PF-44 oil filter

[westex39]

Just bought a 2003 Chevrolet Suburban with the 5.3L engine. In looking through the owners manual I noticed that the oil filter requirement has changed from the PF59 to the PF44 which is a shorter filter. To my knowledge the 5.3L engine has not changed. So, what's up with the different size filter? Looks like they (GM) would go bigger on their oil filters rather than smaller. All explanations and comments welcome.

Thanks

 

[Patman]

If there is no clearance issues, I don't see why they would do this. The PF59 is definitely the better choice, so I would use this filter if I were you.

My old 98 Formula called for the PF44 but I always ran the longer filters (M1-206 or UPF58 for the most part)

 

[westex39]

Patman,

That was my thinking also. On the 5.3L engine the filter hangs straight down beside the oil pan. As a matter of fact, it could be an inch longer than the PF59 and there still would not be any clearance issues.

Thanks for your reply.

 

[Mike_dup1]

You would think they have a reason for doing this?

I would be carefull using the wrong filter on purpose. If you have some engine problems they could use this to blame things on. When the 1999's cames out and there was a misprint in the owners manual recommending the PF58 instead of the PF59, lots of poeple had engine noise related to the PF58.

 

[Al]

I agree you have to be careful. But in many cases the absolutely only reason for the manufacturer to specify shorter filters is the "one size fits all" mentality. GM does it with the PF 47/52 and Nissan went to the shorter filter exclusively in 2001. Mobil 018/110. But again as you said, Mike, the auto companies are looking for reasons to deny warranty claims.

 

[westex39]

Thanks for the replies. I agree about the warranty companies looking for any reason to duck out. I'll probably keep a PF44 close at hand to install before taking it to a dealer for warranty work that is engine related.
Does anyone know if the PF44 has a anti-drainback valve or a bypass valve?

 

[Patman]

The PF44 does have an antidrainback valve, but not a bypass valve, because in the GM engines it is used in, the bypass is in the engine block.

The PF58 has no antidrainback, but the PF59 does.

 

[Ryan]

I have noticed this "smaller filter" trend on a lot of vehicles lately. New Blazers with the 4.3 no longer take the 51As, but the 47. Nissan Maximas... used to take a 2827 which is about the size of a 51a, then bumped down to 2867, which is tiny, now most of the new Nissans take a 2876, which is so small you could about hide the filter in your mouth. I wonder why car companies are using smaller filters. On the other hand, I had a 2000 Chevy truck with a 5.7 that still used a 1218 filter, which is very rare for me to use now days.

 

[westex39]

I wonder if the reason for the smaller filters has something to do with the use of less materials to make them and since most used filters do not get recycled that's less waste in the landfills. Just a thought.
Envoirmentalists are every where.
I'm with you Ryan, I wish they would put PF1218 size filters on everything.

[ December 14, 2002, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: westex39 ]

 

[Patman]

I'm sure glad my LT1 uses the PF1218 sized filter! I just wonder why GM made all these changes to their 5.7 engine lineup, yet abandoned the huge oil filters. They are even running larger oil capacities (5.5 qts in the f-body LS1, and 7 qts in the Corvette for instance) yet a teeny tiny PF44 filter is specified, same size filter that goes on the Cavalier/Sunfires, and it is even about the same size as the filter that goes on my wife's Honda.

 

[Ken2]

Coupl'a comments:
1) Newer media has more holes of the right size and fewer blank spots, so there can be more filtration in a smaller sized filter.

2) Does anybody know that the small filters are clogging in normal use?...That oversized filters are worth the trouble?...Or is this all guesswork?

Ken

 

[turbochem]

I was having the same thoughts as Ken while reading the posts. Does larger casing = larger filtering capacity?

 

[OneQuartLow]

Given the same line of filters, it should. A larger filter of the same type means more media which leads to better flow at equal pressure, and more places to hold junk before their flow is reduced. More capacity also means more oil in your system which is an automatic advantage.

Key here is "same type." Once you compare between brands or even models there can be other things affecting filtration. Bypass ratings and media type are obvious, but anything that affects flow will contribute. The only way to be reasonably sure is to cut each open and compare. That won't give you real test numbers but you can quickly tell if it should be better.

David

 

[turbochem]

Is it possible that filters the "same line" have different types of media (just as they usually have different bypass vavles, etc.)? Also, the different filters could have been designed at different times with different needs in mind. Maybe an "upgrade" on an earlier model?

quote:

---

Originally posted by OneQuartLow:
The only way to be reasonably sure is to cut each open and compare. That won't give you real test numbers but you can quickly tell if it should be better.

David

---

Yep....totally agree on that!! Cut 'em open!!

 

[OneQuartLow]

You bet. We've all seen filters change over time, sometimes within a line. Whatever the reason, cost cutting, or just a change of manufacturer, it would be very difficult to keep track of who makes what and using what parts for all filters. Especially the low-end stuff which changes with the wind. If it's important, stick with one of the better lines and play garage surgeon now and then.

 

[Ryan]

Maybe we can email a car company and ask them why... who would you contact for say, GM, to ask them why they follow this smaller filter trend. I wish my LS1 took a 1218 filter... more filtering media and it only helps you if you end up going longer on your oil than you expected to. I guess if you change your oil on time all the time then the smaller filters won't clog up, but it is nice to know that having a huge filter will hold out longer.

 

[Mike_dup1]

You will never get any answer to that question. Why does an engineer do anything?

If it was me I would stick with the right size filter, I am on my 2002 LS1. Someone had a point, bigger is not always better!

Quality dosen't cost, it pays!

 

[OneQuartLow]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike:

Quality dosen't cost, it pays!

---

That sounds familiar.

It's known they're going to a least-common-denomitator approach. Not everyong wants to follow along.

Mike, was it you that was ordering a Baldwin and Ams filter to compare? Did anything come of that? I have a B2 and several B2HPG's on the way. I suspect the B2HPG is one of the AMS matches. It uses the synth media and front bypass valve, which is different than many of the other basic Baldwins.

David

 

[Mike_dup1]

I can't get any Baldwin's anywhere in this part of the US. I tried several on-line places and got not no response in 2 weeks.

I contacted someone I know at Amsoil and got this response. They insist its their design and not anyone else's.

quote:

---

Mike,

The AMSOIL Super Duty Oil Filters are indeed better than the AC Delco filters in terms of performance and capacity. You can not physically compare medias with the naked eye as the noticeable differences are so small. Only a microscope can define their differences. To set the record straight about the design of the SDF64, it is made by Hastings to our specifications including the synthetic filter media used. It is not a Hastings filter painted with our logo on it.

AMSOIL SDF Filters are manufactured by Hastings, which is owned by Baldwin. The filters are manufactured to AMSOIL specifications and are superior to other filters Hasting manufacturers.

Thank you for "Asking AMSOIL."

---

[ December 15, 2002, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: Mike ]

 

[OneQuartLow]

Interesting. The microscope part is slightly strange though. Media differences are usually pretty obvious, especially within one brand. I suppose if they look similar then we need to make sure. No problem, I have access to lab microscopes.

I have a feeling there's more than one thing going on. Since the Baldwin HPG filters are so different from their others (i.e. B2 vs. B2-HPG) it may be one of the higher quality filters that cross with AMS. Can't say yet, I'm just guessing. If someone will provide me the Amsoil cross for Baldwin's B2 I'll see how they compare. Not that it's that important. I think it was Pablo who provided the Ams "preferred" filter price and it was almost identical to Baldwin's B2HPG at qty 6.

Just watch, I'll have a dozen filters here ready to cut and the DMCA letters will start arriving.

David