Most important spec when looking at filters?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mossyoakglock

Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
118
Location
Nashville, TN, United States
What is the most important specification when looking for a good oil filter? Is it the "Relief valve pressure?"

It is getting harder to find any of the original PF48's for my truck so I am going to move to another filter soon. I believe the relief valve pressure for the PF48 is 9-12 psi (can somebody confirm?). Advance Auto's site shows 18-24 psi though. I've looked at a few that I am considering and here is what I found.

Purolator PureONE and Synthetic - Both are 12-15 psi
Wix - 12 psi
Fram Ultra - 9-12 psi.

Since the Fram Ultra has the same specs as the OE PF48, I am considering that route. Plus I've heard that the Fram Ultra filters are really good.

Which would you go with or does it not really make a difference?

Truck is a 2008 Silverado w/ 5.3L
 
Go on Rockauto.com they have classic AC Delco PF48s. Shipped to your house cheaper then going to the store and buying them. There is also a 5% instant rebate for rock auto if you check the promotion forum on bitog. Otherwise just go to a PF63 and sleep well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks. I use rockauto all the time.

But my original question was not answered and I don't always have time to order them online and need to run to the store and pick it up on the spot.

So what is the more important specification to look at? How does the Fram Ultra compare to the PF48 and is it a good filter?
 
Correct specs (with the OEM filter or spec-ed with the vehicle).

Can't find a GM 5.3 filter? I would have thought it would be easy-peasy.

Anything without a Purolator/Mann etc label seems to be fairly safe at this point...

Donald: And yes, you could go wrong with an M1... because they do not make a filter spec-ed to Subaru's bypass (27psi) as all of their claimed comparability is really just a fit issue crossed with Honda. The oil in your Forester is going into bypass mode a lot more than it should my friend. You should be using the OEM, or Wix/Napa 57055 filter.
 
None of us would use a filter that doesn't meet spec for our engine, would we?

For my own car, the most important spec looking at a filter is its efficiency rating. That's not the deciding factor when I buy though, I decide which filter to use based on availability and price after making a shortlist of two or three acceptable units.

For customer cars it's whichever 'jobber' is on offer.
 
I can find 5.3 filters all day long, except the non E-core 48's. I figured I would post up the question and see what thoughts were out there and what the important factors are when picking a filter.

Here are the efficiency ratings I have found.

PF48 - 98% @ 30 microns
Purolator PureONE - 99.9% @ 20 microns
Purolator Synthetic - 99% @ 25 microns
Frame Ultra - 99% @ 20 Microns (cannot confirm 100%)
 
There was a thread where people said bypass valve spec makes no difference except in one or two special cases. The filter manufacturer designs the bypass according to the filter. I think that makes sense and explains the differences between brands for the same applications.
Cut some open and look at the quality of the components and see the material, fit, and finish up close and between your fingers for yourself. There is a lot of difference, and things not discussed or shown here. Like I just opened a Denso FTF against a Purolator product. I found an ADBV defect in the Puro, and in every way I could see, the Denso was superior. Since I have kept cutting on it and see the media is not only a little thicker on the Denso, but far stronger and the pleats are .1" deeper, ,5" vs. ,4" on the Denso. I measured the cans with a micrometer and found the Puro brand thin at .013-.014", the Denso better at .016-.017". That's stuff I never could have guessed and known about. I'll be cutting some more used ones soon, Fram and Japan Denso.
Then the published efficiency ratings. Then the brand name showing product support, and authenticity of the product(fakes.)All IMO
 
Some of the specifications you won't find published. Taking all the information into account about construction, efficiency, reliability are important. If you wanted to look at just specs the two that matter are efficiency and holding capacity. Not everyone rates their filters with a holding capacity, some do and list in grams of contamination others use a general mileage rating.

Of the filters you listed the Fram Ultra is my choice. 99%+ efficient at 20 microns and 80% efficient at 5 microns. Holding capacity is rated for 15,000 miles. Synthetic media filters are generally superior in every way to traditional cellulose filters. If you're just going to change the filter by the oil life monitor it's really over kill though.

Royal Purple and Amsoil also make some nice filters, although they can't touch the Fram Ultras price since they are mass produced.

Other filters to consider are Mobil 1, Fram Tough Guard, Bosch Distance plus and Wix/Napa Gold.
 
Originally Posted By: Dallas69
You can use any name brand filter that is specs for your engine and not notice any difference.


Tearolators you will noticed some increased "flowrate"
 
Originally Posted By: Stewie
Originally Posted By: Dallas69
You can use any name brand filter that is specs for your engine and not notice any difference.


Tearolators you will noticed some increased "flowrate"


But only when the positive displacement oil pump is in pressure relief.
grin.gif
 
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Correct specs (with the OEM filter or spec-ed with the vehicle).

Can't find a GM 5.3 filter? I would have thought it would be easy-peasy.

Anything without a Purolator/Mann etc label seems to be fairly safe at this point...



Do you know what the specs are for the GM 5.3L, specifically the LH6?
 
Originally Posted By: Mossyoakglock
What is the most important specification when looking for a good oil filter?


That's easy; here's your answer ...

Is the filter approved for use in your application by the maker?

If so, it's been validated by the filter maker to provide the necessary performance for it's stated intent, and would be covered under limited warranty. If not, then you're on your own in terms of warranty coverage.



Sure, different brands have different approaches to where the BP valve is located, what efficiencies they offer, and construction criteria. But I would ask anyone to PROVE (not guess or give subjective annecdotal dribble) via testing and credible data that any of it makes a difference in terms of wear control. Once a reasonable minimum threshold for performance is achieved, the rest is just moot. IOW, you're not really doing anything important if you think you can find a "best" filter by looking at a data sheet speaking to pressures, flows, etc. If the filter maker has properly engineered and made a filter for your 5.3L, then any brand and grade will suffice for decent operation. Much depends upon your OCI plan, but as long as you're "normal" in your approach, the filter data isn't going to make any appreciable difference at all.
 
Originally Posted By: Mossyoakglock
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Correct specs (with the OEM filter or spec-ed with the vehicle).

Can't find a GM 5.3 filter? I would have thought it would be easy-peasy.

Anything without a Purolator/Mann etc label seems to be fairly safe at this point...



Do you know what the specs are for the GM 5.3L, specifically the LH6?


Not off the top of my head and unless it is the old 305 (82 Scottsdale was my old truck), I don't have that specific. I would assume that it is what the OE filter is designed to so the Fram (and the wix to a lesser extent) would be fine. I am just surprised that a newer GM (and a high volume vehicle) would have part availability issues unless GM is just letting the aftermarket filters have at it. Your filter needs seem to be fairly common. Heck, the Wix variant is also listed for my Impala (in my fleet). As long as you are not overly off of the specs, then carry on. I wish I knew more about the 5.3 but my fleet does not have any nor does any of the farm vehicle use smaller trucks (all 2500+)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom