Racor Pre-OEM Fuel Test Report from AVLUBE

[OC_DMAX]

I just received my Advanced Fuel Test report from AVLUBE. Everything looks really good. In summary, I ended up with an ISO Cleanliness Code rating of 13/11/8. The test results are well under the standards set by George Morrison (15/13/10). Let me describe the Pre-OEM Racor filter set-up on my truck, the test method used to collect the sample (which is critical in my opinion) and the test results.


Pre-OEM Fuel Filter Set-up:

On my 2002 Chev 2500HD DMAX short-bed, I have installed a Racor 660 filter assembly (with a R60S, 2 micron filter element) Pre-OEM on the frame rail. The Racor assembly and bracket were purchased from Lubespecialist (Greg Landuyt), a vendor/advertiser on this forum. The filter was connected to the truck fuel system without cutting any of the metal fuel line tubing. Instead, using idea's developed and documented by JBPLOCK, I simply disconnected the cloth covered fuel line (with the two quick disconnects) that runs from the fuel tank to the metal fuel line behind the fuel cooler. The input of the fuel filter was connected to the fuel tank fitting and the output of the filter was connected to the fitting behind the fuel cooler. This way, I can restore the fuel system to the original factory condition in a matter of minutes, if required. This installation also eliminated two quick disconnect fittings and 7/16 inch fuel line was used to connect the filter to the 1/2 inch factory tube per advice posted by ABEAR.


Test Method:

Immediately prior to taking the fuel sample, I filled the truck's fuel tank up with 21 gallons of diesel (out of a total capacity of 26 gallons --- so 21 new gallons and 5 old gallons). I purchased the fuel from the Chevron station that I use 90% of the time. I drove the truck approximately 6 miles home and took the sample. Hopefully, this short distance resulted in a minimum of the new fuel being re-cycled through the fuel system multiple times prior to taking the sample. I was trying for the worst case, i.e. the dirtiest fuel in the tank, from the station I normally fill-up at, just prior to taking the sample.
I have a Kent-Moore vacuum/pressure gauge test assembly. This assembly allows for connection to the factory fuel system test port by the alternator. I removed the actual gauge and only used the hose and quick disconnect fitting. Reference the excellent web site photos provided by JBPLOCK. I used the exact same set-up. While connected to the fuel system test port, I pumped-up the primer on the OEM fuel filter assembly. This allowed fuel to flow from the hose. I rinsed the inside of the vacuum gauge hose, sample bottle, and sample bottle lid many, many times (per the instructions supplied with the fuel sample kit, the rinsing and handling are absolutely critical).
The fuel filters under test had a little over 1000 miles of use on them. Also, I use the FPPF Total Power from Kennedy Diesel mixed at 1 quart per 125 gallons.


Test Results:

From the Excel spreadsheet provided by AVLUBE, the fuel test results (after passing through the Pre-OEM and the OEM filters) are as follows:

In Particles Per US Gallon of Fuel
Actual Target
>2um 181,680 1,211,200
>5um 37,850 302,800
>15um 3,785 37,850


In Particles per Milliliter of Fuel

>2 limit 10000
>5 limit 5000
>15 limit 320
>2 actual 48
>5 actual 10
>15 actual 1

The ISO Cleanliness Codes are: 13/11/8 (>2um, >5um, >15um)

Cetane Index = 52.25
Water = 51 ppm

The test data is 75% cleaner than the 15/13/10 levels that are the target. George Morrison has previously stated that one number decrement in the code results in halving the injector wear. If this is correct, then the results above would indicate a 4 times reductions in wear.

The above data will be added to the fuel analysis result/summary spreadsheet that is being maintained by JBPLOCK, 56Nomad and I. JBPLOCK is trying to host the actual Excel spreadsheet file on his web site. Until then, 56Nomad has a cut-n-paste version (in HTML I believe) up on his site and available through the Fuel Filter Comparison thread.


