Jay, thanks for the truth and info good sir
New AC Delco PF48E & PF48 Cut
- Thread starter DirtyMoe21
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Motorking
Originally Posted By: GM4LIFE
I will definitely never run an e-core AC Delco filter on any of my cars.
Could these new e-core filters be the cause of GM's newfound engine issues, especially with the LT4s?
A. GM has been using ecore filters for years (at least three and maybe more)
B. 35k or not, your engine is dirty from the looks of that filter, it is obviously saturated
C. the C+D engine failure was initially blamed on the filter and was later found to be a metal shaving of unknown origin buried into a bearing.
Just sayin....
Haha zombie thread.
The engine that that filter was on was a direct injection with overhead cams driven by chains. They are hard on oil. The engine is not dirty though. The wix filters that I had run during the same time looked way better than that ecore. The ecore got ran longer than I normally run for oil changes plus it was not technically the correct size. The dealer installed the filter that was speced for the older models. It defiantly wasn't run outside of gms recommended oci but just barley held up to the job. To close for comfort. If it had turned out like several of the ecore that have been posted here lately I wouldn't have a problem running them.
Originally Posted By: GM4LIFE
I will definitely never run an e-core AC Delco filter on any of my cars.
Could these new e-core filters be the cause of GM's newfound engine issues, especially with the LT4s?
A. GM has been using ecore filters for years (at least three and maybe more)
B. 35k or not, your engine is dirty from the looks of that filter, it is obviously saturated
C. the C+D engine failure was initially blamed on the filter and was later found to be a metal shaving of unknown origin buried into a bearing.
Just sayin....
Haha zombie thread.
The engine that that filter was on was a direct injection with overhead cams driven by chains. They are hard on oil. The engine is not dirty though. The wix filters that I had run during the same time looked way better than that ecore. The ecore got ran longer than I normally run for oil changes plus it was not technically the correct size. The dealer installed the filter that was speced for the older models. It defiantly wasn't run outside of gms recommended oci but just barley held up to the job. To close for comfort. If it had turned out like several of the ecore that have been posted here lately I wouldn't have a problem running them.
Originally Posted By: jhellwig
Originally Posted By: Motorking
Originally Posted By: GM4LIFE
I will definitely never run an e-core AC Delco filter on any of my cars.
Could these new e-core filters be the cause of GM's newfound engine issues, especially with the LT4s?
A. GM has been using ecore filters for years (at least three and maybe more)
B. 35k or not, your engine is dirty from the looks of that filter, it is obviously saturated
C. the C+D engine failure was initially blamed on the filter and was later found to be a metal shaving of unknown origin buried into a bearing.
Just sayin....
Haha zombie thread.
The engine that that filter was on was a direct injection with overhead cams driven by chains. They are hard on oil. The engine is not dirty though. The wix filters that I had run during the same time looked way better than that ecore. The ecore got ran longer than I normally run for oil changes plus it was not technically the correct size. The dealer installed the filter that was speced for the older models. It defiantly wasn't run outside of gms recommended oci but just barley held up to the job. To close for comfort. If it had turned out like several of the ecore that have been posted here lately I wouldn't have a problem running them.
The vehicle calls for a PF63 or PF63E which is a larger filter than PF48E.
I don't see this as a filter failure when the incorrect filter was used.
The shop doing this should not have used the smaller filter. Unless they also stated a short OCI be used.
From the photo, it looks like several pleats were in bypass. This means unfiltered oil was circulating through the engine. If this were my Traverse, I would do several short OCI until the oil cleans up. Then resume normal OCI/FCI with correct parts.
Originally Posted By: Motorking
Originally Posted By: GM4LIFE
I will definitely never run an e-core AC Delco filter on any of my cars.
Could these new e-core filters be the cause of GM's newfound engine issues, especially with the LT4s?
A. GM has been using ecore filters for years (at least three and maybe more)
B. 35k or not, your engine is dirty from the looks of that filter, it is obviously saturated
C. the C+D engine failure was initially blamed on the filter and was later found to be a metal shaving of unknown origin buried into a bearing.
Just sayin....
Haha zombie thread.
