The OP might WANT a P1 or other "premium" filter, but with a max 6k mile O/FCI, he doesn't NEED any product of the sort.
P1 is an awesome product, but being at the top (being "best") must ALWAYS be taken in context. It all depends upon how you define ALL the inputs to the decision criteria.
I don't know that P1 would last as long, or perform as efficiencly, as an EaO if the OCI was 25k miles. The efficency of the P1 would likely suffer to the point of perhaps going into bypass, thereby not "filtering" at all? So it's not at the "top" any longer.
OTOH, who needs either a P1 or an EaO if your O/FCI is 5k miles? The OP says his MAX OCI is 6k miles. There is no reason to think that any filter is going to do THAT MUCH BETTER given his self-imposed limitation. Any "normal" filter will do fine.
http://www.knfilters.com/news/news.aspx?ID=157
Here's an example to prove my point, and also confound the logic.
Consider that he has three important filters: oil, air, fuel. They don't even discuss fuel, so we won't. He uses a K&N air filter (I prefer typical cellulose filters, but he likes his reusable one). He touts the logic of saved $$$ by purchasing one air filter over the 1,000,000 miles. While some of us think that those type filters are not advisable, it certainly got him to 1,000,000 miles! OTOH - he used conventional oils and "normal" filters. I recall seeing him interviewed and he was not brand loyal to oil filters overall. Again, his oil filter choice didn't seem to matter much in the 1,000,000 miles he drove. He used a "premium" air filter, but used "normal" oils and oils filters. But the engine still attained 1,000,000 miles. Now, we could ask to tear down the engine, and then make wild presumptions as to how much more or less "wear" would have occured had he chose some other product path. But who the heck cares? Seriously ... 1,000,000 miles ... does it really make a difference what filter the guy used? NO!!!!! What made his vehicle last was a consistent, determined PM plan. He took a "premium" approach to air filtration, but a "minimalist" approach to lubes. But BOTH got him to his goal. Would he have faired "better" if he had reversed the approach? "Better" lube/filter and "lesser" air filtration?
(Editorial comment: Ironic, is it not, that he sees the validity of a reusable air filter to save money, but can't grasp the fiscal savings concept of synthetic oils and bypass filtration ....?)
My Point: routine, committed maintenace is MUCH more important that the type product you choose. As long as you choose a brand and grade of product that works well in a defined maintenance plan, your vehicle will likely last longer than you care to own it.
There are two routes to equipment longevity.
1) premium products used to the full, long lifecycle
2) "normal" products used to shorter, but still viable, lifecycles
Synthetic fluids and premium filtration are a means to make the lubes last longer in service, not to make equipment last longer in it's lifespan. They are fiscal savings tools ONLY IF you understand both their benefits and limitations. Long equipment life is NOT UNIQUE to synthetics and premium filtration; that can be attained by simply using "normal" products in shorter OCIs. The only "unique" trait to premium products is that they last longer themselves.
If you want your equipment to last, you must match your product choice to the maintenance plan. It's that simple. You might feel the need to debate this concept, but how many 1,000,000 vehicles do you have in your driveway? Can you PROVE that premium products are NECESSARY to equipment lifespan?
EQUIPMENT LIFESPAN IS AFFECTED BY THE TOTAL MAINTENANCE PLAN, WHICH IS A CAREFULL (or careless) CONSCIOUS DECISION OF MATCHING ACTIONS WITH PRODUCTS.
EVERTHING must be put into context.