My Conclusions:

Anyone using the Racor 660/690, two micron filter in combination with the OEM unit on their DMAX equipped truck should be confident that their fuel system is more than adequately cleaning the fuel of contaminants. Positive test data has been previously posted for the CAT and Mega filters. The test data posted here should REMOVE ANY DOUBT about the ability of the Racor 660/690 unit plus the OEM to meet the ISO Cleanliness Code 15/13/10 levels proposed by George Morrison (and supported by the available literature). I believe that the Racor, CAT and Mega filters are ALL filtering to the levels posted above. The limiting factor in these tests is probably the extraction of the fuel sample. I went through a great effort in my sampling technique to introduce a minimal amount of contaminants to the sample. I may take a future sample around the 10,000 mile mark. I would like to know the end-of-life filtering ability also.


Hope everyone has a great Labor Day Weekend,
Alan


PS

[56Nomad]

Alan,

Wonderful news.... thank you for all your
hard work!

Could you please compute the
Efficiency -2 um 5 um 15 um for your sample

[ 08-29-2003, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: 56Nomad ]

[hoot]

Excellent results. I'll be happy to host them for you. My email address is in my signature.

Here are some of the reasons for my selection of the "S" Series Racor...

From an old thread George Morrison wrote:
Regarding a 'real world'fix. One of the fellows on the 6.5 site portion ran a 'before and after' on a Racor "S" series and it was indeed a 2 micron 98% efficient filter, very similar in performance to the new CAT high performance 2 micron absolute filters. http://forum.thedieselpage.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=004373

Also.... Greg Landuyt wrote:
The Racor unit works great and replacement filters are reasonable. I use the 2 micron on my 6.5TD and it removed 94.6% of the 2 micron and larger particles and 96.4% of the 5 micron and larger particles. Again George Morrison:
As Greg pointed out the Racor "S" series has proven to be an excellent filter; 95%+ effective for the 5 micron and greater size spectrum which is our target. The regular Racor's, however, are pretty much the same as OEM and are comprised of simple cellulose filtration. To achieve the level of filtration and capacity we need, the filter has to be constructed of a synthetic or microglass type media. The CAT and Racor "S" are synthetic or a synthetic blend type media. If only we could get CAT to expand its filter line we would have that filtration level.. But, CAT recognized the lack of quality fuel filtration and had to go out and build a factory to make filters capable of achieving the level of quality/filtration needed for maximum fuel system life.
George Morrison, STLE CLS And last but not least ;)

NO AIR! :D

We BAd.

[ 08-29-2003, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: hoot ]

[jbplock]

Alan,

WOW!!! Great Results with your RACOR! :cool: ... The Best Yet!!! :D :D

Your results proves the point that all the filter options can achieve the ISO target. smile.gif

[ 08-29-2003, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: jbplock ]

[VFRRider]

OC_DMAX thanks for the info. I knew I did the right thing for my max with the Racor ;) . I can provide a webpage, but I don't have Excel on my home puter. I can post the file for anyone to download if u like, but wont be able to show the spreadsheet since I cannot open it.

Mike

(now I just gotta get the oil bypass and preluber and I'll be all set...)

[imported_]

Great test results provide more hard data showing better filtration of the pre-oem installed filters.

I wonder if those fuel system back-pulsations that George quoted from CAT research, really are dragging down the post-oem filtration numbers? I guess we'll need more results to definitively show that.

IMHO the pre-oem filters are best because of superior fuel test results, plus;

- Easier install and access to change elements, and;

- No problems worrying about random stalling, moreover;

- No need to breach integrity of fuel system between the OEM filter and the fuel pump make the pre-oem filters less likely to cause warranty issues.

Thanks to the pioneering efforts of a few members, Duramax owners now have many filtration options- even a few easy-to-do intallation kits.

Both pre-oem and the post-oem filtration offfer their own unique benefits, and I wouldn't presume that I know what is best for anyone else.

But, as the hard facts show, for my money, the pre-oem filtration is best!

[56Nomad]

HB,

Just a few comments to reply to your post:

- Easier install and access to change elements

HB, since I have installed the Racor both pre and post, I can say it was
actually easier to install under the hood. As far as access..... I don't like to
crawl under my truck and have diesel fuel running down my arm. In
rainy weather or if I'm off roading in mud, I think it would be a lot
cleaner working on my feet than laying down under the truck. In
my opinion, access to my post OEM filter is much easier, but you need
to remove those 9 plastic clips holding inner fender on.

- No problems worrying about random stalling, moreover;

I did not experience any stalling either pre or post installation with my Racors

- No need to breach integrity of fuel system between the OEM filter
- and the fuel pump make the pre-oem filters less likely to cause warranty issues.

In another string, we had quite a few TDP members contact their dealers
about installing post OEM filters. Very few dealers had problems if I
recall. Both local service managers with two local dealers here actually like what
I what I've done.

Breach what integrity???? I actually removed a crappy 11" piece of collapsed/crimped
OEM rubber fuel line and replaced it with3 feet of 250 PSI Parker hose. Much better
hose.

As far as those fuel system back-pulsations dragging down the post-oem
filtration numbers..... we definately need more data to see if that is a factor. YES I agree with you.

[ 08-30-2003, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: 56Nomad ]

[mdrag]

OC_DMAX,

Excellent results!! Early on in the supplemental fuel filter discussion, there were concerns that acceptable on-vehicle fuel samples would be difficult to obtain. There are now quite a few 'real world' fuel test reports from different forum members showing that adequate samples can be obtained if careful techniques are used.

[imported_]

Nomad56,

But as I also said:

Thanks to the pioneering efforts of a few members, Duramax owners now have many filtration options- even a few easy-to-do intallation kits.

Both pre-oem and the post-oem filtration offfer their own unique benefits, and I wouldn't presume that I know what is best for anyone else.BTW, with the Nick's bracket for the giganic pre-oem CAT 1R 0749 filter you just crouch next to the truck and reach in and up below the bed to change filters.

No wheel/tire/fender liner removal needed.

SAWEEEET!

[hoot]

I actually like having the filter protected by the wheel well liner. Nice and clean. Since it only gets changed every 10-15,000 miles, removing a few screws is no big deal.

[a bear]

HB,
Since the Racor out performed the Cat it appears you have now moved on to Pre/Post arguments. That really looks bad as you are now holding on to your last life jacket. Why are you so determined to be better than everyone. I think it's time to give it a rest.

[imported_]

A bear,

Just letting the numbers speak for themselves and they are saying that pre-oem filters are cleaner. Why does that bother you?

Life Jackets? Don't follow you on that one.

[a bear]

Not bothered at all. It's more like concern for the 10K + members that may be influenced by your OPINION while we are trying to compile enough data so hopefully they can make an informed decision on whats best for them. I think you should give it a rest and be a little more patient while these samples are coming in.

[imported_]

a bear,

In plain English I encouraged everyone to make their own decision:

Thanks to the pioneering efforts of a few members, Duramax owners now have many filtration options- even a few easy-to-do intallation kits.

Both pre-oem and the post-oem filtration offfer their own unique benefits, and I wouldn't presume that I know what is best for anyone else. What is it about the above encouragement that you refuse to accept.

a bear, I do not beleive in censorship when it comes to discussing truck parts. What do you have to hide or fear?

Maybe you don't want it repeated that you admitted that you had to prime/bleed you post-oem filter (brand not mentioned) every tankfull, until you got a lift pump?

Don't you think those 10,000 members out there deserve to know what they could be risking with certain products?

And now that you mention it, I do sincerely believe that all 10,000 members would be well served filtering their fuel with a pre-oem CAT - especailly mounted with the solid Nicktane bracket.

Don't you think the 10,000 should be informed of a trouble free, highly reliable, methods to filter their fuel?

I see that mdrag enthusiatically supports post-oem filtration. He says, "post oem rules!" so why don't you censor him?

Censorship discourages free and open evaluation of competing products. Censorship is un-American.

As I said let the numbers speak for themselves.

