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

    250.4k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    342,759
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    DM22
    Newest Member
    DM22
    Joined
  • Who's Online   4 Members, 0 Anonymous, 2,202 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • So I'm in the middle of a DOD AFM delete on my 6.2 L86 Sierra. I had a pick holding the tensioner but after I got the Cam phaser gear off I was cleaning off all the rtv and apparently I didn't have the pick seated far enough in. I bumped it and the tensioner sprang forward.  I think everything is good but I want a second opinion. The top of the tensioner is just a looped piece of plastic that rides in that channel right? There is no spring or anything is there? I got the gear and chain back on and it seems tight and everything looks right. I'm hoping nothing fell out.
    • My 2015 1500 LTZ Silverado suddenly won't go into 4 x 4 low. It will go into 4 x 4 high.
    • Yep, just a quick reference point.    My main point being I’d do a thousand other things before I’d pay 10k for a transmission.    Speaking in ignorance cause I don’t look at these trucks, what is it worth? 20k?
    • I think users are going to want to pick their monitored parameters, which parameters they want to see first.    It should probably start with baseline at a minimum and adjust to learned, but be able to overlay baseline for comparison.   A simple severity level would be able to determine what type of alerting is appropriate or user selectable.    Why not use the OBD port though?   I think a phone connection would be a good idea, push notifications type deal.   Number 1 issue is having data is useless if you don’t know what the data should be under normal conditions. 
    • I thought I would use your thread and add to it as I just did my first longer drive with my truck in the last couple of days. I drove from the Grande Prairie area of Alberta down to Edmonton and most of where I drove in the city was the ring road so fairly free flowing but a bit of stop and go as well in the city. Stayed the night and returned home and not too many stops along the way each way but every restart and certainly every cold start sets it back for fuel mileage. Why I say that is I see some people will cherry pick a fuel mileage leg after the vehicle had been warmed up driveline wise before hand and its a forgiving ( easy rolling drive leg for example ) and call that their fuel mileage which can give a false perception of reality. I was not heavily loaded at all but never the less the flip bak cover, rubber bed mat, various tools etc and extra jerry cans of fuel all way up to a few hundred pounds of dead weight so its not an empty truck. The cold inflation tire pressures are set more near the freezing point so once they are warmed up driving I was showing 45 front and over 40 rear and realize high inflation pressures would help a little in fuel mileage but certainly not the ride on our crap sections of highway. The weather was good so was not raining as that can really drag mileage down, in fact I had a bit of a tail wind on average driving home. Most people on here would never have driven on that freeway to visualize it but its got a fair bit of rolling type of landscape with numerous river valleys. For the most part I had it on cruise set to 62 although kicking it off if I caught it in time before it started down shifting and self braking going down the grades. Most of the more substantial grades its shifting into 7th I believe as 8th just doesn't have it. Total distance round trip was 643 miles and my overall average and I did refuel three times in all, figured out to 17.65 miles per US gallon. My best fuel mileage section refuel within all of this figured out to 18.46 and these are all hand calculated figures. I find if anything that the trucks computer can be over optimistic, sometimes its pretty close but other times its stretching it. On paper persay in theory the truck would have just about made it on fumes for that whole drive without refueling once.    Which made me think of the topic thread of the wonder if these trucks could do 20 mpg and that is a good question, certainly would have to be on an easy going flat highway, no head wind, the right temperature, not packing around a bunch of dead weight and puttering along even slower than I was I would suspect and going steady and not stopping to smell the flowers or take a piss !. It probably is possible but not without effort to attain that with the wind resistance and weight of these trucks. Of course on my drive most people are passing me if they have the power as per loaded highway tractors, never mind a lot of speedy vehicles but the speed limit is 68 and most are at or well over that. 
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...