A half-gallon 2-micron pre-oem filter. [Archive]

56Nomad

03-24-2003, 10:57

I'm impressed with your diligence and the nice work product you have
put on your truck. Quite a bit of "homework" you have done!

Obviously, your set up is one more way to skin the cat. Couple of
questions:

I didn't quite understand how you primed your set up.........

"I started the truck and ran out the fuel so
when I was priming I wouldn't pump any fuel out
in the engine well. It took 310 pumps to prime
the system and it started and ran without a problem."

You pre-filled the new filter with fuel. Then the only air in your
system would be a bit at the top of the filter and head and
rear lines. Why did you have to use 310 pumps?
I've read that some folks have just pre-filled the pre filter
with fuel and then start the engine without doing any priming?

Also, does your filter head have an air bleeder valve?

Not to flame but figure out solutions.... the placement of your
filter is now a possible target for road hazards and debris.
I really think you should put a shield in ASAP as you outlined.

Keep up the good work, as we all are learning.

For anyone thinking that this set up could be done under the air box
I don't think so....... I appears that it is too tall and I don't think it has an
air bleed. Trace, what do you say?

stutzismydog

03-24-2003, 10:58

TraceF~
Thank you for your well researched post on a subject that "appears" to be of primary importance to all of us Dmax owners.
I personally think that you are on the right track by placing a large capacity preOM filter that is easy to get to, costs about $110 and uses shelf item filters.
Keep up your good work and looking forward to your conclusions.

TraceF

03-24-2003, 11:04

I did not prefill because I wanted to see how many pumps it would take to fill the whole system. I started the truck to run the remaining fuel out that was between the Stanadyne I removed and the oem filter THEN started pumping.

The Stanadyne and Racor with the plastic bowls are a lot more vulnerable to road debris. Anything coming off of the front tire will hit the 1/4 plate steel. BTW- this could have been a lot wider and longer, I just didn't think it was necessary.

There isn't an air bleed but you don't need one pre-oem. The head and element shouldn't be any taller than JK's.

[ 03-24-2003: Message edited by: TraceF ]

stutzismydog

03-24-2003, 11:21

Good job TraceF......I think that you are on the right track with your application. Keep us posted with your results.

roegs

03-24-2003, 13:54

Trace...Thanks for the great post! For us guys here in the snow belt, I liked your frame mount the best, and had hoped for a solution similar to your original stanadyne. The least amount of slop from snow and salt is midway between the wheel wells. I really would not want to swap out JK's front mount solution in the middle of winter. That wheel well would be a mess (just my own opinion, and I understand others may not share it). I saw the new spot you mounted yours when I was snooping under my truck yesterday. There really is quite a bit of room there.

You (and others on this forum) have done more research than I ever could on this, and it seems that there is just no frame mount solution (other than a 10 micron filter like Ritchie did). My decision now is to either do a frame mounted 10 micron solution like your original Stanadyne, or the rear mounted 2 micron like your new one. I'm also kinda curious to see what Racor might come out with for additional filters. Did they mention anything to you?

JK...any interest in doing a rear mount for your filter that could be used by pre-OEM folks? :cool:

Kennedy

03-24-2003, 14:09

Scott,

Not sure if I will do a universal mount. I've got a similar setup for an oil bypass filter in the works, and it should be easily adapted, BUT, I think there needs to be a way to remove air from any filter. The OE does NOT do this effectively as there is no "dirty side" bleeder so any air above the level of the center nipple will remain there unless it is "grabbed" as a bubble in the fuel supply. I have seen a need to rebleed my secondary after the initial operation as my mount will tend to catch air due to the long center nipple.

It only takes $1.50 at the local coin wash to spray out the wheel liner, and any slush that I've seen has been inside the wheelwell which extends a good 5.5" past the filter body. In the pics on Trace's album, it would appear that it would still get full of slush and crap any way you look at it...

Being from WI, I know all about snow (or lack thereof this year) and think that if one were to need to service this unit, it shouldn't be that tough to get it into some heat for a while. The under flush of a car wash seems to do a nice job of cleaning it as well.

