In either case, the bottom line is that there is no sealing going on in the area where the nubs are located, because there's still an air gap in that area with the leaf spring is installed ... unless the leaf spring is tapered purposely to close up that air gap, but I don't think that's the case.I agree with you that the notion of "seal" is very weak. Also- that tightness is a poor descriptor of leakage probability, regardless if true. My only intent is to show that the design changes between these years increased the likelihood and quantity of bypassed oil. The older spring has reliefs or notches in the spring and a nubs in the filter - the new one only has a nibs on the spring, while the metal ring in the filter cartridge on the new filter is smooth, ensuring a larger gap. On the older filter, the nubs and the reliefs line up and help to minimize the gap.
All the "sealing" is (kind of) happening between the part of the leaf spring that has the ruffles and that narrow raised ring around the end cap hole that the leaf spring sits on when installed - you can see that ring on both filters in the photo above. That's the "seal" area, and if the leaf spring isn't smooth and flat (ie, not warped, because if smooth but warped it could still leave a gap), then there will be oil leakage at that interface.
Note the "groove" in the leaf spring on the left filter is simply the impressions the nubs on the ID of the hole made when the leaf spring was forced into the hole. You could clock it differently, force it in the hole and make new matching grooves. Those grooves were not made in the leaf spring to match up and fit with the nubs before those two parts were ever put together.
Last edited: