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

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Originally Posted By: Ihatetochangeoil
....I received this reply today:

Thank you for your inquiry. The full flow filter is 99%@20 microns. The microdisk is rated 99%@5 micron. The 2 micron rating of the microdisk is captured through oil analysis and you can even find customers who have posted their results on BITOG. The Fram Ultra that you mention lists their efficiency as 99%@ >20 microns on the page link you listed. We’re not trying to start anything, but it’s worth mentioning since that is a slight contrast vs. what is being stated below and many filters would be able to claim 99% @ >20 microns.


The guy at Microgeen that wrote that doesn't really know what >20 microns means when associated with oil filters if he thinks it really doesn't meant @20 microns.

 

[UncleDave]

I would agree w you guys origin of manufacture isn't always directly related to quality - " Made in Mexico" doesn't alway mean junk.

Some of the new factories down there we funnel money into are world class.

My preference is American, then Japanese, then everything else, but a nice product gets its due.


UD

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Originally Posted By: Ihatetochangeoil
....I received this reply today:

Thank you for your inquiry. The full flow filter is 99%@20 microns. The microdisk is rated 99%@5 micron. The 2 micron rating of the microdisk is captured through oil analysis and you can even find customers who have posted their results on BITOG. The Fram Ultra that you mention lists their efficiency as 99%@ >20 microns on the page link you listed. We’re not trying to start anything, but it’s worth mentioning since that is a slight contrast vs. what is being stated below and many filters would be able to claim 99% @ >20 microns.


The guy at Microgeen that wrote that doesn't really know what >20 microns means when associated with oil filters if he thinks it really doesn't meant @20 microns.


Many seem fixated over that part of the mail -I'm not really interested in that too much its been beat to death here. For all the picking this place has done on that company I wonder why they have stayed silent so long.

Its the MG I wanted to know about for a while now.

It was the bypass efficiency they hid from us. I spent a bit of time looking up PTFE filter membranes so I wasn't surprised at the number.
They are available much smaller, but the tradeoff is flow and capacity.

Seems pretty clear to me the #'s they put up firmly put it in the lead in terms of efficiency. At twice the price when not on sale - it should be.

99%@20 PLUS 99%@5 wipes the floor with every single stage for scrubbing power.

Im kinda torn, I really like my 15K runs I get on my Ultras and its easy to topside suck oil out at 7-10K vs crawl under the car and remove all the aero stuff and yank the filter. A magnet on an ultra may just be the MG's match.

Interestingly when I look up the patents MG has on their dual stage I went back in time and found the Fram Corp actually patented a similar device as well decades ago.

I had seen a snapshot of a dual stage denso from a car show in Japan-
I think we will see the big players move to dual stages in the near future in an attempt to be even more "eco".


UD

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Its the MG I wanted to know about for a while now.

It was the bypass efficiency they hid from us. I spent a bit of time looking up PTFE filter membranes so I wasn't surprised at the number.
They are available much smaller, but the tradeoff is flow and capacity.

Seems pretty clear to me the #'s they put up firmly put it in the lead in terms of efficiency. At twice the price when not on sale - it should be.

99%@20 PLUS 99%@5 wipes the floor with every single stage for scrubbing power.


The MG has great efficiency numbers ... but it's still not clear to me if they were actually obtained from ISO 4548-12 testing methods. Did MG actually specifically say those efficiency numbers were from the ISO 4548-12 test method? There are other older test methods out there that might skew the numbers to look better than other test methods.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Its the MG I wanted to know about for a while now.

It was the bypass efficiency they hid from us. I spent a bit of time looking up PTFE filter membranes so I wasn't surprised at the number.
They are available much smaller, but the tradeoff is flow and capacity.

Seems pretty clear to me the #'s they put up firmly put it in the lead in terms of efficiency. At twice the price when not on sale - it should be.

99%@20 PLUS 99%@5 wipes the floor with every single stage for scrubbing power.


The MG has great efficiency numbers ... but it's still not clear to me if they were actually obtained from ISO 4548-12 testing methods. Did MG actually specifically say those efficiency numbers were from the ISO 4548-12 test method? There are other older test methods out there that might skew the numbers to look better than other test methods.


The guy threw out those number in direct reposes to the question of efficiency under that ISO#. I dont want to put words in anyones mouth I only saw what was posted. IHTCO may be able to add more insight.

There is lots more data Id like to see myself.
Im in no way fully satiated, but I am however satisfied they make the most efficient mousetrap for a gas auto to date.

Frankly I believe almost all manufacturers fudge their numbers.
I would really like to see a few of these products tested by a 3rd party same lab on 4548-12.

Take for example the conversation about denoting the efficiency symbolically - A whole other conversation is the use of the word "average" denoting some are better and some are worse. Average what?
Average performance between sizes?
Average between same sizes in a group?
Between the same filter sizes whats the widest gap?
What is the best and or worst performance I can expect in a given size for my autos apps...

Ive got all kinds of questions for all these guys.


UD

 

[Nate1979]

It is good to see some numbers finally put on the MG. But I'm still not sure how the MG (99%@20 and bypass 99%@5) compares to Fram Ultra (99.9% @20 and 80% @ 5 full flow). These Fram Ultra numbers coming from Motorking.If MG only flows 10% thru the bypass (I recall this number from their patent) but FU is 100% flow removing 80% of 5microns which is better?

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
It is good to see some numbers finally put on the MG. But I'm still not sure how the MG (99%@20 and bypass 99%@5) compares to Fram Ultra (99.9% @20 and 80% @ 5 full flow). These Fram Ultra numbers coming from Motorking.If MG only flows 10% thru the bypass (I recall this number from their patent) but FU is 100% flow removing 80% of 5microns which is better?



With the main elements being very close both mgr claim 99%20UM from the main element the MG will likely have very similar beta ratio - so thats about a tie.

My moneys on the MG as the one that would have the lowest particle count and retain the highest TBN over time.

Add a secondary 99@5 to the mix and you will have a cleaner sump with whichever filter has this secondary filter, even with minimal flow through it the sump will be way cleaner. (think they claim 5%)

I see no way to make the math work out as a win for any single stage in any metric but price of acquisition and rated run life- but If someone throws it up Id love to see the actual numbers side by side.

If you could run a 3 way with a strata pour I believe it would thump the microgreen.

UD

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
The MG has great efficiency numbers ... but it's still not clear to me if they were actually obtained from ISO 4548-12 testing methods. Did MG actually specifically say those efficiency numbers were from the ISO 4548-12 test method? There are other older test methods out there that might skew the numbers to look better than other test methods.


The guy threw out those number in direct reposes to the question of efficiency under that ISO#. I dont want to put words in anyones mouth I only saw what was posted. IHTCO may be able to add more insight.


Just because someone asked about the efficiency numbers with respect to ISO 4548-12 doesn't mean the answer was with respect to ISO 4548-12 unless the text in the reply actually specifiacally said so. I find it strange that MicroGreen doesn't show it on their website if that is really the spec they used. It just doesn't correlate - that's my take anyway.

Originally Posted By: UncleDave

Frankly I believe almost all manufacturers fudge their numbers.
I would really like to see a few of these products tested by a 3rd party same lab on 4548-12.

Take for example the conversation about denoting the efficiency symbolically - A whole other conversation is the use of the word "average" denoting some are better and some are worse. Average what?
Average performance between sizes?
Average between same sizes in a group?
Between the same filter sizes whats the widest gap?
What is the best and or worst performance I can expect in a given size for my autos apps...

Ive got all kinds of questions for all these guys.

UD


I don't think anyone stating efficiency actually fudges the ISO test results, but they will reference their largest sized filter because they seem to give a better test result, like Purolator use to do, but don't even show a micron size anymore on their new line of oil filters.

Fram references the average of 3 different sized filters ranging from smaller to larger, which IMO is better than referencing just one large filter. In order to say the average of all 3 together is 99.9@ means they all have to be that or better to make the average come out to that number.

I think these filter manufacturers are careful how they state their efficiency and to what spec because other big manufacturers have the capability to test to ISO 4548-12 and routinely checkout other filter manufacturer's filters to ensure they are not false advertising their products. Maybe that is why MG will not list any kind of test spec on their products.

