It would be interesting to see some UOA's.
MicroGreen
- Thread starter OneEyeJack
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
It would be interesting to see some UOA's.
Uh huh.
It would be interesting to see some UOA's.
Uh huh.
When I'm done with the 30,000 miles. All I'm interested in knowing is if the oil is still serviceable at that point. The interesting thing is that nowhere does SOMS (microGreen) indicate that you even have to use synthetic oil. The site has a fair amount of data. My oil reached a maximum level of "darkness" some time ago and hasn't changed since (I know that means little.). Looking inside the oil fill shows no pooling and bright, shiny metal parts that look like they just rolled off the assembly line.
There was a thread on here a short while ago showing what the filter looked like inside with its bypass filter. I found the technology sound and the claims not outlandish so I thought I'd give it a try.
BTW, I was doing extended OCI's on my 89 Accord while it was under an extended warranty. I never even had to provide evidence of oil/filter changes as none of my warranty service had to do with lubrication issues. Amsoil, just like MG, points out that warranty claims cannot be denied simply due to extended OCI's. If the issue WERE related to lubrication you might have an issue. I have only heard of one lubrication failure in my life that was due to a failed oil pump, and it was on a car that was twenty years out of warranty.
There was a thread on here a short while ago showing what the filter looked like inside with its bypass filter. I found the technology sound and the claims not outlandish so I thought I'd give it a try.
BTW, I was doing extended OCI's on my 89 Accord while it was under an extended warranty. I never even had to provide evidence of oil/filter changes as none of my warranty service had to do with lubrication issues. Amsoil, just like MG, points out that warranty claims cannot be denied simply due to extended OCI's. If the issue WERE related to lubrication you might have an issue. I have only heard of one lubrication failure in my life that was due to a failed oil pump, and it was on a car that was twenty years out of warranty.
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Also where is are the specs that show said filter is any better than doing the same thing (no oil change) with a filter like FU just as an example. It cost's less than half of MG using an AAP code buying three? I don't see anything that makes said filter worth more than twice the price.
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
It is the built-in bypass (microfilter) that drives the cost. FU won't capture 2 micron particles. No more arguing from me. I am throwing caution to the wind!
sayjac, you need to do at least a little research on the issue before constantly repeating the same wrong facts over and over again. Have you read about the fleet usage over the past few years? Do you understand parallel flow, one a fine filter, and the other a coarser filter?
Yes, the FU will filter down to 5 microns at 80% according to Fram. The MicroGreen uses a parallel-flow design, not a bypass, to slowly work on particles between 1 to 10 microns, and the 2 to 5 micron pore sizes in the sintered teflon element gradually grabs whatever the cellulose standard media doesn't get.
Also where is are the specs that show said filter is any better than doing the same thing (no oil change) with a filter like FU just as an example. It cost's less than half of MG using an AAP code buying three? I don't see anything that makes said filter worth more than twice the price.
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
It is the built-in bypass (microfilter) that drives the cost. FU won't capture 2 micron particles. No more arguing from me. I am throwing caution to the wind!
sayjac, you need to do at least a little research on the issue before constantly repeating the same wrong facts over and over again. Have you read about the fleet usage over the past few years? Do you understand parallel flow, one a fine filter, and the other a coarser filter?
Yes, the FU will filter down to 5 microns at 80% according to Fram. The MicroGreen uses a parallel-flow design, not a bypass, to slowly work on particles between 1 to 10 microns, and the 2 to 5 micron pore sizes in the sintered teflon element gradually grabs whatever the cellulose standard media doesn't get.
Since the topic of vehicle warranty has been broached yet again, while doing an extended oci 'may' not automatically void the warranty, if the engine were to fail it would put the a greater onus on the owner, ie, assume the risk of proof that not changing the oil as per vehicle recommended oci/fci, wasn't the cause. And since Amsoil has been cited, when their filter recommended for longer than vehicle recommended was used on some Toyota engines, Amsoil was on the hook for it. To Amsoil's credit, afaik they took the hit and then changed the filter's recommended fci. There's at least one thread on bitog regarding that issue.
And obviously if an engine failure never occurred then there could be no concern about having to provide evidence of oil and filter change. Otoh, I'm fairly confident the if an engine failure did occur, the dealer would be looking for detailed records of maintenance performed before handing out a new engine. There is also such thread here where just a thing happened and luckily the member had a detailed maintenance log. But again, I've got no problem with anyone that wants to be a thrill seeker and not follow the vehicle recommended oci/fci while under warranty.
