GM Oil Filters
02-18-2006, 07:21 AM
#1
Le Mans Master
Thread Starter
GM Oil Filters
I know the Delco PF44 has been replaced by the PF46. Since these are 2 different oil filters there has to be some difference between them. GM is probably trying to cut down their filter list for inventory control.
But if your dealer has both in stock which should you choose ?
But if your dealer has both in stock which should you choose ?
02-18-2006, 03:39 PM
#4
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Aug 2005
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 6,709
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
St. Jude Donor '06
I can't tell you the difference...but I can muck things up a bit more for you. After researching (mainly archived threads here) I chose to use the UPF44 which is supposed to be a premium filter. I purchased a case of six of them from Fred Beans for around 50 bucks.
02-18-2006, 06:14 PM
#5
Le Mans Master
The latest version of the filter has an anti-drainback check valve so it can be used in locations other than vertical. It won't hurt anything... just better for other applications. Less inventory when one filter replaces several.
Thanx for the info 
02-18-2006, 06:47 PM
#7
Instructor
Member Since: Oct 2000
Location: Lake Villa Illinois
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by b4i4getit
I know the Delco PF44 has been replaced by the PF46. Since these are 2 different oil filters there has to be some difference between them. GM is probably trying to cut down their filter list for inventory control.
But if your dealer has both in stock which should you choose ?
But if your dealer has both in stock which should you choose ?
02-18-2006, 07:50 PM
#8
Race Director
I've been trying to figure out what the difference is between these two filters for a while now with no luck. The best I can figure is that they are the same, but AC Delco decided to change the number for some reason.
FWIW the PF44 also has an antidrainback valve in it.
Also, I use the K&N 1007 and highly recommend it.
FWIW the PF44 also has an antidrainback valve in it.
Also, I use the K&N 1007 and highly recommend it.
02-18-2006, 11:03 PM
#12
Burning Brakes
Member Since: Nov 2005
Location: Dana Point CA
Posts: 798
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Swave Dave
REPLY: For a few dollars more, you can have a VERY good Oil FIlter that will protect your LS2 motor much better than the cheap paper oil filters of GM ; go with a K and N Performance synthetic Oil FIlter. The one for the 2006 LS2 takes model : HP1007 . You can order them thru Pep Boys or Jegs.
02-19-2006, 11:20 AM
#13
Safety Car
Member Since: Jul 2001
Location: Spicewood, Texas, USA TX-Texas
Posts: 4,456
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Originally Posted by emejay
AC Delco makes two different oil filters to fit the C6 ( and also they fit my 2003 Silverado). One is the "cheap paper" PF44, the other is the Ultraguard UPF44 which has a synthetic filter media. Well worth the few extra bucks. I just ordered some from Fitchner Chevrolet for $6.99@.
I am using the UPF44 filter, simply because a "UPF46" is not available yet. (I don't know if it will ever be available.) The UPF line apparently provides superior filtering efficiency, but you sacrifice flow rate for that filtering efficiency.
An internet site evaluation of one of the UPF filters showed about 50% reduction in flow rate compared to the same PF model...in this particular filter model, flow went from about 6+ gpm to 3+gpm. This is a result of the filtering media...the harder it is for the oil to flow through the media, the more bad stuff is removed. IMO, this flow reduction would be independent of brand if the same filtering efficiency were obtained.
In view of this reduced flow, anyone using the UPF44 would be well advised to wait until stable oil temperature (~215 deg) before "romping" hard on your LS2...the filter's flow rate will be further reduced with cold oil. I ran mine up to about 5K with the oil temperature < 120 deg, and the pressure spiked about 65-70 psi. I feel confident the filter can provide adequate oil flow without the bypass opening, or it never would have made it to the market, but there is no point in my testing the theory.
Last edited by JmpnJckFlsh; 02-19-2006 at 11:23 AM.
02-19-2006, 02:39 PM
#14
Burning Brakes
Member Since: Jun 2005
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I bought two cases (12 total) of the UPF44's from Fred Beans. They are hard to find at your local Chevy dealer though they can order them for you.
I believe the Mobil 1 filter offers similar performance in something you can go pick up at AutoZone today.
Both AC Delco and Mobil 1 are made by Champion Filters.
There aren't as many filter manufacturers out there as you might think. Three OE manufacturers and a couple of aftermarket guys are making all the filters you see out there.
I believe the Mobil 1 filter offers similar performance in something you can go pick up at AutoZone today.
Both AC Delco and Mobil 1 are made by Champion Filters.
There aren't as many filter manufacturers out there as you might think. Three OE manufacturers and a couple of aftermarket guys are making all the filters you see out there.
02-19-2006, 11:53 PM
#15
Burning Brakes
Member Since: Nov 2005
Location: Dana Point CA
Posts: 798
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JmpnJckFlsh
Actually, I don't think GM is distributing PF44s anymore...if his dealer has both in stock, then the PF44s must be new old stock (NOS). I believe production of the PF44 has stopped since there is no reason for it to continue...the PF46 replaces the PF44 in ALL PF44 applications, and AC Delco catalogs so indicate. The PF46 is the correct filter for C6s since early in the 2005 MY.
I am using the UPF44 filter, simply because a "UPF46" is not available yet. (I don't know if it will ever be available.) The UPF line apparently provides superior filtering efficiency, but you sacrifice flow rate for that filtering efficiency.
An internet site evaluation of one of the UPF filters showed about 50% reduction in flow rate compared to the same PF model...in this particular filter model, flow went from about 6+ gpm to 3+gpm. This is a result of the filtering media...the harder it is for the oil to flow through the media, the more bad stuff is removed. IMO, this flow reduction would be independent of brand if the same filtering efficiency were obtained.
In view of this reduced flow, anyone using the UPF44 would be well advised to wait until stable oil temperature (~215 deg) before "romping" hard on your LS2...the filter's flow rate will be further reduced with cold oil. I ran mine up to about 5K with the oil temperature < 120 deg, and the pressure spiked about 65-70 psi. I feel confident the filter can provide adequate oil flow without the bypass opening, or it never would have made it to the market, but there is no point in my testing the theory.
I am using the UPF44 filter, simply because a "UPF46" is not available yet. (I don't know if it will ever be available.) The UPF line apparently provides superior filtering efficiency, but you sacrifice flow rate for that filtering efficiency.
An internet site evaluation of one of the UPF filters showed about 50% reduction in flow rate compared to the same PF model...in this particular filter model, flow went from about 6+ gpm to 3+gpm. This is a result of the filtering media...the harder it is for the oil to flow through the media, the more bad stuff is removed. IMO, this flow reduction would be independent of brand if the same filtering efficiency were obtained.
In view of this reduced flow, anyone using the UPF44 would be well advised to wait until stable oil temperature (~215 deg) before "romping" hard on your LS2...the filter's flow rate will be further reduced with cold oil. I ran mine up to about 5K with the oil temperature < 120 deg, and the pressure spiked about 65-70 psi. I feel confident the filter can provide adequate oil flow without the bypass opening, or it never would have made it to the market, but there is no point in my testing the theory.
