Fuel Filter Test Results

Bill,

To answer your questions, I'm hoping someone makes the proper fitting to install 3/8" NPT to QD fitting. I'm hoping to find it in a catalog somewhere. The reasoning for all of this (borrowed from a number of other sources including the Preporator website) is just as you said, to pressurize the fuel as close to the tank as possible to prevent cavitation and pulling entrained air out of suspension. I've been told it's never good for a pump to suck, the longer the distance and greater the suction, the worse it is for the pump's longevity. As expensive as this Bosch pump is, $150 for an extra lift pump might save a few thousand in the long run. The QD fittings were designed for a pressurized system, and could potentially leak air if used in a vacuum system, which this is.

I plan to install a sensor in the fuel line to measure vacuum before doing the mods. Then after the mods, I can measure pressure, post OEM filter, to ensure adequate fuel is flowing. I've planned it out so that if it all has to be removed, it can be without replacing anything, since nothing was cut in the process.

Regards, Steve

Greg,
Do you plan to slip 1/2 inch ID hose over the cut steel lines and clamp on? Or would you use some flareless fittings like parker FERULOK?

Steve,
I’m still learning here but wouldn’t the OEM lines and fittings be designed for some vacuum? As JK has pointed out, there is a shrader valve after the OEM filter for measuring vacuum (?). Also what are “QD” fittings? Are they the quick release types I see on the fuel input and return lines in the engine compartment (near the back of the driver side valve cover) that seem “loose”? Installing a vacuum sensor in the fuel line sounds neat, but could we also use the schrader valve port to check before and after performance with the added filter?

Thanks!

Bill
I was thinking of just sliding the 1/2" hose over the cut lines. A nice fitting would look better but will need to come up with something you don't need any special tools for. I will get out my Parker book and start looking. I like the idea of using the OEM fittings but finding them I bet will be hard.
Greg

My Parker book does not have the Ferulok fittings in it. The Aeroquip push on fitting might work well to.
Greg

Without going back thru every post on this subject to see if there is an answer to my question I am going to post the question I have.

I don't see what putting more than one filter in tandem with another will do if each filter has the same micron filter rating. All of the particles 2 microns or larger than 2 microns should be removed by the first filter if the filter is rated at 2 microns. If the Racor filter is changed at 15000 miles like the owners manual says then that is the best protection available until someone makes a filter as good as the Cat. filter.

Tom

millietom,

It looks like our OEM filter only gets 40 to 60 pieces of dirt that are the two micron size out of a hundred. The addtional filter would get supposedly 98 out of 100 pieces of dirt. Togather they should get, just about all of it.

Seems simple huh?

To follow on what Todd has shared, even if you had two filters of the same efficiency rating, roughly 50/60%, you would still cut the number of abrasive/5 to 10 micron size particles in half. These filters are rated in terms of efficiency, NOT micron rating alone. We always say a filter's efficiency relative to a micron rating. In our OEM filter, it is roughly 60% efficent at removing particulates. If we have the OEM removing 60% then on to a 98% efficient filter, we will achieve a very high level of cleanliness going into our pumps and injectors which is going to translate into very long life at optimum performance levels. George Morrison, STLE CLS

As you all know I have been keeping up with topic since it's inception. What I want to know is how are you going to install a filter after the OEM? I can't see coming up with a good solution of my own!!!

Greg,
I found a description of the FERULOK fittings at www.parker.com/tfd/ and www.hoseandfittings.com. On the hoseandfittings site select Fittings - Steel - flareless hydraulic - straight or elbow 90. The 8-8 FBU-S is a straight 1/2 tube to 1/2 in NPT male. I'm not sure I want to go this way but it would make a good connection to the 1/2 steel fuel line and allow a way to connect the filter with high quality steel fittings and hose.

Got one more question. Can we buy the CAT filter head and filter and just install it someway in the system?

Bill
Thanks for the link I will look at it and see what they have.

Todd
Cat, Racor they both do a great job.

Greg

More filter news!!

Just got off the phone with the Sales and Marketing Manager at Stanadyne, Simon Garner.

He told me that their filters meet Bosch's Common Fuel Rail specification for filtration which is the same as the ISO TR13353 standard. The filter media is he same as Racor's. Racor just call's their's Aquabloc. The Stanadyne media is treated with a chemical that repels water therefore not letting it pass. Anyway it appears that the Stanadyne filter is the of the same quality as the Racor and I like the assembly better, plus it is cheaper and the elements are cheaper. Racor sent me a free 645R filter system and I am still going to use the Stanadyne, unless George and John come up with something better and I don't know what that would be better. Now if I could figure out how to place it into the system after the OEM.

To all of the knowledgeable members concerning the fuel filter testing; What is the best filter now available to replace the OEM ???? I ordered some of the INTERCEPTORS made by Parker, how are they ??