Another consideration is DI engines posting UOA here even doing recommended ocis/fcis or shorter than recommended are showing rather consistently some evidence of fuel dilution. GM has adjusted it's OLM, shortening the oci because of that. What 30k with just make up oil and filter change might to that dilution level is speculation, but imo it wouldn't be good. And any filter change only with just make up oil would not have any significant effect on that.
Again, using Blackstone's own statement doubtful basic UOA alone will prove anything one way or the oil regarding any difference in insoluble levels.
Lastly I noticed that the 2um level touted, yet I see no beta or industry standard ISO test procedure to back up that claim. I'm thinking other reputable extended oci filters can filter to 2um also at some unknown beta too. And as long as no beta or ISO test is cited easy to make an unverifiable claim.
Caveat Emptor
And obviously if an engine failure never occurred then there could be no concern about having to provide evidence of oil and filter change. Otoh, I'm fairly confident the if an engine failure did occur, the dealer would be looking for detailed records of maintenance performed before handing out a new engine. There is also such thread here where just a thing happened and luckily the member had a detailed maintenance log. But again, I've got no problem with anyone that wants to be a thrill seeker and not follow the vehicle recommended oci/fci while under warranty.
Another consideration is DI engines posting UOA here even doing recommended ocis/fcis or shorter than recommended are showing rather consistently some evidence of fuel dilution. GM has adjusted it's OLM, shortening the oci because of that. What 30k with just make up oil and filter change might to that dilution level is speculation, but imo it wouldn't be good. And any filter change only with just make up oil would not have any significant effect on that.
Again, using Blackstone's own statement doubtful basic UOA alone will prove anything one way or the oil regarding any difference in insoluble levels.
Lastly I noticed that the 2um level touted, yet I see no beta or industry standard ISO test procedure to back up that claim. I'm thinking other reputable extended oci filters can filter to 2um also at some unknown beta too. And as long as no beta or ISO test is cited easy to make an unverifiable claim.
Caveat Emptor
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Lastly I noticed that the 2um level mentioned and touted, yet I see no beta or industry standard test procedure to back up that claim. I'm thinking other reputable extended oci filters can filter to 2um also at some unknown beta too. And as long as no beta or ISO test is cited easy to make an unverifiable claim.
You're wrong again. Notice pore sizes on the MicroGreen oil filter's teflon fine filtering element are between 2 and 5 microns. And, as some particles build up in and on the sintered teflon filter disc, the pores close up more for finer particle filtration. How do you get bigger particles through there? Answer: You can't. Pore size. All it takes is common sense sayjac.
No other oil filter claims to get 2 microns. Again, check your facts before posting.
Lastly I noticed that the 2um level mentioned and touted, yet I see no beta or industry standard test procedure to back up that claim. I'm thinking other reputable extended oci filters can filter to 2um also at some unknown beta too. And as long as no beta or ISO test is cited easy to make an unverifiable claim.
You're wrong again. Notice pore sizes on the MicroGreen oil filter's teflon fine filtering element are between 2 and 5 microns. And, as some particles build up in and on the sintered teflon filter disc, the pores close up more for finer particle filtration. How do you get bigger particles through there? Answer: You can't. Pore size. All it takes is common sense sayjac.
No other oil filter claims to get 2 microns. Again, check your facts before posting.
Until a beta with and ISO 4548-12 at 2um is posted, then I'll be proven wrong. Until then it's just promotional rhetoric imo.
Originally Posted By: boundarylayer
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Lastly I noticed that the 2um level mentioned and touted, yet I see no beta or industry standard test procedure to back up that claim. I'm thinking other reputable extended oci filters can filter to 2um also at some unknown beta too. And as long as no beta or ISO test is cited easy to make an unverifiable claim.
You're wrong again. Notice pore sizes on the MicroGreen oil filter's teflon fine filtering element are between 2 and 5 microns. And, as some particles build up in and on the sintered teflon filter disc, the pores close up more for finer particle filtration. How do you get bigger particles through there? Answer: You can't. Pore size. All it takes is common sense sayjac.
No other oil filter claims to get 2 microns. Again, check your facts before posting.
sayjac's problems with facts create wrong conclusions. You first have to know the specs or physical reality. Thats the lesson here, just spouting things off with negative emotions doesn't cut it.
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Lastly I noticed that the 2um level mentioned and touted, yet I see no beta or industry standard test procedure to back up that claim. I'm thinking other reputable extended oci filters can filter to 2um also at some unknown beta too. And as long as no beta or ISO test is cited easy to make an unverifiable claim.
