Fram XG10575 Good Replacement for AC Delco PF63?

Originally Posted by RyanY
Originally Posted by CT8

The only thing to worry about an oil filter is if it fails. and causes catastrophic damage.


^this
I have yet to hear of any cases where an engine died an early death because the filter was not efficient enough.


Oil filters are about helping keep oil clean to reduce engine wear, not preventing engines from blowing up or dying.
 
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by 4WD
After all the single pass and beta data is all said and done … if they filter dirt faster than the engine makes dirt (no tears) the average car owner will never see a difference … It's a BITOG happy place … ...€


Not just "a happy place".
grin2.gif


Engine wear correlates to oil particle count level and how many times the sump volume is circulated with dirty oil.

More efficient filters can reduce particle count, especially in the sub 20μ particles which do the most wear. The longer the oil is ran, a more an efficient filter can lower the "PC x Miles on Oil" wear factor.

If short OCIs are done, the difference between a less vs more efficient filter becomes less noticable. If someone did 500 mile OCIs, they could probably get by with no oil filter.


Like a Briggs & Stratton
grin.gif


It would be interesting to do a particle count OCI comparison with various filter efficiencies. I'm not sure anything more than a rock catcher is needed for metal shavings? Smaller particulates such as soot (which are abrasive and small) can be impossible to filter in application, so more important to me is the quality of the HTHS / HTFS oil base stock, the detergent dispersant additive (for holding the soot in suspension), and proper OCI to not oversaturate the DD additive.
 
Originally Posted by LubricatusObsess
It would be interesting to do a particle count OCI comparison with various filter efficiencies.


I have done that using Blackstone ISO particle count data. Some people don't believe that more efficient oil filters result in cleaner oil and less engine wear for whatever reason. Second graph was comparing some Ultras to Toyota filters.

[Linked Image]


[Linked Image]
 
Here's some Microgreens compared to a few other filters.

[Linked Image]
 
ZeeOSix - that is amazing! Thank you for sharing. There is so much data in this group but finding it is really difficult.

I didn't not believe you, btw - I just said I was unsure. Lots of people make statements here - some from data, some from extrapolation, some from educated guesses. I meant no insult to you.

At Cummins, we were required to provide data on fine particulate (soot) engine exhaust matter, that is https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/air-quality-pm25

As we know, soot is highly abrasive, so that is where my comment was directed. Ultra XG filters are some of the best on the market, but they may not reduce engine wear by much. All we can say is they capture more particles of some nature. How much engine wear is reduced? Enough to run a non-rebuildable gasoline engine another 50,000 miles that otherwise would be worn out (pumping oil, etc.)? I doubt it, and would be expensive to prove between two identical vehicles.
 
Originally Posted by LubricatusObsess
ZeeOSix - that is amazing! Thank you for sharing. There is so much data in this group but finding it is really difficult.

I didn't not believe you, btw - I just said I was unsure. Lots of people make statements here - some from data, some from extrapolation, some from educated guesses. I meant no insult to you.


No insult taken. I wasn't referring to you ... just people in general. Every paper I've read basically says the cleaner the oil is kept, the less engine wear there will be ... pretty simple logic.
 
I don't disagree, ZeeOSix.
I guess what I'm asking is whether this amount of improvement in filtration results in a meaningful difference in wear reduction that provides a meaningful difference in engine performance or longevity? Some of the other posters are speculating it doesn't, based on their experiences with their engines.

I use Fram Ultra xG because the added cost per OCI is small for the premium performance. I like having synthetic media to resist heat-aging that cellulose (paper) is subject to, esp. not knowing the manufacture date (ever leave a newspaper lie around - notice what happens to it). Fram once reported less restriction as well, due to more uniform media porosity. In fact, if this filter does provide a somewhat higher flow rate, I like that more than any of the particulate filtration aspects.
 
Originally Posted by LubricatusObsess
I don't disagree, ZeeOSix.
I guess what I'm asking is whether this amount of improvement in filtration results in a meaningful difference in wear reduction that provides a meaningful difference in engine performance or longevity? Some of the other posters are speculating it doesn't, based on their experiences with their engines.

I use Fram Ultra xG because the added cost per OCI is small for the premium performance. I like having synthetic media to resist heat-aging that cellulose (paper) is subject to, esp. not knowing the manufacture date (ever leave a newspaper lie around - notice what happens to it). Fram once reported less restriction as well, due to more uniform media porosity. In fact, if this filter does provide a somewhat higher flow rate, I like that more than any of the particulate filtration aspects.


The way I look at it is that having cleaner oil certainly can't hurt, and most likely does make a difference in wear in the long run. Will an engine with 200K+ miles burn less oil (from less ring & cylinder wear) and have less worn bearings under the same use conditions if the oil was kept an ISO code or two cleaner - most likely. Someone would have to spend big money on a controlled real world experiment to prove it all in the passenger car world. However, there are many tech papers (some real world testing) that always conclude that cleaner oil results in less wear, regardless of machinery ... that's all I need to know to spend a few more bucks for an oil filter with pretty high efficiency.

Re: Your 2nd paragraph - I agree, and you get high efficiency to boot. What's there not to like.
 
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
I have done that using Blackstone ISO particle count data. Some people don't believe that more efficient oil filters result in cleaner oil and less engine wear for whatever reason. Second graph was comparing some Ultras to Toyota filters.

