Oil Filter dissection: Mahle OC460, Mann W719/12, Fram PH2870A

[the_benjamin_effect]

Hello Fellow Samba mates!

I've wanted to dissect some commonly used Vanagon oil filters to see if there is a huge difference in any of them. So, I've put in the time, effort, and money for your viewing and learning pleasure. I want this to be as fair and non-biased as possible so I will hold back on my opinions as much as possible... So here are just the facts on three filters commonly used for the Vanagon.

This is just a static view of the oil filter components. I wish I had the capability to do a dynamic test of the actual filtration and operation of each, but until I have that capability here is what I have.

areas of examination:
-$$Price$$
-Steel housing, base plates and sealing gaskets
-Bypass valves
-Anti drain back valve
-Filter cartridge
-Filtration media (type, length, thickness, weight, pleat count & spacing)


The oil filter contenders in no particular order:
MAHLE OC 460 Made in Austria
MANN W 719/12 Made in Germany
FRAM PH2870A Made in U.S.A

$$Price$$:
Within my inter-web searches I came out with these median purchase prices. Sure you can find them cheaper, but this is what I found as if I would be searching as a normal consumer.

Most costly to least costly:
1. MAHLE $7.78 USD
2. MANN $5.80 USD
3. FRAM $3.88 USD



Steel housing, Base plates, and Sealing gaskets:
Steel Housing: I have a digital micrometer, however since I used aviation tin snips to cut the housing open I couldn't get a good thickness reading due to the uneven cuts. So I did the next best thing I could think of... the squeeze test of the housings. I made a mental note of which flexed the least and the most when squeezing the open end, then I enlisted my wife to do the same without revealing my observations. We ended up with the same order of stiffness.

Stiff to least stiff:
1. MANN
2. MAHLE
3. FRAM

MANN vs MAHLE was a close 1&2, but MANN was definitely stiffest. FRAM was a far 3rd from 1&2, but I will give them extra credit for the "sure grip" coating on the bottom of the housing. I've often wondered why no one else is doing this.

Base plates for all three filters from my observation are all equivalent in quality. MAHLE has 6 inlet holes, MANN has 4, FRAM has 8. I don't believe the number of holes has a significant effect on oil flow in this situation, so in my opinion, number of holes is irrelevant to me. Something to note, however, the MANN is a 3 piece base plate, not sure why, but there it is.

Sealing gaskets for all three are not wildly different from each other. All are block shaped and each seems to be made from the same HNBR type rubber and all have the same apparent elasticity to the human touch. A digital micrometer reveals each appear to have the same +/- tolerance throughout both height and thickness.

Thickest to thinnest:
1. MANN
Tall 5.38mm x width 4.30mm

2.MAHLE
Tall 5.25mm x width 4.55mm

3. FRAM
Tall 4.82mm x width 3.75mm



Bypass valves:

This is where things get interesting.

All three have bypass valves at the bottom of the steel housing. MAHLE and MANN have them within the filter cartridge assembly. FRAM uses its valve in its spring plate assembly, which it's filter cartridge sits ontop of.
I tested the valve opening force using a digital scale while pressing the valve until it cracked open. READ: THIS IS IN POUNDS OF FORCE TO OPEN THE VALVE NOT POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH (PSI). Sorry, had to make that clear.

UPDATE since original post: See included by-pass pressure in PSI. MANN lists this info on its website. MAHLE and FRAM required some correspondence from the manufacturers.

Highest force to lowest:

1. MAHLE
9.0 LBS of force
23.2 PSI by-pass
14.83mm diameter inlet= 172.73mm² pressure surface area


2. FRAM
7.0 LBS of force
22.0 PSI by-pass
13.50mm diameter inlet= 143.14mm² pressure surface area


3. MANN
4.0 LBS of force
14.5 PSI by-pass (listed as 1 BAR on their website)
13.45mm diameter inlet= 142.08mm² pressure surface area

Not sure who the winners and losers are here. I reserve my opinion on this one. Feel free to comment your opinion.

MAHLE and MANN bypass inlet:

FRAM bypass inlet (positioned upside down):

Anti-Drain Back Valve:
Not much to discuss here. I wont go into the details of the purpose as it has been covered in depth here on TS.

As far as the quality of each, neither seem to appear better than the other. All of them spring back to their original shape without hesitation when squished in the hand. FRAM does state on the box that theirs is made of silicone, MAHLE and MANN do not. MANN feels alot like silicone but MAHLE feels more un-like silicone.... more rubber tire like or HNBR rubber... no fault, just my observation. I'm sure all three perform their duties as designed.



Filter cartridge:
Cartridge sizes between all three were all very similar. I see no advantage over one of their sizes compared to another based on how close they were to each other, so I will save you my measured dimensions. However, filter media dimensions will be discussed later.

MAHLE and MANN use a similar-in-design enclosed cartridge filter with steel end caps tightly pressed together with the louvered center tube. FRAM uses cardboard end caps between a loosely fitted louvered center tube. All three have filter media glued to the end caps, steel or cardboard.

