Interesting post about ACDelco PF47/PF52

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
8,576
Location
Ohio
I had posted on another automotive type forum several months ago about using the longer PF52 in place of the PF47 and hadn't logged into the site since then and just loged in and noticed my old thread had some very recent replies. This one was pretty interesting and Iwas hoping to get the guy to copme over here if he's not already.

Quote:
FWIW, I've considered doing this before, and working at a NAPA, I have access to all the specs of both the PF52 (WIX 51036, NAPA 1036), and the PF47 (WIX 51040, NAPA 1040). Here's my comparison, and the reason why I have stuck with the smaller filter:

PF47/51040/1040:
Thread Size - 18mm x 1.50
OD - 2.921"
Height - 3.404"
Gasket ID - 2.43"
Gasket OD - 2.734"
Micron Rating - 19

PF52/51036/1036:
Thread Size - 18mm x 1.50 (Check!)
OD - 2.921" (Check!)
Height - 4.828" (Bigger = More Capacity, which is what we want = Check!)
Gasket ID - 2.43" (Check!)
Gasket OD - 2.734" (Check!)
Micron Rating - 25 (DOH!)

The PF52 actually filters slightly less effectively as far as what it allows through the filter media. Granted, it's only 6 microns, but in tighter tolerance engines, I'm leary about trying it. If anyone has any experience or can quell my fears in some logical way, I'd love to hear it!


Not that it is that important but here's my reply,

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Sorry, I haven't been on the forum in awhile. I had actually tried experimenting with the PF52 and it would not hold the extra 1/2 qt, and when you shut the car off it would be slightly overfilled and it only held about a 1/4 extra qt tops. I also figured the PF47 would fill on cold start faster, so I went back to the PF47s.

Thanks, that is great info about the micron rating. You'd think the smaller PF47 would have the less finer micron rating than the PF52 because it has less media and would clog faster but apparently not. The thing to keep in mind is that most ACDelco are made by Champion Labs and are becoming "E-core" designs and some ACDelcos were made by WIX and whoever else, so it's important that you are comparing the same manufacture specs.

Anyway, I frequent a forum that has an oil filter subforum with guys fanatical about oil filters and they'd probably love to have someone with your information onboard. I'd like to copy and paste the info in your post and link you over to that forum if you don't mind.
 
Usually, medias being the same, the filter with more media surface area will filter a little better because the contaminated oil flows more slowly through it.

But, like you, I don't see much relevence in his post about Wix's nominal micron ratings when posting about AC/Delco filters. We can all get on Wix's website and see the relative nominal micron ratings (assuming those are even up to date).
That doesn't mean the Delcos are the same as the Wix/NAPA Gold ratings, even if you are using the old style non-Ecore Delcos.

The new Ecores, according to Champ, are 94% mutipass efficiency @ 20 microns across the board. But AC/Delco versions may be different.

The Delcos are probably just fine, but I prefer using a filter from a maker that is not secretive about the ratings. If it's not on the box or website, I usually email the tech dept for the info. (Or, in my case, run a filtration test so I have some idea what to expect.)

Maybe see if you can get that info directly from AC/Delco Tech?
 
I second that we can all get on the Wix site and get the same specs so that is nothing special. I have also read the a nominal micron rating is not really relevant.
 
Yeah he's just getting Wix specs. Most of the PF47 and PF52 aren't even Wix like I mentioned earlier, but Champion Labs, which I personally think are better anyway. The PF52 probably has the same efficiency and more area. Perhaps a PF47 gets more efficient after use and refills quicker, but is also more likely to bypass sooner. I'll probably just stick with the PF47 size but I think the PF52 is just as efficient and might give better flow for long OCI.

Quote:
The new Ecores, according to Champ, are 94% mutipass efficiency @ 20 microns across the board. But AC/Delco versions may be different.



I think I read on some Champion Labs site that the E-core was 97-98% efficient @ 20 microns.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Yeah he's just getting Wix specs. Most of the PF47 and PF52 aren't even Wix like I mentioned earlier, but Champion Labs, which I personally think are better anyway. The PF52 probably has the same efficiency and more area. Perhaps a PF47 gets more efficient after use and refills quicker, but is also more likely to bypass sooner. I'll probably just stick with the PF47 size but I think the PF52 is just as efficient and might give better flow for long OCI.