Jomar

Bill,

Yes, I believe they're called quick disconnect fittings, so I call them QD. They were originally designed for use with gasser fuel systems, which are pressurized with a pump in the tank. I'm told the reason that gassers can have a pump in the tank and diesels can't is the vapor pressure (volatility?) of each. Gas fumes displace all of the air(oxygen) in a tank. Diesel doesn't and can have an explosive mixture at certain tank levels. The pump may be a source of ignition, thus it's safe in a gasser fuel tank (unless the tank ruptures) and not in a diesel. The o-rings and sealing surface of the QD fittings were designed for pressurized use and may not always seal properly on a vacuum system.

The Ford guys have done a lot of research into this. A number of them have removed the fittings and replaced them with braided stainless hoses with swaged fittings or rubber hoses with clamps.

Regards, Steve

My 6-way valve for the auxiliary fuel tank is plumbed into my fuel lines inside the driver's frame (just realized that I have no photos in my links, have to fix that) by cutting the stainless lines and over-clamping rubber hoses. The fuel return line is clipped into the existing hose to the fuel cooler using the factory disconnect on the cooler. this system has worked very well for over 31,000 miles since end of December last year.

Steve,
Your comment about the quick-disconnect (QD) fittings being designed for pressurized systems raises some interesting questions. On my 2003, there are QD's near the driver's side valve cover that connects the steel fuel lines to flex hose, but the connections to the OEM fuel filter uses hose clamps. The QD connections are easily turned and feel "loose". It would seem possible that they could leak under vacuum and suck air. Maybe the reason GM uses QD's in some locations and not in others is for easy of assembly on the manufacturing line(?) Do you think we could use the Schrader valve vacuum test port to check the QD fittings for leaks or should we consider replacing the QD's with a clamped or ferrule/fitting connection? If the clamped connection works for the OEM filter, it seems it would work for the other connections including an add-on filter - provided that a cut steel line was flared to provide a good seal to the hose. Or maybe a small amount of non-hardening permatex would seal a hose on an un-flared cut line(?). Since Tom's clamped connections are working well, I'm wondering if using a ferrule (Ferulok) flare-less connection to the steel lines would be overkill.

Jomar,
JK has pointed out that there is most likley only ONE filter and it's made by RACOR. All the other Filter suppliers just buy from RACOR and put their label on it.

[ 11-13-2002: Message edited by: jbplock ]</p>

Jomar posted 11-12-2002 09:01 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To all of the knowledgeable members concerning the fuel filter testing; What is the best filter now available to replace the OEM ???? I ordered some of the INTERCEPTORS made by Parker, how are they ??"

--------------------

If you got an Interceptor with Parker on it you have the OEM filter.

Racor is a DIVISION of Parker Hannifin.

http://www.parker.com/racor/

Interceptor is the name of the filter from Racor.

http://www.dieselpage.com/pics/racredup.jpg

[ 11-13-2002: Message edited by: Brent - DIS ]</p>

Has anyone tried using a Davco 230 Fuel Processor?

HDLD,

The DAVCO filter looks interesting (http://www.davcomfg.com/) but I couldn't find any performance specs on their website. Do you have any more info?

There are some .pdf's and other info on their site. Now if they only had the filtration we are looking for...

"Laboratory tests and field trials show up to three times the life of "standard" diesel fuel filters. And at 5 micron rating at 98% efficiency, too. All this and it's made in the U.S.A. by Donaldson Filter Company."

I have been following this page from the begining and am consurned about this. I am currently working on making an adaptor like Choreboy and SWLA were talking about eariler for the Cat filter to adapt to the D-MAX fitting. I am a machinest by trade. A friend of mine has a PSD and is having fuel probablems and he and I are trying to work on this together. At this time I'm not having any probablems but am worried about the future of my truck. I agree with John Kennedy about keeping it reversable because if you on the road away from home johnny mechanic may not under stand.
I'll let you know the outcome of this project and hope to have it complete by the middle of next week or sooner. If any one wants to test the fuel after the conversion Im going on about a 3000 mile trip thanksgiving week and plan to change it before I leave and when I get back.
johnnyc1@centurytel.net

Would CAT make a filter for the Dmax? There isn't really any competition between the two makes in any area. I would think if they could make a buck they would do it. What better people to start a discussion than us. Literally thousands of customers right at their fingertips?

Matt B.

matt, I posed that question earlier to George and he said basically the only thing important to CAT is CAT and no one else matters, even if there is lots of money at stake in potential sales to Cummins and us for that matter they probably won't do it.

LA DMAX

Has anyone looked into the Baldwin fuel filter? Might be different rating/efficiency as opposed to the Racor.
http://www.baldwinfilter.com/catalog.html
PART NUMBER: BF7727
Descriptions : Microlite Fuel Element with Sensor Port
Fits : Chevrolet, GMC Light-Duty Trucks with 6.6L Turbo Diesel Engine
Replaces : GMC 97256734; Isuzu 8-97256-734-0
O.D. : 4 1/32 (102.4)
I.D. : 1 11/32 (34.1) & 1 1/2 (38.1)
Length : 5 5/8 (142.9)
Grommets : [1] Attached
O_Ring : [2] Included

Does the Duramax fuel system monitor flow or pressure downstream from the control valve (injector)?
If it does, then the pressure drop or flow rate across a filter membrane will prove to be less critical. The control valve will compensate for differing inlet pressures. The only time this could be affected (I think) would be in full open position. I would think that as a design criteria, the valve would never have a full open position. From a control standpoint, full open would assume "no control". Any thoughts?

