I would bet double shots of espresso that Fram is not an approved filter by MB. Remember, the manufacturing specification has come from MB and therefore what is viewed as cotton waste, is what MB wants in the filter. That is the reason that all the high end German OEM manufactures are making the filter that way. I would double my bet to say that the filtering ability of what is in fact new raw cotton, is greater than what has been described as string in the Fram. The section of the filter we are talking about is the section that cycles a fraction of the oil back to the pan at a much higher cleaning ability than the smaller section.

I'll place my bet with an OEM approved manufacture following the specifications MB has developed while admitting I have no factual understanding on the benefit for one method over another....yet.

I will continue my dialog with Wolfgand and Hengst until I do understand and that the decision I make is based on facts.

__________________
1980 300TD-T (82 Turbo and Trans) 159,000 Miles "Jackie-O"
1983 300SD 272,000 Miles "Aristotle"
1987 Jeep Wagoneer Limited - keeps the MB's off the ice and out of the snow
1994 BMW 530it

Vehicle manufacturers do not generally approve or endorse the use of aftermarket products, including OEM products. They generally recommend OE parts. Why would they recommend or approve anything else?
(I realize that they do approve some aftermarket fluids, etc., probably due to the realization that OE fluids may not be readily available.)

What is the meaning of the term "OEM approved manufacture?"

At the risk of being repetitive, the issue is not so much with the specification as it is with failure to adhere to that specification. By Hengst's own admission, the specification does not permit rocks, dirt, insects, trash, etc., to be present in the filter media. The findings of forum members would tend to discount Hengst's "single event" theory.

It's a pretty safe bet that the CH2930 is a "reboxed" item not actually manufactured by Fram.

Based on the actual "filth" of the material found in the cotton-gin waste filters, I really don't want that circulating through my engine. Its probably better to use clean material that may not (but probably does) filter as well, but doesn't ADD dirt to the oil. Somehow I bet that cotton string stuff in the Frams filters just fine.

__________________
-diesel is not just a fuel, its a way of life-
'15 GLK250 Bluetec 118k - mine - (OC-123,800)
'17 Metris(VITO!) - 37k - wifes (OC-41k)
'09 Sprinter 3500 Winnebago View - 62k (OC - 67k)
'13 ML350 Bluetec - 95k - dad's (OC-98k)
'01 SL500 - 103k(km) - dad's (OC-110,000km)
'16 E400 4matic Sedan - 148k - Brothers (OC-155k)

In various industries there are a variety of processes of controls in place to achieve a certain minimum standard. MB today sells parts and cars that have many manufactures that make these parts and they are either OE or OEM.

OEM can be a part made by another that is sold under the MB label. MB specs the part and the parts manufacture makes it to spec and proves it is.

__________________
1980 300TD-T (82 Turbo and Trans) 159,000 Miles "Jackie-O"
1983 300SD 272,000 Miles "Aristotle"
1987 Jeep Wagoneer Limited - keeps the MB's off the ice and out of the snow
1994 BMW 530it

This is a rehash of an argument that is at least 2 or so years old. And, in this case the logic provided by Big Red is really the only logic. The other arguments being presented are based on emotional responses to "discoveries" of what seems to some customers to be filler material in the by-pass section of the filter that is objectionable.

First, MB supplied filters are purchased and distributed based on the specification MB generated, and Big Red published an excerpt from, from MANN, Hengst, Bosch, and others, thus they are called OEM suppliers or manufacturers. The idea is that if they supply to MB per MB's specification, they should be able to market the same product to other filter distributors and still be recognized as suppliers of this product to MB.

To understand why this junk in the filter is not objectionable in and of itself for technical reasons, you have to understand the function of the by-pass filter. That has been explained above, but to reiterate, the flow rate through the by-pass filter is trivial. There is very little differential pressure across the media and the idea is the oil spends some "dwell time" in this volume of filtering media, allowing the particulate material to get caught or just drop out of suspension. The various sized chunks of junk allow for small cavities to form to hold the oil for brief periods, slowing it down and presenting lots of surfaces for oil contaminants to adhere to, while preventing any channels for forming.

A much greater concern is that the oil filter seals along the ID of the filter are correctly sized and retained. If the by-pass filter section is not sealed from the main flow section the by-pass filter sees a much greater differential pressure and the whole by-pass element can collapse. In that case a structural failure may occur and the evil by-pass filter element contents could be dumped into the main flow path leading to the bearings and other smaller, readily clogged flow passages. And in this instance you don't need little bits of grit to cause the engine to fail.

Overall, Big Red has headed this down a path seeking technical answers from the manufacturer concerning the manufacturing/materials selections for these filters that may allow this discussion to be closed. In the end, we can buy whatever filter brands we might want. But we can at least know the technical basis for what we are finding in the by-pass filter media, and then choose to accept it or presume to know what is better. Jim

Jim

__________________
Own:
1986 Euro 190E 2.3-16 (291,000 miles),
1998 E300D TurboDiesel, 231,000 miles -purchased with 45,000,
1988 300E 5-speed 252,000 miles,
1983 240D 4-speed, purchased w/136,000, now with 222,000 miles.
2009 ML320CDI Bluetec, 89,000 miles

Owned:
1971 220D (250,000 miles plus, sold to father-in-law),
1975 240D (245,000 miles - died of body rot),
1991 350SD (176,560 miles, weakest Benz I have owned),
1999 C230 Sport (45,400 miles),
1982 240D (321,000 miles, put to sleep)

if it is sold "under the MB label," wouldn't it be an OE part?

Maybe discussions on this forum should be limited to only "new and original" ideas!!!

Then yet again the fram wins, as the construction of the filter cartridge is a lot thicker and stronger than the other brands are. The others you can squeeze the bypass section and collapse/dent it by hand. Not so on the fram, it doesn't even flex!

__________________
-diesel is not just a fuel, its a way of life-
'15 GLK250 Bluetec 118k - mine - (OC-123,800)
'17 Metris(VITO!) - 37k - wifes (OC-41k)
'09 Sprinter 3500 Winnebago View - 62k (OC - 67k)
'13 ML350 Bluetec - 95k - dad's (OC-98k)
'01 SL500 - 103k(km) - dad's (OC-110,000km)
'16 E400 4matic Sedan - 148k - Brothers (OC-155k)

Aren't we stretching the truth a bit?

Hogwash. There is no assurance whatsoever that all products marketed by an OE manufacturer meet the same standards as their OE parts. In fact, some manufacturers sell parts on the aftermarket that have been rejected by the vehicle manufacturer. In some cases, they actually grind the "brand name" off the part.

That dog won't hunt.

My sentence structure was a bit difficult to follow. The sentence said the MB filter specification is used to buy filters by MB from the those suppliers. I buy my filters from my local dealership, and have had filters manufactured by all of the listed suppliers in the familiar filter box with the MB logos. If you thought it meant something else, sorry.


I was not making the point you have drawn from my words. The concept of being an OE/OEM supplier is commonplace, and citing it is frequently used to generate confidence in the supplier's brand name. Once again, the intent was not to suggest all manufacturers only manufacture good quality stuff. You seem to be the one suggesting and then shooting down that theory.


Hunting dogs have no technical bearing on the efficacy of filter media. This is another bit of evidence that you wish to make this an emotional rather than technical argument. It may work for you but it doesn't for me. I am inclined to believe the filter media specification ("textile fibers, preferably raw cotton, with seed vessels and other natural pollutants are allowed. Additives like wooden fibers to increase stability are admitted. (...) Synthetic fibers which allow capillaries are not to be used. To avoid channel-forming, the material has to be filled equaly up to both ends.") which says nothing about any prohibition of bug bodies or even small pebbles (they might be considered "other natural pollutants" considering what raw cotton is and where it comes from in the "raw" condition), covers the required oil filtering duties MB engineers were looking for back when oil was not nearly the product it is today.

I see no evidence the filters don't meet the MB specification, and I see no evidence that the specification results in unusual wear or damage to the engines from either poor filtration or contamination of the oil with the "natural pollutants" in the filter media. Therefore, the hype about the filter media is little more than emotional hype.

Sorry if that doesn't make your dog hunt. Jim

__________________
Own:
1986 Euro 190E 2.3-16 (291,000 miles),
1998 E300D TurboDiesel, 231,000 miles -purchased with 45,000,
1988 300E 5-speed 252,000 miles,
1983 240D 4-speed, purchased w/136,000, now with 222,000 miles.
2009 ML320CDI Bluetec, 89,000 miles

Owned:
1971 220D (250,000 miles plus, sold to father-in-law),
1975 240D (245,000 miles - died of body rot),
1991 350SD (176,560 miles, weakest Benz I have owned),
1999 C230 Sport (45,400 miles),
1982 240D (321,000 miles, put to sleep)

If the part was supplied on the car when built and or has the actual MB name and packaging.. then yes it is OE.

So in the case of a filter if Hengst makes 2 filters, one having the MB logo and packaging and the other being Hengst logo and packaging and logos and packaging are the only differences, then the original equipment is the MB filter made by Hengst and the original equipment manufacture is Hengst who should offer a like product to the OE part. (business sense)

I think in the end, these are Chinese walls to separate businesses.

__________________
1980 300TD-T (82 Turbo and Trans) 159,000 Miles "Jackie-O"
1983 300SD 272,000 Miles "Aristotle"
1987 Jeep Wagoneer Limited - keeps the MB's off the ice and out of the snow
1994 BMW 530it

Hengst does not make the MB OEM filters that you buy at the dealership. Those physically look different, are "Made in Austria" according to the stamp on them, and don't include the copper washer for the drainplug, only the rubber gasket for the canister lid.

Mahle products are made in Austria, thus I bet they are the "official" OEM manufacturer. And they seem to make good products. The dealer filter is definatley pretty high quality. Better be since it is $17! On par with the fram in sturdyness, and no crud falling off of it when taken out of the package.

I've used other Mahle products as well (fuel and air filters) and they are all well-made. Hengst air filters are good...I just wonder about what they put in the by-pass of their filters...the only reason I say it is because recent ones have had junk falling off them. This is unacceptable, and did not used to happen, I have used primarily Bosch/Hengst (mostly Hengst) on our diesels for 4+ years....and only recently have they had junk coming off of them. The Bosch never have.

__________________
-diesel is not just a fuel, its a way of life-
'15 GLK250 Bluetec 118k - mine - (OC-123,800)
'17 Metris(VITO!) - 37k - wifes (OC-41k)
'09 Sprinter 3500 Winnebago View - 62k (OC - 67k)
'13 ML350 Bluetec - 95k - dad's (OC-98k)
'01 SL500 - 103k(km) - dad's (OC-110,000km)
'16 E400 4matic Sedan - 148k - Brothers (OC-155k)

From Hengst...

We supply this filter in this kind of manufacturing directly to the Daimler Company as we are the OEM for this part (OE-Number A 601 180 01 09).


Stating it is the same identical part as supplied to MB. I suggest it probable they get them from more than one source as an OE part.

__________________
1980 300TD-T (82 Turbo and Trans) 159,000 Miles "Jackie-O"
1983 300SD 272,000 Miles "Aristotle"
1987 Jeep Wagoneer Limited - keeps the MB's off the ice and out of the snow
1994 BMW 530it

Hengst, apparently, does not suffer from that inclination.