Oil filter question

[TypeRD]

I always use Honda filters. Don't want to change the bypass valve spec. Plus, I've never had a problem with them so why not use them.

where's a good place to get the Honda RTA filters for a decent price?

A-Spec posted (or confirmed someone else’s link) to a legit supplier on Amazon. These are confirmed genuine. You can get a pack of 3 for $31. They’re not the top notch Hamp filters, but are high quality filters from Japan (much better than the basic filters that dealerships use in NA). Here’s the link again.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CWG8JYD...apan_dp_8GYDWY5473WBHF8QY7DN&titleSource=true

Sponsored

 

[JustJim]

The OEM filter is really cheap on the inside (I cut mine apart looking for trouble). The Honda OEM filter has cardboard endcaps and a leaky relief valve (hard plastic on metal). I bought a 3 pack of them from a dealer. My next filter buy will be something besides the Honda OEM filter.

 

[apl360]

The OEM filter is really cheap on the inside (I cut mine apart looking for trouble). The Honda OEM filter has cardboard endcaps and a leaky relief valve (hard plastic on metal). I bought a 3 pack of them from a dealer. My next filter buy will be something besides the Honda OEM filter.

All the oem can style filters are like that tho. To be fair

Subaru people absolutely swear by the oem filter too and that filter is horrid

 

[ellupo11]

The OEM filter is really cheap on the inside (I cut mine apart looking for trouble). The Honda OEM filter has cardboard endcaps and a leaky relief valve (hard plastic on metal). I bought a 3 pack of them from a dealer. My next filter buy will be something besides the Honda OEM filter.

I've read that the Japanese version (15400-RTA-003) has metal caps and is overall higher quality than the US made version

 

[Rhorn]

All the oem can style filters are like that tho. To be fair

Subaru people absolutely swear by the oem filter too and that filter is horrid

They swear by the JDM Subaru filter (its black) not the USDM filter. There is a difference from when I looked into it. They are made in different factories and the JDM one is better significantly than the US one.

 

[apl360]

I've read that the Japanese version (15400-RTA-003) has metal caps and is overall higher quality than the US made version

The hamp definitely is built way better. For sure

 

[apl360]

They swear by the JDM Subaru filter (its black) not the USDM filter. There is a difference from when I looked into it. They are made in different factories and the JDM one is better significantly than the US one.

Correct. However. Most folks are buying counterfeit ones and don’t even know it. And that sucks

 

[AspecR]

The hamp definitely is built way better. For sure

Have any good leads on the Hamp filter?

 

[J_D]

Look at the thousands of Honda commuter cars that use OEM oil filter, are only driven when cold, and change the oil/filter by the maintenance minder. If they filter was bad normie Honda's wouldn't have their current reputation

 

[ellupo11]

Have any good leads on the Hamp filter?

Read through the thread. It's listed on the previous page

 

[apl360]

Have any good leads on the Hamp filter?

Personally I don’t but have heard evasive (spelling?) Motorsports sells them. I’ve never purchased from them myself tho. Sorry for the lack of info

 

[cryptolime]

Have any good leads on the Hamp filter?

https://jhpusa.com/products/honda-hamp-oil-filter
https://www.evasivemotorsports.com/...amp-synergy-genuine-oil-filter-h1540-rta-003/
https://www.swapshopracing.com/contents/en-us/p6330_Hamp_JDM_Honda_Oil_Filter.html
https://www.socalgenuinehondaparts.com/products/hamp-oil-filter

search engines still work, apparently

 

[Mrjustin81]

 

[Gansan]

so out of curiosity, I've asked Grok to research and compare Mahle made filters vs Fram XG:


Based on manufacturer's specifications, independent tests from sources like Bob Is The Oil Guy forums, and ISO 4548-12 efficiency data, here is a comparison of high-end Mahle oil filters (such as OEM models for Porsche or general automotive applications like OC series) and Fram XG Ultra Synthetic filters. I focused on key metrics including quality (build and materials), filtration efficiency, oil flow rate, and PSID (pressure differential for bypass valve). Data comes primarily from official specs and lab tests, with user opinions from YouTube cut-open videos, Reddit, X posts, and forums noted but weighted less.