The engine that that filter was on was a direct injection with overhead cams driven by chains. They are hard on oil. The engine is not dirty though. The wix filters that I had run during the same time looked way better than that ecore. The ecore got ran longer than I normally run for oil changes plus it was not technically the correct size. The dealer installed the filter that was speced for the older models. It defiantly wasn't run outside of gms recommended oci but just barley held up to the job. To close for comfort. If it had turned out like several of the ecore that have been posted here lately I wouldn't have a problem running them.
The vehicle calls for a PF63 or PF63E which is a larger filter than PF48E.
I don't see this as a filter failure when the incorrect filter was used.
The shop doing this should not have used the smaller filter. Unless they also stated a short OCI be used.
From the photo, it looks like several pleats were in bypass. This means unfiltered oil was circulating through the engine. If this were my Traverse, I would do several short OCI until the oil cleans up. Then resume normal OCI/FCI with correct parts.
Last edited:
I like the design and specs of the ecore and would use one, especially since they improved them. I think the Fram style bypass valve offers good flow, and the combo valve pretty ingenious. The cage also offers cleaner interface from metal contamination and a lot of flow. I change filters every time, so don't see packed with dirt filters ever. But I have too many other filters in the line to use. Which is another reason to use them every time, to get rid of them before they are antiques.
Originally Posted By: GM4LIFE
While the PF48E will most likely do an adequate job of filtering in a shorter 3K-5K OCI, I would feel better running the non-ecore filters (PF48, PF63) for a little longer if I had to. I don't know if I would run any filter for longer than 5K whether it be the Amsoil or Fram Ultra filter in my car as hard as I drive it and as hot as the engine runs.
Mobil 1 5W30 and a synthetic media (Amsoil) filter every 5K miles at the most for me. I know it's a waste of time and money, but I would prefer to have fresh clean oil and a new high end filter as much as possible. It can never hurt.
GM must think they (PF48E) are better than a 5,000 mile drain interval. The truth of the matter is most OLM's with average driving will take the oil out longer than that.
While the PF48E will most likely do an adequate job of filtering in a shorter 3K-5K OCI, I would feel better running the non-ecore filters (PF48, PF63) for a little longer if I had to. I don't know if I would run any filter for longer than 5K whether it be the Amsoil or Fram Ultra filter in my car as hard as I drive it and as hot as the engine runs.
Mobil 1 5W30 and a synthetic media (Amsoil) filter every 5K miles at the most for me. I know it's a waste of time and money, but I would prefer to have fresh clean oil and a new high end filter as much as possible. It can never hurt.
GM must think they (PF48E) are better than a 5,000 mile drain interval. The truth of the matter is most OLM's with average driving will take the oil out longer than that.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Originally Posted By: Garak
That's a good point. Didn't Car & Driver have two failures or something like that?
At least two Corvette engine failures that 'GM' attributed to oil filter failure.
Didn't see any specifics though on which filter construction was used.
They found metal pieces from the inside of the filter lodged in a bearing. A burr from those punched metal center tubes?. Maybe that's why some are moving to the pressed out slits. Ecores don't have metal in them so it was a conventional filter.
Originally Posted By: Garak
That's a good point. Didn't Car & Driver have two failures or something like that?
At least two Corvette engine failures that 'GM' attributed to oil filter failure.
Didn't see any specifics though on which filter construction was used.
They found metal pieces from the inside of the filter lodged in a bearing. A burr from those punched metal center tubes?. Maybe that's why some are moving to the pressed out slits. Ecores don't have metal in them so it was a conventional filter.
Originally Posted By: sprite1741
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Originally Posted By: Garak
That's a good point. Didn't Car & Driver have two failures or something like that?
At least two Corvette engine failures that 'GM' attributed to oil filter failure.
Didn't see any specifics though on which filter construction was used.
They found metal pieces from the inside of the filter lodged in a bearing. A burr from those punched metal center tubes?. Maybe that's why some are moving to the pressed out slits. Ecores don't have metal in them so it was a conventional filter.
Good information but before I respond directly to it want to put context to this thread. An over 9 month old thread was dredged up yesterday 'seemingly' in my observation to;
a)give the historical use of ecores in GM models
b)belittle and/or criticize a member's vehicle maintenance after using and posting pics (over 9 months ago) of a GM ACD ecore with a less than stellar result.
c)claim that the C&D corvette engine failures discussed in this thread over nine months ago were not the result of the filter as 'GM' stated or implied.
