Here we go again..... PF47 vs. PF52

[paulo57509]

Other than physical size, are there any other differences? I ask because I have a 1992 Chevrolet Lumina with a 3.1L and a 2003 GMC Safari with a 3.4L that spec either a PF47 or a PF52 depending on model year.

The 1st Gen Lumina platform didn't change between 1990-1994. By application a PF52 is specified for 1990-1992. In 1993-1994, a PF47 is specified.

The Safari platform was essentially the same between 1985-2005. There were some changes made in 2003 and continued through 2005 (6-lug, 16-inch wheels for instance). From 1985-1999 a PF52 was specified. From 2000-2005 a PF47 was specified.

I've used both filters on both cars without issue. However, I still wonder why the change in specified filters? It can't be chassis clearance issues. The change doesn't track with any kind of internal engine changes either (as far as I can tell).

 

[Bill in Utah]

No difference to the motor. Both work fine and if you can charge the same for the filter that uses less materals which one would you stock/make/sell?

With that said, I use the 52 for my 04 GMC with 4.3l V6.

Bill

 

[Lead Shoes]

Probably to meet certain sump sizes, oci lengths or oil pressures.

Or just the normal GM where not even they really know why they do certain things..

 

[Merkava_4]

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah

With that said, I use the 52 for my 04 GMC with 4.3l V6.


Your GMC specifies the PF52 anyway; doesn't it?

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah

With that said, I use the 52 for my 04 GMC with 4.3l V6.


Your GMC specifies the PF52 anyway; doesn't it?


Nope. All the look ups (that I've seen) for the vehicle now state PF47 or equivalent.

Used to be the PF52.

Bill

 

[Triple_Se7en]

Use the PF 52 size with confidence. I recommend the Purolators and Bosch over AC Delco.

 

[Robenstein]

Some cars that spec a PF47 will not have much room for a pf52. I always used them in the wifes 96 grand prix because in the ones I have cut open, there is simply more filter media which makes me sleep better at night. And if the price is the same, why not get more filter for your money. I do the same on my small block motors that spec the short SBC filter, like my Monte SS. I use the longer ones with confidence. As long as the car is out of warranty your car will not know its has a different filter. You just get a little more oil, never a bad thing, and a little more filter area.

 

[GMBoy]

Originally Posted By: paulo57509
Other than physical size, are there any other differences? I ask because I have a 1992 Chevrolet Lumina with a 3.1L and a 2003 GMC Safari with a 3.4L that spec either a PF47 or a PF52 depending on model year.

The 1st Gen Lumina platform didn't change between 1990-1994. By application a PF52 is specified for 1990-1992. In 1993-1994, a PF47 is specified.

The Safari platform was essentially the same between 1985-2005. There were some changes made in 2003 and continued through 2005 (6-lug, 16-inch wheels for instance). From 1985-1999 a PF52 was specified. From 2000-2005 a PF47 was specified.

I've used both filters on both cars without issue. However, I still wonder why the change in specified filters? It can't be chassis clearance issues. The change doesn't track with any kind of internal engine changes either (as far as I can tell).


GM specified the smaller oil filters for production purposes. I started my career with GM at the Astro/Safari plant in Baltimore. With the larger filters they would sometimes get damaged in transit or when loading the engine to the line and - oil everywhere! So, the smaller filter was spec'd as an assembly aid. You can go with the longer filter w/o issue.

 

[paulo57509]

Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: paulo57509
Other than physical size, are there any other differences? I ask because I have a 1992 Chevrolet Lumina with a 3.1L and a 2003 GMC Safari with a 3.4L that spec either a PF47 or a PF52 depending on model year.

The 1st Gen Lumina platform didn't change between 1990-1994. By application a PF52 is specified for 1990-1992. In 1993-1994, a PF47 is specified.

The Safari platform was essentially the same between 1985-2005. There were some changes made in 2003 and continued through 2005 (6-lug, 16-inch wheels for instance). From 1985-1999 a PF52 was specified. From 2000-2005 a PF47 was specified.

I've used both filters on both cars without issue. However, I still wonder why the change in specified filters? It can't be chassis clearance issues. The change doesn't track with any kind of internal engine changes either (as far as I can tell).


GM specified the smaller oil filters for production purposes. I started my career with GM at the Astro/Safari plant in Baltimore. With the larger filters they would sometimes get damaged in transit or when loading the engine to the line and - oil everywhere! So, the smaller filter was spec'd as an assembly aid. You can go with the longer filter w/o issue.


This is great info. Thank you.

 

[DavidZ28]

Originally Posted By: GMBoy

GM specified the smaller oil filters for production purposes. I started my career with GM at the Astro/Safari plant in Baltimore. With the larger filters they would sometimes get damaged in transit or when loading the engine to the line and - oil everywhere! So, the smaller filter was spec'd as an assembly aid. You can go with the longer filter w/o issue.


Awesome insider info. Thank you!