Aftermarket Filters compared to AC Delco PF63 Filter

Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
64
Location
Ontario, Canada
In light of the latest revision of the PF63,

1999 version:
AC Delco PF63 1999.webp


2023 version:
AC Delco PF63 2023.webp


2024 version:
AC Delco PF63 2024.webp


I thought I'd start a thread where the various aftermarket equivalents can be posted.

On my 2017 Silverado 2500HD w/ a 6 L, I had been using a WIX 57045 . Now that I have a 2024 w/ the 6.6 L gasser, it looks like the WL10255 is the WIX equivalent. The bypass pressure has been increased to the new GM spec' (22 psi).

WIX 57045:
WIX 57045.webp

(4.75" long)

WIX WL10255:
WIX WL10255.webp

(4.5" long) Hole area increase?

I went to the local garage today & checked their stock.

Carquest R84060:
Carquest R84060.webp

(3.34" long as per catalog)

Carquest R84502:
Carquest R84502.webp

(4.08" long as per catalog) 2 more holes, but smaller.

I have no idea if the Carquest filters are shorter because they are their 'Regular' grade vs their Premium.

Can anyone post pics of other brand's versions of the 'early' and current PF63 filter? It will be interesting to see if the aftermarket revises the hole count or diameter in the baseplates of their filters. I'm a retired tool & die maker and never saw any parts w/ holes spaced that closely together & pierced in 1 station in the die due to the space constraints for the punch holders & die buttons. Hole piercing might be a 2 station arrangement.
 
Last edited:
Don’t be afraid to try the CQ Blue Premium 84502-it’s cheaper than the NAPA ones, & is better than all of them. Especially if NASCAR driver Ryan Blaney finishes in the top 12 again! Technically the R84060 doesn’t have a high enough bypass rating.
 
Fram’s current version of the PF63 is the XG 10575 and meets the 22 psi bypass pressure requirement. It was last updated after 2014 when the Gen V engines came out with the variable speed oil pumps requiring the 22 psi bypass pressure. Prior to 2014 the 10575 still existed but it had the lower bypass pressure setting .

At that time the 6.0 spec’d a PF48 but the PF63 was longer, had the same lower bypass pressure and fit if you had the clearance. Fram’s version of the PF48 was, and still is the 10060.

11DAFC52-6843-48DA-81E8-7D967BE8AA34.webp
25E35107-9F9C-4F5D-A8AF-A702F84763AD.webp
 
Last edited:
Don’t be afraid to try the CQ Blue Premium 84502-it’s cheaper than the NAPA ones, & is better than all of them. Especially if NASCAR driver Ryan Blaney finishes in the top 12 again! Technically the R84060 doesn’t have a high enough bypass rating.

I am aware of the 'blue' Carquest filters. Not sure what the upcharge is from the 'red' ones is, but knowing the area I'm sure people would 'kick' @ the added cost. the get a daily delivery from the nearest store, so I'm sure they'd use them if a customer requested them.

I was showing the R84060 as the equivalent of the early PF63 w/ the lower bypass pressure.
 
Fram’s current version of the PF63 is the XG 10575 and meets the 22 psi bypass pressure requirement. It was last updated after 2014 when the Gen V engines came out with the variable speed oil pumps requiring the 22 psi bypass pressure. Prior to 2014 the 10575 still existed but it had the lower bypass pressure setting .

At that time the 6.0 spec’d a PF48 but the PF63 was longer, had the same lower bypass pressure and fit if you had the clearance. Fram’s version of the PF48 was, and still is the 10060.
I seem to recall my 2000 Silverado 2500HD w/ the 6 L, used a longer filter then GM obsoleted about 4 filters & started using the a short filter (the PF63?) which resembled a baby food jar. I think if you go to an aftermarket oil filter 'look up' you can see what they spec for the 6 L motors. My 2004 used a short filter but since AC didn't have a long filter, I went w/ the longer WIX filter. Now it seems that GM has gone back to square 1.
 
Wow! As a retired machinist those 2 1/2 - 3 full threads on that Wix oil outlet would be a no go for me.

For die design 1.5X thread dia' for thread engagement was the standard in GM stamping plants. Going by that standard all of the filters are suspect. ;) 28 years as a tool & die maker in Oshawa, about half of it in the original Truck Plant.
 