Taking each one at a time.
A) Ecores have been used for quite some time in/for GM ACDelco filters. Observing posts and information here and elsewhere on the net, they were used well before the Champ made ACDelco ecore, came under the banner of the Rank/Fram Filtration banner. That said, earlier GM models have block bypass and thus the ACDelco ecore for GM models spec'd no combo valve, so it was strictly using a nitrile adbv. Not like other non GM which use/spec a combo valve with the ecore. However it should be noted, many GM users still preferred/used the ACD Classic metal construction. And the new for GM ecores with filter integral bypass use the poppet style bypass not an ecore combo valve.
B) Even though said poster followed and stayed within the GM OLM using the ecore the implication imo is that somehow he had not followed his GM maintenance schdelue, and thus a 'dirty engine' and ecore result. Not so. As for the after the fact notation of incorrect filter application. If one 'thoroughly reads' the thread, the year and half old entries show that the PF48 and PF63 were used rightly or wrongly back then somewhat interchangeably. And as example reading closely, it was the dealer that installed said PF48 not the member/poster. All things considered, thought it very unfortunate to put it mildly, that said member's vehicle maintenance was called into question even following correct procedure. That said, not surprised at response because of the pics posted of PF48 results. Thought member (jh) did good and classy job of explaining it yesterday though.
C)Lastly and to respond to post in reply to my post from over 9 months ago. Didn't think GM would use an ecore as the factory filter on the Corvette or others. Having seen one or two FF posted here since they weren't ecores either. But little was known back at the time of this thread about details of filter construction used on C&D Corvette engine failures. However, 'if' what you say is true' it would still be an ACDelco/Fram Filtration filter that 'GM says' caused the issue. And, that information would dispute the information posted with the thread resurrection.
As an aside, did like the 'zombie thread' reference used yesterday to describe the thread resurrection. Never heard that one before. Good one.
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Originally Posted By: Garak
That's a good point. Didn't Car & Driver have two failures or something like that?
At least two Corvette engine failures that 'GM' attributed to oil filter failure.
Didn't see any specifics though on which filter construction was used.
They found metal pieces from the inside of the filter lodged in a bearing. A burr from those punched metal center tubes?. Maybe that's why some are moving to the pressed out slits. Ecores don't have metal in them so it was a conventional filter.
Good information but before I respond directly to it want to put context to this thread. An over 9 month old thread was dredged up yesterday 'seemingly' in my observation to;
a)give the historical use of ecores in GM models
b)belittle and/or criticize a member's vehicle maintenance after using and posting pics (over 9 months ago) of a GM ACD ecore with a less than stellar result.
c)claim that the C&D corvette engine failures discussed in this thread over nine months ago were not the result of the filter as 'GM' stated or implied.
Taking each one at a time.
A) Ecores have been used for quite some time in/for GM ACDelco filters. Observing posts and information here and elsewhere on the net, they were used well before the Champ made ACDelco ecore, came under the banner of the Rank/Fram Filtration banner. That said, earlier GM models have block bypass and thus the ACDelco ecore for GM models spec'd no combo valve, so it was strictly using a nitrile adbv. Not like other non GM which use/spec a combo valve with the ecore. However it should be noted, many GM users still preferred/used the ACD Classic metal construction. And the new for GM ecores with filter integral bypass use the poppet style bypass not an ecore combo valve.
B) Even though said poster followed and stayed within the GM OLM using the ecore the implication imo is that somehow he had not followed his GM maintenance schdelue, and thus a 'dirty engine' and ecore result. Not so. As for the after the fact notation of incorrect filter application. If one 'thoroughly reads' the thread, the year and half old entries show that the PF48 and PF63 were used rightly or wrongly back then somewhat interchangeably. And as example reading closely, it was the dealer that installed said PF48 not the member/poster. All things considered, thought it very unfortunate to put it mildly, that said member's vehicle maintenance was called into question even following correct procedure. That said, not surprised at response because of the pics posted of PF48 results. Thought member (jh) did good and classy job of explaining it yesterday though.
