I have a 2000 Century it looks like I can fit an oversize filter. Has anyone done this with a Purolator or M1 filter? If so please let me know a part #. TIA
Oversize oil filter suggestion for 3.1L Century?
- Thread starter demarpaint
- Start date
- Status
PF52 in AC Delco,cross it more from there.
I looked it up on RockAuto just to be sure, and that engine uses the ACDelco PF47 by default. That's the same filter as on older versions of the 60V6 engine, and several other unrelated GM engines also.
The larger replacement for that filter is a PF52. I'm not sure why RockAuto doesn't list it, maybe they just don't carry it, or maybe they think there's a clearance problem.
Other brand PF52 replacement filters are
Mobil-1 M1-201
NAPA Gold 1036
Wix 51036
These are ones I've used and am sure of.
there's a very long list here - but scroll down to where it says PF52 first:
http://www.w-body.com/showthread.php/477...ll=1#post943892
The larger replacement for that filter is a PF52. I'm not sure why RockAuto doesn't list it, maybe they just don't carry it, or maybe they think there's a clearance problem.
Other brand PF52 replacement filters are
Mobil-1 M1-201
NAPA Gold 1036
Wix 51036
These are ones I've used and am sure of.
there's a very long list here - but scroll down to where it says PF52 first:
http://www.w-body.com/showthread.php/477...ll=1#post943892
Thanks! Are the specs the same, only the size is different?
If the stock filter is a PH3387A, a PH3980 will work fine.
My mother has a 3.1L Pontiac of the same era and thats the filter I threw on it. It was annoying to fit on, there was a wire for the starter motor that I had to finaggle out of the way, aswell as the filter placement over a crossmember made it a tricky angle to work from, but it installed totally fine.
And yes, besides size, these two at least are identical.
My mother has a 3.1L Pontiac of the same era and thats the filter I threw on it. It was annoying to fit on, there was a wire for the starter motor that I had to finaggle out of the way, aswell as the filter placement over a crossmember made it a tricky angle to work from, but it installed totally fine.
And yes, besides size, these two at least are identical.
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Some of those engines have the filter adapter cocked 45 degrees and some don't. You won't know until you see. The PF52 is 3/4" to an inch longer and could plausibly hit the subframe.
I eyeballed it from up top and it looks like it will fit, I didn't look underneath though.
Some of those engines have the filter adapter cocked 45 degrees and some don't. You won't know until you see. The PF52 is 3/4" to an inch longer and could plausibly hit the subframe.
I eyeballed it from up top and it looks like it will fit, I didn't look underneath though.
Two things to remember when you an oversize filter is used:
1. By using a different filter than called for by the filter manufacturer, you release them from any liability if the filter fails. Why take the chance?
2. I have seen a handful of filters on gm v-6's get dented and start leaking when the car has high mileage and a longer filter is used. This is due to the motor mounts being worn and the engine moving more in the cradle compared to newer mounts.
Use the filter called for by the manufacturer. I have never understood this bigger is better when coming to filters. Are we smarter than the manufacturers engineers. Do you really think your car is going to last longer with a PF52 vs PF47.
Dave
1. By using a different filter than called for by the filter manufacturer, you release them from any liability if the filter fails. Why take the chance?
2. I have seen a handful of filters on gm v-6's get dented and start leaking when the car has high mileage and a longer filter is used. This is due to the motor mounts being worn and the engine moving more in the cradle compared to newer mounts.
Use the filter called for by the manufacturer. I have never understood this bigger is better when coming to filters. Are we smarter than the manufacturers engineers. Do you really think your car is going to last longer with a PF52 vs PF47.
Dave
Originally Posted By: bmod305
Two things to remember when you an oversize filter is used:
1. By using a different filter than called for by the filter manufacturer, you release them from any liability if the filter fails. Why take the chance?
2. I have seen a handful of filters on gm v-6's get dented and start leaking when the car has high mileage and a longer filter is used. This is due to the motor mounts being worn and the engine moving more in the cradle compared to newer mounts.