[mdrag]

CHEERLEADING (http://www.thedieselpage.com/members/cheer.htm) comes to mind...

mdrag

[56Nomad]

I do not beleive in censorship when it comes to discussing truck parts
--------
Don't you think those 10,000 members out there deserve to know
what they could be risking with certain products? HB..... you really think these TDP guys just fell off
the diesel turnip truck???

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[mdrag]

I see that mdrag enthusiatically supports post-oem filtration. He says, "post oem rules!" so why don't you censor him?

I don't recall making such a statement - could you provide a link so I can review the post?

mdrag

[FirstDiesel]

Boy this gets old fast. :rolleyes:

Why do we have to keep fighting the same battles with the same person?? :confused:

[hoot]

Originally posted by mdrag:
CHEERLEADING (http://www.thedieselpage.com/members/cheer.htm) comes to mind...

mdrag Cut to the chase. You have the power.

[jbplock]

FYI... Here's is a link to OC_Dmax's ISO Code Test Data Summary (http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO/OC_Dmax.xls) file in Excel Format. Alan updated his spreadsheet to include the latest results with his RACOR Pre-OEM set up. These are the best ISO codes to date... We will keep this file updated as new results come in. smile.gif

[OC_DMAX]

I would like to thank JBPLOCK for hosting the fuel analysis spread sheet. It took him some time and effort to figure out how to get it hosted by his ISP so everyone here could have access to the data.

As more fuel samples are taken by Dieselpage members and the results are posted, the data will be incorporated into the spreadsheet. Eventually, a trend should evolve about each filter in general. I would advise you to not use the numbers here as absolute. There are really no best or worse samples. There are too many variables involved (i.e. sampling techniques, quality of pump fuel, mileage on filter when sample was taken, miles on fuel in tank prior to taking the sample, and twenty other that don't come to mind while I type). I expect the variance of the data sets for each filter type to be large.

Really what you are looking for is some proof that a particular filter type when combined with the OEM has demonstrated the capability of meeting the ISO Cleanliness level of 15/13/10 identified by George Morrison. I believe there is evidence to suggest that the Mega, CAT and Racor can achieve these levels of performance. That is a sufficient condition to choose one of these filters. The choice is yours!!

Enjoy the weekend,
Alan

[imported_]

I just posted one message congratulating OC DMAX about his test results and pointing to the fact that the pre-oem results were looking better than post-oem results.

Nomad56 responded with his views supporting post-oem filtration. I replied confirming my original statement sayingm, in effect, "To each his own."

The next thing I know a bear is attempting to censor me, stating he is concerned that my opinion may effect the 10,000 members.

[imported_]

Here's your message supporting the Mega filter:
mdrag Mega Filter (http://forum.thedieselpage.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=006496;p=3#0000 91)

I am happy that you have had good luck with it; No stalling, etc.

Others haven't.

[imported_]

Originally posted by hoot:
I guess in the same breath we could ask "how many have cut their filters open?".

Good question, and the answer will never be known for certain. I'll venture a bet that a very small number of filters are cut open for inspection. Now that I have the filter cutter tools - I CANNOT remove a filter without cutting it open, similar to the phenomenon that occurs when you have a torque wrench

I'm also wondering if the process of cutting the filter open didn't "loosen" the bottom plate.

I can't answer for everyone on this one, since multiple techniques are used to cut open the filters - from pipe cutters, dremel tools, and various saws. Using either the AIRWOLF AFC-470 or AFC-570 or the TAVIA 8340 should NOT cause the metal plate to separate from the filter media. The cut is made at or very near to the base of the filter, and on the OEM Racor the metal endcap is at the other end of the case. It is conceivable that if an incomplete cut is made, and the metal filter case is twisted or bent back and forth, that damage to the filter media and/or endcap could/maybe/possibly occur.

FWIW, I've cut open many filters since getting the filter cutting tools. Within the last 2 weeks (4) OEM Racor and (1) MEGA have gone under the knife. Not all of the OEM are off my truck. The only filter with an end cap separation and EXTENSIVE filter media damage and distortion was my OEM Racor with about 3K miles on it...I noticed a clanging noise while unscrewing the filter and before cutting it open. Check the link in my sig for examples of cut open filters to see what I've described.