[ 03-24-2003: Message edited by: kennedy ]

TraceF

03-24-2003, 15:35

Kennedy- when I reported that my Stanadyne began to clog enough to feel restriction you posted the question- "wonder what the restriction is with the new element" or something to that effect.

I responded that the only way I could tell would be with a by-pass hose and my GTech.

Well- now I know. I just peeled of a 6.37 0-60 time. I could hardly believe the reading. My previous best was a 7.35 with the brand new Stanadyne. It was restricting a lot! The truck is noticeably perkier.

When I was working on the head modifications I blew through the Baldwin head and element and the air went through just as easily as it would have gone through a piece of 1/2" tubing.

Element size is everything if you're going 2-mic.

TraceF

03-24-2003, 15:55

Michael Tomac- A DP member I know has designed some of them out of a material very much like the front liners. He tells me it comes on a 20" wide roll.

He just went down from the bed humps and used the existing fender bolts. I may try this if I can find the material.

Kennedy

03-24-2003, 16:19

Placebo effect or not, most report a better running truck when the fuel is cleaned up. There is some REALLY dirty fuel out there! I think Mdrag has found some with good cetane, but TONS of dirt!

56Nomad

03-24-2003, 18:07

Hi Trace,

You wrote:

"When I was working on the head modifications I blew through the Baldwin
head and element and the air went through just as easily as it would have
gone through a piece of 1/2" tubing."

I was curious to see what numbers my Racor 660 set up has, if
I blew thru it. The specifications says that it has a clean element
pressure drop of .05 PSI That sounds pretty minimal. The question
is...... how long will my secondary filter stay "clean"

My OEM filter will need to be replaced at 15,000 to 20,000 miles. I
believe that my secondary 2 micron Racor will go that distance or
more. Time will tell and that is the joy of this forum.

Do you know what the pressure drop is for the BF7635 ?

Also, I failed to look at all your photos and see that you indeed
modified your filter assembly head....... cool. Looks like you might
be correct and it just might fit under the air box as JK has done. Keep
in mind that there is only a limited amount of room to put a filter under
the air box and it appears that JK has done his level best to make his
assembly squeeze in that space appropriately. Also, me thinks you
will not be able to easily configure the hoses as the inlet and outlet lines
need to face toward the rear of the truck.

[ 03-24-2003: Message edited by: 56Nomad ]

TraceF

03-24-2003, 18:46

Your OEM filter should be changed at the recommended interval, it's still doing as much filtering as without your add-on. Many of the earlier filter threads seemed to indicate even this was too long. Take a look at the picture of my first OEM with only 5k miles on it.

My belief is that the only way to stretch this interval is with a prefilter. I am hoping to get 12k miles from the Baldwin as a prefilter.

I am also hoping someone would come to a conclusion as to the easiest and most economical way to measure the system restriction, Racor suggested at the OEM bleeder.

I really have no idea how long your Racor will last but it will certainly be longer than if it were a prefilter. Did you read what I wrote about my 0-60 time? The Racor isn't significantly bigger than the Stanadyne.

56Nomad

03-24-2003, 19:06

Trace, you wrote in part

"Did you read what I wrote about my 0-60 time"

I'm really not that sure that replacing the Stanadyne with the
big Baldwin had much to do with that. Do you have your time with
the OEM filter alone? Also, although it is pure conjecture,
it would appear that your maintainance costs might be a bit higher
if you only expect 12,000 miles with the big Baldwin as a pre-filter.

When I replaced my OEM filter at 21000+ miles, it looked like the
dirt level had only gone up 1/2 the filter medium. Could be that
our $2 a gallon California diesel fuel is cleaner :D

I looked on the Baldwin website and cannot find any clean element filter
pressure drop information. JK probably has the numbers if he is willing
to share ;)

TraceF

03-24-2003, 20:11

Howard- there have been several posts about measured restriction of the OEM alone and together with the Baldwin 7635. They are back a week or so in one of these filter threads.

The 0-60 times reinforced what I thought when the Stanadyne filter began to clog. Media size is important.

I wondered why DP members were getting better 0-60 times than I was, I even asked mackin to give me some launch advice a few weeks ago because he was so much faster than me with similar tires, Juice, and exhaust. I had the truck solidly at 7.4 seconds. It would run pretty consistently at 8.8 or 8.9 before the Juice 90.