MANN and FRAM use a "spring plate" to secure the cartridge within the steel housing, and as mentioned before, this is where FRAM places their by-pass valve. MAHLE uses a coil spring in lieu of a "spring plate". I see no advantage over "spring plate" vs "coil spring". Maybe there is a benefit in cost savings to the consumer, but I see no technical advantage in either design.

The three cartridges pictured below. Top to bottom: MAHLE, MANN, FRAM. In this photo I ensure to depict where the filter media is bonded together at the end. MAHLE and FRAM use glue. MANN uses a metal crimp. All three are a good bond to the other end of the material. I attempted to peel the pleats apart at this apparent weak junction. All three required excessive force. No points given to glue vs crimp in this static test. All is equal as far as glue vs crimp.

---MAHLE---
---MANN---
---FRAM---

Center louvered tube with filter media removed (More to be noted about pleat spacing later) :

Filtration media:
ahhh yes the best for last...das Beste für den Schluss!

Hard facts:

Pleat count most to least:
1. MAHLE 68; most evenly spaced.
2. MANN 54; evenly spaced, but a tad wavy.
3. FRAM 40; not evenly spaced.

Filter length longest to shortest:
1. MAHLE- 78.0 inches
2. MANN- 66.5 inches
3. FRAM- 45.5 inches

Filter media thickness; thickest to thinnest:
1. FRAM- 0.84mm
2. MAHLE- 0.50mm
3. MANN- 0.45mm

Pleat spacing. most consistent to least:
1. MAHLE
2. MANN
3. FRAM

MAHLE and MANN are close. MAHLE appears to be superior in this pleat spacing category. FRAM is a far 3rd from MAHLE and MANN. Ignore the filter media in the background, please.

Actual filter media touch, feel, and see:
All three appear to be a "paper type" filter. I was a bit surprised by what my naked eye could detect. WHAT I AM ABOUT TO DISCLOSE IS IN MY OPINION ONLY AND IS IN REGUARDS TO THE PAPER FILTER ELEMENT ONLY! NOT THE ENTIRE FILTER ASSEMBLY.

Best Filter media to the naked eye:
1. MAHLE
2. FRAM
3. MANN

I will save you the photos of my "light bulb" test where I hold the filter media to a light bulb to reveal how much light I can see (the photos are in my gallery if you are that curious). MAHLE and FRAM show very little light, however, the MANN I can seem to see spots directly through the filter, like looking at stars in the sky. As an example... I'm not a fan of K&N air filters, but if you ever held up a K&N air filter to the sun it reveals bright holes, compared to a tight paper filter where it is only a warm central glow when covering the sun,


Weights on the scale. Not sure if this has any meaningful data, but here ya go, again in no particular order.

-Entire dry assembly as you would buy off the shelf (minus box).
-Filter cartridge out of steel housing.
-Paper filtration media only.

MAHLE:
-11.1oz
-3.5oz
-0.7oz

MANN:
-11.7oz
-3.1oz
-0.6oz

FRAM:
-9.1oz
-2.0oz
-0.8oz



OK,
End of this observation. I will reserve my opinions for now, but I'd love to hear what you guys think.

Anything I missed?
Anything you need me to reevaluate or remeasure?
This gave me great pleasure to do.

Cheers!
Benjamin
_________________
-1967 Sundial Camper 1914cc "Sunny"
-1978 Deluxe Westfalia Jake Raby built PowerStroke 2109cc "Westy"
-1987 SYNCRO Westfalia GoWesty 2400cc "Ruby"
-2000 Subaru Impreza Sport EJ22 ¼ million miles "Trusty"

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. I.A.M. 751
International Brotherhood of Naval Flight Engineers. I.B.N.F.E. LOCAL 8251
My other ride has 18,400 horsepower!

[vanis13]

cool report

didn't know there was a "Brotherhood of Naval Flight Engineers"

so, what had you do this analysis?
_________________
83.5 Westy with Subaru 2.5, 4 spd manual, center seat, COLD A/C on 134a!, Winter camp heated with an Espar B4 gasoline furnace

www.SuperVanagon.com - some stuff I make

[0to60in6min]

oooh nice...

so what's your conclusion? so we can follow?

[the_benjamin_effect]

[leecat]

That is a lot of interesting information - kudos and thanks for putting in all the work and documenting it. Great addition to the general knowledge base, I think.

[ZsZ]

Nice job!
It looks like the big german brands still have some quality.
From the box it looks like the main use of the MAHLE filters are on the Jaguars. Probably they are the OE supplier.
(Parts catalog shows it is also used on Mustang Mk4, LR Disco III and Lincoln LS)

I wonder how the overall flow resistance trends in between them.
_________________
Zoltan
1.9 MTdi 2wd Multivan (ex Caravelle)
Van since 2006, engine since 2008

[jocoman]

You hear so many bad things about Fram. I wouldn't run one and your analysis proves that, however it is not as bad as i would of thought. I would have confidence in either the Mahle or Mann. Thanks for doing this.
_________________
'86 Westfalia 2.0L Zetec
'97 Volvo 850 AWD Turbo
" The fun never stops"

[SyncroHead]

Great work Benjamin! Love the willingness to explore this and see what it reveals. Far too often I hear people advocating a particular brand or product, just because they "like" it with no reasoning behind it. I too am guilty of this.