You're wrong again. Notice pore sizes on the MicroGreen oil filter's teflon fine filtering element are between 2 and 5 microns. And, as some particles build up in and on the sintered teflon filter disc, the pores close up more for finer particle filtration. How do you get bigger particles through there? Answer: You can't. Pore size. All it takes is common sense sayjac.
No other oil filter claims to get 2 microns. Again, check your facts before posting.
sayjac's problems with facts create wrong conclusions. You first have to know the specs or physical reality. Thats the lesson here, just spouting things off with negative emotions doesn't cut it.
Yikes! I don't want to start one of these divisive interchanges, guys. I'm just experimenting. I may only do this for one cycle if the test results are "bad." Or, I might try 20,000 miles instead and do a UOA for that.
Even with some fuel dilution I doubt I'll be doing any serious, long term engine damage. I understand the warranty related risks and am accepting them. As I said earlier, I am at 35,000 miles with zero trips back to the dealer so I doubt I will even end up with any warranty service.
Even with some fuel dilution I doubt I'll be doing any serious, long term engine damage. I understand the warranty related risks and am accepting them. As I said earlier, I am at 35,000 miles with zero trips back to the dealer so I doubt I will even end up with any warranty service.
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Until a beta with and ISO 4548-12 at 2um is posted, then I'll be proven wrong. Until then it's just promotional rhetoric imo.
4548-12 won't work with an oil filter with a slow filtering element in it next to a normal filtering media like microgreen does.
The way microgreen takes a long time (~100 miles or so) to filter out the super small particles wouldn't be reflected on a bench test.
Until a beta with and ISO 4548-12 at 2um is posted, then I'll be proven wrong. Until then it's just promotional rhetoric imo.
4548-12 won't work with an oil filter with a slow filtering element in it next to a normal filtering media like microgreen does.
The way microgreen takes a long time (~100 miles or so) to filter out the super small particles wouldn't be reflected on a bench test.
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
Yikes! I don't want to start one of these divisive interchanges, guys. I'm just experimenting...
No problem here db, you're stating your honest attempt at trying something.
As for what followed my last lengthy post, SteveSRT8 covered it best recently in his the linked thread on the oil additives board. So I'm out this one as it's clear to me what's going on now.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...2__#Post3444439
Yikes! I don't want to start one of these divisive interchanges, guys. I'm just experimenting...
No problem here db, you're stating your honest attempt at trying something.
As for what followed my last lengthy post, SteveSRT8 covered it best recently in his the linked thread on the oil additives board. So I'm out this one as it's clear to me what's going on now.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...2__#Post3444439
LOL. And before anyone notices what I said earlier about the make up oil, I'll state that I am just using the Mazda oil w/moly as top off because that's what I have around. It's been very nice to have a car that needs no topping off between OC's. My Accord needed topping off, to varying degrees, for its entire 23 year life.
Originally Posted By: boundarylayer
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Lastly I noticed that the 2um level mentioned and touted, yet I see no beta or industry standard test procedure to back up that claim. I'm thinking other reputable extended oci filters can filter to 2um also at some unknown beta too. And as long as no beta or ISO test is cited easy to make an unverifiable claim.
You're wrong again. Notice pore sizes on the MicroGreen oil filter's teflon fine filtering element are between 2 and 5 microns. And, as some particles build up in and on the sintered teflon filter disc, the pores close up more for finer particle filtration. How do you get bigger particles through there? Answer: You can't. Pore size. All it takes is common sense sayjac.
No other oil filter claims to get 2 microns. Again, check your facts before posting.
Some people won't check facts before posting. sayjac probably doesn't believe in fleet testing or the pore size concept in filtering. Might be just too lazy to get the facts.
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Lastly I noticed that the 2um level mentioned and touted, yet I see no beta or industry standard test procedure to back up that claim. I'm thinking other reputable extended oci filters can filter to 2um also at some unknown beta too. And as long as no beta or ISO test is cited easy to make an unverifiable claim.
You're wrong again. Notice pore sizes on the MicroGreen oil filter's teflon fine filtering element are between 2 and 5 microns. And, as some particles build up in and on the sintered teflon filter disc, the pores close up more for finer particle filtration. How do you get bigger particles through there? Answer: You can't. Pore size. All it takes is common sense sayjac.
No other oil filter claims to get 2 microns. Again, check your facts before posting.
Some people won't check facts before posting. sayjac probably doesn't believe in fleet testing or the pore size concept in filtering. Might be just too lazy to get the facts.
