Far from it, There is an SAE study out there.
40 micron filter base.
30 micron cut wear by 50%
15 micron cut it by 75%
Using a rated filter gives some assurance that you are getting a reasonable effiency at a certain rating, usually 15 to 20 microns.
I give a short list, from memory, of filters I believe are worth the effort to use.
Lack of data keeps you off my preferred list.
Sometimes, I have no choice. For example, my HD's. The Twin Cams require a 5 micron filter. The only one with any type of rating is HD own. Others might be better, but I don't have data to prove it at even a cursory level.
And some well thought of filters have a nominal that is 15 or 20 microns. Disaster in waiting to me.
Same goes for automotive filters. Any data is better than no data.
And I don't want to see touchy feely stuff like "I cut one open" Completely meaningless.
As is construction method, mostly. I've sen the pic of the trashed Fram. Obviously way past its useful life or the victim of a sludge event. Maybe even a glycol leak.
Certainly not Frams fault.
As for eother well constructed and pretty filters, Amsoil is a decent example. I've not seen data giving more than a nominal rating. Which is meaningless at these levels.
The greatest toughest, never going on bypass filter in the world is worthless if it doesn't filter a great level.
I aim for 20 microns in my car and truck (gas) engines. Trying to acheive a balance between clean and cost.
So, after all that rambling, no, I am not saying no filter. I am saying look past pretty and popular and get a decent filter that has at least some level of effiency testing data available.
See ISO 4548-12