My assumption was that my truck had bigger tires (brand new) and this was slowing me down a little. Worn tires with shallow tread hook up better on a hole shot. Also, no 2 trucks are alike, some are just faster for some reason or another.

With the Stanadyne removed and the Baldwin installed the truck felt peppier so I took my GTech back out where I went before and ripped off a 6.5 first run. I had to tinker with the launch a little to get below 6.4.

I believe this was a result of fuel flow. I haven't changed anything else.

20k miles seems good for an OEM filter alone. Mine should go 50k with this huge prefilter.

:D

Jelisfc

03-25-2003, 03:42

TraceF, Great post. Plenty of food for thought.

"BTW,

TraceF

03-25-2003, 14:56

If Webshots updates the traffic counter daily my pics got 900 hits in the past day. WOW. I only have 3800 total since I started the album. I have like 50-60 emails from members or lurkers now and thanks for all of the nice comments but I don't want to build or sell any filter units. I don't have a retail business.

I will be happy to fax the bracket drawing with dimensions to anyone but I'm not even sure it will fit on a long bed truck. There could be a difference with the filler neck or cross members under the bed floor and anyone can get under there with a tape measure.

If you don't want to try to build one, get a kennedy unit and get a bracket made. You can bolt right into the top of it if I read his instructions correctly.

Thanks! :D

Jelisfc

03-26-2003, 04:07

TraceF, what prompted you to mount your assembly outside of the frame? I understand from the arrows on the head you can't bolt it too the inside frame rail because the flow path would be backwards and the hoses would be wrapped all over the place. I'd be more inclined to mount it inside the frame but create a bracket that reversed the head so the flow path was correct.

mackin

03-26-2003, 05:29

Trace

Dude I can tell you live in Florida......

Up here in the North I could see that totally encrusted with frozen ice and snow on a cold January mourning......

Can you say JEL-LOOOO !!!!!!! tongue.gif tongue.gif

No dig just an observation,Bro.....

Since your the experimental guy, what's your best guesstamit on high up the filter can be placed from the lines ???

In other words if I were to plum the lines and put the filter in say the tool box in my truck would I be able to manually pump the fluid or have to add a lift pump of sorts.....

Your setup looks sweet, send me a bracket,completed and painted,no drawings,I have a pen and pencil and paper all ready.....Your just lucky your not in the Frozen muck zone....

MAC :D :D :D

TraceF

03-26-2003, 05:38

Jelisfc- The filter and head is too long to go anywhere under the truck between the frame rails. A shorter filter would have to be found.

mackin- for you, I will pull my own off and send it. It will be the big oily wet dripping smelly UPS box with no return address :D :D

I didn't have any trouble getting it to prime, as JK illustrated the filter is almost "invisible" to the system but I don't know about going up and down hills like into a tool box application. I also did no heater research because I won't ever need one.

BTW- 550 hits on Webshots since yesterday! Amazing.

[ 03-26-2003: Message edited by: TraceF ]

Jelisfc

03-26-2003, 08:38

Soooooooooooooo just how tall it this bad boy???

Heck for another 32 bucks I could add a second head and run a ?? micron pre pre filter and a 2 mic pre filter. PS everyone...Lets not go into the potential pressure drop issue. It's just a random thought. smile.gif

Kennedy

03-26-2003, 08:54

I still say I don't want air in my filters! The next time I have my OE filter off, I'll likely pull the OE mount and add a dirty side bleeder so I can get all of the air out at service. Little bubbles of air in the system, even on occasion are not good, and a filter without a dirty side bleeder will not do a good job of evacuating the air above the center feed ring's lowest point. In time, small bubbles will release as the incoming fuel gets a bit aerated, but the less of this that occurs, the better...

Mack,

Not sure how you plan to mount in the bed, but keep in mind that lifting the fuel causes head loss...

TraceF

03-26-2003, 09:01

Jelifsc-

It's about 13 1/4 inches from top of head to bottom of drain post.