If there are more failures than normal, perhaps it could have a correlation to guys with major incremental injection failure. Why some get it but most don't. You figure one dump of dirt off the media is enough to set the whole injection system into destruction mode.

Post OEM rules.

Similar thoughts have occurred to me on more than one occasion Fortunately, I have not been able to discern any adverse effects from this event, although I had a number of SES codes to clear.

Here's another observation sure to add fire to the fuel filtering controversy: I noticed that of the (4) OEM Racor filters that I mentioned above, (2) were using fuel additives and (2) unknown fuel additive use. The (2) 'additive used' metal cases had NO evidence of rust inside, while the (2) 'unknown additive' use metal cases had EXTENSIVE rust visible inside. One of the 'additive used' fuel filters was mine with 1.4K miles, and one of the 'unknown additive' filters had 70K MILES so it is not possible to draw conclusions yet...but warrants closer scrutiny.

[ 08-22-2003, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: mdrag ]

[a bear]

HB,
So where did mdrag make the statement. All I see is a post with his findings on his install. There you go twisting things around again.

[mdrag]

Originally posted by OC_DMAX:
I would like to thank JBPLOCK for hosting the fuel analysis spread sheet. It took him some time and effort to figure out how to get it hosted by his ISP so everyone here could have access to the data.

As more fuel samples are taken by Dieselpage members and the results are posted, the data will be incorporated into the spreadsheet. Eventually, a trend should evolve about each filter in general. I would advise you to not use the numbers here as absolute. There are really no best or worse samples. There are too many variables involved (i.e. sampling techniques, quality of pump fuel, mileage on filter when sample was taken, miles on fuel in tank prior to taking the sample, and twenty other that don't come to mind while I type). I expect the variance of the data sets for each filter type to be large.

Really what you are looking for is some proof that a particular filter type when combined with the OEM has demonstrated the capability of meeting the ISO Cleanliness level of 15/13/10 identified by George Morrison. I believe there is evidence to suggest that the Mega, CAT and Racor can achieve these levels of performance. That is a sufficient condition to choose one of these filters. The choice is yours!!

Enjoy the weekend,
Alan Alan,

That's the best summary of the fuel filtering challenge that I've read. I'm sorry that an informative topic got off track by this ranting and overshadowed your results.

FWIW, here is hoot's post (http://forum.thedieselpage.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=006502;p=4), second from the top on page 4. My reply is (8) posts down, with hoot's original in bold, and my answers in normal font.

Let's get back on topic.

mdrag

[Lone Eagle]

HB, I for one am getting tired of your nit picking non constructive post. Why don't you go away and come back with a better attitude. Later! Frank Blum

[jesshd]

AMEN!! tongue.gif

[Lone Eagle]

I received the results of my fuel analysis Fri. I wasn't going to post the results because they suck but since we don't have many I changed my mind.

ISO Cleanliness Code 18/15/11 :confused:
Max 20/19/15
Target 15/13/10

2 limit 10000 2 actual 1307
5 limit 5000 5 actual 254
15 limit 320 15 actual 19

Cetane 48.57
Water 64 PPM

The only good numbers are cetane and water. Later! Frank

[ 08-31-2003, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Lone Eagle ]

[ndamico]

Lone Eagle,

I wouldn't sweat the results. it is very easy to contaminate them, thus giving you poor numbers. since others have had good results with your setup i'm sure you're just fine.. if you really want good results i'd just try to improve your sampling procedure.

nick

[LanduytG]

If everyone would just not reply to HB their would not be a problem.

As far as all this fuel filter stuff goes, to each his own. Go post or pre oem it really does not matter because we are getting the level of ISO results we want. As far as brand all 3 that are being talked about here are doing the job. However it do like the test results that are being posted. I like pre oem on the frame because its clean and simple, 30 minutes will have the job complete. Yes you do have to get on your back when you need to change it and I have done it on the road in the winter when it was below zero. It was not fun but it did not take long. To change it in those conditions if its in the wheel well IMHO is much more of pain. But to each his own and thats why we have so many choices. Lets give it a rest.

