Microgreen 13k
- Thread starter Pinoak
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by DBMaster
And, I'm still bummed that the company is bankrupt and I can't get them anymore.
Still shown on Amazon.com, Prime actually.
Nice data plots. It makes sense, as the MicroGreen did about the same as the non-Ultra oil filters on the bigger chunks, yet got out a lot of the smaller stuff.
Ultra beat everybody on the bigger chunks.
We have to decide which is better: Get out more of the big pieces, or more of the smaller dirt. My vote is for getting more of the bigger (14, 21) micron garbage out. Ultra for the win.
Although, if you alternate, one oil change a microgreen (10k miles maybe), then the next an Ultra.... OK I'm thinking way too much.
And, I'm still bummed that the company is bankrupt and I can't get them anymore.
Still shown on Amazon.com, Prime actually.
Nice data plots. It makes sense, as the MicroGreen did about the same as the non-Ultra oil filters on the bigger chunks, yet got out a lot of the smaller stuff.
Ultra beat everybody on the bigger chunks.
We have to decide which is better: Get out more of the big pieces, or more of the smaller dirt. My vote is for getting more of the bigger (14, 21) micron garbage out. Ultra for the win.
Although, if you alternate, one oil change a microgreen (10k miles maybe), then the next an Ultra.... OK I'm thinking way too much.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by UncleDave
Claim 2 - 98@ at 2 microns seem a stretch, but it certainly outperforms the best single stage based on this data- by a lot.
5 codes is a large delta.
Agreed ... the overall filter assembly efficiency of the Microgreen can't be doing 98% @ 2 microns as shown by the PC plots. If it was, the particle count above 10 microns would be much less.
I'm betting Microgreen is making that claim as a stand-alone efficiency on just the micro disc.
Claim 2 - 98@ at 2 microns seem a stretch, but it certainly outperforms the best single stage based on this data- by a lot.
5 codes is a large delta.
Agreed ... the overall filter assembly efficiency of the Microgreen can't be doing 98% @ 2 microns as shown by the PC plots. If it was, the particle count above 10 microns would be much less.
I'm betting Microgreen is making that claim as a stand-alone efficiency on just the micro disc.
Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
Originally Posted by DBMaster
And, I'm still bummed that the company is bankrupt and I can't get them anymore.
Still shown on Amazon.com, Prime actually.
Nice data plots. It makes sense, as the MicroGreen did about the same as the non-Ultra oil filters on the bigger chunks, yet got out a lot of the smaller stuff.
Ultra beat everybody on the bigger chunks.
We have to decide which is better: Get out more of the big pieces, or more of the smaller dirt. My vote is for getting more of the bigger (14, 21) micron garbage out. Ultra for the win.
Although, if you alternate, one oil change a microgreen (10k miles maybe), then the next an Ultra.... OK I'm thinking way too much.
mmmmmm Im not so sure.
Sayles and Macpherson claim - "Control of particles in the 3-10 micron range had the greatest effect in reducing engine wear."
ISO/ Noria seem to back that as do many external sources.
"The significance of proliferating particles in the 10μm domain is phenomenal. Particles under 10μm cause 3.5 times more wear."
-Review of Lubricant Contamination and Diesel Engine Wear; William M. Needelman and Puliyur V. Madhavan, Pall Corporation
UD
Originally Posted by DBMaster
And, I'm still bummed that the company is bankrupt and I can't get them anymore.
Still shown on Amazon.com, Prime actually.
Nice data plots. It makes sense, as the MicroGreen did about the same as the non-Ultra oil filters on the bigger chunks, yet got out a lot of the smaller stuff.
Ultra beat everybody on the bigger chunks.
We have to decide which is better: Get out more of the big pieces, or more of the smaller dirt. My vote is for getting more of the bigger (14, 21) micron garbage out. Ultra for the win.
Although, if you alternate, one oil change a microgreen (10k miles maybe), then the next an Ultra.... OK I'm thinking way too much.
mmmmmm Im not so sure.
Sayles and Macpherson claim - "Control of particles in the 3-10 micron range had the greatest effect in reducing engine wear."
ISO/ Noria seem to back that as do many external sources.
"The significance of proliferating particles in the 10μm domain is phenomenal. Particles under 10μm cause 3.5 times more wear."