JK-

I guess air in the head is possible, hell, anything is possible. This head could easily be drilled and tapped with a bleeder on top of the dirty side. What negative performance condition or symptom would we experience if there was air in the top of the dirty side on any filter head? My truck seems to be running better than ever.

[ 03-26-2003: Message edited by: TraceF ]

56Nomad

03-26-2003, 13:53

Trace.. you wrote:

"I guess air in the head is possible, hell, anything is possible.
This head could easily be drilled and tapped with a bleeder on
top of the dirty side."

As you may recall, I installed a brass petcock on the top of my
filter assembly to bleed the air. You can find one at a good hardware
store or radiator shop. It worked well when I primed my filter as
first a primary filter.... then after moving it to a secondary filter.
I thought it would be easier than trying to find a brass screw with
o-ring. Pictures are in my signature.

If anyone has any questions about my set up, my e-mail is
quailman@cruzio.com

For those interested, my set up which includes 7' Parker hose,
2 brass fillings, 4 worm clamps, 1 petcock, filter and head has cost
just over $117. Replacement filters should run me less than $20.

Thanks for all your input.

[ 03-26-2003: Message edited by: 56Nomad ]

TraceF

03-28-2003, 06:34

I got this email last night-

<< Trace,

Do you recall approximately how thick the top of the Baldwin mounting head is, i.e., approximately 1/4", which would be thick enough to drill, tap, and insert a radiator petcock as a bleeder?

Also, I realize that the advertised port sizes are 3/8" NPT; approximately what I.D. remains when you insert your brass fittings?

Thanks for your perservance/tenascity in coming up with a workable mount AND SHARING IT! >>

I answered this-

<< Hello Dxxxx-

The head can be tapped but I wouldn't use a rad pet cock. If you decide you have to have a bleeder, I would tap in a grease zerk so you can just depress the button. GM doesn't even have a dirty side bleeder and I think this is not needed especially if it's pre-oem.

The hose is 1/2 ID and the fittings don't reduce this much. The fuel line is WAY oversized. There is no flow problem.

Let me know if I can help. >>

FWIW- Small bubbles, if any exist, of air passing through a 2-micron filter are literally going to molecularize, they won't reform in the system in my opinion. I can see a possible issue post-oem but I do not beleive this is an issue where my filter is installed.

If you need a bleeder I would not use a radiator petcock. The cavity in the drain could become encrusted with dirt, mud, etc.

With a grease zerk you could apply a small amount of air pressure to the filler and depress the zerk button until you see fuel and not worry about crust remaining in the petcock.

I also got a few more of these-

<< Please send me a drawing of the fuel filter bracket that you have made and any other information that would be helpful in the installaion, and did you cut off part of the baldwin filter base? Thanks >>

As I said earlier, I am glad to fax this, I can't email it because I don't have the software to do design work on my computer. BUT BE AWARE- if you are trying to put this on any truck that is not a crew cab short bed you may have filler neck location issues, etc. I would get under there with a tape measure to be sure it fits before you make it or pay to have it made.

Thanks for all of the feedback!

smile.gif

Kennedy

03-28-2003, 08:41

Trace,

Ask the Ford guys about what air does in their systems. If 2 micron filter can "molecularize" fuel...

When we run under vacuum, a spring loaded grease zerk ball is NOT something I would rely on.
If you put a vent on the top and apply a light pressure to the tank to purge the air, this will get rid of it.

www.preporator.com has a filter system that deals with air. Personally, I think it is overkill, but IF one were to have an air riddled system, this looks like a good solution.

Fuel spilling into the filter will likely have somewhat of a waterfall effect in that it will aerate the fuel due to the presence of air. This air will go to the next filter and do the same thing until it releases from there and goes to the system.

The way that I layed out my setup is to have a dirty side bleeder, AND a large area above the pickup nipple. This will tend to hold the majority of the air coming in with the fuel. I have found that bleeding the filter at install is NOT sufficient, at least when installed as a secondary. After a short period of running, a quite substantial volume of air can be re-bled as it is likely drawing this air from the OE unit. The OE unit has no bleeder to remove air on the dirty side.

I am intending to add a dirty side bleeder to the OE unit, as there surely has to be air remaining in there, as it takes several pumps of the primer to get a firm pressure/resistance, which is likely due to the compression of air...

