Unless the Fram numbers are true and they did indeed improve it.
Once again, lots of assumptions are being made not in the absence of data, but in the face of data. Ridiculous. And few oil filters out there have metal backed pleats, or really backing of any kind. So where are all the failures? And if Fram's filtration claims are not true, the other companies will either sue or they will start making the same false claims. They aren't. Most won't publish their data because they can't even beat the lowly Extra Guard. So there is no evidence at all that Fram has compromised actual performance in any way, but in fact provided evidence to the contrary. And yet the Bitog sky is falling.
I contend that the metal backing was mainly for marketing purposes. To make customers feel good about the strength of their filters. In reality, it was entirely unnecessary. Again, the Mobil 1 filters I've run in my Pentastar had media that was easily torn after an OCI. The Fram is extremely difficult to tear apart. But the M1 filters never failed. So what's the point of the (in this case nylon or polymer) backing on the pleats? To make you feel good that it was so stinking hard to pull apart. Heck, I even ound the Mopar a little harder to tear apart than the Mobil 1. But the Fram filters better, so it remains my favorite.
Beretta once did something similar with the model 92 pistol slide. Early models had slide failures due to a material defect in the steel. (Not a design defect). So users lost confidence and considered the slide to be a weak design. So Beretta introduced the "Brigadier" version with pronounced humps in the slides where they were thickened. This was highly visible and gave users confidence that it was now stronger. In reality, it was unnecessary. They continued with other 92 models that did not have the weak or flawed steel and the breakage issue disappeared.