It appears that Fram XG does not sacrifice "fine filtration" at the expense of "capacity." Would everyone agree with this? (I have seen some older comments to the contrary.) Would there be any reason to expect, say, a Wix filter to out-perform Fram XG at fine filtration?

Originally Posted by LubricatusObsess
I like having synthetic media to resist heat-aging that cellulose (paper) is subject to, esp. not knowing the manufacture date (ever leave a newspaper lie around - notice what happens to it).

Does cellulose media degrade as it sits on the shelf in reasonably non-humid conditions? Would the cellulose become degraded while installed in an infrequently-used vehicle (i.e. just by time sitting in oil, not miles)?
 
Originally Posted by viscous
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
I have done that using Blackstone ISO particle count data. Some people don't believe that more efficient oil filters result in cleaner oil and less engine wear for whatever reason. Second graph was comparing some Ultras to Toyota filters.

It appears that Fram XG does not sacrifice "fine filtration" at the expense of "capacity." Would everyone agree with this? (I have seen some older comments to the contrary.) Would there be any reason to expect, say, a Wix filter to out-perform Fram XG at fine filtration?


The Ultra is pretty decent down to 5u (80%) per Motorking (past Fram rep here). If you look at those two Microgreen filters, they outperformed at 4u-6u because of the super fine filtering 'micro disk' design. But the regular filtering media in the Microgreen wasn't as good as the Ultra.

I highly doubt a filter rated at 95% @ 20u (regular WIX or NAPA Gold) is going to outperform a filter rated at 99%+ @ 20u (Ultra) anywhere on the filtration % vs particle size curve.
 
All cellulose degrades over time due to oxidation. That's why old documents are kept in airtight containers. The question is whether the paper elements in oil filters age soon enough to have a limited shelf and service life? That I don't know.

I do know that mineral oils have a much shorter shelf life than synthetic oils. Mineral oils are inherently less oxidation stable because their hydrogenation saturation isn't as complete (see API Base Stock Group definitions). I don't remember the dates from my Mobil Lubrication Engineer days, but it was substantial. I never hoarded sale-priced mineral oils for this reason, and I don't with paper oil filters either.
 
Originally Posted by LubricatusObsess
I do know that mineral oils have a much shorter shelf life than synthetic oils. Mineral oils are inherently less oxidation stable because their hydrogenation saturation isn't as complete (see API Base Stock Group definitions). I don't remember the dates from my Mobil Lubrication Engineer days, but it was substantial. I never hoarded sale-priced mineral oils for this reason, and I don't with paper oil filters either.

When a mineral oil oxidizes, what performance features of the oil are degraded? Oil shelf life has been discussed here before, but in your opinion, is using old mineral oil a very bad idea?
 
I do know that mineral oils have a much shorter shelf life than synthetic oils. Mineral oils are inherently less oxidation stable because their hydrogenation saturation isn't as complete (see API Base Stock Group definitions). I don't remember the dates from my Mobil Lubrication Engineer days, but it was substantial. I never hoarded sale-priced mineral oils for this reason...
There may be differing opinions on this. I brought up the issue in this thread, and the consensus there was that mineral and synthetic may exhibit similar oxidation characteristics while sitting in the sump. See here:
I would say the difference between mineral and synthetic would be pretty imperceptible if it is just sitting unused.
...referring to dino v. S in terms of sump oxidation in general ... I know of no reason either has a superiority in this category that I could promote with legitimate data.
 
There may be differing opinions on this. I brought up the issue in this thread, and the consensus there was that mineral and synthetic may exhibit similar oxidation characteristics while sitting in the sump. See here:

Just make sure context is clear and you are talking apples to apples

"LO" specifically mentions "shelf life", by definition that's straight from the blender in an unopened airtight container container

A sump is "in service' so that's a different set of rules
 
Fram PH10575 originally had a 9-15 PSI black bypass poppet. GM owners requiring AC Delco PF48 sometimes chose PH10575 as a longer version of PH10060, the "official" PF48 replacement. Fram then redesigned the PH10575 with a 16-28 PSI white bypass poppet so it could replace AC Delco PF63, which has 22 PSI bypass. They instructed PH10575 users to move to the shorter PH10060.

Does the wide bypass range of the redesigned PH10575 seem suspicious? Did Fram redesign this filter properly so that it actually matches the 22 PSI specification of AC Delco PF63? Would anyone have reservations about installing a Fram XG10575 (Ultra Synthetic) in an application calling for AC Delco PF63?

Yes, the revised 10575 ( new version with white bypass popper) is Fram’s answer to the AC Delco PF63. They went through a lot of trouble to move up the bypass pressure setting. I would trust Fram’s range of pressures more than the AC Delco claim it bypasses at exactly 22 psi. If you buy the Fram Ultra version I believe it would be a better filter than the PF63. Perhaps others have the filtering data. It gives me a headache. The rest of your post is an accurate description of what actually happened AFAIK. :)
 
Last edited:
Here is the Fram search bringing up the 10575 in place of the PF63. Use with confidence. By the way. I’m one of the guys who used to use a XG10575 in place of the 10060 because it was longer but now that they increased the pressure of the bypass on the 10575, I don’t bother doing it anymore and I don’t bother looking for old stock. Oil filter sniffers?

8949D0D7-F37D-4C44-B7A7-9D3273AA0120.png
 
Last edited:
Back
Top