I bet it you emailed them and specifically asked if those stated efficiency number are from ISO 4548-12 testing they will probably skirt the question. WIX did that to me on the phone once ... saying the information was "proprietary". That's an old excuse for hiding information they don't want you to know. There is nothing "propitiatory" about filter efficiencies, or the test method used to obtain them - unless it was some bizarre way that is not recognized as any kind of standard.

 

[PolarisX]

I just wanted clean oil!

 

[goodtimes]

I read the 2 micron efficiency was deduced from oil analysis, maybe I read too fast. I bought some of these early last year, the can is thick at 20 mils. I hope someone posts a cut open MG 101. This one is different than the one I bought for the baseplate, completely different.

 

[UncleDave]

Could be they are charlatans selling snake oil - if so I would think their fleet contracts would have blown up by now, but they've been at it a while.
They also hired a pretty seasoned team of filter people.

In the meantime until which point it gets clarified, Ill take the mail at face value from them like I have to take it from everyone - be it Motorkings emails, or a filter box, or a website.

Pretty sure everyone already tested this thing and no competing manufacturer has "outed" it yet.


UD

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Could be they are charlatans selling snake oil - if so I would think their fleet contracts would have blown up by now, but they've been at it a while.


You've brought this up before, do you know the details of that contract? I tried looking into the one with the city but apparently the fleet guy for the city who signed the contract is no longer with them. And whether they still have the contract is not clear either.

And like I mentioned to you before, not all government contracts are based on technical performance. Right?

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Just because someone asked about the efficiency numbers with respect to ISO 4548-12 doesn't mean the answer was with respect to ISO 4548-12 unless the text in the reply actually specifiacally said so. I find it strange that MicroGreen doesn't show it on their website if that is really the spec they used. It just doesn't correlate - that's my take anyway.


Exactly. Drawing the conclusion that the stated results were from the specific test is unwarranted, and in fact it seems as though they were deliberately being vague in the response.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I think these filter manufacturers are careful how they state their efficiency and to what spec because other big manufacturers have the capability to test to ISO 4548-12 and routinely checkout other filter manufacturer's filters to ensure they are not false advertising their products. Maybe that is why MG will not list any kind of test spec on their products.


Bingo you win the prize. If you actually had stellar performance then you advertise the heck out of it - on the package, on your website and on a bilboard if appropriate. You don't give some random email person special dispensation about numbers that are frankly better than anything else on the market, yet keep it secret to the rest of the world. That is part of why I asked them for more clarification and if I get it, I'll post it here.

If they truly had the numbers they say they have and they don't market it, then this is the first time I've ever seen it for a consumer product. Somehow I don't think that is the case.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I think these filter manufacturers are careful how they state their efficiency and to what spec because other big manufacturers have the capability to test to ISO 4548-12 and routinely checkout other filter manufacturer's filters to ensure they are not false advertising their products. Maybe that is why MG will not list any kind of test spec on their products.


Bingo you win the prize. If you actually had stellar performance then you advertise the heck out of it - on the package, on your website and on a bilboard if appropriate. You don't give some random email person special dispensation about numbers that are frankly better than anything else on the market, yet keep it secret to the rest of the world. That is part of why I asked them for more clarification and if I get it, I'll post it here.

If they truly had the numbers they say they have and they don't market it, then this is the first time I've ever seen it for a consumer product. Somehow I don't think that is the case.



I think they kind of are marketing it- you know with their website and claims and all.....
I believe websites fall under the category of "marketing" at least thats the budget website always fell under wherever I worked.

As of the detail of the contracts I only know what they chose to put press releases out on - Press releases - also all under the category of marketing. Press releases are expensive.

Its really not that complex - they built a dual stage filter with decent media and construction and a PTFE micro disk.

Actually a good number of their contracts were private fleet deals - limos, stuff like that If I recall. Cites were just one of their wins.


Not sure why you guys have such a hard time believing it can work as billed - all the parts are available off the shelf.

Anybody have/ know a reason why it wont / couldn't / shouldn't work as claimed?

UD

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

Fram references the average of 3 different sized filters ranging from smaller to larger, which IMO is better than referencing just one large filter. In order to say the average of all 3 together is 99.9@ means they all have to be that or better to make the average come out to that number.



You lost me here...

