Long time lurker first time poster. I am looking for a little information on flow rates and such along with GM's change of specified filter for the L5P diesel in the 2500 and 3500 HD trucks. I have included a few links for reference, just trying to be complete. My main concern between the PF63 and FE10575 is are the inlet hole sizes and why GM has changed the filter recommendation. It could just be a commonality or production run thing or the PF63 was changed for another platform and it works just as well for the L5P. At the risk of oversimplifying things, a filter has to have enough goesinta and enough goesouta, filter properly and not bypass.
A little background-
At one point GM recommended and shipped the L5P with the PF-26 filter. Late on GM started to ship the L5P and recommended the PF63, I believe the PF63 has a higher bypass setting. There were 3 part numbers for the PF63, it looks like, among other changes, that the inlet hole size and count changed between each of them and getting larger with the newer ones. GM stated that the change to PF63 recommendation was to improve cold flow performance.
https://gm-techlink.com/?p=16808
Pic of the 2nd and last PN PF63 the one the right is the newest PN.
Not being a fan of the partial plastic construction of the PF63 and some reported gasket issues I went looking for a better filter with correct bypass settings and threads, etc. The FRAM FE10575 is reported to be a very good filter but there is a significant difference in the inlet hole sizes.
The bypass setting for the FE10575 and PF63 are roughly the same at 22 ish. If I go to the FRAM website and enter in the search bar a 22 GMC 2500 6.6 401 cid (that would be the gas engine) the FE10575 comes up as recommended. If I select the 6.6 403 cid (diesel) is does not list the FE10575 filter. If you enter PF63 it will cross to the FE10575 filter.
Result with 401 cid- gas
https://www.fram.com/partFinder/sea...l=0630&engine=V8~6.6L~401~&car-type=car-truck
Result with 403 cid diesel
https://www.fram.com/partFinder/sea...l=0630&engine=V8~6.6L~403~&car-type=car-truck
Result for cross reference the PF63
https://www.fram.com/partFinder/page/index/?q=pf63
So in a nutshell, is there some reason (presumably inlet hole size) that the FE10575 is not a suitable filter for the L5P? Are the inlet holes sizes a critical design spec for a filter when flow rates, cold start and or other factors a big consideration?
A little background-
At one point GM recommended and shipped the L5P with the PF-26 filter. Late on GM started to ship the L5P and recommended the PF63, I believe the PF63 has a higher bypass setting. There were 3 part numbers for the PF63, it looks like, among other changes, that the inlet hole size and count changed between each of them and getting larger with the newer ones. GM stated that the change to PF63 recommendation was to improve cold flow performance.
https://gm-techlink.com/?p=16808
Pic of the 2nd and last PN PF63 the one the right is the newest PN.
Not being a fan of the partial plastic construction of the PF63 and some reported gasket issues I went looking for a better filter with correct bypass settings and threads, etc. The FRAM FE10575 is reported to be a very good filter but there is a significant difference in the inlet hole sizes.
The bypass setting for the FE10575 and PF63 are roughly the same at 22 ish. If I go to the FRAM website and enter in the search bar a 22 GMC 2500 6.6 401 cid (that would be the gas engine) the FE10575 comes up as recommended. If I select the 6.6 403 cid (diesel) is does not list the FE10575 filter. If you enter PF63 it will cross to the FE10575 filter.
Result with 401 cid- gas
https://www.fram.com/partFinder/sea...l=0630&engine=V8~6.6L~401~&car-type=car-truck
Result with 403 cid diesel
https://www.fram.com/partFinder/sea...l=0630&engine=V8~6.6L~403~&car-type=car-truck
Result for cross reference the PF63
https://www.fram.com/partFinder/page/index/?q=pf63
So in a nutshell, is there some reason (presumably inlet hole size) that the FE10575 is not a suitable filter for the L5P? Are the inlet holes sizes a critical design spec for a filter when flow rates, cold start and or other factors a big consideration?
