Fuel Filter Test Results

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.