Ah yes ... this old question again ....
Here's the bottom line:
filters do NOTHING to improve the life expectancy of equipment directly. Note that I said "directly". They have an INdirect effect on equipment. However, they have a DIRECT effect in the status of lube health.
What makes a piece of equipment last is the relative cleanliness of the sump. There are two ways to get that effect:
1) drain and fill
2 "better" filtration
Filters don't make equipment last longer, but they do make fluids last longer in service. Therefore more efficient filters (often paired with higher media holding capacity) will make the fluid last longer.
As long as the sump contaminant level is below some threshold (often known to, but not publically acknowledged by, the OEM), then it's safe for use. If you have a clean running engine, that has an inherrently good lube system design, then the engine and lubes can last a long time. If not, then both the lubes and equipment will degrade in short order.
We're trained by marketing bombardment to believe that "more" is "better"; hence more OCIs with better filters MUST be the only salvation your engine has to look forward to. But the reality is quite different. Several of us have been experimenting with longer OCIs and longer FCIs, and are realizing that the marketing is hooey. Again - this is predicated on a healthy piece of equipment and not a known sludger or poor performer resulting from years of true neglect.
Some level of filtration is very important. But it's only critical above a certain particulate size. Higher efficiency filters don't seem to provide ROI in a typical "normal" OCI. In fact, typical filters can often do 2x or 3x the "normal" O/FCI and still fare well.
The key to success is to get something in return for your efforts. If you spend 25% more cash on a product, does that product return 25% "more" of benefit "X"? In terms of filters, does it either extend your OCI out 25%, or reduce your wear rates by 25%? If not, then it didn't pay for itself. And so very often, it's not a matter of what the product is capable of, but what the user artificially limits it to. Until you operate in conditions that would usurp a "normal" product's capability, there is no tangible advantage to be gleaned from a premium alternative. Hence, more and better are not beneficial; they're wasteful.
We so often hear about "cheap insurance". OK - let's discuss that.
Where is the line for "cheap" versus "waste"? If a "normal" filter can go 10-15k miles, and you change it at 5k miles, then you're already WELL within a safety margin. To use a "better" fitler (high efficiency) at 5k miles as a means of extra "insurance" is heaping waset upon waste. At what point do you acknowledge waste past any reasonable measure? There is no sensible ROI.
If you use a more efficient filter, it likely will not pay for itself in normal circumstances. It's really no different than any premium lube.
If you WANT to do so, then go for it; nothing wrong with satisfying a desire. But it's highly likely that you don't "need" it. And to prove it to be so needed, you'd have to run a LONG series of trials that would be past the patience of most any BITOGer.