Overall, Fram XG Ultra excels in filtration efficiency and flow due to its synthetic media, making it better for long intervals or high-performance needs. Mahle offers superior build quality and reliability as an OEM choice, with balanced performance. For general use, either works well if matched to the engine.

User feedback summary (less weight): On YouTube cut-opens (e.g., Whip City Wrencher, Brand Ranks), Mahle shows clean, robust internals with praise for even pleats. Fram Ultra gets mixed reviews, some call it "garbage" for past designs, but recent ones are lauded for efficiency. Reddit and X users prefer Mahle for BMW/Porsche reliability, while Fram is criticized for non-synthetic lines but accepted for Ultra. Forums like BITOG favor Fram Ultra for lab-proven efficiency.

Metric	Mahle High-End Filters (e.g., OC series, Porsche OEM)	Fram XG Ultra Synthetic (e.g., XG series)
Quality (Build/Materials)	Premium construction with metal end caps, even pleats, and high burst pressure (up to 1200 kPA or ~174 PSI). Silicone or NBR anti-drainback valves. Structural integrity prevents collapse under pressure. Cut-opens show consistent, durable media without waviness. Often used as OEM for luxury brands like Porsche.	Dual-layered synthetic blend media with wire backing for strength. SureGrip coating for easy install. Cut-opens reveal good pleat count but some models show inconsistent glue or thinner components. Improved over basic Fram lines, but not always OEM-level durability.
Filtration Efficiency	Beta ratio: 50% at 18 microns, 75% at 24 microns, 90% at 28 microns (per Mahle data for models like OC1177). Nominal micron rating around 13-18 microns at 50% efficiency. Effective for standard use but lower than full synthetics in multi-pass tests.	99%+ at 20 microns, 94% at 10 microns (per Fram and BITOG lab extrapolations). Higher overall efficiency in ISO tests, capturing more fine particles. Designed for extended intervals up to 20,000 miles.
Oil Flow Rate	Nominal 20-30 liters/min (5-8 GPM) at standard pressure. Good for OEM applications, but cellulose-blend media can restrict more when cold or dirty. Lab flow vs. PSID curves show moderate performance.	Up to 12 GPM with low restriction (5 PSID at 12 GPM in similar synthetic tests). Synthetic media allows better flow, especially cold, reducing bypass events. Outperforms cellulose in high-flow scenarios.
PSID (Bypass Valve Pressure)	18-20 PSI opening pressure. Holds well under load without early bypass.	8-12 PSI opening pressure. Opens earlier to prevent starvation but may allow more unfiltered oil in high-restriction conditions.
Other Factors	Max temp 225°F, collapse rating up to 450 PSI in industrial models. Low risk of twisting or leakage in tests.	Optimized for synthetic oil, with anti-drainback for quiet starts. Some models show clog resistance in extended tests.

The problem with quoting AI “data” is in the table above is the different comparison points are not based on the same measurement methodology in half or maybe more than half of the cells. It’s all a bit disjointed. Even if they’re quoted from various sources, without the same lab doing the measurement using a consistent procedure, you can’t blindly compare out of context numbers.

Sentences like “Effective for standard use but lower than full synthetics in multi-pass tests.” seem non-sensical. If you understand what this is referring to, could you explain? What is a “full synthetic” when we’re talking about filters?

Some sources to the original websites with the original studies would be good, so we can verify nothing’s confabulated.

 

[zumbooruk]

The problem with quoting AI “data” is in the table above is the different comparison points are not based on the same measurement methodology in half or maybe more than half of the cells. It’s all a bit disjointed. Even if they’re quoted from various sources, without the same lab doing the measurement using a consistent procedure, you can’t blindly compare out of context numbers.

Sentences like “Effective for standard use but lower than full synthetics in multi-pass tests.” seem non-sensical. If you understand what this is referring to, could you explain? What is a “full synthetic” when we’re talking about filters?

Some sources to the original websites with the original studies would be good, so we can verify nothing’s confabulated.

Agree, I forgot to add my standard disclaimer about AI results, sorry.

Note that this was just out of curiosity, since I believe that any descent filer will be good enough for 4,000-5,000 mile OCI so I did not bother following links (which I usually do), and I've deleted the query.

I read "full synthetic" to mean 100% synthetic media (vs a blend)

Sponsored