good luck collecting from anyone. Will MG take responsibility, blame the oil, blame the user, etc?

I agree.

One MAJOR difference in other filter manufacturers warranty, NONE of them say to take the filter (or oil) beyond what the vehicle manufacturer recommends. Example, Fram says footnote one *Follow recommended change intervals as noted in your vehicle owner's manual. That would be in line with MM act too.


Yes thats different.

So are their products.

No other manufacturers have a dual stage offering/ built in bypass offering.

Does "sketchy" mean unclear? Or unbelievable ?

I don't think you can make a case for their warranty statement being unclear.

It sounds more like you don't believe it can deliver and they wouldn't make good on it but you have no evidence much less proof of it can't on the contrary you have evidence it does, in the form of one of our posters tests.




UD


I mean sketchy and unclear. Meaning it is not clear who is responsible in the case of failure of the oil. Example - suppose at 30k miles your engine is sludged up and there is some type of engine failure. Who will pay? What oil is required to meet the 30k performance? For example my Subie only requires SM conventional spec oil. Is that ok?

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: Nate1979

I mean sketchy and unclear. Meaning it is not clear who is responsible in the case of failure of the oil. Example - suppose at 30k miles your engine is sludged up and there is some type of engine failure. Who will pay? What oil is required to meet the 30k performance? For example my Subie only requires SM conventional spec oil. Is that ok?


They seem pretty clear about how you make a claim....

But they don't say much about what oil to run only that you don't need synthetic oil.
Id imagine its whatever oil the MFGR certifies a min rated for that model.

Maybe you could ask them?

Is there a reference manufacturers statement of warranty to point at and say - "this is clear " and unsketchy?



UD

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
IHTCO sent an email titled - "Microgreen filters efficiency ratings per ISO 4548-12."
MG answered (condensed)- The full flow filter is 99%@20 microns. The microdisk is rated 99%@5 microns

On their website they say - 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.


Thanks for pointing that out. So they do tie the efficiency of the pleated element to ISO 4548-12. But I'm curious why they don't say what the efficiency is (99% @ 20 microns per the email traffic) there in that "Test & Evaluation" information section if that's what it is.

I couldn't find their claimed efficiency numbers anywhere on their website - maybe I missed it. If they are so good, why don't they put that info on their website instead of handing it out one email at a time?


Originally Posted By: UncleDave
They add - By conducting a Pin-on-Disk (ASTM G99) test at an independent certified laboratory, the lubricity and protective properties of the oil were assessed. New oil, oil filtered by the microGreen filter for 72,000 miles and oil filtered by a conventional filter were analyzed. Results indicate that oil filtered by the microGreen filter has equivalent oil film quality to new oil.


It would have been nice to see where the oil with the other filter came in. In other words, did the oil going through the other filter lose its film quality at 10K, 20K, 30K ... etc?

Also, exactly what oil was filtered for 72,000 miles? Was it actually oil in an engine that was ran for 72K miles and constantly getting debris added, or some kind of 'test oil' that somehow simulated running in an engine for 72K miles?

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Agreed it would be interesting to see if anyone else could match this performance with dino as they claim they can and still have a serviceable sump. From what I know no one has remotely come close to this. We know of a few Amsoil runs to 25K on their horrifically expensive oil and filters, but no one trying this with dino.


I guess I missed the part about the claim being made with the use of just dino oil.

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
I dont think any filter company has ever been found liable for any damages caused by a filter product. Do you know of a case where anyone has gotten anything more than a replacement filter? since SOMS have been selling this thing a while (since 09 I think) and we've heard no related issues and we have 3 pieces of data from DB Master that show it performs as claimed.


I'm betting a few of the big name filter companies have paid out engine repair money in the past. Along the way, there will always be a few freak filter failures that could cause some engine damage. I think there was a thread or two here in the last 5 years or so that had an instance that caused engine damage. One was a filter where a piece of the glue inside the filter had broke off and was found inside the engine after tear down, and the broke off piece was matched to where it had come off inside the filter.

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
To my point one the purolater piece -its that products fall short of their claims and guarantees constantly - and yet no one sued them.


Like said earlier, tearing media is a product defect/failure, and as such Purolator would only replace the filter. But the clincher is if someone cut the filter open to discover the tear, then Purolator would deny the warranty claim on the defective filter because the customer cut open the filter. It's a catch 22 win-win for them because the only way you prove it failed it to cut the filter, which then denies the claim.

Now if the engine was damaged, and failed filter was found to be the cause, then they would likely pay or get sued to pay. Again, the customer would have to have the engine and filter inspected by a 3rd party professional to document the findings to make it all "legal".

