Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
23 minutes ago, Truston Gunter said:

I only saw one person mention the mobile 1 filter. Always thought mobile 1 was to be considered a "high quality" filter. Been using them since I started driving along with mobile 1 full synthetic. That's my 2 cents. 

Yeah you can’t go wrong with M1. I use M1 oil but not usually their filter but just due to wix usually being almost half the price and still an excellent filter. 

  • 7 months later...
Posted
On 9/26/2022 at 10:24 PM, Grumpy Bear said:

Food for thought:

 

iseecars.com says that  only 0.3% of all vehicles sold in the USA go past 300K, 1.2% of all vehicles sold in the USA make it past 200K miles but 95-98% will pass 100K. So...you could also say;

 

Once past 100K that 98%+ of the remaining vehicles FAIL....

Which begs some serious questions. 

 

When one says "This motor was designed to use a DEXOS 0W20!",

(for example)

Does that not say... 

"The design is to fail"? 

🤔

 

Posted

I strongly disagree !!! Personally put over 320K ,220K on new trucks and cars. just do the P.M s as required.

Posted
6 hours ago, TRUCKTOON said:

I strongly disagree !!! Personally put over 320K ,220K on new trucks and cars. just do the P.M s as required.

 

So, you are part of the 0.3%. Cool. Me too. Now what about the other 99.7% that didn't make it.  What is it you're disagreeing with? That you've managed to be part of a minority and that this proves the majority that fail somehow did not? Or you're just disagreeable on principle. :dunno: You are not disagreeing with me sir. It's the statistics you're having an issue with. They don't really care. Come to think of it, neither do I. You have yourself a nice evening. 

Posted

Okay, back on subject.

 

I'd be very careful with Wix filters lately.  I've personally seen two different models with crushed louvers (internal metal slits "louvers" inside filter) that were crushed enough to barely let oil flow through the filter.  At least 50% were 100% crushed closed.  The remaining louvers were slightly open...like 0.1 to 0.25mm.

One of the two models with this issue I've held in my hand is Wix (WL102255) that I was going to install in my truck.

I'm concerned Wix quality is having some issues, as like I mentioned this is the second time I've seen this.  Crushed louvers would basically cause the oil to immediately by-pass your filter.  The "dirty" oil that was able to go through the by-pass would be less than what typically goes through the filter media on a healthy filter.  Not Good.  Very disappointed in Wix for this.  Both models came out of the same Wix factory.

 

I'm going to stick with OEM AC Delco PF63 #1270724.  I really like the internal open design.  Flow wise, I believe this filter is one of the best on the market.  Plus it is OEM so I trust the quality.  Win win.

 

Posted

Does anyone have an opinion on running the  UPF63R instead of the standard PF63. I've been running the UltraGuard filters over the standard as a upgrade of sorts, and because by vehicles don't accrue the mileage before the time elapses between oil change intervals. The only difference I could discern the is the Ultraguard version has a higher bypass pressure.

Posted
21 hours ago, carkhz316 said:

Does anyone have an opinion on running the  UPF63R instead of the standard PF63. I've been running the UltraGuard filters over the standard as a upgrade of sorts, and because by vehicles don't accrue the mileage before the time elapses between oil change intervals. The only difference I could discern the is the Ultraguard version has a higher bypass pressure.

I believe the media in the UPF63R is better than the standard PF63 along with a heavier can. I think the bypass pressure is the same on both. I found the UPF on Rock auto for just a little more then the regular PF63. I still have a couple PF63 left but as soon as they are gone I have a supply of the UPF's

  • Like 1
Posted
On 6/23/2023 at 3:05 PM, Dustin Marshall said:

Okay, back on subject.

 

I'd be very careful with Wix filters lately.  I've personally seen two different models with crushed louvers (internal metal slits "louvers" inside filter) that were crushed enough to barely let oil flow through the filter.  At least 50% were 100% crushed closed.  The remaining louvers were slightly open...like 0.1 to 0.25mm.