-Review of Lubricant Contamination and Diesel Engine Wear; William M. Needelman and Puliyur V. Madhavan, Pall Corporation
UD
Last edited:
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by UncleDave
Claim 2 - 98@ at 2 microns seem a stretch, but it certainly outperforms the best single stage based on this data- by a lot.
5 codes is a large delta.
Agreed ... the overall filter assembly efficiency of the Microgreen can't be doing 98% @ 2 microns as shown by the PC plots. If it was, the particle count above 10 microns would be much less.
I'm betting Microgreen is making that claim as a stand-alone efficiency on just the micro disc.
disk only is the only way that claim flies at all.
Originally Posted by UncleDave
Claim 2 - 98@ at 2 microns seem a stretch, but it certainly outperforms the best single stage based on this data- by a lot.
5 codes is a large delta.
Agreed ... the overall filter assembly efficiency of the Microgreen can't be doing 98% @ 2 microns as shown by the PC plots. If it was, the particle count above 10 microns would be much less.
I'm betting Microgreen is making that claim as a stand-alone efficiency on just the micro disc.
disk only is the only way that claim flies at all.
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Here's the PC data plotted out for comparison - I added the two Microgreen filters to the mix. Don't know why the board will not upload a .jpg file to the same size as original ... the file is small to begin with. I also uploaded the PDF of the data & plot which is easier to see the data. Click the "Show PDF" button at bottom of post. then click the magnifying icon button to zoom in.
Man, this is making me regret buying a Boss today.
Here's the PC data plotted out for comparison - I added the two Microgreen filters to the mix. Don't know why the board will not upload a .jpg file to the same size as original ... the file is small to begin with. I also uploaded the PDF of the data & plot which is easier to see the data. Click the "Show PDF" button at bottom of post. then click the magnifying icon button to zoom in.
Man, this is making me regret buying a Boss today.
Originally Posted by RamFan
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Here's the PC data plotted out for comparison - I added the two Microgreen filters to the mix. Don't know why the board will not upload a .jpg file to the same size as original ... the file is small to begin with. I also uploaded the PDF of the data & plot which is easier to see the data. Click the "Show PDF" button at bottom of post. then click the magnifying icon button to zoom in.
Man, this is making me regret buying a Boss today.
Looks like the boss matched the ultra on insolubles.
I believe thats matters and is some indication of how they might compare with particle count
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Here's the PC data plotted out for comparison - I added the two Microgreen filters to the mix. Don't know why the board will not upload a .jpg file to the same size as original ... the file is small to begin with. I also uploaded the PDF of the data & plot which is easier to see the data. Click the "Show PDF" button at bottom of post. then click the magnifying icon button to zoom in.
Man, this is making me regret buying a Boss today.
Looks like the boss matched the ultra on insolubles.
I believe thats matters and is some indication of how they might compare with particle count
Originally Posted by Pinoak
Originally Posted by RamFan
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Here's the PC data plotted out for comparison - I added the two Microgreen filters to the mix. Don't know why the board will not upload a .jpg file to the same size as original ... the file is small to begin with. I also uploaded the PDF of the data & plot which is easier to see the data. Click the "Show PDF" button at bottom of post. then click the magnifying icon button to zoom in.
Man, this is making me regret buying a Boss today.
Looks like the boss matched the ultra on insolubles.
I believe thats matters and is some indication of how they might compare with particle count
There is no real repeatable correlation between the "insolubles"number and the ISO particle count. I started a thread about that a while ago. The PC is the true measure of particulate level. If there was a good correlation, then the Boss (99% @ 40μ) wouldn't have the worse ISO PC on the plot.
Originally Posted by RamFan
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Here's the PC data plotted out for comparison - I added the two Microgreen filters to the mix. Don't know why the board will not upload a .jpg file to the same size as original ... the file is small to begin with. I also uploaded the PDF of the data & plot which is easier to see the data. Click the "Show PDF" button at bottom of post. then click the magnifying icon button to zoom in.
Man, this is making me regret buying a Boss today.
Looks like the boss matched the ultra on insolubles.
I believe thats matters and is some indication of how they might compare with particle count
There is no real repeatable correlation between the "insolubles"number and the ISO particle count. I started a thread about that a while ago. The PC is the true measure of particulate level. If there was a good correlation, then the Boss (99% @ 40μ) wouldn't have the worse ISO PC on the plot.
The sample size is too small. There are Ultra PC counts that are not as good as the representations on the plot.
Also are all the filters on the plot the same cross reference?