56Nomad

03-28-2003, 09:43

Trace,

You wrote in part.....

>If you need a bleeder I would not use a radiator petcock.
>The cavity in the drain could become encrusted with dirt, mud, etc.

Where I have my filter located, it's not prone to collect dirt under the
air box and protected by the splash shield. It wouldn't be difficult to
find an easily removable plastic cap or cover to place over the top of
the petcock if worried about dirt collecting in the cavity of the drain.
Trace..... I think I have given me another Saturday project :D

56Nomad

03-28-2003, 10:20

John, you wrote in part:

>Ask the Ford guys about what air does in their systems.

I don't know any of them guys :D Could you please tell us what
they're saying? What does air do to their systems and what
do you suspect it will do to our fine engines.

[ 03-28-2003: Message edited by: 56Nomad ]

TraceF

03-28-2003, 11:09

I asked the same basic question 6 posts back.

mackin

03-28-2003, 11:33

Um Cackle .......

=>http://www.thedieselstop.com/faq/9497faq/tsb/tsb/files/002201.pdf

Must will say it was do to the style fuel line fittings used allowing air into the system,and pressure regulator causing fuel starvation if I remember right.....

=>http://www.thedieselstop.com/faq/1999faq/audio/idle_stationary.wav

MAC

TraceF

03-28-2003, 11:51

<< it was do to the style fuel line fittings used allowing air into the system,and pressure regulator causing fuel starvation if I remember right.....>>

Not an issue with my system. Permatex at the NPT's and FLARED at the fuel line interruption.

Kennedy

03-28-2003, 12:29

The mention of the Ford issues was only to show what kind of problems CAN exist when air is present in the system. While the Dmax doesn't seem to mind air just too much, I still don't want random air in my system. I should add that I HAVE changed OE filters and observed a brief period of rough running/surging as air worked through the system even though I bled the system at the factory port.

As for air in the filter housing, It's really quite simple:

If you have no dirty side (housing) bleeder, there will alway be the potential for air to remain at a level just above the suction (feed) nipple. If air is kept in the filter housing, I'm quite certain the possibility exists for this air to join the fuel as it "spills" into the filter.

This presence of air may NEVER cause a problem, but whenever possible, I cross my T's and dot my I's.

FWIW, Stanadyne did a bottom feed, and top bleed system on the 6.5l trucks. This ensured that all air could be evacuated from the housing...

TraceF

03-28-2003, 14:47

A quality HD alamite fitting can take as much as 5 or more POUNDS to depress.

Since we covered in detail vacuum, lift, etc. I won't go there again but if you can illustrate that the GM Duramax fuel system can pull air through a alamite zerk, sent it to me and I will eat it.

Point aside there are any number of ways to tap a bleeder into this head but I'm not doing it until someone can show that it needs one.

Broker- where are you? I want to hear about your filters and bleeders.

I went from Daytona to Jacksonville and back, and then to Tampa and back, and ran around in both cities these past few days.

I traveled 460 miles on 24.6 gallons of fuel. That's 18.7 mpg in mixed driving, much of it between 75 and 80.

My truck is running better than ever.

Who has identified an economical device to measure the fuel system restriction at the oem bleeder port?

Also, I need a suggestion as to how to get a clean fuel sample for analysis post-oem.

56Nomad

03-28-2003, 16:08

Trace,

I did'nt have to wait till this weekend. Simple solution to
protect any possible dirt getting into the petcock bleeder
was to cover it with a piece of heavy duty aluminum foil.
There was not much room to try to fit some kind of a cover,
but this was an easy fix.

TraceF

03-28-2003, 16:36

Howard- put a micrometer on it and tell me the size. I have an assortment of rubber caps that are high quality marine antenna tip protectors.

You will of course owe me $ .37 for the stamp.

:D

Kennedy

03-28-2003, 17:30

Trace,

I did not know that grease zerks were precision ground and would be air/vacuum tight... :confused:

Howard,

Did you install as a secondary? If so, you can just pump up the factory primer prior to cracking the bleeder and all will discharge.