C)Lastly and to respond to post in reply to my post from over 9 months ago. Didn't think GM would use an ecore as the factory filter on the Corvette or others. Having seen one or two FF posted here since they weren't ecores either. But little was known back at the time of this thread about details of filter construction used on C&D Corvette engine failures. However, 'if' what you say is true' it would still be an ACDelco/Fram Filtration filter that 'GM says' caused the issue. And, that information would dispute the information posted with the thread resurrection.
As an aside, did like the 'zombie thread' reference used yesterday to describe the thread resurrection. Never heard that one before. Good one.
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
Originally Posted By: jhellwig
Originally Posted By: Motorking
Originally Posted By: GM4LIFE
I will definitely never run an e-core AC Delco filter on any of my cars.
Could these new e-core filters be the cause of GM's newfound engine issues, especially with the LT4s?
A. GM has been using ecore filters for years (at least three and maybe more)
B. 35k or not, your engine is dirty from the looks of that filter, it is obviously saturated
C. the C+D engine failure was initially blamed on the filter and was later found to be a metal shaving of unknown origin buried into a bearing.
Just sayin....
Haha zombie thread.
The engine that that filter was on was a direct injection with overhead cams driven by chains. They are hard on oil. The engine is not dirty though. The wix filters that I had run during the same time looked way better than that ecore. The ecore got ran longer than I normally run for oil changes plus it was not technically the correct size. The dealer installed the filter that was speced for the older models. It defiantly wasn't run outside of gms recommended oci but just barley held up to the job. To close for comfort. If it had turned out like several of the ecore that have been posted here lately I wouldn't have a problem running them.
The vehicle calls for a PF63 or PF63E which is a larger filter than PF48E.
I don't see this as a filter failure when the incorrect filter was used.
The shop doing this should not have used the smaller filter. Unless they also stated a short OCI be used.
From the photo, it looks like several pleats were in bypass. This means unfiltered oil was circulating through the engine. If this were my Traverse, I would do several short OCI until the oil cleans up. Then resume normal OCI/FCI with correct parts.
The same motor used to use the pf48. None of the pleats were in bypass or torn. I have use plenty of Napa pf48 equivalent filters on this same vehicle and none of them looked like this so yes this is a filter almost failure.
Originally Posted By: jhellwig
Originally Posted By: Motorking
Originally Posted By: GM4LIFE
I will definitely never run an e-core AC Delco filter on any of my cars.
Could these new e-core filters be the cause of GM's newfound engine issues, especially with the LT4s?
A. GM has been using ecore filters for years (at least three and maybe more)
B. 35k or not, your engine is dirty from the looks of that filter, it is obviously saturated
C. the C+D engine failure was initially blamed on the filter and was later found to be a metal shaving of unknown origin buried into a bearing.
Just sayin....
Haha zombie thread.
The engine that that filter was on was a direct injection with overhead cams driven by chains. They are hard on oil. The engine is not dirty though. The wix filters that I had run during the same time looked way better than that ecore. The ecore got ran longer than I normally run for oil changes plus it was not technically the correct size. The dealer installed the filter that was speced for the older models. It defiantly wasn't run outside of gms recommended oci but just barley held up to the job. To close for comfort. If it had turned out like several of the ecore that have been posted here lately I wouldn't have a problem running them.
The vehicle calls for a PF63 or PF63E which is a larger filter than PF48E.
I don't see this as a filter failure when the incorrect filter was used.
The shop doing this should not have used the smaller filter. Unless they also stated a short OCI be used.
From the photo, it looks like several pleats were in bypass. This means unfiltered oil was circulating through the engine. If this were my Traverse, I would do several short OCI until the oil cleans up. Then resume normal OCI/FCI with correct parts.
The same motor used to use the pf48. None of the pleats were in bypass or torn. I have use plenty of Napa pf48 equivalent filters on this same vehicle and none of them looked like this so yes this is a filter almost failure.
Originally Posted By: jhellwig
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
Originally Posted By: jhellwig
Originally Posted By: Motorking
A. GM has been using ecore filters for years (at least three and maybe more)
B. 35k or not, your engine is dirty from the looks of that filter, it is obviously saturated
C. the C+D engine failure was initially blamed on the filter and was later found to be a metal shaving of unknown origin buried into a bearing.
Just sayin....
