microGreen MG101-7 10,200 Miles

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
I have trouble believing the MicroGreen rhetoric when they are not forthcoming with test results and answers to BITOG member questions. I like the idea of a bypass filter setup. This implementation does not seem proven by the body of evidence.

What might convince people is some particle count oil analysis documents from dozens of fleet contracts MicroGreen has secured.
From some articles I've read, part of the deal to use the oil filters on large-ish fleets was that MicroGreen paid for an independant lab to sample and look at particle counts (many vehicles).
Fleet managers saw these results. If fleet managers have been fleeing the MicroGreen plan/products, then I'd say MicroGreen has failed, being only a fleeting presence in fleets.
I can't find any full or partial accounting of fleet contracts.


There was one PDF link to a paper in one of the big MG discussion threads about a big fleet using the MG filters ... think it was some CA business. It was mentioned in one of the various MG threads. Maybe someone can chime in for more.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
What might convince people is some particle count oil analysis documents from dozens of fleet contracts MicroGreen has secured.
From some articles I've read, part of the deal to use the oil filters on large-ish fleets was that MicroGreen paid for an independant lab to sample and look at particle counts (many vehicles).
Fleet managers saw these results. If fleet managers have been fleeing the MicroGreen plan/products, then I'd say MicroGreen has failed, being only a fleeting presence in fleets.
I can't find any full or partial accounting of fleet contracts.


What for? Just to get some "results" that can't be compared to any other testing results?

Standardized tests exist for a reason and two of the big ones are repeatability and portability. You'd have none of that with a "fleet test", and to be honest the fleet tests I've seen are neither repeatable nor portable.

No. They need to provide standard ISO test data so that it can be compared to other filters.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
There was one PDF link to a paper in one of the big MG discussion threads about a big fleet using the MG filters ... think it was some CA business. It was mentioned in one of the various MG threads. Maybe someone can chime in for more.


Googled pdf-specific documents using "microgreen oil filter california fleet filetypedf"

Found this doc so far. See Figure 2 which they claim shows particle counts don't go up all the way out to 30k miles using MG oil filters. This means the disc-wafer
thing doesn't clog.
http://www.wsppn.org/pdf/fleets/SOMS_Clean_Technology_2009_Abstract_Submission.pdf

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Googled pdf-specific documents using "microgreen oil filter california fleet filetypedf"

Found this doc so far. See Figure 2 which they claim shows particle counts don't go up all the way out to 30k miles using MG oil filters. This means the disc-wafer thing doesn't clog.
http://www.wsppn.org/pdf/fleets/SOMS_Clean_Technology_2009_Abstract_Submission.pdf

Nor does that paper show that it does anything either. It may just as well be sitting there doing nothing.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Nor does that paper show that it does anything either. It may just as well be sitting there doing nothing.

Might have gotten the same results going 30k miles with a 2 Fram Ultras, this is true.
Since some flow obviously goes thru the disc-wafer, then I've got to believe it is effective.

 

[goodtimes]

Maybe the disk can be cut to show the cross section after a good use like this one has had?

 

[UncleDave]

I find it interesting that there is also no 4548-12 data for the other dual element filter I know of - the Cummins strata pour venturi dual element filter.

They claim 5 microns but show no 4548-12, so do I inherently distrust the claim base don not seeing this, no, but it makes me more skeptical.

As for the particle count test we have conflicting data - in one video we have Kirchner saying it will clean a sump fully in 5K and their website saying it makes a measurable difference in 40 miles.

Not real consistent.


UD

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
I find it interesting that there is also no 4548-12 data for the other dual element filter I know of - the Cummins strata pour venturi dual element filter.

They claim 5 microns but show no 4548-12, so do I inherently distrust the claim base don not seeing this, no, but it makes me more skeptical.


The accelerated particle loading done in the ISO 4548-12 test would probably clog that micro-disk in a short time. There is nothing keeping any sized particle from going towards the micro-disk, so if there are tons of particles in the oil the micro-disk is probably going to be choked out of the picture and not work at all after that.

That's probably why they don't test a whole filter assembly. The ISO test would probably look the same with or without the micro-disk "working".

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
The accelerated particle loading done in the ISO 4548-12 test would probably clog that micro-disk in a short time. There is nothing keeping any sized particle from going towards the micro-disk, so if there are tons of particles in the oil the micro-disk is probably going to be choked out of the picture and not work at all after that.

That's probably why they don't test a whole filter assembly. The ISO test would probably look the same with or without the micro-disk "working"

That is a very good observation.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
The accelerated particle loading done in the ISO 4548-12 test would probably clog that micro-disk in a short time.

Yep. Its the parallel path design that makes it different than what the 4548-12 was designed to accomodate.
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
You CAN worship at the altar of ISO 4548-12 results if you want to.
Lets realize sometimes we can physically examine and understand how something works as well.

 

[kschachn]

Which if true makes it impossible to compare against any filter that does use the standard efficency test, causing it to remain in the world of guessing and supposing.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
I find it interesting that there is also no 4548-12 data for the other dual element filter I know of - the Cummins strata pour venturi dual element filter.

They claim 5 microns but show no 4548-12, so do I inherently distrust the claim base don not seeing this, no, but it makes me more skeptical.

