Probably does not matter in the grand scheme of things but the Fram Ultra XG10575 is physically smaller than the AC Delco PF-63 it is suppose to replace by about a half an inch. Additionally, the base plate is very convex reducing the capacity even more as compared to the OEM AC Delco PF-63 The diameter is the same but the length is not. I have not used a Fram filter since the late 70's but due to the acclaim here about the Ultra I decided to try one on my Enclave and Frontier. The one for the Frontier was the same size as the OEM Nissan filter I took off. Curious as why the XG10575 is shorter than the OEM AC Delco PF-63.
Fran Ultra XG10575 small for my application
- Thread starter lonestar
- Start date
- Status
A full synthetic filter uses the 'depth' of the media to filter. Even if visually looks to have less 'media area' it's going to be able to filter and hold more contamination then a regular cellulose media filter with more area.
The Ultra is rated for up to 15K miles because of the media used. I highly doubt AC Delco would claim their PF-63 is anywhere close to rated to 15K. In this case, you can't go by looking at the size of the can.
I wouldn't consider the XG10575 that small anyway. 3" dia x 4" long is pretty good sized IMO.
http://www.framcatalog.com/PartDetail.aspx?b=F&pn=XG10575
The Ultra is rated for up to 15K miles because of the media used. I highly doubt AC Delco would claim their PF-63 is anywhere close to rated to 15K. In this case, you can't go by looking at the size of the can.
I wouldn't consider the XG10575 that small anyway. 3" dia x 4" long is pretty good sized IMO.
http://www.framcatalog.com/PartDetail.aspx?b=F&pn=XG10575
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,807
You would need to compare the two filter elements and not the external cans. Typically, there is a fair amount of "white" space inside a spin-oil filter which may not reflect the actual size of the media. Also, in the case of the XG, it is full synthetic media and the PF is probably cellulose.
Here is a XG10575 (the same one that I use on my 2014 Explorer) and here is a PF-63.
The PF seems to be longer, but neither photo had a measurement of the media. Given the choice and if your OCI supports it, I would use the XG over the PF.
Here is a XG10575 (the same one that I use on my 2014 Explorer) and here is a PF-63.
The PF seems to be longer, but neither photo had a measurement of the media. Given the choice and if your OCI supports it, I would use the XG over the PF.
I've run both the XG10575 and PF63. Also the M1-212 on occasion.
Didn't notice any real/measurable UOA differences except for the size and color of the canisters.
photo credit GM4LIFE
Didn't notice any real/measurable UOA differences except for the size and color of the canisters.
photo credit GM4LIFE
You can always opt to go with the Amsoil EAO17 as pictured above. Amsoil has very high quality internals featuring double layer media and is the same size as the PF63. It's rated for 25K miles in normal conditions and 15K miles in severe conditions.
I have used the AMSOIL filters in the past but my go to was M1 due to convenience. Then I got 3 PF-63s for $2 each so I have been using them for the past 2 changes but decided to give the Fram Ultra a go in both my Enlcave and Frontier.
However, I primarily got the Fram Ultras to try on my 2012 Frontier. I have tried the OEM Nissan filters, Bosch Distance Plus, Napa Platinum, Napa Gold, and now the Fram Ultra in an attempt to eliminate timing chain rattle upon starting after the vehicle has set over night. I have also used 5W30 Pennzoil conventional, PP, PUP, and now Kendall full Syn. None of the combinations have eliminated the rattle that last only for about 1 to 2 seconds.
However, I primarily got the Fram Ultras to try on my 2012 Frontier. I have tried the OEM Nissan filters, Bosch Distance Plus, Napa Platinum, Napa Gold, and now the Fram Ultra in an attempt to eliminate timing chain rattle upon starting after the vehicle has set over night. I have also used 5W30 Pennzoil conventional, PP, PUP, and now Kendall full Syn. None of the combinations have eliminated the rattle that last only for about 1 to 2 seconds.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Should be an interesting experiment ... but if no filter makes the cold start-up rattle go away then it's probably something else inherent in the design of the timing chain system.
My Tracker always has a second of rattling when started, I assume its the timing chain, but the tensioner is ratcheted, so in theory there shouldn't be a lot of slack at any time. Anyways, whatever it is hasn't gotten worse or become a problem.
Should be an interesting experiment ... but if no filter makes the cold start-up rattle go away then it's probably something else inherent in the design of the timing chain system.
My Tracker always has a second of rattling when started, I assume its the timing chain, but the tensioner is ratcheted, so in theory there shouldn't be a lot of slack at any time. Anyways, whatever it is hasn't gotten worse or become a problem.
- Status
Similar threads