Haha zombie thread.
The engine that that filter was on was a direct injection with overhead cams driven by chains. They are hard on oil. The engine is not dirty though. The wix filters that I had run during the same time looked way better than that ecore. The ecore got ran longer than I normally run for oil changes plus it was not technically the correct size. The dealer installed the filter that was speced for the older models. It defiantly wasn't run outside of gms recommended oci but just barley held up to the job. To close for comfort. If it had turned out like several of the ecore that have been posted here lately I wouldn't have a problem running them.
The vehicle calls for a PF63 or PF63E which is a larger filter than PF48E.
I don't see this as a filter failure when the incorrect filter was used.
The shop doing this should not have used the smaller filter. Unless they also stated a short OCI be used.
From the photo, it looks like several pleats were in bypass. This means unfiltered oil was circulating through the engine. If this were my Traverse, I would do several short OCI until the oil cleans up. Then resume normal OCI/FCI with correct parts.
The same motor used to use the pf48. None of the pleats were in bypass or torn. I have use plenty of Napa pf48 equivalent filters on this same vehicle and none of them looked like this so yes this is a filter almost failure.
Since you previously had good results with PF48 then I suspect something has changed. Exactly what has changed appears unknown. 1) a bad/poor filter 2) an engine that is now producing more soot than before 3) some other unidentified cause.
The current 2013 Traverse owners manual calls for the larger PF63 / PF63E filter.
I am not questioning your maintenance plan.
Thanks for your post.
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
Originally Posted By: jhellwig
Originally Posted By: Motorking
A. GM has been using ecore filters for years (at least three and maybe more)
B. 35k or not, your engine is dirty from the looks of that filter, it is obviously saturated
C. the C+D engine failure was initially blamed on the filter and was later found to be a metal shaving of unknown origin buried into a bearing.
Just sayin....
Haha zombie thread.
The engine that that filter was on was a direct injection with overhead cams driven by chains. They are hard on oil. The engine is not dirty though. The wix filters that I had run during the same time looked way better than that ecore. The ecore got ran longer than I normally run for oil changes plus it was not technically the correct size. The dealer installed the filter that was speced for the older models. It defiantly wasn't run outside of gms recommended oci but just barley held up to the job. To close for comfort. If it had turned out like several of the ecore that have been posted here lately I wouldn't have a problem running them.
The vehicle calls for a PF63 or PF63E which is a larger filter than PF48E.
I don't see this as a filter failure when the incorrect filter was used.
The shop doing this should not have used the smaller filter. Unless they also stated a short OCI be used.
From the photo, it looks like several pleats were in bypass. This means unfiltered oil was circulating through the engine. If this were my Traverse, I would do several short OCI until the oil cleans up. Then resume normal OCI/FCI with correct parts.
The same motor used to use the pf48. None of the pleats were in bypass or torn. I have use plenty of Napa pf48 equivalent filters on this same vehicle and none of them looked like this so yes this is a filter almost failure.
Since you previously had good results with PF48 then I suspect something has changed. Exactly what has changed appears unknown. 1) a bad/poor filter 2) an engine that is now producing more soot than before 3) some other unidentified cause.
The current 2013 Traverse owners manual calls for the larger PF63 / PF63E filter.
I am not questioning your maintenance plan.
Thanks for your post.
I used the same size Napa filter after that one. The car now has 70k on it and still no issues and all the filters I have cut since then have been fine. You can not tell how dirty a filter or an engine is simply by looking at pictures of it.
Originally Posted By: sayjac
c)claim that the C&D corvette engine failures discussed in this thread over nine months ago were not the result of the filter as 'GM' stated or implied.
Taking each one at a time.
C)Lastly and to respond to post in reply to my post from over 9 months ago. Didn't think GM would use an ecore as the factory filter on the Corvette or others. Having seen one or two FF posted here since they weren't ecores either. But little was known back at the time of this thread about details of filter construction used on C&D Corvette engine failures. However, 'if' what you say is true' it would still be an ACDelco/Fram Filtration filter that 'GM says' caused the issue. And, that information would dispute the information posted with the thread resurrection.
