I think you are making some large jumps in logic to make the conclusion that it is a bad filter.
Take a step back big boy and stand-down from the defence angle and process the information presented. Have you read my posts? I never once claimed it was a BAD filter. I said they've cheapened it. I also remarked that they've retained the efficiency. Neither of those things make it bad.
You have no way of knowing how much is synthetic media vs. cellulose. The notion that its only a "topper" is silly.
Did you watch the tear-down video?
It's predominantly cellulose with a thin layer of synthetic to add holding capacity to maintain the extended OCI rating. A "topper".
The fact that it maintains/improves filtration efficiency and mileage rating seems to imply that it is still significantly synthetic media.
No it doesn't. You can have insanely efficient cellulose, but it will come with a significant flow penalty over a synthetic media with the same surface area. That's why they've put more media in the can.
0.74mm = 740micron. So, 37x the depth of a 20 micron particle. There is depth, plenty of depth.
Again, if you read my posts and the material I took the time to post from both Donaldson and Cummins, you'd understand the difference between how cellulose operates (pore block, with some depth for the finer particles) versus a layered, and increasingly efficient true depth filtration media like what Cummins produces, or the old FRAM Ultra, which had two distinct layers of synthetic depth filtration.
Real data has shown the that old Fram ultra outperformed all other comparable filters from RP, etc.
Yes, which I noted. And they've retained that efficiency by continuing to use a very high efficiency cellulose or hybrid (blend) media.
Just because they don't share specific literature on media doesn't mean its bad. It clearly was the best. So, they must know something - just choose to keep it proprietary.
OK, and who was saying it was bad? It was probably the most highly regarded filter on the market for passenger car applications, offering true multi-layer depth filtration media in basically all part numbers at an extremely attractive price.
Until there is data to suggest that its performance has significantly changed I'm chosing to believe their claim that performance was maintained or improved.
I would be happy to see data one way or the other.
I've stated, multiple times now, that the efficiency has been kept the same. That has nothing to do with the fact that the media has been cheapened or that the flow and holding capacity have likely been reduced. The filter was already overkill, the PureONE, which has always been very efficient cellulose, has proven to flow just fine for consumer applications, the synthetic media filters are just better on several metrics, that doesn't make the cellulose ones bad.
Amsoil oil filters claim 99% (no "+") at 20 micron and 15,000mile service life for EA line (~$20+shipping), and 25,000 mile service life for EAO line ($20++) which are generally truck/high performance application (IE: not available for any of my passenger cars).
There is no guarantee what media they are currently using, and their own claims make me doubt that it is as stout as the Ultra. But again I welcome data and/or facts to the contrary.
I flagged
@Pablo in a previous post on this, with respect to the continued use of the Donaldson Synteq media, and he confirmed that this is still what they are using. It's one of the best medias on the market and unlike FRAM, both Donaldson and Cummins Filtration are very up-front about their media technology, how it performs, how it is constructed...etc.
And yes, the AMSOIL filters certainly don't cover every part number and they are considerably more expensive, that's one of the reasons this change is so unfortunate. The Ultra, with multi-layered synthetic media was a huge bargain and everybody's application was covered for the most part. Now, it's a bit like a tarted-up PureONE with better efficiency. Still a great filter, just less than it was before.
