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

[kohnen]

Originally Posted By: DBMaster
To me the ONLY reason to use them is to get 30,000 miles out of my oil. If I want to change it every 10K, which is what I would do otherwise, I would use a conventional filter.


I have a different viewpoint. When MG filters are half off, they're less expensive than a high end filter. So, I figure I might as well use them instead of say a Fram Ultra. If the bypass filter in the MG works as promised, it will keep my oil cleaner than any other filter at a competitive price. This MIGHT minimize engine wear. At worst, I'm spending the same amount as I would for a regular filter good for 10,000 miles.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
If it were snake oil DB's UOA's would likely have shown depleted TBN and increased TAN beyond recommended running and MG would be sued for fraud.


The only way such a claim could be made would be if identical oil was run in an identical engine with the identical operational profile. One with the microGreen filter and one with another. This has not been done.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
If it were snake oil DB's UOA's would likely have shown depleted TBN and increased TAN beyond recommended running and MG would be sued for fraud.


The only way such a claim could be made would be if identical oil was run in an identical engine with the identical operational profile. One with the microGreen filter and one with another. This has not been done.



They dont have to prove something else does or doesn't work to claim (and DB to demonstrate) this works as advertised.

all DB cares(and anyone else falling their recommendation) is that it met the claim.

Has anyone else made the same claim?

UD

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: DBMaster
To me the ONLY reason to use them is to get 30,000 miles out of my oil. If I want to change it every 10K, which is what I would do otherwise, I would use a conventional filter. As far as I know, no other spin-on filter makes the claim of oil longevity that MG does.

Not everyone will go 30,000 miles, and if MG can find buyers who are willing to try their product, relying on the efficiency claims, for shorter intervals, they'd be well served on accepting those customers. There are many, many potential customers out there who will never trust a 30,000 mile filter claim, not matter who makes it. Relying on 30,000 mile OCI customers doesn't give you a big base.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
To me the ONLY reason to use them is to get 30,000 miles out of my oil. If I want to change it every 10K, which is what I would do otherwise, I would use a conventional filter. As far as I know, no other spin-on filter makes the claim of oil longevity that MG does.

Not everyone will go 30,000 miles, and if MG can find buyers who are willing to try their product, relying on the efficiency claims, for shorter intervals, they'd be well served on accepting those customers. There are many, many potential customers out there who will never trust a 30,000 mile filter claim, not matter who makes it. Relying on 30,000 mile OCI customers doesn't give you a big base.


Yup
To make it work they do 2 things..
1. make it cost twice as much
2. put it on sale in a way you have to buy a 2 pack of the filters. This insures you always buy one more than you need.

UD

 

[kohnen]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Relying on 30,000 mile OCI customers doesn't give you a big base.

If you follow their recommendation, you change oil every 30,000 miles, but their MG filter every 10,000 miles. This broadens the base a bit.

 

[DBMaster]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Not everyone will go 30,000 miles, and if MG can find buyers who are willing to try their product, relying on the efficiency claims, for shorter intervals, they'd be well served on accepting those customers. There are many, many potential customers out there who will never trust a 30,000 mile filter claim, not matter who makes it. Relying on 30,000 mile OCI customers doesn't give you a big base.


I agree with this. I guess I just like to push things a bit. When I first started doing 10,000 mile OCI's (around 1991) synthetic oil was still a bit "exotic" and almost everyone else I knew used the 3K procedure. It's never been about the money or not wanting to get underneath the car. It's about minimizing waste.

 

[alternety]

You know, this thread reminds me a whole lot of the long threads about WS2 as a lubricant. That was a lot of people denying nano material technology exists. Rather like denying the existence of Iron (as I am sure a stone age technologist would have agreed). If they were actually to examine the field, they would be staggered by what is going on. It amounts to a completely new set of materials then they knew about just after smelting iron. Well maybe to 1990 or so. At least partially based for some on "It smells like snake oil" and I don't believe in snake oil. Generally, disbelief in reproducible physical materials, does not actually alter their properties. There is an entirely new set of basic materials existing and rapidly growing. Doing things we could not even imagine 20 or 30 years ago. A quote I love: Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". I whole heartily believe in that. You should too.

OK, this is a filter with different technology. And it uses nano technology. Think about it. Check with your Alchemist.

 

[goodtimes]

The Trasko is another alternative spin on filter that filters to sub micron levels and takes out water.
http://trasko-usa.com/
Only the element is changed, saving waste of a steel canister each time. None of these bypass ideas are "new" just a little different in design IMO.

