Originally Posted by DudeNiceRide
. . .
Show me DATA from a real lab located anywhere that says a non-metal end disc is better or worse than a metal end cap. What test would you run to prove it?
You don't have any data. And there is no such test.
It's all perception. Nothing more.
...And then you jump in with a bunch of "data free" assertions of your own, all while totally missing my point.
Originally Posted by DudeNiceRide
The strength of the element lies within the column strength of the element (core & pleated media) -- not what kind of cover is on the end.
Hmmm, no data offered to support this opinion. My data: a Fram paper end cap element crushes, and so does its metal center tube, in my bare hand. I could inflict no such damage at all to the comparable M1 filter. Obviously, the collapse of a Fram paper end cap filter in actual service is an extremely rare event. I simply choose to use filters of more robust construction. This is my opinion. If you disagree, by all means, use whatever you prefer.
Originally Posted by DudeNiceRide
The job of an element's end covering (metal, plastic, paper-board, other) is to prevent dirty oil from getting to the clean / filtered oil side -and- to serve as an interface for the adjacent components. That's it.
EDIT: part of that function is to keep the filtration element in the proper place.END EDIT. As I've stated repeatedly here, like literally for fifteen years now, the paper ends will likely do just fine for the vast majority of users. I choose to spend my money on ones that have an obviously more robust design. If you choose to go the other way, by all means, please do so, it's your choice. Also, as I clearly indicated, I'm not "anti-Fram". I don't care for the orange can design, but as I said earlier, I credit them for offering the gold can XP line of filters -- with metal end caps. . . By the way, if the paper design you favor is perfectly sufficient, why would Fram itself have elected to create and market the metal end cap XP line???
Originally Posted by DudeNiceRide
Both materials have to survive the working environment. From dozens of cut-open filter posts, you can see all types are intact after 3-10k miles.
Just as I've said about ten zillion times already here on BITOG. But we've also seen rare, thank goodness, examples of oil filter failures. I believe the metal end cap designs to be more resistant to catastrophic failure. Notice the word I used: believe. That's my opinion, always stated as such. Actually, it's a good thing there isn't "more data" on this issue, if you catch my meaning. I choose to use filters I feel are more resistant to physical collapse.
Originally Posted by DudeNiceRide
The type of material used as an end covering is usually DIRECTLY related to the type of element it has to be bonded, the price point / margin, and how much $$$$ in capital the manufacturer has invested into assembly automation for that type of cover. Puro, Wix, Fram, Champion...they all have their methods.
Another set of factual assertions suffering from the same flaw you charge against my opinions -- no supporting data supplied.
Originally Posted by DudeNiceRide
You should be worrying about how well the filter removes "debris" from your oil at the lowest restriction and for the longest period of time while surviving your vehicles working conditions, all while never ever leaking.
I've been changing oil filters since 1977. I concern myself (I don't ever "worry" about "issues" like this...) with all aspects of a filter's performance. Of course filtration and leakage are important. But in the unlikely event the filter suffers a structural failure, filtration quality will become suddenly and conclusively moot. Which filters can best resist internal structural failure?