Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Hi everyone

just traded my 17 z71 1500 for a 16 2500HD 6.0. I have a case of pf63 filters but the truck calls for a pf48. I know it’s the same filter just shorter. Does anyone know if the pf63 is too long? Thanks

Posted (edited)

Trying to figure out why in my owners manual they list the pf63 for the 5.3 and 6.2. But still calls for pf48 on 6.0... seems odd if only difference is length

Edited by Rich427
Posted (edited)

The 5.3 and 6.2 have different oil system requirements.  PF-63 has a higher bypass PSI vs. PF-48, the 5.3 and 6.2 use a variable displacement oil pump and have AFM, L96 does not.  Both engines are of different families too, the 5.3/6.2 being Gen V LT, the 6.0 still being Gen IV LS.   

Edited by newdude
  • Like 1
Posted

I don’t get why GM supposedly stated that the pf63 would replace pf48 in any application

Posted
25 minutes ago, Rich427 said:

I don’t get why GM supposedly stated that the pf63 would replace pf48 in any application

Because it does.  The L96 in your truck is a Gen IV engine, same as my LC9 and i run the long filters with no problems.  While I have used the PF63E, I do not like the paper construction, preferring the K&N HP2011 with the 1" nut to make removal easy peasy.  It also flows more oil, has a higher micron rating and much higher burst pressure.  The paper fibers clog the screen under the oil pressure sensor in AFM equipped trucks like mine.  Not sure if yours has the screen but it certainly doesn't have AFM.  Use up your PF63s then get something better.

Posted

See document ID#4785111-TSB-17-NA-157 about the use of oil filters on these trucks. You can do as you wish, its your truck, but GM built it and warranties it so I would be  inclined to follow their own recommendations rather than all the experts on these forums.Sure the 63 will spin on and physically fit but they are not the same internally.

Posted

Yes I’m going to stick with the pf48. I called some local Chevrolet dealers and the service dept told me they list the pf63 for that truck but I spoke with ACDelco on the phone and they told me it’s not the same filter and now after reading the specs on the bypass it’s pretty cut and dry. Guess there’s a reason they are still listing the pf48 for this engine. Thanks

Posted



PF64 and PF63 Filters



The PF64 and PF63 (Fig. 20) filters are commonly confused as an ACDelco PF48 and/or PF48E filter because both oil filters have the same appearance and oil can size. However, these oil filters are not the same and have different internal bypass valve opening pressure specifications. The PF48/PF48E has a pressure specification of 15 PSI (100 kPa) while the PF64/PF63E has a pressure specification of 22 PSI (150 kPa).



Posted

The bigger deal is really, if your truck spec'd a PF-63, don't put a PF-48 on it as it may cause issues.  Going from PF-48 to PF-63 shouldn't hurt really.  

Posted
On 6/14/2019 at 5:42 AM, mjm-1957 said:

See document ID#4785111-TSB-17-NA-157 about the use of oil filters on these trucks. You can do as you wish, its your truck, but GM built it and warranties it so I would be  inclined to follow their own recommendations rather than all the experts on these forums.Sure the 63 will spin on and physically fit but they are not the same internally.

That document does not apply to the L96, a Gen IV motor.

Posted

Reread the TSB, clearly states L96,  is included in the bulletin, fifth engine mentioned in the upper right of the TSB. You can use anything on your truck you want, I'm just saying be careful because I have been a line mechanic in a GM dealer for 44 years and have never seen GM get so picky on warranty claims. They require documentation of maintenance records, calibration files and now pictures to TAC and PQC, and will deny a claim for the smallest reason. Your playing with fire if you think your going to win against them.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Forum Statistics