 

[UncleDave]

The trasko is a single element filter though right?

From what I know of them, the majority of the oil doesn't get filtered and it simply recirculated and only a small % flows though the "kiln dried paper element".

So its like having a bypass only filter.

 

[corndogzombie]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
The trasko is a single element filter though right?

From what I know of them, the majority of the oil doesn't get filtered and it simply recirculated and only a small % flows though the "kiln dried paper element".

So its like having a bypass only filter.

It claims to be a dual filter. There's a wire screen thingy that fits over the top of the element. Maybe thats their idea of a full flow element. Anyway the paper element looks like a tiny roll of toilet like paper so it must filter very fine. Even if the full flow part sucks, it will likley keep the oil much cleaner than a regular full flow. It probably filters 10%;or somthing each cycle, It would retain moisture better too

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: corndogzombie
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
The trasko is a single element filter though right?

From what I know of them, the majority of the oil doesn't get filtered and it simply recirculated and only a small % flows though the "kiln dried paper element".

So its like having a bypass only filter.

It claims to be a dual filter. There's a wire screen thingy that fits over the top of the element. Maybe thats their idea of a full flow element. Anyway the paper element looks like a tiny roll of toilet like paper so it must filter very fine. Even if the full flow part sucks, it will likley keep the oil much cleaner than a regular full flow. It probably filters 10%;or somthing each cycle, It would retain moisture better too


It's certainly been around a while and has its fans. Nice piece, well engineered on the surface.

If its full flow mesh is really 8-10 thats to tight to really be full flow which is why the best single stages are around 20 - they seem to indicate its gong to run in relief a lot.

For me cleaning anything like a reusable mesh is a real b@#$% and I don't have solvent tank at home, but could use the sink and fill it with dawn.they say to "clean it with a flick" in the video, not sure its always gonna work like that if you happen to have some carbon pieces in it. Notice they actually have an option for you to send it to them for cleaning.

No doubt if starting with a clean engine you could keep the oil very clean with one, they claim down to "1 micron when flow is least restrictive" then they say 8-10 which I decipher as 8-10.
Still way cleaner than any full flow, and you are right that much media would absorb a fair amount if water. (and crud)

Seems like the practically recommend using it as a bypass it in a dual filter head with a full flow in the mix.

This is "like" a spin on mini frantz filter small enough to fit on a dual head that can run stand alone.

Pretty cool piece but I think I prefer the throw away at about 8 bucks a filter that does the same thing or better with full flow protection.

It's more intriguing to me as a bypass on a dual head than a stand alone, but it sure is cool!


UD

 

[corndogzombie]

It's more intriguing to me as a bypass on a dual head than a stand alone, but it sure is cool!


UD


[/quote]
In that case a Frantz would make more sense. Cheaper element changes (Scott's 1000 or somthing) like $3rd $4 a pack and more filtering media.but the track would be good for the average mid to subcompact cars where there's no room for a bypass.
I'm half tempted to test out the microgreens claims myself as dB master has to see if it works in my case on my ford 2.3 and mazda 1.5.I agree that the micrograms is probably more cost effective when bought on sale than a tracko.

 

[goodtimes]

On the trasko, one of their picture shows the full flow(green arrows) going through the paper element. Not sure if that is correct or a mistake. It would make a good remote filter choice. I wouldn't chance it with a car of value. Not sure if any of this is valid more than running an OE filter and changing oil regularly. I myself have cycled through the process a couple times, going back to regular full flow filters in the end, usually after selling the car and saying bye bye there goes all my extra care for nothing.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Based the claim =veracity formula you and z06 proffer about iso test disclosure - thats because they can't do it.


They claim on their website that the main pleated element was ISO 4548-12 tested, but yet they will not show the test numbers on their website ... only through private emails it seems. Why would that be?

If it's really 99% @ 20 microns like the email traffic says, why don't they just put that on their website so people know and don't have to wonder.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
On the trasko, one of their picture shows the full flow(green arrows) going through the paper element. Not sure if that is correct or a mistake. It would make a good remote filter choice. I wouldn't chance it with a car of value. Not sure if any of this is valid more than running an OE filter and changing oil regularly. I myself have cycled through the process a couple times, going back to regular full flow filters in the end, usually after selling the car and saying bye bye there goes all my extra care for nothing.