Bill,

I'm 99% sure that all the mfrs LOVE QD fittings because they can just be snapped on and no judgement need be made during the assy. process. I have another diesel and when it had a fuel line leak, it would "run funny" and the fuel economy was down 15%. When the leak got really bad it needed to be reprimed every morning just to start. This phenomena might account for the different economy numbers all diesel owners are seeing, in addition to all of the other obvious factors. Some people's fittings may be sealing better than others.

I figured rather than fool with all of the fittings, I'd kill 3 birds with one stone and add a lift pump and pressurize the system.

madmax7,

The ECM must be monitoring either vacuum or fuel rail pressure, because if your fuel filter clogs to a certain level, the engine goes into limp mode and won't rev over 2,000rpm along with an SES light and code. If it's monitoring fuel rail pressure, that means the pump has been struggling to get to proper pressure and failing to do so. I don't like the thought of that.

All,

There's a local co. here that CNC machines any kind of teflon, nylon, polycarbonate, etc. If we can supply CAD dwgs or even a napkin sketch and the 2 different filters, they can make an adapter for a reasonable price, considering the qty involved. They are meticulous and if it's not perfect, they eat it and do it again. Plastifab is the name, Phone # is (858) 679-6600.

Regards, Steve

BigRed,

The Baldwin filter is a purchased part, meaning they buy it from Racor. This would explain the less than competitive price...

New Stanadyne filter installed today mounted on the frame.

Pics available soon!!!

JKennedy:
John;
Do you think the Wix filter is also a Racor?

The fuel filter is part #33810 by Wix, $40.02, @MurraysDiscount.com

I'm sure they are ALL purchase parts as the filter itself is so goofy looking I am sure nobody has tooled up for it. Looking into adapting a different filter to the OE mount, but then the water sensor will no longer function...

JK,

I wonder if the water sensor actually does function?

Regards, Steve

I'm sure if you had a large slug of water hit the bowl it would work, BUT the engine vibration would tend to break it up (as happens with tank slosh), AND water seems to find it's way through the filters anyhow.

Kind of a Catch 22 as you pretty much NEED the sensor for liability and to keep the mfr off your back...

I have proof that the water seperator works on the factory filter. They say a picture is worth a 1000 words. If you want a pic of the inside of a factory filter then e-mail me at:

todd.eldridge@cnet.navy.mil

I called Racor tech yesterday to start from scratch on this for my own edification.

The tech I got told me the GM oem filter comes from them at the same spec, just different paint as we already believe.

I asked about an in-line and was recommended a 660R2 assembly with a R60S replacement filter cartridge. Said this was a 2-micron.

I haven't been able to check the website to know if this is up-line or down from the 645R but the tech said I would probably never need to change the oem filter but it would be prudent to do it every year or so anyway, depending on miles.

Looking forward to reviewing the results!
George

TraceF

Yes the Racor 660R2 is a good choice. The 645R is a bit smaller but works just as well. One thing the 660R will do for you beside more gph capacity is longer filter life as well.

We have got a lot of guys using both the 660R and 645R. You could even go with the big boy 690R but mounting is a bit tuffer do to its length.
Greg

Todd- My Racor dealer is also the Stanadyne dealer in my area and the 100 series filter assembly we were comparing to the Racor 660 was almost double the initial cost.

We must have done something wrong in the cross reference. The discounted Racor assembly was just over $80 with the replacement element $21.

I don't like ferrul type fittings. For a $40k plus truck I don't want to save a few bucks on the installation of the filter. I will probably interrupt the fuel line where I have plenty of room to work and run a braided SS line to the filter mount and back. The brake line type flare with brass fittings works well with extreme pressure levels and is easy to connect/disconnect.

[ 01-10-2003: Message edited by: TraceF ]</p>

I'm no expert but I did a little research a while back and found that brass ferule fittings are designed for "soft" tubing like copper and aluminum and are not recommended for steel tubing. I went into my local NAPA and they had the weatherhead brass ferrule fittings next to the steel brake lines. The label on the drawer specifically said not to use with steel tubing. Parker makes high pressure "Ferulok" fittings designed for steel tubing that "bite" in to the tube making a positive seal (a Brass ferrule is softer than steel) I once tried to use brass ferrule fittings to mend a transmission cooler line and it leaked. I ended up using hydraulic hose.

jbplock-

Thanks- come to think of it, the brake line fittings I used on my CJ build up were in fact steel. Good catch Bill.

TraceF,

Your dealer must be high on diesel fumes, just kiddin. The FM-100's price with the optional hand primer is about $90. The is with a element. The replacement element is only $12. Besides the Racor 660 does not have a hand primer, so you must fill the filter with fuel, pain in the a**. Also the FM-100 is modular, you can add on to it later if you need to etc: fuel pump or heater. On the Racor you would have to buy another whole unit that had that on it.

Here is a link to my installation. I just slipped 1/2" braided fuel line over the fuel line and put two clamps on, no leaks.