As for the particle count test we have conflicting data - in one video we have Kirchner saying it will clean a sump fully in 5K and their website saying it makes a measurable difference in 40 miles.

Not real consistent.


UD



I just did almost 27,000 miles on a single LF9028. Dnewton expressed thst strictly mathematically, I could have run almost twice that before hitting condemnation limits.

I had my doubts, due to my inexperience interpreting UOA data, but apparently the LF9028 is no joke.

I can conceivably do OTR length OCI's in my truck.

I'm waiting on a particle count now.

It should be noted that the LF9028 also has it's bypass section at the bottom, as do the Clarcor and Baldwin dual flow filters.

 

[JohnnyJohnson]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Which if true makes it impossible to compare against any filter that does use the standard efficency test, causing it to remain in the world of guessing and supposing.


Really you mean you can't do your own UOA's that would produce the data you're suggesting would be a guess?

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: JohnnyJohnson
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Which if true makes it impossible to compare against any filter that does use the standard efficency test, causing it to remain in the world of guessing and supposing.

Really you mean you can't do your own UOA's that would produce the data you're suggesting would be a guess?

No UOA I could run would give me the ISO filtration efficiency data that I could use to compare two different filters. That is my point, you need a standardized test for comparison.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
I find it interesting that there is also no 4548-12 data for the other dual element filter I know of - the Cummins strata pour venturi dual element filter.

They claim 5 microns but show no 4548-12, so do I inherently distrust the claim base don not seeing this, no, but it makes me more skeptical.

As for the particle count test we have conflicting data - in one video we have Kirchner saying it will clean a sump fully in 5K and their website saying it makes a measurable difference in 40 miles.

Not real consistent.


UD



I just did almost 27,000 miles on a single LF9028. Dnewton expressed thst strictly mathematically, I could have run almost twice that before hitting condemnation limits.

I had my doubts, due to my inexperience interpreting UOA data, but apparently the LF9028 is no joke.

I can conceivably do OTR length OCI's in my truck.

I'm waiting on a particle count now.

It should be noted that the LF9028 also has it's bypass section at the bottom, as do the Clarcor and Baldwin dual flow filters.


Not surprised that design appears to be absolutely superb.

There is no hard core testing data available for it either, their media is proprietary and their whole process looks to be built and QC'd in house.

Simply based on the lack of published data the immediate position taken by many is that they are hiding something or it doesn't work, yet we have multiple data points to suggest that clearly isn't the case.

Zees comment about 4548-12 possibly not working properly for the MG device wouldn't seem to extend to the cummins as the stacked disk appears to be able to hold a lot of contaminant, but I think he's on to something.

I think a better test for the MG and filters in general would be a real ISO measurement. (3 column)

UD

 

[Phishin]

If someone would get a baseline of 2 UOA's with particle counts using a Fram Ultra and then 2 particle counts using an MG filter (keeping the oil and mileage constant), it would at least give us insight in the MG vs. BITOG highly touted FU filter.

 

[oil_film_movies]

We need MicroGreens on Las Vegas taxicabs or frequent Uber/Lyft drivers there. That way, you get a high airborne particle environment feeding lots of 6 micron or so dust particles into combustion. 5 cars on Ultras, 5 cars on MG filters. Compare particle counts at the end of 3 months of use there. Best to use same model and engine to keep that constant.

 

[Krieg]

I bought a MG a couple years ago. After I received it I learned it was made in Mexico and sent Micro Green a message concerning this. They offered to refund my money without returning the filter. I declined the offer, but thought it was great customer service. That impressed me. I have yet to use the filter. Looks well built, but I'm no expert....

krieg

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

Pretty much any filter out there gives better filtering efficiency than the XP/Platinum.

Kind of off topic, but not really, since I currently use all three filters discussed in this thread - FU, Napa Platinum, and MicroGreen. You state that any filter has better filtering efficiency... but unless your engine is full of [censored], does it really matter? Hear me out:

I run a FU for around 12k miles. ~12ppm iron, all wear metals below universal averages @ 6.4k, 0.2% insolubles.
I run the Napa Platinum around 12k miles, ~11-12ppm iron, all wear metals below universal averages, 0.2% insolubles.
I run the Microgreen just under 14k miles, 13 ppm iron, wear metals all 1ppm lower than previous filters, 0.1% insolubles.

All filters used the same oil (PUPPP 0W-20) and same driving habits. From this rudimentary look, there is no real effect from any filter on this engine, certainly not statistically different. Sure, you could split hairs but nothing will show using a Student's t-test on the results. So, sure, the "efficiency" of the FU/MicroGreen/"any other filter" may give higher efficiency results on paper, but if there are no benefits to the engine verified using UOA, isn't it mostly a pipe dream to hang oil filter choice on efficiency? It's an honest question, not trying to be a d!ck.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: SubieRubyRoo
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

Pretty much any filter out there gives better filtering efficiency than the XP/Platinum.

So, sure, the "efficiency" of the FU/MicroGreen/"any other filter" may give higher efficiency results on paper, but if there are no benefits to the engine verified using UOA, isn't it mostly a pipe dream to hang oil filter choice on efficiency? It's an honest question, not trying to be a d!ck.

For me ... no. If two filters cost the same I'm going to pick the one with better efficiency on paper per ISO 4548 test results.