Seems the paper element is subject to the full flow circuits pressure and whatever % of flow pushes through it - is what it is, and their relief/ bypass bleeds off the rest so effectively its always bypassing most of the flow most of the time. I'm sure its scrubs really well but not having a " traditional" full flow circuit is worrisome to me.

I think all the extra care one gives helps light to medium duty trucks more than passenger autos. Passenger autos benefit from the love but less so.
I can't sell a truck thats worn out and smoking at idle that can't pass ca emissions and there are plenty of these out here mostly LS's at around 100K.
Every year I get out of mine before needing to crack into the engine the better off I am, so I give it the best stuff and most tricks I can throw at it,

- but I come from a farming background.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Based the claim =veracity formula you and z06 proffer about iso test disclosure - thats because they can't do it.


They claim on their website that the main pleated element was ISO 4548-12 tested, but yet they will not show the test numbers on their website ... only through private emails it seems. Why would that be?

If it's really 99% @ 20 microns like the email traffic says, why don't they just put that on their website so people know and don't have to wonder.


Beats me.
I can only think of a few reasons. -

1. They are really selling a regimen vs a spec and are focusing people on the sump savings vs tech spec (this is really their only clear claim)

2. They are trying to be cagey about what its specs are to make it a tiny bit harder to copy

3. Its a fraud and doesn't do at all what they say and they are hiding it behind partial information releases - no evidence of this yet seen outside of lack of clear standard testing claims.


This company frustrates me with their presentation of data, but what they do let out intrigues me, and I feel their product is quite clever and that this device likely does what they claim.

UD

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
On the trasko, one of their picture shows the full flow(green arrows) going through the paper element. Not sure if that is correct or a mistake. It would make a good remote filter choice. I wouldn't chance it with a car of value. Not sure if any of this is valid more than running an OE filter and changing oil regularly. I myself have cycled through the process a couple times, going back to regular full flow filters in the end, usually after selling the car and saying bye bye there goes all my extra care for nothing.


Seems the paper element is subject to the full flow circuits pressure and whatever % of flow pushes through it - is what it is, and their relief/ bypass bleeds off the rest so effectively its always bypassing most of the flow most of the time. I'm sure its scrubs really well but not having a " traditional" full flow circuit is worrisome to me.

I think all the extra care one gives helps light to medium duty trucks more than passenger autos. Passenger autos benefit from the love but less so.
I can't sell a truck thats worn out and smoking at idle that can't pass ca emissions and there are plenty of these out here mostly LS's at around 100K.
Every year I get out of mine before needing to crack into the engine the better off I am, so I give it the best stuff and most tricks I can throw at it,

- but I come from a farming background.



That's why, even when I had a vehicle the trasko would fit on, I never pulled the trigger. I don't want to experiment with a screen mesh as my oil filter on a car worth anything. It looks like a good bypass choice with remote mount though, claiming 1/10th micron filtration.
Also I don't listen to the consensus on here and I change oil and filter every 5k using M1 or PP and usually top filters. Old school thinking, drain the oil and what's in the oil goes out, and no need to spend my money on UOA's. Back 50 years ago my dad and I were using Frantz filters for the same reasons talked about now. Basically it's all correct, but I never saw any practical benefits. Also the new cars didn't have any room to mount them.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: DBMaster
I agree with this. I guess I just like to push things a bit. When I first started doing 10,000 mile OCI's (around 1991) synthetic oil was still a bit "exotic" and almost everyone else I knew used the 3K procedure. It's never been about the money or not wanting to get underneath the car. It's about minimizing waste.

There's nothing wrong with pushing it. Of course, there are also customers who want to change every 3,000 miles with the best (or most expensive) oil they can find, and the best filter they can find. MG would be well served to show how this is the best filter on the market, at least in their view.

I still can't help but think how great of a tie in this would be with a quality, extended drain oil, through a formal marketing arrangement.

kohnen: What you say is quite true, but that 30,000 mile thing does jump out at people, for good and for bad.

 

[DBMaster]

Both Mobil 1 and Amsoil made 25,000 mile claims at one point. Mobil certainly backed off theirs, but a good friend's dad was going 25K between OC's back in the 70's. Amsoil claimed you could do it with their filters, changed at 12.5K intervals. That was before they had the different varieties of synthetic like they do now. There was no OE, signature, etc., just Amsoil.

They pushed their bypass filter systems, too. The claim from a successful Amsoil rep I worked with in Austin was that you could go at least 100K on an oil change by using their bypass filter system.

So, MG's concept is nothing new. It's just all in one housing and it combines things that have been promoted in the past.