Yes, go find Whip City Wrencher on YouTube and he has all kinds of videos showing the metal screen backing on the Ultra. Many members here too have shown C&P photos of the Ultra with the media torn apart so you can see the layered construction and the wire backing.It does appear the screen follows the pleats. When I first looked I really didn't pay attention, I was just looking to confirm the screen existed.
The wire backing screen is in the shape of the pleats because the screen backs every square millimeter of media. The screen and media is shaped together into the shape of pleats. The screen is not just a screen wrapped around the outside of the center tube.
The Ultra without the wire screen backing is a totally different media ... so a change in performance is no surprise. But as you posted earlier (post #33), Fram claims the new media is more efficient, at least on the filter model they make the claims on.So replacing the screen with a cellulose (rigid) media keeping (actually increasing) the original synthetic media in place, REDUCES the efficiency? I can't wrap my head around that one.
Flow (delta-p) doesn't necessarily correlate to efficiency. Not sure what you're saying here.Amsoil claims higher flow, so that makes me suspect if it will filter as fine a particle as the Fram XG does.
Like said before ... probably splitting hairs on the efficiency. The Fram may be a hair better since Fram still says the Ultra is 99+ % @ 20u. The Fram Titanium (still with wire screen backing like the OG Ultra) also claims 99+ % @ 20u efficiency.Both Fram & Amsoil advertise the same efficiency: 99% @ 20 microns.