I seem to recall my 2000 Silverado 2500HD w/ the 6 L, used a longer filter then GM obsoleted about 4 filters & started using the a short filter (the PF63?) which resembled a baby food jar. I think if you go to an aftermarket oil filter 'look up' you can see what they spec for the 6 L motors. My 2004 used a short filter but since AC didn't have a long filter, I went w/ the longer WIX filter. Now it seems that GM has gone back to square 1.
Just to put some numbers to it using Fram equivalents, the filter for the 2000 6.0 was the PF48. The Fram 10060 is the equivalent and is 3.3 inches tall. The PF 63 used to have to the same bypass pressure prior to 2014 and the Fram version was the 10575 which was 4 inches tall. The 6.6 uses the higher bypass pressure version of the PF63 and the Fram version is the 10575 with the higher bypass pressure which is still 4 inches tall. Fram stopped making a low bypass pressure version of the 10575.
 
Here is a shot I took at a Chevy dealer in April of this year. It’s a PF48E beside a PF63E. The PF63E is 4.78 inches long. They don’t have the same bypass pressures. Also, I believe the “E” designation is no longer used AFAIK.

D44044A0-C607-486A-88DE-09F7BEA36837.webp


D43A7FE7-11E1-4500-B58D-97A249C72331.webp
 
Last edited:
Just to put some numbers to it using Fram equivalents, the filter for the 2000 6.0 was the PF48. The Fram 10060 is the equivalent and is 3.3 inches tall. The PF 63 used to have to the same bypass pressure prior to 2014 and the Fram version was the 10575 which was 4 inches tall. The 6.6 uses the higher bypass pressure version of the PF63 and the Fram version is the 10575 with the higher bypass pressure which is still 4 inches tall. Fram stopped making a low bypass pressure version of the 10575.
Interesting that Fram lists the short filter for MY2000 pickups. WIX lists the 51522 (which sounds familiar) that is 4 1/2" tall. I'm positive that initially I was using a tall AC filter on that truck that was replaced w/ the PF48. Starts when I switched to WIX to use a filter similar to the original filter. I wonder if Fram is just cross referencing what GM is calling out for that model now, not assembly?

Just checked the Carquest catalog for the 2000 Silverados, an 85522 which is 4" long.
There is some serious inlet holes in the latest design.
If the hole count was increased to help flow, you would think the aftermarket would follow suit w/ updating their equivalent filters.

I joked in the PF63 tread comparing the 3 versions, that they looked like 'lightening' holes. I haven't seen a lot of filters for non-GM vehicles over the years, so I don't know if there are any out there that have that many holes punched in the baseplate.
 
Last edited:
If the hole count was increased to help flow, you would think the aftermarket would follow suit w/ updating their equivalent filters.

I joked in the PF63 tread comparing the 3 versions, that they looked like 'lightening' holes. I haven't seen a lot of filters for non-GM vehicles over the years, so I don't know if there are any out there that have that many holes punched in the baseplate.
The dP vs flow difference (+/- a PSI or two at high flow) through all those base plates won't be enough to really matter. The media will make for the largest portion of the total pressure drop (dP vs flow restriction).
 
For die design 1.5X thread dia' for thread engagement was the standard in GM stamping plants. Going by that standard all of the filters are suspect. ;) 28 years as a tool & die maker in Oshawa, about half of it in the original Truck Plant.
That's considering an actual fastener....and that's what's required to create an appropriate joint with that size fastener.

This is not a "conventional" application for threads on a fastener....it's just squeezing a rubber gasket a little bit. Much like sheet metal screws word fine for their intended purpose of not supporting much load or clamping at all, just sort of holding 2 things together a bit. 3 threads is more than adequate for an application like this.
 
Filter inlet holes, media and cage all need to be assessed to clearly understand flow restriction. I'd recommend sticking to the 2024 (or newer if continued improvements/needs are required) to not restrict the flow from the 2 speed oil pump.
 
Filter inlet holes, media and cage all need to be assessed to clearly understand flow restriction. I'd recommend sticking to the 2024 (or newer if continued improvements/needs are required) to not restrict the flow from the 2 speed oil pump.
If PD oil pumps were that sensitive to oil filters, the engine maker would have specs and warnings in the OM about what oil filters to use or not. When you compare the actual dP vs flow of many oil filters, their flow performance with hot oil doesn't make enough difference to worry about.
 
Back
Top