Regardless of the outcome, I'm glad to have learned about this line of filters. I learned about it from a thread on BITOG. As some of you may be aware, California attempted, a few years back, to ban DIY oil changes due to the issue of improper disposal of waste oil and filters. I'm sure most of us try to do the right thing, but I'm also sure that many (not necessarily BITOGers) still dump oil on the ground or throw filters away in the trash.
My goal here is trying to conserve and reduce waste. There's nothing touchy-feely about it for me. I just hate waste. When Mobil 1 was first offered at retail (I think it was 1975) the claim was that it could be used for 25,000 mile OCI's. I am guessing they backed off due to OEM objections or lack of adequate filtration materials? Amsoil made similar claims. The oils that both sell today are several API certifications better and, yet, there are still people changing oil every 3-5K miles.
To me, that is waste. But, that's life in the big city.
My goal here is trying to conserve and reduce waste. There's nothing touchy-feely about it for me. I just hate waste. When Mobil 1 was first offered at retail (I think it was 1975) the claim was that it could be used for 25,000 mile OCI's. I am guessing they backed off due to OEM objections or lack of adequate filtration materials? Amsoil made similar claims. The oils that both sell today are several API certifications better and, yet, there are still people changing oil every 3-5K miles.
To me, that is waste. But, that's life in the big city.
This BITOG thing does work best when facts are presented, using some reference or corroboration of any kind to back it up. sayjac is one of those ramblers without offering good info.
I look to one MicroGreen Fleet summary article Link as just one source of information. Other fleet studies out there as well.
Conservation is frugal economically, works for the greater good, reduces waste. Yet many don't care.
I look to one MicroGreen Fleet summary article Link as just one source of information. Other fleet studies out there as well.
Conservation is frugal economically, works for the greater good, reduces waste. Yet many don't care.
So nice to see the trolls come back. We are a popular place, indeed...
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
So nice to see the trolls come back. We are a popular place, indeed...
Sad. Sayjac has always been pretty well informed when it comes to filters.
So nice to see the trolls come back. We are a popular place, indeed...
Sad. Sayjac has always been pretty well informed when it comes to filters.
Originally Posted By: ElastoHydro
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Until a beta with and ISO 4548-12 at 2um is posted, then I'll be proven wrong. Until then it's just promotional rhetoric imo.
4548-12 won't work with an oil filter with a slow filtering element in it next to a normal filtering media like microgreen does.
The way microgreen takes a long time (~100 miles or so) to filter out the super small particles wouldn't be reflected on a bench test.
Sure ISO 4548-12 will work with the Microgreen filter because no oil is actually bypassing the filter can. That ISO test measures upstream and downstream particle sizes and numbers in real time. So if the oil goes in dirty and comes out clean, then the test measures the efficiency in real time.
If the Microgreen filter is really helping out in the super small particle range (10 microns and below), you would see it in the ISO 4548-12 test results.
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Until a beta with and ISO 4548-12 at 2um is posted, then I'll be proven wrong. Until then it's just promotional rhetoric imo.
4548-12 won't work with an oil filter with a slow filtering element in it next to a normal filtering media like microgreen does.
The way microgreen takes a long time (~100 miles or so) to filter out the super small particles wouldn't be reflected on a bench test.
Sure ISO 4548-12 will work with the Microgreen filter because no oil is actually bypassing the filter can. That ISO test measures upstream and downstream particle sizes and numbers in real time. So if the oil goes in dirty and comes out clean, then the test measures the efficiency in real time.
If the Microgreen filter is really helping out in the super small particle range (10 microns and below), you would see it in the ISO 4548-12 test results.
I would guess that a Fram Ultra would perform just as good as the Microgreen. If the Microgreen takes a small portion of the flow of oil through the 2-5 micron pore openings then it should be similar to the Fram Ultra which is always removing 80% @ 5 microns.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
So nice to see the trolls come back. We are a popular place, indeed...
Sad. Sayjac has always been pretty well informed when it comes to filters.
Well it could be sad if that post was referring to me. However as my last posted link will indicate if somewhat subtly, and other reasons, quite confident Steve is not referring to me.
And based on the last couple non trolled posts, apparently I did know of what I spoke regarding the use of ISO 4548-12 tests for verification of efficiency claims.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
So nice to see the trolls come back. We are a popular place, indeed...
Sad. Sayjac has always been pretty well informed when it comes to filters.
Well it could be sad if that post was referring to me. However as my last posted link will indicate if somewhat subtly, and other reasons, quite confident Steve is not referring to me.
And based on the last couple non trolled posts, apparently I did know of what I spoke regarding the use of ISO 4548-12 tests for verification of efficiency claims.
- Status