I'd like the see the Microgreen rise again in a well manufactured and true to patent design.
Also are all the filters on the plot the same cross reference?
I'd like the see the Microgreen rise again in a well manufactured and true to patent design.
Man, if Trico would just buy the remnants of MicroGreen just for the disk technology patents and stick that bypass element in the Fram Ultra... it'd be a great way to differentiate the Ultra from the Tough Guard since they are now both 99%@20μ... I'd pay $10-12 for one of those if they kept the 20k guarantee! You could probably get 99% at 10 microns... double the disk thickness and go from there.
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
Man, if Trico would just buy the remnants of MicroGreen just for the disk technology patents and stick that bypass element in the Fram Ultra... it'd be a great way to differentiate the Ultra from the Tough Guard since they are now both 99%@20μ... I'd pay $10-12 for one of those if they kept the 20k guarantee! You could probably get 99% at 10 microns... double the disk thickness and go from there.
Agreed - Id love to see pickup of this, a revamp, or a new company take the 2 stage concept forward.
I'm guessing disk thickness is a diminishing point of return from here in terms of a throughput perspective.
Id actually prefer the stacked disk systems like cummins uses to a PTFE wafer, BUT that takes some space -
the PTFE wafer is a clever solution that presents a compact unit.
UD
Man, if Trico would just buy the remnants of MicroGreen just for the disk technology patents and stick that bypass element in the Fram Ultra... it'd be a great way to differentiate the Ultra from the Tough Guard since they are now both 99%@20μ... I'd pay $10-12 for one of those if they kept the 20k guarantee! You could probably get 99% at 10 microns... double the disk thickness and go from there.
Agreed - Id love to see pickup of this, a revamp, or a new company take the 2 stage concept forward.
I'm guessing disk thickness is a diminishing point of return from here in terms of a throughput perspective.
Id actually prefer the stacked disk systems like cummins uses to a PTFE wafer, BUT that takes some space -
the PTFE wafer is a clever solution that presents a compact unit.
UD
With its relatively thin case being a benefit to magnetic assistance-
If we take filtermags word a pair are good for 1-3 drops.
A powerful elegant solution as well and good to 20K vs 10K for the MG/ PTFE solution.
One other thing is .......the 2 stages can theoretically address DI soot where a magnet cannot.
UD
If we take filtermags word a pair are good for 1-3 drops.
A powerful elegant solution as well and good to 20K vs 10K for the MG/ PTFE solution.
One other thing is .......the 2 stages can theoretically address DI soot where a magnet cannot.
UD
Originally Posted by UncleDave
With its relatively thin case being a benefit to magnetic assistance-
If we take filtermags word a pair are good for 1-3 drops.
UD
Yes, it would be interesting to see if a FilterMag would drop the 10μ and below particulate counts. Most of those particles could be the ferrous wear metals, as seen caught by filter or drain plug magnets.
With its relatively thin case being a benefit to magnetic assistance-
If we take filtermags word a pair are good for 1-3 drops.
UD
Yes, it would be interesting to see if a FilterMag would drop the 10μ and below particulate counts. Most of those particles could be the ferrous wear metals, as seen caught by filter or drain plug magnets.
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
The sample size is too small. There are Ultra PC counts that are not as good as the representations on the plot.
Also are all the filters on the plot the same cross reference?
I'd like the see the Microgreen rise again in a well manufactured and true to patent design.
Yeah the graph, while maybe a good effort I guess (possibly motive driven) is not much to draw any conclusions from do time it's very limited scope.
I hope too that the microgreen concept will continue to be around.
The sample size is too small. There are Ultra PC counts that are not as good as the representations on the plot.
Also are all the filters on the plot the same cross reference?
I'd like the see the Microgreen rise again in a well manufactured and true to patent design.
Yeah the graph, while maybe a good effort I guess (possibly motive driven) is not much to draw any conclusions from do time it's very limited scope.
I hope too that the microgreen concept will continue to be around.
It's a neat concept, I've always liked the idea, but not enough to pay for one. There's not any value there for me. The rest of the car will break before the engine gives up.
Originally Posted by SilverFusion2010
It's a neat concept, I've always liked the idea, but not enough to pay for one. There's not any value there for me. The rest of the car will break before the engine gives up.
All depends on how you look at it.