Reference: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014...rm-test-wrap-up
"It took the dealer two weeks to replace the engine under warranty, and GM engineers
provided a full tear-down and analysis of the mishap. A connecting-rod bearing had
failed, sending debris through the LT1’s belly and chewing up more internals. In related
news, GM acknowledged that the engine manufacturing plant had experienced some
difficulty ridding the inside of the block of machining burrs. As luck would have it, its
oil-filter manufacturer had a similar problem; some filters had a thread shard that
could come loose and contaminate the lubrication system."
c)claim that the C&D corvette engine failures discussed in this thread over nine months ago were not the result of the filter as 'GM' stated or implied.
Taking each one at a time.
C)Lastly and to respond to post in reply to my post from over 9 months ago. Didn't think GM would use an ecore as the factory filter on the Corvette or others. Having seen one or two FF posted here since they weren't ecores either. But little was known back at the time of this thread about details of filter construction used on C&D Corvette engine failures. However, 'if' what you say is true' it would still be an ACDelco/Fram Filtration filter that 'GM says' caused the issue. And, that information would dispute the information posted with the thread resurrection.
Reference: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014...rm-test-wrap-up
"It took the dealer two weeks to replace the engine under warranty, and GM engineers
provided a full tear-down and analysis of the mishap. A connecting-rod bearing had
failed, sending debris through the LT1’s belly and chewing up more internals. In related
news, GM acknowledged that the engine manufacturing plant had experienced some
difficulty ridding the inside of the block of machining burrs. As luck would have it, its
oil-filter manufacturer had a similar problem; some filters had a thread shard that
could come loose and contaminate the lubrication system."
To give the necessary/needed context for the quote above, the poster I directly responded to with part c.) of the post, posted...
Quote:
They found metal pieces from the inside of the filter lodged in a bearing. A burr from those punched metal center tubes?.....
So it would seem a filter thread shard rather than center tube burr "that could come loose" according the diplomatic sounding imo C&D quoted filter information.
Later in the article (page4) of the article it says, "GM pinned tentative blame on a piece of metal debris (likely from a bad oil filter)"... It would appear GM backed off some from that and likely where the filter blame conclusion was reached early on. But not one that I ever stated as fact in this thread or elsewhere. And really, had I not been quoted with response wouldn't have responded at all in this old resurrected thread.
Quote:
They found metal pieces from the inside of the filter lodged in a bearing. A burr from those punched metal center tubes?.....
So it would seem a filter thread shard rather than center tube burr "that could come loose" according the diplomatic sounding imo C&D quoted filter information.
Later in the article (page4) of the article it says, "GM pinned tentative blame on a piece of metal debris (likely from a bad oil filter)"... It would appear GM backed off some from that and likely where the filter blame conclusion was reached early on. But not one that I ever stated as fact in this thread or elsewhere. And really, had I not been quoted with response wouldn't have responded at all in this old resurrected thread.
^^^ Hard to say exactly where the destructive "metal shard" really came from ... but it would have to be from someplace between the clean side of the oil filter and the bearing that it lodged in.
If it was actually a "thread shard" as mentioned in the C&D article, it still could have happened with an AC Delco eCore filter, it that was what was used on the C7.
If it was actually a "thread shard" as mentioned in the C&D article, it still could have happened with an AC Delco eCore filter, it that was what was used on the C7.
The ecore is a solid design, it just has to be used with good sense. The felt endcaps are part of the filtering media, increasing efficiency. No flow issues with the open center cage. There are millions in use in the form of Champ, Valvoline, Delco, older ST's, the darn things are everywhere. There's always going to be someone crab at something... ecore haters, tearolater haters, the "my ultra is better than your K&N..." use what you want, any filter will fail if left long enough.
Last edited:
ZeeOSix - Since I started dissecting filters, I have had one MC FL820S failure and no eCore failures. I am not impressed with the wide pleat spacing found on the FL820S nor am I impressed with rust on the dome end cap on the outlet side of the filter.
Even though I have not experienced an eCore failure, I am not impressed with the combo valve nor am I impressed with the quality of the glue job between the media and the endcaps.
I have yet to run a WIX 51372, but the virgin cut and post was excellent. It is on the short list for my goto filter.
I can say all that without any vitriol against anyone else.
Even though I have not experienced an eCore failure, I am not impressed with the combo valve nor am I impressed with the quality of the glue job between the media and the endcaps.
