Finally found official Mann filter efficiency #'s

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
1,512
Location
CA
https://oe-products.mann-hummel.com/fileadmin/user_upload/kataloge/MANN_HUMMEL_Liquid_Filters_EN.pdf

There are a lot of filter efficiencies listed here. Unfortunately, they don't include the microglass elements.

It was previously stated on this forum (many times) that the Mann W 719/30 spin on filter was 99.5% to 99.9% efficient at just 9 microns. This information apparently supplied directly by a Mann engineer.

Turns out that it, and many other Mann cellulose filters and elements, are 99% at 38 microns and 50% at 20 microns.
 
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
Ouch!


Indeed.

I did find efficiency ratings for fibre-glass oil filters for compressors. They were 99% at 10 microns and 50% at 4 microns.
 
What the ... They don't have one of the most popular BMW oil filters ever made: The HU 816 x is missing! Page 41 doesn't have it.
 
And the efficiency numbers are using ISO 16889, not the usual 4548-12 used for engine oil filters. The numbers may not compare well. Apples to oranges.
 
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
What the ... They don't have one of the most popular BMW oil filters ever made: The HU 816 x is missing! Page 41 doesn't have it.


Let's hope it's 99% at 38 microns and 50% at 14 microns like most of the others on that page.

Worst case is being like the HU 921 X which is only 99% efficient above 50 microns and 50% at 20 microns.

They do look similar.
27.gif
 
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
And the efficiency numbers are using ISO 16889, not the usual 4548-12 used for engine oil filters. The numbers may not compare well. Apples to oranges.


ISO 16889 is specifically geared towards "hydraulic fluid power filter elements that exhibit an average filtration ratio greater than or equal to 75 for particle sizes less than or equal to 25 æm(c)". Different animal and purpose than ISO 4548-12.

See section on ISO 16889 in the link below about 2/3 the way down on the page. ISO 4548-12 is discussed a ways further down on the page. This is a good reference showing all the filter testing methods for various fluids and for air filters too.

https://webstore.ansi.org/particle-testing/filters.aspx
 
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
And the efficiency numbers are using ISO 16889, not the usual 4548-12 used for engine oil filters. The numbers may not compare well. Apples to oranges.


You may be able to glean something from poster ISO55000 in the following threads about the two tests and the issue of comparability within, across and to real world results.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3694658

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3694937/ISO_4548_&_ISO_16889_S
 
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
And the efficiency numbers are using ISO 16889, not the usual 4548-12 used for engine oil filters. The numbers may not compare well. Apples to oranges.


You may be able to glean something from poster ISO55000 in the following threads about the two tests and the issue of comparability within, across and to real world results.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3694658

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3694937/ISO_4548_&_ISO_16889_S


That was a classic - LoL. I think someone was really trying to find a way to defend the poor WIX XP back then.

ISO 16889 is not used for lubricating oil filters like used in everyday passenger cars - that test is used for high efficiency filters used in hydraulic oil applications. ISO 4548-12 is used for passenger car oil filters, just like the test inscription says on the link I provided in my previous post.
 
I just doubt that a company like Mann would choose to test their filters and publish the results in a way that understates their performance relative to the competition.

ISO5500 was making a point that even within ISO 4548, you can't compare across manufacturers unless you know how they set up the test.
 
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
I just doubt that a company like Mann would choose to test their filters and publish the results in a way that understates their performance relative to the competition.

ISO5500 was making a point that even within ISO 4548, you can't compare across manufacturers unless you know how they set up the test.


If you find a full blown copy of ISO 4548-12 it's pretty clear how you're supposed to do the test. It's very stringent. DId you also see where he said in those old threads where he wasn't even familiar with ISO 4548-12 and had never seen or used that test? Just sayin'.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
I just doubt that a company like Mann would choose to test their filters and publish the results in a way that understates their performance relative to the competition.

ISO5500 was making a point that even within ISO 4548, you can't compare across manufacturers unless you know how they set up the test.


If you find a full blown copy of ISO 4548-12 it's pretty clear how you're supposed to do the test. It's very stringent. DId you also see where he said in those old threads where he wasn't even familiar with ISO 4548-12 and had never seen or used that test? Just sayin'.


I saw that but then he said he went and read it and concluded that the standard couldn't be used to compare results from one company to the next because the standard allowed enough of a difference in testing parameters.

Unfortunately, the thread didn't progress to comparing 16889 vs 4842.

I did find something else interesting though in ISO 4842:

Part 4: Initial particle retention efficiency, life and cumulative efficiency (gravimetric method).

This section would seem to contain the numbers that were of interest to me in the other thread. As I don't have a copy of the standard, can you confirm the contents of that part?
 
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
I saw that but then he said he went and read it and concluded that the standard couldn't be used to compare results from one company to the next because the standard allowed enough of a difference in testing parameters.