One of the two models with this issue I've held in my hand is Wix (WL102255) that I was going to install in my truck.

I'm concerned Wix quality is having some issues, as like I mentioned this is the second time I've seen this.  Crushed louvers would basically cause the oil to immediately by-pass your filter.  The "dirty" oil that was able to go through the by-pass would be less than what typically goes through the filter media on a healthy filter.  Not Good.  Very disappointed in Wix for this.  Both models came out of the same Wix factory.

 

I'm going to stick with OEM AC Delco PF63 #1270724.  I really like the internal open design.  Flow wise, I believe this filter is one of the best on the market.  Plus it is OEM so I trust the quality.  Win win.

 

I've noticed the same. If I get my WIX filter from my local O'Reillys all is fine. I've noticed QC issues on the filters I order online and have shipped to me. Coincidence? Who knows. Odd to me though 

  • Like 1
Posted
On 6/26/2023 at 8:19 AM, 64BAwagon said:

I believe the media in the UPF63R is better than the standard PF63 along with a heavier can. I think the bypass pressure is the same on both. I found the UPF on Rock auto for just a little more then the regular PF63. I still have a couple PF63 left but as soon as they are gone I have a supply of the UPF's

Thanks. I've been under the impression the Ultraguards are a premium version over the standard AC Delco, and since my OCI are so infrequent, a few extra dollars is no big deal for me. I just didn't want to use the "wrong" filter since they don't spec the UG for the 6.6.

  • 3 weeks later...
Posted (edited)

FWIW

 

I change my oil with M1 filter and M1 oil every time. Seems like most always a deal is running at Advance Auto Parts on them too, just always have to ask.

Edited by NaturallyAspirated
Posted

FYI the AC Delco oil filter PF63, GM Part # 12707246 has been superseded by PF63, GM Part # 12731742

I have no idea what (if any) difference there are.  Visually (holding both in my hand) they seem the same.

I'm curious if there are any differences?

  • Like 1
Posted
On 7/28/2023 at 9:37 AM, Dustin Marshall said:

FYI the AC Delco oil filter PF63, GM Part # 12707246 has been superseded by PF63, GM Part # 12731742

I have no idea what (if any) difference there are.  Visually (holding both in my hand) they seem the same.

I'm curious if there are any differences?

The difference as far as I know is a higher psi bypass valve. 

  • Like 3
  • 7 months later...
Posted

Might as well wake this up.........

... Quite the discussion. 

... 2024 6.6 gasser, first oil change at 5,200. I deiced to skip the first free one as i didnt want them touching the pickup. 

... We all have our thoughts. I am NOT trying to push my thoughts or sell a product. I have found what i like and works for me and my reasons. 

... I have used reusable oil filters on 3 different Harley Davidsons, actually the same filter on the 3 and a drop in reusable on a Kawasaki KLR 650. Motorcycles. 

... The  HUBB is my second use on a vehicle i have used one on. The second being this new pickup.

... This isnt being posted for argument or negative debate, just to show the world of oil filters is not flat, and venturing out of it one wont fall off the world. 

 

20240323_105225.jpg

  • Like 3
Posted
18 hours ago, lineman1234 said:

Might as well wake this up.........

... Quite the discussion. 

... 2024 6.6 gasser, first oil change at 5,200. I deiced to skip the first free one as i didnt want them touching the pickup. 

... We all have our thoughts. I am NOT trying to push my thoughts or sell a product. I have found what i like and works for me and my reasons. 

... I have used reusable oil filters on 3 different Harley Davidsons, actually the same filter on the 3 and a drop in reusable on a Kawasaki KLR 650. Motorcycles. 

... The  HUBB is my second use on a vehicle i have used one on. The second being this new pickup.

... This isnt being posted for argument or negative debate, just to show the world of oil filters is not flat, and venturing out of it one wont fall off the world. 

 

20240323_105225.jpg

How do you clean the filters?

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, Black02Silverado said:

How do you clean the filters?

 

Quote

 

Cleaning the Filter

The HUBB Filter can be cleaned by sending the inner core back to HUBB or to an authorized HUBB dealer for cleaning. A HUBB Cleaning Station and cleaning concentrate may be purchased to clean the filters in accordance with the required cleaning procedure. With either method, the filters must be cleaned as stated in your agreement with HUBB. HUBB Filters, Inc. warrants every HUBB filter to be free from defects in material and workmanship for a period of 100,000 miles or 5,000 hours, whichever comes first. The use and cleaning process required by HUBB Filters must be followed. View full warranty.

 

 

 

https://www.hubbfilters.com/cleaning-system

Edited by dsr611

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

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Welcome back! No, it definitely doesn't pass the sniff test. Even "ceasefire" needs an alternative definition these days.    $5.29 at Kroger today
    • That makes sense, and I think you are describing the real product problem. Capturing data is the easy part. If the owner or technician has to manually dig through five minutes of millisecond-level logs, the product has already failed. The device would be at the ECM harness, not at the OBD port, so I agree that data retrieval and event marking need to be thought through carefully. The way I am thinking about the architecture is: The recorder itself should not depend on a phone, app, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or cloud connection to capture the event. It should always keep a local rolling buffer and lock the event locally. A button, phone app, or small cabin device would only act as an event marker. If the driver feels a stumble and presses the button 10–30 seconds later, the pre-buffer has to already contain the useful data. For data retrieval, the practical options would be a sealed service USB lead, Wi-Fi download, or a phone/cabin companion device. I would not expect the owner to remove the ECM-side module or work with raw files directly. The cloud or AI side would be for interpretation, not for capturing the event. The truck may have no connection when the issue happens, so the evidence has to be saved locally first. After that, cloud processing could help decode the data, compare it against baselines, and generate a readable report. For the first version, I would keep the automatic triggers conservative and objective: driver event marker bus-off error passive voltage drop / brownout device reset FIFO or queue overflow a normally periodic message disappearing side-to-side communication mismatch, if the topology supports that For “learning normal,” I agree with your point, but I would not want to overclaim it as automatic root-cause diagnosis at first. A realistic first step would be learned baseline comparison for that specific vehicle and operating condition. For example, a value would only be compared against similar conditions: RPM range load / MAP throttle position gear / vehicle speed coolant and oil temperature battery voltage AFM/DFM state, if decoded and validated Then the report could flag things like: this periodic message disappeared compared with its normal timing this value deviated from this vehicle’s normal range under similar conditions the same abnormal pattern repeated after the same type of event the anomaly occurred together with voltage, oil-pressure, misfire, or communication changes But I would still call that “abnormal pattern detected,” not “replace this part,” unless there is enough validated repair data behind it. So the intended product would not be “here is a huge log.” It would need to be an event package: what triggered the capture how much pre/post data was preserved what changed before and after the event whether the device itself reset, overflowed, or saw a bus error selected graphs around the event raw data only as supporting evidence From your perspective, what would make this kind of report useful instead of just another datalog? For example: What are the top 5 parameters or events you would want highlighted first? Would you trust a learned baseline for that specific vehicle, or would you prefer fixed thresholds? How much false-positive flagging would be acceptable before you stopped looking at the reports? What would a one-page report need to show for an independent shop to take it seriously? For misfire, AFM/DFM, oil pressure, or U-code complaints, what would you want the tool to flag automatically?
    • 2024 Silverado 2500 HD LTZ grille no camera Parts list   84603331 84913656 84913657 84913654 84913655 84911567 84911568 85646092 85646093 85797921 85797922   11570637  x10-15   grille/bumper bolts 11546500  x10      grille clips 11571006  x10      push/retainer clips 11546454  x6       nut retainers 11611609  x6       M5 bolts 11610700  x6       molding/trim retainers
    • And use RA's 5% discount code if you buy from them.  google for the code, one is always available.
    • Just don't turn the steering wheel as much?
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...