    250.5k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    342,947
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    Sothpaw27
    Newest Member
    Sothpaw27
    Joined
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 463 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • www.enginelabs.com/news/what-i-learned-today-bearing-clearances-vs-oil-viscosities/     www.enginelabs.com/news/oil-viscosity-can-the-numbers-be-misleading/ The Big Lie… Coming full circle to the reason Lake discusses the Porsche engines in particular. Based on the 2000 samples in the SPEEDiagnostix database, increasing the oil viscosity in these engines, even those run on the track, showed no significant difference in results.   The smoking gun was in the oil chemistry. That is where the data shows higher instances of more wear. Molybdenum was the key; the higher the amount, the less the wear. Speed postulates that higher viscosity oils have more thickeners to artificially inflate their viscosity numbers. These thickeners lose viscosity under shear, and the result is that not all oils of the same viscosity have the same shear stability.   Having enough viscosity is the most important characteristic, but according to Speed, once that required viscosity level is reached, additive chemistry matters more than additional viscosity. Speed also states, oil pressure problems on the racetrack aren’t a viscosity problem; it’s an oiling system problem. Running a thicker oil is just a band-aid for an underlying oiling system problem.
    • Can it still be Assembled II?   Viscosity on the decline by various means. Heat on the rise making that worse. Engine RPM in the tank. Smaller motors with more boost trying to emulate an electric motor. Full torque, zero rpm. Then we will triple the OCI. Argh.    But wait....there is more. LSPI has pushed a shift from Ca to Mg and as that cost more PLUS the run to lower sulfur compounds the TBN is moving in the wrong direction for the increased OCI's demanded.    That not being enough to placate a demand for a parameter they can't measure the other sulfur bearing compounds are also under attack. That would be zinc and phosphorus sulfonate compounds. To some degree those are being replaced with boron esters and others, i.e. titanium ect. All of which have shorter service lives. And there there is the "Secrete Sauce" marketing for AW adds that 'Can't be detected by UOA's" but trust me because I (the blenders) never ever lie.    Spoiler alert; ALL additives are sacrificial! Smaller amounts of the old blended with less robust versions of the new do not equal longer service lives. So what are the blenders recommending? Wait for it.......   MOVING THE GOAL POSTS! OMG      Let's declare the long standing TAN/TBN crossover irrelevant and tell people that soot is a great 'graphite' based lubricant which can aid tribo films. Wait, what? Let's declare that the standards used for oxidation and nitration were to conservative and can be expanded. Let's tell them that because GDI fuel dilution, although being a VISCOSITY KILLER and an acid generator is actually okay because we have better base oils that limit viscosity failure limits. (Said knowing this is measured in fractions of a centipoise and in bases not commonly used in shelf oils)   Lying from the heart is not just the new normal but we have a public, a very young public, that is so ignorant of the facts and so sure of their "RESEARCH" into AI driven models base in regurgitated  instead of scientific research based unvarnished, peer reviewed FACTS that the incoming guard is loosing their grip on reality and the OEM's are tickled pink while the blends bend the knee.    You have an ever limited set of tools to work with. And sooner or later those will be taken from you as the API and the EPA strangle the last remaining fluids from the system. What you have left is your wits. If you care to use them.    At some point in the very near future it will not longer be possible to do "What is best for the machine", and be replaced with "The best you have access too". You WILL be rewarded with half the life and twice the cost. That isn't that hard to predict.         
    • I trust you saw the other comment where he knew what he was talking about !. Yes, these darned newer vehicles with all their so smart they are stupid technology, goes and drains the battery down. As you might see my other comment, I installed a Noco 5 battery tender under the hood and at this point still have the cord routed so I have to lift the hood and then plug it in but am typically parked in a garage or a shed so its not risking the engine hood in the wind. That way I am assured or hopefully so of not finding I have a battery drawn down and can't even start the truck and that also damages the battery to draw it down too far. 
    • I guess no surprise my guesses were wrong !, at least now I know if I ever happen to see it grayed out in my own truck as to what is going on.    I never happened to catch my truck with it grayed out, it seemed every time I would test to see if there was an update it never found anything and yet more than once I would check to see if there was an update and there was nothing, then a day later or even that same morning I would drive to town and after more than one engine shut down in town as I did my errands it would pop up that there is an update now ready to install and the only place I have a connection to the internet is at home by wifi so its not as if it grabbed the download while driving. I don't trust these new vehicles due to all the crap they can decide to do while sitting for some days not running and run the battery down so most of the time if I know the truck will sit for a few days I plug in the battery tender I have mounted under the hood and so the only time the truck must have downloaded software was when it was sitting in the garage where the signal is awful but I have that tender plugged in and somehow it managed to download it. I honestly detest all this crap, way to easy to leave a person stranded.    Since I don't trust any of it I don't do the install of the already downloaded software until I get home and sometimes have even sat in the truck to watch what its doing as its going through the process to its conclusion as its not like it is set up that it will tell you the next time you fire up the engine that the update that was initialed actually installed or installed properly. Yes I can go into the updates and see the list. After I go through the install where I feel its safe to do so in case it breaks down as a result, I will plug in the battery tender after the fact to recharge as I don't know how much power its taking just to do the install and that can take a while for it to install. 
    • Thanks for the reply. All settings were correct and the engine was off, as it was supposed to be. It turned out to be something simple. I took a drive for about an hour. I must have had a low battery without knowing it. The voltage gauge on the display looked ok. At the end of my drive, I shut off the engine and the update prompt came up and it updated normally. It’s ironic because one of the features of the update is a reduction of battery drain. 
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...