I've editted out the nasties and left what I felt was cogent dialog. Feel free to continue on with this thread in peaceful debate.
My opinions/comments
I think that we can all follow this basic belief when it comes to oil filters.
In all others aside from Fram: You "tend" to get what you pay for. Any filter can have manufacturing defects and some designs tend to show insult over others in higher frequency. Your results may vary. Any filter can fail in the wrong situation. Some will fail before others in endurance testing. This incidence of failure may, or may not, correspond to their cost ..but typically will. Manufacturing defects aside, each filter has a "design envelope" of reasonable service expectation. We don't know what that is, but we can reasonably assume that the cheaper the filter, the shorter, or smaller, that envelope will be.
All manufacturers offer multiple quality levels of filters. Each has a lowball, good, better, and best offering. Some of the premier filters, are offered by the same manufacturers of the lowest of the lowball. This leads us to the sensible conclusion that one company can both be the best and the worst manufacturer of oil filters in terms of in field endurance/performance results.
Getting back to the original question and some of its sub-elements ....
Although I feel that Amsoil's filters are typically of higher quality, and can go great distances, I believe the 6 month swap interval is to allow the replacement of depleted additives. The swapping of the filter is the easiest way for a customer to do this. There's also Amsoil's (I think) "non-limit" to the mileage that one can accumulate during that 6 months (since it's 25k/1 year) we can assume that the filter can be in use from ZERO to 12.5k miles and still be following their recommendation).
That is, one (if my slant has any merit) can not really read anything into the lack of endurance capability based on Amsoil's 6 month recommendation.
wayne:
[ May 25, 2005, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]