PF63, PF48, LF641, LF613, 57060 Cut Open

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
682
Location
Brentwood, MD
I recently acquired a bunch of different filter possibilities for my 2013 Silverado. I think of all of these I like the Hastings LF641 the most and plan on using it. If you look at my previous posts you will see what stand up folks the people at Baldwin filter (Hastings' stable mate in the Clarcor group)are. I like that the Hastings both have coil springs as opposed to cheap stamped flat "springs" in the ACDelcos. As my previous posts have indicated, the LF641 is more efficient than the LF613 per the table provided by Baldwin. Finally, the LF641 is slightly shorter than the PF63, this will aid in ensuring there is ample clearance between rocks, sticks, etc, and the oil filter on my Silverado. Though having the skid plates now installed has helped reduce that risk factor significantly.

Here is the lineup:

lineup_zpse7694dec.jpg

Here are the talls (PF 63 and Hastings equivalent LF641 closeup):

talls_zpsde2d9156.jpg

Here are the shorts (Hastings PF48 equivalent LF613, PF48, and Wix 57060):

shorts_zps30a5e467.jpg

Here are the innards of the Delcos. Notice how much higher the metal to opening ratio is in the PF63.

acdelcoinnards_zps2c184d3f.jpg

Here are the innards of the Hastings. By using louvers the Hastings filters are able to achieve a much greater "open space" for oil to pass through the inner metal tube.

hastingsinnards_zpsfb219187.jpg
 
Last edited:
That long filter ACDelco looks real good to me. Especially since you added skid plates and rocks and length are not an issue.
 
What is the efficiency of the LF641 Hastings filter?
 
From the Baldwin table provided to me, and the translation provided by you (in an earlier post).

BX=2 means 50% efficient at X microns.
BX=75 means 98.7% efficient at X microns.

LF641
B25=75 means 98.7% efficient at 25 microns in this case.

LF613
B40=75 means 98.7% efficient at 40 microns in this case.
 
98.7% @ 25 microns is pretty good. Plus the LF641 is larger which gives you more media. Win-win IMO.

It would be interesting if you measured the media area on both the LF613 and LF641 for comparison.

Media Area = (2 x # of pleats) x pleat depth x pleat length
 
According to this chart it seems as though the smaller filter has slightly more area (LF613 = 170.1, LF641 = 164.5) also, the capacity, in grams, of the larger filter is less than the smaller one (11.7g vs 11.9g) I'm wondering if it would be wise to use the smaller, less efficient one with a higher capacity when doing 7500 drain intervals (to prevent the filter from becoming clogged).

baldwincomparison_zps222b90d2.png
 
Last edited:
If an engine is shedding more than 3-4 grams debris in 7,500 miles it is dying. Even 1-2 gram of debris in 7,500 miles is too much.
 
Originally Posted By: CapitalTruck
According to this chart it seems as though the smaller filter has slightly more area (LF613 = 170.1, LF641 = 164.5) also, the capacity, in grams, of the larger filter is less than the smaller one (11.7g vs 11.9g).


If so, the smaller filter must have deeper pleats and/or more pleats. It would be worth checking the media area to see how they compare to each other and to the data chart.
 
As an informal measure of area comparison between the PF-48 (ACDelco) and the LF613 (Hastings)I removed the media from the cartridge and extended them next to each other. Clearly the Hastings (strip on left) has a nice leg up in this department. It is worth noting that the media strips have been pulled to their maximum length. The photo makes them look as though they are still pleated, but they are in fact laying flat. At this point the decision, to me, comes down to the two Hastings filters.

filtercomparo_zpsef8bd2e8.jpg
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top