I have yet to run a WIX 51372, but the virgin cut and post was excellent. It is on the short list for my goto filter.
I can say all that without any vitriol against anyone else.
Originally Posted By: beanoil
The ecore is a solid design, it just has to be used with good sense. The felt endcaps are part of the filtering media, increasing efficiency.
Please explain. Motorking has stated efficiencies at 20 microns to be 92% for the standard ecore, 94% for Fram Extraguard, 99% for Fram Toughguard, and 99+% for Fram Ultra. The ecore with felt endcaps has the lowest efficiency of these product lines.
Can you detail what "good sense" is needed for the ecore combo valve to function properly? I've never had one maintain ADBV function on 3K miles to 5K miles runs.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4044523/1
The ecore is a solid design, it just has to be used with good sense. The felt endcaps are part of the filtering media, increasing efficiency.
Please explain. Motorking has stated efficiencies at 20 microns to be 92% for the standard ecore, 94% for Fram Extraguard, 99% for Fram Toughguard, and 99+% for Fram Ultra. The ecore with felt endcaps has the lowest efficiency of these product lines.
Can you detail what "good sense" is needed for the ecore combo valve to function properly? I've never had one maintain ADBV function on 3K miles to 5K miles runs.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4044523/1
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
ZeeOSix - Since I started dissecting filters, I have had one MC FL820S failure and no eCore failures. I am not impressed with the wide pleat spacing found on the FL820S nor am I impressed with rust on the dome end cap on the outlet side of the filter.
Even though I have not experienced an eCore failure, I am not impressed with the combo valve nor am I impressed with the quality of the glue job between the media and the endcaps.
I have yet to run a WIX 51372, but the virgin cut and post was excellent. It is on the short list for my goto filter.
I can say all that without any vitriol against anyone else.
Yep ... this forum is for people to discuss what they see as the good and bad about oil filters - especially their first hand experiences. But some people seem to get bent out of shape because something is said about 'their' favorite filter. They can take it or leave it, and should be smart enough to judge if the comments made (good or bad) have any validity. It's easy to see the hardcore fanboys when they start defending filters that have obvious issues.
The bottom line is that this forum is to discuss what people see/experience and know about oil filters. I want the good and bad to come out so I can make good decisions on future purchases ... I think the majority think the same way. But some people seem to get upset if 'their' filter is criticized in any way. Just gotta laugh at those types once and awhile.
Again, the bottom line is people can use whatever they want, regardless of the thoughts of the majority of the people. It's called 'freedom of choice'.
ZeeOSix - Since I started dissecting filters, I have had one MC FL820S failure and no eCore failures. I am not impressed with the wide pleat spacing found on the FL820S nor am I impressed with rust on the dome end cap on the outlet side of the filter.
Even though I have not experienced an eCore failure, I am not impressed with the combo valve nor am I impressed with the quality of the glue job between the media and the endcaps.
I have yet to run a WIX 51372, but the virgin cut and post was excellent. It is on the short list for my goto filter.
I can say all that without any vitriol against anyone else.
Yep ... this forum is for people to discuss what they see as the good and bad about oil filters - especially their first hand experiences. But some people seem to get bent out of shape because something is said about 'their' favorite filter. They can take it or leave it, and should be smart enough to judge if the comments made (good or bad) have any validity. It's easy to see the hardcore fanboys when they start defending filters that have obvious issues.
The bottom line is that this forum is to discuss what people see/experience and know about oil filters. I want the good and bad to come out so I can make good decisions on future purchases ... I think the majority think the same way. But some people seem to get upset if 'their' filter is criticized in any way. Just gotta laugh at those types once and awhile.
Again, the bottom line is people can use whatever they want, regardless of the thoughts of the majority of the people. It's called 'freedom of choice'.
Originally Posted By: jhellwig
....The same motor used to use the pf48. None of the pleats were in bypass or torn. I have use plenty of Napa pf48 equivalent filters on this same vehicle and none of them looked like this so yes this is a filter almost failure.
So when you say PF48, you are referring to the non ecore version? The classic metal construction ACDelco filter? You might find the linked thread below interesting.* It does seem some interchange of PF48 and PF63 occurred. And as your post proves, that was even with dealers.