 

[DBMaster]

With regards to the MG 30,000 mile OCI and type of oil I have not seen anything to indicate that using synthetic oil is REQUIRED. I have to admit, though, I am not brave enough to try that even though I know that the line between conventional and synthetic oil is a lot finer than it was in the past. Since I do stick with the recommended grade for my car, 0W-20, I don't plan to try any conventional oil.

 

[kschachn]

Regarding the Purolator element tearing, I can't imagine any scenario where that would cause engine failure other than when a piece of the separated element causes blockage. It may cause accelerated wear over a long period of time, but I don't see it causing an identifiable failure that could be attributed to the filter. Even running your engine without a filter at all isn't going to cause catastrophic failure.

Trying to prove that a torn filter caused failure would be difficult.

 

[UncleDave]

I heard the vette engines were eating themselves from fragments off bad threads on filter bases for a while.
Something as simple as a bad or worn tap could do that.

About the only way it could cause failure is if it disassembled itself somehow and parts made it to the engine.
Ever pick up a filter off a shelf and heard thing rattling inside? I have.
I always open the box after the register swipe while still in the store and inspect everything.

From whats described to me by you guys as purolater warranty is beyond sketchy.

My unfortunate experience with Manufacturer parts warranties is they are very very hard to get satisfaction from.

I think the owner of my day job got burned once and vowed never to do it to anyone so I get to delight my clients with advanced parts exchange.

As for MG- Its maddening they way they drip out stuff and make you chase it, the new site is a bit better than the old one, and discloses more info, but still leave me wanting, no genset filter info - too bad they lost that last round of buys from me to kubota,
I'm not chasing anyone to give them, my money, no press release section. In some ways its a step back.

I have no allegiance to anything other than products that work well. The minute they stop or prove unworthy - Im gone as a client.




UD

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave

From whats described to me by you guys as purolater warranty is beyond sketchy.


It's not really 'sketchy' ... it basically the same as any other oil filter warranty. If the filter is defective they will replace it. But the fact is with torn media you will never know it unless you cut it open ... THEN the warranty is void because you cut it open. The manufacturer doesn't know if you tore the media after you cut it open. Like said, it's a 'catch-22' and a win-win for the manufacturer. But if a filter fails and it can be proven that the failed filter damaged the engine, then the filter manufacture will pay for the damage caused by their product. They all have basically the same warranty statement.

 

[bullwinkle]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
I heard the vette engines were eating themselves from fragments off bad threads on filter bases for a while.
Something as simple as a bad or worn tap could do that.

About the only way it could cause failure is if it disassembled itself somehow and parts made it to the engine.
Ever pick up a filter off a shelf and heard thing rattling inside? I have.
I always open the box after the register swipe while still in the store and inspect everything.

From whats described to me by you guys as purolater warranty is beyond sketchy.

My unfortunate experience with Manufacturer parts warranties is they are very very hard to get satisfaction from.

I think the owner of my day job got burned once and vowed never to do it to anyone so I get to delight my clients with advanced parts exchange.

As for MG- Its maddening they way they drip out stuff and make you chase it, the new site is a bit better than the old one, and discloses more info, but still leave me wanting, no genset filter info - too bad they lost that last round of buys from me to kubota,
I'm not chasing anyone to give them, my money, no press release section. In some ways its a step back.

I have no allegiance to anything other than products that work well. The minute they stop or prove unworthy - Im gone as a client.
This is the reason why I dropped Purolator oil filters-no response from their customer service, no standing behind their products, nothing. If the Microguard was made in the USA, & they were a little more forthcoming with their specs, I would use them, they appear to be made pretty well.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: UncleDave

From whats described to me by you guys as purolater warranty is beyond sketchy.


It's not really 'sketchy' ... it basically the same as any other oil filter warranty. If the filter is defective they will replace it. But the fact is with torn media you will never know it unless you cut it open ... THEN the warranty is void because you cut it open. The manufacturer doesn't know if you tore the media after you cut it open. Like said, it's a 'catch-22' and a win-win for the manufacturer. But if a filter fails and it can be proven that the failed filter damaged the engine, then the filter manufacture will pay for the damage caused by their product. They all have basically the same warranty statement.


Its the catch 22 part that makes it sketchy to me.

In my industry its (or it used to be called) the kodak rule. If you shoot on a set that cost a million a day and a days cans of film develop poorly Kodak replaces the cans of film.
(Now its all digital everything is confirmed at the end of every scene vs every day )

Sounds like MG is no more or less sketchy if this is a standard component. They do at least make a claim they will replace "up to the engine.".

UD