Have you considered instead of putting down fleet managers perhaps considered there is a lack of data available & they have to choose on known criteria instead? You still haven't provided ISO testing data for any Fram filter yet. Until then many will choose Purolator as the logical choice because they ARE USING GOOD JUDGEMENT BASED ON ISO 4548-12 STANDARDS!
What do you think they would use as criteria to chose a filter? You think they are going to conduct an extensive program in their spare time to try and determine what oil filter to use if the filter efficiency was the top priority? Even it they tried to conduct a test program using the fleet, it would have to be pretty controlled, and by the time they went through many different filters it would take a very long time to conduct such a field test. You know what's a simpler starting point? Chose filters that have a high ISO 4548-12 efficiency and go from there.
So what would you base your decision on to choose an oil filter to use on your fleet? Would you use one with horrible efficiency just because you saw a spec sheet from M+H? You never answered me why you aren't using the Boss yourself, and did you get a spec sheet for that Pronto filter showing the ISO efficiency? I highly doubt one is availiable. Does Pronto even show an ISO efficiency anywhere?
Think about what you're saying... You bash Purolator users on here but they are using them exactly how you just laid out. Sounds like I know who's really lacking judgement...
I don't bash Purolator, I used Purolators for years until they started tearing media left and right. If you've been paying attention I simple point out the facts as posted. If you can't take the facts and get all belligerent like in this post, then your fanboyism is obviousness being triggered. It's also obvious that you put down Fram any chance you get.
It's funny how so much goes into some efficiency hysteria here w/no ISO filter testing data to back it up. Ford recently upgraded/updated to use the Boss media for their prized 6.7L Power Stroke Diesel engine. They've done a lot to protect their own reputation on that engine after the 6.0/6.4L reputation. Real world heavy duty hauling stuff. Toyota being one of the lowest efficiency filters on the BR test over time along with many using basic filters one realizes some want you to chase your tail in 99%@20 efficiency claims that can't be backed up with ISO testing data w/Fram. Purolator meets OEM requirements & does not void your warranty. Never heard of Cummings.
Sure, many OEM filters aren't on the high end of filter efficiency. Ford uses the USCAR-36 spec which say the filter must be 95% @30u or better. Many aftermarket filters like SuperTech seem to have the same type of efficiency. We all know there are many other factors involved in engine maintenance that can effect longevity. But it doesn't mean that a more efficient filter would be better in the long run for reducing wear - it especially matters for those who do longer OCIs these days. The whole OEM filter is "good enough" (which it is for the most part) then degrades into the logic of "
your car will rust out or get t-boned and totaled before the engine wears out". I really don't care what other people do with their stuff, they could run no oil filter if they want. I post data and point out differences, and people can believe it or not, or instead just go watch YT and make decisions from that ... I really don't care what people do as long as it doesn't effect me somehow.
But anyone who actually takes some time to dig into some of the controlled studies about wear vs oil cleanliness will always see the conclusion that higher efficiency filters result in cleaner oil which correlates to less wear. There is no other outcome, and you will never find a study that shows dirtier oil results in the same or less wear.