Use the filter called for by the manufacturer. I have never understood this bigger is better when coming to filters. Are we smarter than the manufacturers engineers. Do you really think your car is going to last longer with a PF52 vs PF47.
Dave
I was tossing around the idea of a larger filter so I could use 5 qts. of oil instead of 4.5. A larger filter would get me closer too 5 qts, and I wouldn't worry about being a few ounces over the full mark vs. 1/2 qt with the stock filter. I hate open bottles of oil laying around that'a all.
Two things to remember when you an oversize filter is used:
1. By using a different filter than called for by the filter manufacturer, you release them from any liability if the filter fails. Why take the chance?
2. I have seen a handful of filters on gm v-6's get dented and start leaking when the car has high mileage and a longer filter is used. This is due to the motor mounts being worn and the engine moving more in the cradle compared to newer mounts.
Use the filter called for by the manufacturer. I have never understood this bigger is better when coming to filters. Are we smarter than the manufacturers engineers. Do you really think your car is going to last longer with a PF52 vs PF47.
Dave
I was tossing around the idea of a larger filter so I could use 5 qts. of oil instead of 4.5. A larger filter would get me closer too 5 qts, and I wouldn't worry about being a few ounces over the full mark vs. 1/2 qt with the stock filter. I hate open bottles of oil laying around that'a all.
dnewton3
Staff member
That the only reason you want to upsize? You said "that's all", so I'll presume it is.
Do you ever have to top off, or is your OCI short enough that it's not an issue?
If you top off, then the 1/2 quart you upsized into the filter, just put you into having to open a new quart rather than use that leftover 1/2 from the OCI.
If not, it's moot.
Upsizing a filter for convenience is as good as any of the other reasons.
Do you ever have to top off, or is your OCI short enough that it's not an issue?
If you top off, then the 1/2 quart you upsized into the filter, just put you into having to open a new quart rather than use that leftover 1/2 from the OCI.
If not, it's moot.
Upsizing a filter for convenience is as good as any of the other reasons.
You nailed it, convenience that's all. Granted the filter probably wouldn't hold 1/2 a qt more,but it would be close enough that a slight overfill wouldn't be an issue. This car uses no oil, as per my father the prior owner. My other vehicles use no oil either. The 93 Aerostar I owned leaked oil, buts that's history now.
RP 20-51A=1036 longer NAPA gold. RP 10-47=1040 shorter NAPA Gold.
Bigger filter has more sq.in. filter media which equals less restriction as long as the filter media is the same in the short one and the longer one. Also everything being equal the beta ratio should be better.
NAPA 1036 holds about 6oz more than the NAPA 1040.
The amount of oil might not be worth it but more sq.in. filter media does.
oldhp
Bigger filter has more sq.in. filter media which equals less restriction as long as the filter media is the same in the short one and the longer one. Also everything being equal the beta ratio should be better.
NAPA 1036 holds about 6oz more than the NAPA 1040.
The amount of oil might not be worth it but more sq.in. filter media does.
oldhp
Every PF47 application I've seen has listed the PF52 as acceptable. RockAuto here being the exception, but I don't put much stock in that. If it looks like it will fit, then I'd use it.
For whatever it's worth, both are listed for the older 2.8L engines, which the later 3.1L is descended from. GM even retro-specced the PF52 for old 2.5L 4cyl engines when they decided that engine's oil capacity was too small.
The PF52 is easier to work with IMO, and if anything it should either do no harm or be a bit beneficial. That's assuming you don't discover a clearance problem anyway.
For whatever it's worth, both are listed for the older 2.8L engines, which the later 3.1L is descended from. GM even retro-specced the PF52 for old 2.5L 4cyl engines when they decided that engine's oil capacity was too small.
The PF52 is easier to work with IMO, and if anything it should either do no harm or be a bit beneficial. That's assuming you don't discover a clearance problem anyway.
- Status