[the_benjamin_effect]

[Steve M.]

Did this more then a few years ago. Good write up btw.
If Found a Volvo oil filter to fit I'd use one !

Now that my curiosity has increased I'll cut apart a Mobil 1 oil filter too.
_________________
This free advice is worth exactly what you paid for it.

There are seven days in a week. Someday is not one of them.

[jimf909]

[the_benjamin_effect]

[Sodo]

Thanks for this extensive report.
You probably know by now that I enjoy these discussions.
I have arrived at the (personal) conclusion that most of this stuff becomes moot if you simply replace the lubricant, and I think most people maintain their engines.
Especially those who have 'filter brands' in their focus.

Current vehicle mfr recommendations of 10,000 mile oil change intervals.... I think.... are tied to "vehicle replacement intervals".
Mfrs want to build the vehicle reliable enough to maintain a good reputation, which requires quality build, quality OEM components.
But they don't want the vehicle to last too long, so they enlist the first owner in 'wearing out' the quality unit steadily by extending the oil change intervals.
Wear it out just a little at a time, voluntarily.

Then the poor aftermarket repair part quality takes care of the rest of the degradation and march to obsolescence.

I think it's best to maintain the "quality" OEM parts with clean lubricant.
I use 5,000 miles (or less).

======

Bypass spring-force is only relevant to psi if the pressure area is appx same. More detail is required to assess the bypass pressure settings from the spring-force.

Bypass only occurs for short intervals while the oil is cold, thick, and its very protective when cool.
Bypass can occur for longer intervals after the filter is plugged up. Those who pay attention to filter qualities can ignore the "plugged up" performance by avoiding this rather extreme condition.
To activate 'dirty filter bypass mode' requires long intervals, allowing dirt into the engine, poor maintenance.

Agreed that seeing light thru a filter media offers "clarity".

Note that if you use a K&N or other see-thru cone air filters, the dirt coming thru the intake filter can stick to the the cylinder walls, wear out your pistons/rings, and end up in your engine oil.
I know, I know, the kids like the sound of intake noise and the cone air filter does provide joy in that regard.
If lucky, the dirt is eventually "caught" in a proper oil filter, ending its string of deviltry.
Unless there's so much it causes bypass (in a long, slovenly oil-change interval). Much better to filter the intake air best and use clean oil.

There's something to be said for thicker filter media, and it's ability to hold particles out of the oil. Thinner media can let the particles wiggle their way thru, releasing again to the clean side for another tour of the engine.

Some filters are marketed as "extended life". This suggests that there are more pleats (more surface area) and/or thicker media that particles take longer to wiggle their way thru. If you change the filter every 2nd oil chance, it makes sense to get the ":extended life" for the possibility that the media is thicker, and the longer time for a particle to wiggle thru.

This is a rich subject.
IMHO - shorter oil change intervals can offset the need to optimize filtration.
_________________


'90 Westy EJ25, 2Peloquins, 3knobs, pressure-oiled GT mainshaft, filtered, cooled gearbox
'87 Tintop w 47k 53k, '12 SmallCar EJ25, cooled filtered gearbox
....KTMs, GasGas, SPOT mtb

[the_benjamin_effect]

[khughes]

Well, there's a great deal more involved in filtration than one can "see" from looking at the membrane. These type of filters are not "absolute" rated filters, i.e. guaranteed to exclude particles of > XX microns etc, they are filters that rely primarily on impingment vs exclusion. The pleating, while adding additional material in a smaller space, also changes the impingement angle for particles in the oil stream, increasing their likelihood of being trapped in/on the media. Additionally, all membranes will compressed under dynamic flow conditions, so the 'light through new media' test is really not a good indicator of relative performance.

Also, filtration efficiency increases as material builds up on the surface, creating a finer sieve action, and increasing impingement capture. So a "looser" weave engineered to still provide efficient particle capture is more likely to maintain a lower pressure drop as a result of filter loading than would a tighter weave. So there are a lot of conflating variables.

That said, even a Fram with good clean oil is better than a fantastic filter that is expected to clean up dirty oil. So as Sodo said, good routine maintenance is the real key.

As far as the K&N type air filters, they rely solely on impingement on the *oil* that's applied to the matrix. Once the oil is loaded up, bye bye filtration. 'Cause the gauze don't cut it!
_________________
'86 Westy FAS GenV Turbo (Marvin)

[Wildthings]

Using a bottom of the line Fram filter as a comparison doesn't add much of anything to the knowledge base. I would be way more interested in seeing info on the more pricey Fram filter offerings.

I have been springing for the Mobil 1 Extended Performance for the last decade or so, so for me it would be useful to see a comparison of these Mobil 1 EPs as well. I often cut open my used filters but it would be nice to cut open a new one as you have done.

[the_benjamin_effect]

[skills@eurocarsplus]

haha

fram. still making their junk from soup cans
_________________

[Bleyseng]

[tristessa]

It'd be interesting to also see inside of Wix, Purolator and maybe Hastings filters for comparison. I'd be happy to pitch in for that...