Here's the problem with this thread ... It's drive-by internet mania. I want to be clear; I am not singling out the OP; there's plenty of blame to go around here, and many of you ought to take note. I have no problem whatsoever with people asking questions, if they are intelligent and thoughtful; if they have data or logical construct theory to support an idea, etc.
If the OP had said ... "Hey BITOG, I was curious if the Fram Ultra restricts flow to a point where a concern would exist in my 2009 Family Truckster, which has a max oil flow pump rated at X.Y gpm, using 5w-ZZ when at full temp, at delta P pressure. I built a test fixture in my garage, using calibrated flow and pressure gages (insert photo proof here), and using those parameters, I got data that shows it's on the borderline. What could be causing this issue?" If that happened, I'd say that individual really put some thought and effort into the project, and it's worthy of bandwidth here; kudos for a concern well defined, and tested, then presented for discussion.
But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO .... that's not what happened. What he did is what most folks do here ....
He used less-than-rational thinking to suppose his way into a mythological condition where the efficiency rating somehow equates to media that's too darn tight, presumably choking the engine into a starved condition. No data given about what his engine pump produces. No data shown as to what the FU offers. Just total wild-posterior guessing based on a hapless theory. And if he's picking on the Ultra, why not the TG or the BOSS or EaO? Why just the Ultra? Why not any filter that is 99%? Why is 99% "too restrictive", but 98% isn't? Is 95% OK? Absolutely no reasoning at all.
The internet is full of folks who either cannot or will not first research their current condition, think about the potential influences, and then try to resolve questions with logic and proof to back it up.
I am not saying that all company data is 100% accurate all the time. I've worked for major manufacturing industries my entire adult life; I know mistakes happen. But unless we have credible proof that any product is not performing to an adequate level, it's all just swag rhetoric. To understand a filter's true flow capability, we must know the flow rating, at a specific dP, with a given vis fluid. NONE of the companies publish that to the best of my knowledge. The ISO testing protocol does establish operational parameters; I trust those to be adequate to give us a reasonable basis to accept the validity of a product. I don't worry about the minutia.
What I do know is that all the major filter makers produce a bazillion products every day that end up doing a good job, despite the lack of external public info. I've never had a reason to believe that any filter I choose is "too restrictive". But then again, I don't succumb to illogical process thinking. My point is that if the company which produces the product you find potential fault with does not publically publish data, then you must go get your own data, developed with credible methodology, to pose legitimate questions. In the absence of that, you're just a troll (unintentional or not), blasting your inane thoughts upon the innocent internet viewers.
IOW, in simple terms, if you want to post a question or statement here, that's cool. You have two choices:
1) research the conditions that would affect the product, understand the operational parameters the product offers, and then apply the two together and discuss results
2) wildly make unqualified assumptions, pontificating a potential problem, and then post no data or facts to support your accusation
I applaud the former.
I decry the later.
All persons are welcome to participate here. But we should not get mad if we get called out for irrational thoughts posted with reckless abandon. There're no rules here against posting thoughtless drivel, and there're no rules against calling it out, either.
Please don't be a drive-by poster, folks.