Greg

[OC_DMAX]

Lone Eagle,

Could you send me your email address? I am interest in the specifics on how you performed your test and a couple of other items.

My email is "abetker(at)yahoo(dot)com

Thanks,
Alan

[hoot]

Lone Eagle,

We don't know if everyone that has had samples done has posted their bad ones. Thanks for your honesty.

[Lone Eagle]

I don't for one minute believe the numbers. The report says it is pump fuel. Later! Frank

[OC_DMAX]

I have received several emails from DP members indicating they could not read the Fuel Analysis spread sheet (hosted by JBPLOCK) because they did not have Microsoft Excel installed on their machine. One alternative is for us to host the spread sheet as a picture format (jpeg). I will eventually get around to it.

There is another option though. This applies to more than just reading the fuel analysis spread sheet. There is a free alternative to Microsoft Office (which contains the Excel application). There is a world-wide collaboration of programmers who are working on an "Office Like Suite", similar to the Linux model. The original code for the Office like suite was started in Germany and latter acquired by Sun Microsystems. The product was called the Star Office suite and has now changed names to Open Office. The Open Office product is available for free. It will read most Microsoft Office files. I have used Open Office for over a year on a Linux based machine that I have experimented with in the corner of my home office. It seems to work fine.

Go to www.openoffice.org (http://www.openoffice.org)

If you install the product, use the current 1.0.3.1 version. Also, the installer will asked whether you want Open Office to automatically open Microsoft Office files. My suggestion is to answer no (or uncheck the boxes) to these questions. This product is a really a good free alternative to Microsoft office. Especially as Microsoft has now started charging for each machine you install their product on at home (XP versions). If you don

[LanduytG]

Use excel to do everything in and then you can use pdf995 to print to a pdf and post it. It will be easy to do the updates. Here is the pdf995 site. pdf995 its free. (http://www.pdf995.com)

Greg

[george morrison]

Many thank to all who shared their information and superb work for this data compilation. These are some incredible fuel cleanliness numbers.. As I previously mentioned, there are managers of fleets writing million dollar checks weekly who do not have a clue as to fuel quality that has gone in their tanks, much less throughput quality to their fuel systems.
Just this week I visited with a 55 truck fleet of local delivery trucks, all less than a year old, that have had fuel pumps replaced in half the fleet a minimum of one and as many as three times. Yes, warranty has covered the pump replacement but not the tow to the dealership, lost time, etc.. Yet not even the engine manufacturer has requested a fuel sample to determine what is causing the failures.
The members of this site are light years ahead of the trucking industry in terms of diesel fuel knowledge, injection system life, problems, prevention....
Again, thanks to the work and sharing of superb results such as these published.
George

[jbplock]

Originally posted by LanduytG:
Use excel to do everything in and then you can use pdf995 to print to a pdf and post it. It will be easy to do the updates. Here is the pdf995 site. pdf995 its free. (http://www.pdf995.com)
Greg Thanks Greg! Pdf995 works great … :cool: Here is a PDF formated version of OC_DMAX’s
Fuel Test Results Summary-PDF (http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO/OC_Dmax.pdf)

and the previously posted

Fuel Test Results Summary - Excel (http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO/OC_Dmax.xls). smile.gif

[BROKERS]

I rest my case on pre oem racors!

Hoot i told you all along.See!


Oh i forgot, i don't own a Duramax !

Tom L.

[Phil B.]

Lone Eagle - why is the water a good number? Or, are you saying its good because its low?


Phil B.

[deerhunter7]

Like to thank everyone that worked on a filter system that we can count on . Many good options.Oc_Dmax I like your results , and I looked at a few pic sites of the frame rail install and decided to go that route. Ordered a 660 heated Racor from Greg Monday . Install should be a breeze with all the good install Pics to look at . A great site with some great guys :D