If you follow their regime you same money by not dumping the sump for 30K and running bare min spec oil. The filter at 10K is cheaper than a sump every 10
IF you just run it a normal OCI then any premium paid makes little sense for a car guy.
With 15 and 20K rated oil the 3 filter ROI starts to get weaker.
Yes the bitog calling sign "The rest of the car will break before the engine gives up." .....yeah maybe....
Cars probably true - they are so lightly loaded you can abuse and neglect them at will for years. Trucks, however - wear out all the time before the body gives up.
All the time - anyone can go see this easily with a few searches.
I see tons of chevy 5.3's worn out in 10 years and 150K - the body is the fine - the engine is shot.
I've got clients that bought boats and a new truck in the 90's and are on their third truck towing the same boat back and forth from S Cali to Parker, Havasu, Mead, Mojave and Powell colorado river waters.
In an expensive marine engine you wish to be able to rebuild - keeping the crank as scratch free as possible becomes a worthy endeavor - especially if its cheap to do so with a few dollar filters and a few mags.
My 725HP/820 ft.lb BBC - with a high dollar sonny bryant knife edged crank -- gonna do everything I can within reason to protect it.
My lexus crank? dont really care how it ends up.
UD
It's a neat concept, I've always liked the idea, but not enough to pay for one. There's not any value there for me. The rest of the car will break before the engine gives up.
All depends on how you look at it.
If you follow their regime you same money by not dumping the sump for 30K and running bare min spec oil. The filter at 10K is cheaper than a sump every 10
IF you just run it a normal OCI then any premium paid makes little sense for a car guy.
With 15 and 20K rated oil the 3 filter ROI starts to get weaker.
Yes the bitog calling sign "The rest of the car will break before the engine gives up." .....yeah maybe....
Cars probably true - they are so lightly loaded you can abuse and neglect them at will for years. Trucks, however - wear out all the time before the body gives up.
All the time - anyone can go see this easily with a few searches.
I see tons of chevy 5.3's worn out in 10 years and 150K - the body is the fine - the engine is shot.
I've got clients that bought boats and a new truck in the 90's and are on their third truck towing the same boat back and forth from S Cali to Parker, Havasu, Mead, Mojave and Powell colorado river waters.
In an expensive marine engine you wish to be able to rebuild - keeping the crank as scratch free as possible becomes a worthy endeavor - especially if its cheap to do so with a few dollar filters and a few mags.
My 725HP/820 ft.lb BBC - with a high dollar sonny bryant knife edged crank -- gonna do everything I can within reason to protect it.
My lexus crank? dont really care how it ends up.
UD
Originally Posted by Pinoak
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
The sample size is too small. There are Ultra PC counts that are not as good as the representations on the plot.
Also are all the filters on the plot the same cross reference?
I'd like the see the Microgreen rise again in a well manufactured and true to patent design.
Yeah the graph, while maybe a good effort I guess (possibly motive driven) is not much to draw any conclusions from do time it's very limited scope.
Just comparing real PC data - no motive other than showing and comparing test results. People seem to get bent out of shape when certain filters are mentioned, and still don't believe comparitive data. Some people still think the ISO 4548-12 efficiency test is useless, yet when I plot PC data typically the filters with higher ISO 4548-12 ratings show better PC numbers. If a filter falls someplace far from expected on the plot then it could have been a questionable oil sample collection method and/or a posible filter issue (leaking or bypassing past the media or maybe too loaded up with debris and shedding captured particles) that resulted in a worse than expected PC based on the filter ISO 4548-12 rating.
Two Ultras and two Microgreens, both pairs of filters giving repeatable PC results. Also makes sense where the less efficient Boss falls on the graph, and makes sense where the more efficient Ultras and Microgreens fall on the graph. Not a ton of samples, but it seems to correlate pretty well relative to what the manufacturers claim the efficiency rating is for this group of filters. I've been here a long time, and nobody has shown this kind of comparative real PC data plotted out. I think it gives a good insight to how well a filter performs in real use.
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
The sample size is too small. There are Ultra PC counts that are not as good as the representations on the plot.
Also are all the filters on the plot the same cross reference?
I'd like the see the Microgreen rise again in a well manufactured and true to patent design.
Yeah the graph, while maybe a good effort I guess (possibly motive driven) is not much to draw any conclusions from do time it's very limited scope.