The way everyone else would come up with a 99.9 average would be averaging 3 test results with one being 99.9%, then one being higher, and one lower and the average coming out to 99.9%

I have a very hard time believing every filter is repeatable identically and there isn't a range + and - other wise they would claim the number as an absolute and not an "average."

Can you share the data you got from them manufacturer on this averaging methodology - Id like to see more info on it.

Thanks



UD

 

[Sayjac]

Originally Posted By: DBMaster
Why, thank you, Sayjac. You're a gentleman and a scholar. I don't quite understand all the animosity, either. Maybe that's just what passion leads to these days.

Thanks DB and likewise to you. And I have nothing against the good honest passion as I referenced with you. However what I described previously regarding the troll I wouldn't put in that category. It was most like low down mean spirited personal attack. There was no animus on my part, simply pointing out the lack of the ISO spec at the time. Otoh, the response went far beyond animosity, imo. I mean creating a half dozen aliases at least to back one's self up for personal attack on the topic is beyond the pale. Either some psychological issues involved or one might have to assume some sort of major vested interest in the product. Not to mention the breaking of forum rules.

There were some comical parts too though. The troll once ironically told others that they needed to "get a life". With the all multiple alias personalities perhaps it should have been, 'get many lives.'

And I was target on one MG thread of at least four these aliases at once backing themselves up, the grand salami as it could be called. A record perhaps. I though was but one target on the list before those aliases were banished. Now mostly when I take time to read the MG threads, I look for any reemergence, one or more.

Anyway it looks like there will be no answer ISO efficiency spec info query by the other member here. As long your are satisfied with the results using MG filters on your plan, that's all that really matters.

 

[DBMaster]

I wasn't referring to animosity on your part, just in general whenever certain topics are discussed. I did just discover that all the MG's I have on hand are made in Mexico. So, I haven't actually cut into one made in China yet. I guess that may be for the future.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: Sayjac
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
Why, thank you, Sayjac. You're a gentleman and a scholar. I don't quite understand all the animosity, either. Maybe that's just what passion leads to these days.

Thanks DB and likewise to you. And I have nothing against the good honest passion as I referenced with you. However what I described previously regarding the troll I wouldn't put in that category. It was most like low down mean spirited personal attack. There was no animus on my part, simply pointing out the lack of the ISO spec at the time. Otoh, the response went far beyond animosity, imo. I mean creating a half dozen aliases at least to back one's self up for personal attack on the topic is beyond the pale. Either some psychological issues involved or one might have to assume some sort of major vested interest in the product. Not to mention the breaking of forum rules.

There were some comical parts too though. The troll once ironically told others that they needed to "get a life". With the all multiple alias personalities perhaps it should have been, 'get many lives.'

And I was target on one MG thread of at least four these aliases at once backing themselves up, the grand salami as it could be called. A record perhaps. I though was but one target on the list before those aliases were banished. Now mostly when I take time to read the MG threads, I look for any reemergence, one or more.

Anyway it looks like there will be no answer ISO efficiency spec info query by the other member here. As long your are satisfied with the results using MG filters on your plan, that's all that really matters.


Thats awful behavior.
Pro con on anywhere in between that kind of personality makes participation unfulfilling.
I somehow missed that whole chapter when I started researching this product.


UD

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

Fram references the average of 3 different sized filters ranging from smaller to larger, which IMO is better than referencing just one large filter. In order to say the average of all 3 together as 99.9@ means they all have to be that or better to make the average come out to that number.

You lost me here...

The way everyone else would come up with a 99.9 average would be averaging 3 test results with one being 99.9%, then one being higher, and one lower and the average coming out to 99.9%

I have a very hard time believing every filter is repeatable identically and there isn't a range + and - other wise they would claim the number as an absolute and not an "average."

Can you share the data you got from them manufacturer on this averaging methodology - Id like to see more info on it.

Thanks
UD


What I was saying is in order for 3 different filters to have an average of 99.9% efficiency, they all must be 99.9% or really close to 99.9%. The best you can do is 100%, which means if one went lower it wasn't by much below 99.9% ... like 0.1% if one went to 100%. Or if two went to 100%, then one would have to be at 99.8%. There isn't much wiggle room when the average of 3 is at 99.9%.