And to follow up on 'possibly/likely' not using an ecore as the factory filter on the Corvette engines the linked thread shows a GM factory ACD PF48. If you read it closely the relationship of the PF48 and PF63 is interesting, and somewhat confusing. Took me a while to find the thread of car51 dissection, but wanted to back up what I had posted regarding the FF ACDelco. Realize different model but not huge leap to other similar applications.
*http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...EN)#Post3724380
Lastly for ecore, if one thoroughly reads my comments about them, main issue for me is the use of a combo valve. In GM models old and new, that not an issue because not used. Newer GM use poppet type bypass on ecore. That said, still ' my preference' is for metal endcap construction.
....The same motor used to use the pf48. None of the pleats were in bypass or torn. I have use plenty of Napa pf48 equivalent filters on this same vehicle and none of them looked like this so yes this is a filter almost failure.
So when you say PF48, you are referring to the non ecore version? The classic metal construction ACDelco filter? You might find the linked thread below interesting.* It does seem some interchange of PF48 and PF63 occurred. And as your post proves, that was even with dealers.
And to follow up on 'possibly/likely' not using an ecore as the factory filter on the Corvette engines the linked thread shows a GM factory ACD PF48. If you read it closely the relationship of the PF48 and PF63 is interesting, and somewhat confusing. Took me a while to find the thread of car51 dissection, but wanted to back up what I had posted regarding the FF ACDelco. Realize different model but not huge leap to other similar applications.
*http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...EN)#Post3724380
Lastly for ecore, if one thoroughly reads my comments about them, main issue for me is the use of a combo valve. In GM models old and new, that not an issue because not used. Newer GM use poppet type bypass on ecore. That said, still ' my preference' is for metal endcap construction.
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Originally Posted By: jhellwig
....The same motor used to use the pf48. None of the pleats were in bypass or torn. I have use plenty of Napa pf48 equivalent filters on this same vehicle and none of them looked like this so yes this is a filter almost failure.
So when you say PF48, you are referring to the non ecore version? The classic metal construction ACDelco filter? You might find the linked thread below interesting.* It does seem some interchange of PF48 and PF63 occurred. And as your post proves, that was even with dealers.
And to follow up on 'possibly/likely' not using an ecore as the factory filter on the Corvette engines the linked thread shows a GM factory ACD PF48. If you read it closely the relationship of the PF48 and PF63 is interesting, and somewhat confusing. Took me a while to find the thread of car51 dissection, but wanted to back up what I had posted regarding the FF ACDelco. Realize different model but not huge leap to other similar applications.
*http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...EN)#Post3724380
Lastly for ecore, if one thoroughly reads my comments about them, main issue for me is the use of a combo valve. In GM models old and new, that not an issue because not used. Newer GM use poppet type bypass on ecore. That said, still ' my preference' is for metal endcap construction.
WRT the combo valve, I believe Nyogtha has it right and a reasonable method to prove it. See his reply to my post.
How to determine loss of ADBV function
Originally Posted By: jhellwig
....The same motor used to use the pf48. None of the pleats were in bypass or torn. I have use plenty of Napa pf48 equivalent filters on this same vehicle and none of them looked like this so yes this is a filter almost failure.
So when you say PF48, you are referring to the non ecore version? The classic metal construction ACDelco filter? You might find the linked thread below interesting.* It does seem some interchange of PF48 and PF63 occurred. And as your post proves, that was even with dealers.
And to follow up on 'possibly/likely' not using an ecore as the factory filter on the Corvette engines the linked thread shows a GM factory ACD PF48. If you read it closely the relationship of the PF48 and PF63 is interesting, and somewhat confusing. Took me a while to find the thread of car51 dissection, but wanted to back up what I had posted regarding the FF ACDelco. Realize different model but not huge leap to other similar applications.
*http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...EN)#Post3724380
Lastly for ecore, if one thoroughly reads my comments about them, main issue for me is the use of a combo valve. In GM models old and new, that not an issue because not used. Newer GM use poppet type bypass on ecore. That said, still ' my preference' is for metal endcap construction.
WRT the combo valve, I believe Nyogtha has it right and a reasonable method to prove it. See his reply to my post.
How to determine loss of ADBV function
- Status