Quote:
The new Ecores, according to Champ, are 94% mutipass efficiency @ 20 microns across the board. But AC/Delco versions may be different.



I think I read on some Champion Labs site that the E-core was 97-98% efficient @ 20 microns.


Sounds like you have a plan you like.
 
I must've been looking at the first spec but even that's still a little lower than what I thought I remembered. CL claims the E-core has higher efficiency than the older style but makes you wonder what it was before. Makes me glad I switched to P1. Even the Purolator classic is quite a bit better.
 
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Makes me glad I switched to P1. Even the Purolator classic is quite a bit better.
Uh ohh, that's heresy. Lightening might strike. Just kidding here.
grin2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: river_rat
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
I think I read on some Champion Labs site that the E-core was 97-98% efficient @ 20 microns.


Ecore FAQs


I think they got the numbers reversed?

Quote:
Single Pass 10-20 μ 96%
Multi-Pass @ 20 μ 94%


Should the multi-pass % not be higher then the single pass %?
And the single pass catches smaller particles?
 
I have long given Wix (NAPA) kudos for having the most complete specs by part number available to the consumer. But as many have stated on this site the specs appear to be out of date for their glass enhanced media and in some cases the beta ratios and nominal rating don't seem to make sense. It would be nice to hear from Wix on this. for example on a 51516 it shows.

Beta Ratio: 2/20=14/31
Nominal Micron Rating: 21

In any event the Wix specs don't apply to AC Delco filters.
 
Originally Posted By: EagleFTE
I have long given Wix (NAPA) kudos for having the most complete specs by part number available to the consumer. But as many have stated on this site the specs appear to be out of date for their glass enhanced media and in some cases the beta ratios and nominal rating don't seem to make sense. It would be nice to hear from Wix on this. for example on a 51516 it shows.

Beta Ratio: 2/20=14/31
Nominal Micron Rating: 21

In any event the Wix specs don't apply to AC Delco filters.



For a while I purposely avoided Napa Gold filters for my car because the beta ratio wasn't very good, especially when compared to the competition for the price. I sent one to river_rat to test and the results came back excellent, almost on par with Purolator Classics and a PureONE. It leads me to believe that it's out of date and I wouldn't hesitate to use one now.
 
Originally Posted By: EagleFTE
I have long given Wix (NAPA) kudos for having the most complete specs by part number available to the consumer. But as many have stated on this site the specs appear to be out of date for their glass enhanced media and in some cases the beta ratios and nominal rating don't seem to make sense. It would be nice to hear from Wix on this.


Contact WIX and ask them about it.

http://www.wixfilters.com/contact/index.html
 
Originally Posted By: Hitzy
I think they got the numbers reversed?

Quote:
Single Pass 10-20 μ 96%
Multi-Pass @ 20 μ 94%


Should the multi-pass % not be higher then the single pass %?
And the single pass catches smaller particles?

No. In a multipass test, they keep adding "dirt" to the oil going round and round to loop until the filter reaches some point of pressure across it indicationg it's clogging up. Then they count all the particles that didn't get caught in the filter media. Multipass numbers are pretty much always lower % than single pass.

Also, they just didn't report the 10-20 micron range in the multipass test in this case and simplified it to 20 microns only. It doesn't mean the single pass test makes it catch smaller particles.

Originally Posted By: ThirdeYe
It leads me to believe that it's out of date and I wouldn't hesitate to use one now.

Me too.

Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Contact WIX and ask them about it.

I didn't have any luck with that. They just said they'd been using the "same premium media for some time."
But if you find out anything, I'd like to hear what they say.
 
Originally Posted By: river_rat

Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Contact WIX and ask them about it.

I didn't have any luck with that. They just said they'd been using the "same premium media for some time."
But if you find out anything, I'd like to hear what they say.


I might try to contact WIX since I do use their filters (NAPA Golds) now and then.

On a side note, I tried to find a way to contact Ford Motorcraft division to ask them about the efficiency rating on the Motorcraft filters. Actually called Ford and they couldn't tell me anything, so I emailed through the Ford website to see what happens. I'd like to know the real story on the Motorcraft filters too.
 
Originally Posted By: river_rat
Ya. I only looked at the one MC and it sure couldn't have been an 80% filter.


Based on your testing, what would you estimate it to be compared to filters you tested that have published ratings?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top