Just comparing real PC data - no motive other than showing and comparing test results. People seem to get bent out of shape when certain filters are mentioned, and still don't believe comparitive data. Some people still think the ISO 4548-12 efficiency test is useless, yet when I plot PC data typically the filters with higher ISO 4548-12 ratings show better PC numbers. If a filter falls someplace far from expected on the plot then it could have been a questionable oil sample collection method and/or a posible filter issue (leaking or bypassing past the media or maybe too loaded up with debris and shedding captured particles) that resulted in a worse than expected PC based on the filter ISO 4548-12 rating.
Two Ultras and two Microgreens, both pairs of filters giving repeatable PC results. Also makes sense where the less efficient Boss falls on the graph, and makes sense where the more efficient Ultras and Microgreens fall on the graph. Not a ton of samples, but it seems to correlate pretty well relative to what the manufacturers claim the efficiency rating is for this group of filters. I've been here a long time, and nobody has shown this kind of comparative real PC data plotted out. I think it gives a good insight to how well a filter performs in real use.
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Pinoak
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
The sample size is too small. There are Ultra PC counts that are not as good as the representations on the plot.
Also are all the filters on the plot the same cross reference?
I'd like the see the Microgreen rise again in a well manufactured and true to patent design.
Yeah the graph, while maybe a good effort I guess (possibly motive driven) is not much to draw any conclusions from do time it's very limited scope.
Just comparing real PC data - no motive other than showing and comparing test results. People seem to get bent out of shape when certain filters are mentioned, and still don't believe comparitive data. Some people still think the ISO 4548-12 efficiency test is useless, yet when I plot PC data typically the filters with higher ISO 4548-12 ratings show better PC numbers. If a filter falls someplace far from expected on the plot then it could have been a questionable oil sample collection method and/or a posible filter issue (leaking or bypassing past the media or maybe too loaded up with debris and shedding captured particles) that resulted in a worse than expected PC based on the filter ISO 4548-12 rating.
Two Ultras and two Microgreens, both pairs of filters giving repeatable PC results. Also makes sense where the less efficient Boss falls on the graph, and makes sense where the more efficient Ultras and Microgreens fall on the graph. Not a ton of samples, but it seems to correlate pretty well relative to what the manufacturers claim the efficiency rating is for this group of filters. I've been here a long time, and nobody has shown this kind of comparative real PC data plotted out. I think it gives a good insight to how well a filter performs in real use.
So scientifically you don't see an issue with filtering out data which doesn't support your hypothesis (that ISO ~ PC) for your comparison? You know I collected the sample with a sample pump, and you know the filter wasn't loaded up because it is here cut open and there is no evidence is was bypassing or defective in any way. Additionally there are 2 particle counts on the same filter with essentially the same result.
Originally Posted by Pinoak
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
The sample size is too small. There are Ultra PC counts that are not as good as the representations on the plot.
Also are all the filters on the plot the same cross reference?
I'd like the see the Microgreen rise again in a well manufactured and true to patent design.
Yeah the graph, while maybe a good effort I guess (possibly motive driven) is not much to draw any conclusions from do time it's very limited scope.
Just comparing real PC data - no motive other than showing and comparing test results. People seem to get bent out of shape when certain filters are mentioned, and still don't believe comparitive data. Some people still think the ISO 4548-12 efficiency test is useless, yet when I plot PC data typically the filters with higher ISO 4548-12 ratings show better PC numbers. If a filter falls someplace far from expected on the plot then it could have been a questionable oil sample collection method and/or a posible filter issue (leaking or bypassing past the media or maybe too loaded up with debris and shedding captured particles) that resulted in a worse than expected PC based on the filter ISO 4548-12 rating.
Two Ultras and two Microgreens, both pairs of filters giving repeatable PC results. Also makes sense where the less efficient Boss falls on the graph, and makes sense where the more efficient Ultras and Microgreens fall on the graph. Not a ton of samples, but it seems to correlate pretty well relative to what the manufacturers claim the efficiency rating is for this group of filters. I've been here a long time, and nobody has shown this kind of comparative real PC data plotted out. I think it gives a good insight to how well a filter performs in real use.
So scientifically you don't see an issue with filtering out data which doesn't support your hypothesis (that ISO ~ PC) for your comparison? You know I collected the sample with a sample pump, and you know the filter wasn't loaded up because it is here cut open and there is no evidence is was bypassing or defective in any way. Additionally there are 2 particle counts on the same filter with essentially the same result.
- Status