If he was trying to imply that you can't compare Company A's to Company B's to Company C's ISO 4548-12 test results then he's wrong. The whole purpose of ISO 4548-12 is for manufactures to use a stringent testing standard to ensure an apples-to-apples comparison.

Now if the test procedure is purposely not followed, or the data is 'fudged' somehow during the test of data reduction then that's a whole different issue.
 
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Unfortunately, the thread didn't progress to comparing 16889 vs 4842.


You must mean 4548-12. It didn't progress because he was trying to compare two different procedures meant to test two different kinds of filters. There might have been similarities between the two test procedures, but you couldn't really compare a filter tested per 16889 directly to a filter tested per 4548-12 and have an true apples-to-apples comparison.



 
Which makes it all the more weird that Mann publish oil filter efficiencies according to 16889.
 
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Which makes it all the more weird that Mann publish oil filter efficiencies according to 16889.


Apparently to the catalog, Mann has ran a multi-pass test but say it's defined in ISO 4548-12 test but calibrated to ISO 16889 - whatever that means. ISO 16889 is also a multi-pass test, so not sure why they are even mentioning ISO 4548-12. IMO, it basically just means ISO 16889 was ran with some kind of 4548-12 morphing. Talk about confusing.

See Mann catalog pages 10 and 111 (snipped and shown below). Also see the asterisk footnote at the bottom of the table:

" * In comparison to the previously used calibration, the new calibration with the same filter results in a lower filter fineness with small particles."

So whatever the actual differences between the two test methods, it had an effect on the resulting efficiency measurement, as indicated in their footnote. Sounds like ISO 16889 gives a lower efficiency result - by how much, who knows? - they don't say. So comparing an efficiency per ISO 4548-12 to ISO 16889 is obviously not an apples-to-apples comparison. Mann is a Euro company, so don't know why they would use ISO 16889 for auto spin-on filter testing when ISO 4548-12 is specifically designed for testing those types of oil filters.



 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Which makes it all the more weird that Mann publish oil filter efficiencies according to 16889.


Apparently to the catalog, Mann has ran a multi-pass test but say it's defined in ISO 4548-12 test but calibrated to ISO 16889 - whatever that means. ISO 16889 is also a multi-pass test, so not sure why they are even mentioning ISO 4548-12. IMO, it basically just means ISO 16889 was ran with some kind of 4548-12 morphing. Talk about confusing.

See Mann catalog pages 10 and 111 (snipped and shown below). Also see the asterisk footnote at the bottom of the table:

" * In comparison to the previously used calibration, the new calibration with the same filter results in a lower filter fineness with small particles."

So whatever the actual differences between the two test methods, it had an effect on the resulting efficiency measurement, as indicated in their footnote. Sounds like ISO 16889 gives a lower efficiency result - by how much, who knows? - they don't say. So comparing an efficiency per ISO 4548-12 to ISO 16889 is obviously not an apples-to-apples comparison. Mann is a Euro company, so don't know why they would use ISO 16889 for auto spin-on filter testing when ISO 4548-12 is specifically designed for testing those types of oil filters.






Good finding. I was looking for some of that info. It looks like the calibration had changed recently according to the small text at the bottom of the first screenshot. Based on these results, I think we should all be able to agree that these are not apples to apples comparisons to the performance numbers that Fram puts out. I find it extremely hard to believe a company that "just" specializes in filtering could have performance numbers this bad in comparison to whatever we can get off the shelf at the local auto supply store. Why in the world would an auto manufacturer like Mercedes, BMW, Volvo, VW (Audi) select such a poor performing filter if they can produce numbers near competing (cheaper) products.
 
Originally Posted By: SnowmanCO
Good finding. I was looking for some of that info. It looks like the calibration had changed recently according to the small text at the bottom of the first screenshot. Based on these results, I think we should all be able to agree that these are not apples to apples comparisons to the performance numbers that Fram puts out. I find it extremely hard to believe a company that "just" specializes in filtering could have performance numbers this bad in comparison to whatever we can get off the shelf at the local auto supply store. Why in the world would an auto manufacturer like Mercedes, BMW, Volvo, VW (Audi) select such a poor performing filter if they can produce numbers near competing (cheaper) products.


I find it hard to believe that M+H is using an efficiency test spec that is not specifically meant for the filters they are using it on (ie, lower efficiency full flow lubricating (ie motor oil) filters for IC engines). ISO 46889 is meant for very high efficiency (beta 75 or more), high pressure hydraulic power type filters. I gave snap-shots of the test methods on page 1 of this thread.

They are using ISO 16889 (or some morphed combination of 4548-12 and 16889) to come up with their efficiency numbers. Read their footnote carefully and it eludes to their test method making the efficiency ("fitness") read lower than previously with the other method for the "small" particles. Whatever "small" particles really means ... is it 5 to 10u, 10 to 15u, 15 to 20u, 20 to 30u? They don't say.

Look at their IC engine spin-on filter efficiency numbers ... they are not super high efficiency filters so why are they using ISO 16889 or some variant of it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top