Looking for a new favorite filter for my 5.3L 19 Silverado since Walmart keeps dropping the ball on their brand filters. I’ve always preferred the Champion Labs made plastic E core filters (pf63, mp10575, etc) versus the other brands that have the metal core filters like Fram or Wix. Visually it appears the plastic core allows for better/faster oil flow over the metal core or am I wrong or overthinking this? Right now I’m deciding between the Fram synthetic endurance (has the metal core) verses the Champ P10063 (plastic core) that’s $2 a filter on rock auto. I also don’t do extended oil runs. I always change my oil at around the 5k mark give or take.
Oil flow rate. Plastic E core v. metal core filters.
- Thread starter z71offroader83
- Start date
BrendanC
$100 site donor 2024
you are over thinking it. metal core with holes or a set of open louvers will flow much plenty. your PD oil pump could care less.
If Ecore is good enough for AC Delco & GM, it’s good enough for me! I have a ($1 Meijer clearance) PF48E on deck for our company ‘19 Express 2500 6.0, hot idle Drive oil pressure is a little low at 20 PSI-want to see if an Ecore will make a difference on the 197K mile beast, bc the company isn’t springing for a pickup, oring, & oil pump…
BrendanC
$100 site donor 2024
psssst, it wont.
Agree with you wholeheartedly
Only time any meaningful difference in dP across the filter due to the center tube design will be if the center tube has louvers and they are really choked down to small slits. The difference between any center tube won't matter one bit or change the flow through the filter - except for in the case of really choked down louvers. This is another case of trying to determine dP from flow by simply looking at something. It should be calculated so the real difference can be seen.
This is a graph of calculations I did on a Fram PH filter, which if you look at the holes in that filter you'd think it would be "flow restrictive" because the holes seem pretty small, but there are quite a few holes. Calculation using a good flow model shows that it's far from "flow restrictive". The media in an oil filter is by far the most flow restrictive component of an oil filter. Same thing goes for the inlet holes on a filter base plate. My calculations showed that the dP across the base plate was a bit more than across the center tube. But both the center tube and base plate are much lower than the media dP would be. Engineers who design oil filters make sure the dP across the center tube and base plate are acceptably low.
This is a graph of calculations I did on a Fram PH filter, which if you look at the holes in that filter you'd think it would be "flow restrictive" because the holes seem pretty small, but there are quite a few holes. Calculation using a good flow model shows that it's far from "flow restrictive". The media in an oil filter is by far the most flow restrictive component of an oil filter. Same thing goes for the inlet holes on a filter base plate. My calculations showed that the dP across the base plate was a bit more than across the center tube. But both the center tube and base plate are much lower than the media dP would be. Engineers who design oil filters make sure the dP across the center tube and base plate are acceptably low.
Last edited:
No doubt it would be less restrictive. The metal louvers will flow well enough though as long as the louvers are opened up well.
I've used filters with holes, louvers and nylon cage, (mostly louvers now), and never a concern about oil flow with any. I go by, a filter cannot flow more than the ID area of the engine block filter mounting stud. Confident that total area of tube opening with holes or louvers at least equal to but more likely always greater than ID area mounting stud. Same observation goes for inlet holes. So in this case, while the cage openings appear big by comparison, ecore filters won't flow more than the others. That said, if one just likes the 'looks' of ecore cage openings more, go for it.
Last edited:
I had two purolator filters with plastic center cores where the media tore and got pushed through the big holes. Since then I prefer a metal center core with smaller holes.
Never seen a Puro US made ecore filter, only Champ Labs. Early on Champ Labs ecores had insufficient media with wider pleats combined with bigger openings and some did tear through openings. Newer/current versions have remedied those issues, cage openings smaller now.
As some other folks have mentioned in this thread, the caveat with louvers is that they are actually opened properly. I haven't been an exclusive user of any particular filter brand over the years, but I have liked and used Wix and Napa filters made by Wix over the years.
The changes that have happened to Wix-branded filters over the past few year have been discussed quite a bit on this forum. The most recent group of 4 Wix 57145 filters I bought from Rock Auto (labeled Made in Mexico with the louver style center tube) appear so restricted that I can't feel comfortable using them. I tried to put a mirror in these filters and check to see if the back side of the louvers was visibly open. Admittedly it was difficult to tell, but the back sides did not look opened well either.
Maybe this experience has me oversensitive to louvers, but I'll be checking every filter with louvers carefully before I'd trust it. At least with an E-core, there is no concern about the flow through the center tube.
Here is a sample photo from one of those recent Wix filters...
Yes, you're not worng and yes to your both other questions.
Anyway, I love plastic cores. They don't rust (I tend to stock
oil filters), they provide marginally lower flow resistance and
they burn after use (disposal).
.
Of course, properly formed louvers is part of it. Not mentioned in my first reply so as not to be redundant. That said, I've used many US made Purolator and Purolator made (Bosch Premium) filters with louvers posted c&ps of them all and most with media cut off for true inspection view. Personally, never had an issue. I'd add that filter anecdotes with Mexico coo, seem to be showing more issues with louver formation. And as normal, where possible pre-purchase inspection any filter preferable.
Back to initial premise though, whether holes, louvers (properly formed) or nylon cage, all provide more than adequate flow.
Well-the PG2222EX that's on it now has a listed bypass of 22-25 PSI, which is really higher than a 6.0 LQ4 is supposed to have. If it was mine, I would put 5W40 (or maybe even 15W40) in it & call it a day. But it's not mine, not yet.
It's not about "which one flows more oil" ... it's really about which one has the lower dP at the same flow rate and oil viscosity. The positive displacement oil pump will ensure there is enough flow, because even if the pump is into relief a bit at higher RPM there is still lots of oil flow being forced through the oiling system. And if the pump isn't in relief at all, then the same flow rate will be going through all filters regardless of the dP across the filter. Of all the test data showing the dP vs flow between a bunch of filters, the difference in dP with hot oil at a pretty high flow rate is only around 3-4 PSI difference between them. No PD oil pump is going to care about that small flow dP difference.
Those look pretty closed up ... I would not run that filter. Closer view of same photo.Here is a sample photo from one of those recent Wix filters...
BrendanC
$100 site donor 2024
The gen VI 6.0 motors just have low idle oil pressure. i use 10575 sized filters on these motors all the time. as soon as you get in the gas it should be near 40PSI.
Thanks for the replies. For the price and my OCI intervals I just ordered 6 of the champion labs filters. I still have a used Walmart filter (MP10575) in my oil pan in the garage and soon will have a used AC Delco PF63 as well. After the champ filter is used and replaced I would like to open them all up and compare.