56Nomad

03-28-2003, 19:00

John,

Yes, it's a Recor (2 micron) assembly installed as a secondary......
picts at: http://community.webshots.com/album/66562661oghYok

My bleeder worked just as you say.

Howard

a bear

03-30-2003, 12:32

Home Again !
JK,
I agree on the zerks. No way would I use this for a bleeder or encourage other members to do the same. If they were precision ground you couldn't buy them for a dime a dozen. If they were intended for this use they would be called bleeder zerks. !!! :rolleyes:

Trace,
Yes they do leak and yes I have seen high quality thread on and button types leak. Anyone ever have that little grease worm come back out when removing the gun !! I have also seen what air will do to a positive displacement pump, be it rotary, recip., any. The problem is our system runs on a negative pressure and if there is an air leak you would not know it. Air has little resistance to flow and will leak through the smallest passage, unlike grease.

PS I may be able to round up a few high quality leaky ones, Just let me know how you would like them served.
:rolleyes:

[ 03-30-2003: Message edited by: a bear ]

[ 03-30-2003: Message edited by: a bear ]

TraceF

03-30-2003, 18:00

Yeah Tommy- I've seen dirty zerks spit up too but I doubt you have to worry about anybody running out to get a "bleeder" of any kind. This system doesn't need a bleeder pre-oem. Period. The GM design proves this despite kennedy's "rough running" engines after a fuel filter change.

I get so fed up with the spew of scare tactics used to "work up" the less knowledgeable readers who come to these Diesel Pages to learn something about their truck that it makes me sick.

I'm afraid again. I'm afraid for everyone on these forums that gets sucked into the whole "your Duramax is going to fall apart if you don't get a... " because sure as sh!t the Paul Revere problem announcer is going to be back through town with the fix as soon as you can turn around and say "huh?".

Kennedy already says he has an oil by-pass system under development. By all of the accounts of oil analysis I have read in these forums, some very recent, the OEM filter seems to be doing a great job. In some cases out to the manufacturers recommended interval of 10,000 miles. Do we really NEED this? If you want cleaner oil pay attention to your air filter and follow a rigid change interval. I bet we hear a dozen reasons why we need oil by-pass in the coming weeks. And what's next? ATF bypass? Power steering by-pass?

Give me a break.

[ 03-30-2003: Message edited by: TraceF ]

FirstDiesel

03-30-2003, 18:58

Boy

I wish I was as smart as you think you are. :rolleyes:

Idle_Chatter

03-30-2003, 21:16

Yo, TraceF, what's with all the vitriol? I happen to have reinstalled an Amsoil dual remote bypass oil filtration system at my last oil change at 45,000 miles. At 50,000 miles, my oil is still clear and shows none of the captured soot that was in my previous changes. Removal of abrasive soot from my lubricating oil is a bad thing? A diesel page supporter and innovator who only sells and endorses products that he has prototyped or uses on his own vehicles should be spattered like that? What burr got under your saddle?

TraceF

03-31-2003, 06:16

We have a vendor telling us that dirty fuel is the cause of premature injection failures. They look like "moon craters" under a microscope. A few very knowledgeable people debunked the alleged Duramax injector wear issue as not being resultant of dirty fuel if there were cratering present. This is probably a flow/cavatation/soft seat issue. This argument is at least as credible as "The CAT study showed injector problems were the result of dirt"... argument. What do CAT injectors have to do with Duramax issues? There has been absolutely no proof that dirty fuel has anything to do with OLDER Duramax injector issues.

We have 2 vendors recommending you spend upwards of $100 (one who provides the service and one who is his friend) for ferrographic oil analysis when $12 spectrographic analysis has already said clean oil. CTC Labs, one of the biggest in the country says this is a waste.

We have one vendor, who actually has roll up doors in their garage I believe, doing retail service work, saying another DP vendor recommending this extra fuel filtration if full of crap and actually recommending that retail customers DO NOT buy fuel filter add-ons for the Duramax system. I ask you- is he looking out for his wallet or the customer's best interest?

We have "Racor" saying the fuel system is not the

hoot

03-31-2003, 06:46

I don't believe JK started a fuel filter "scare". It was us regular members that started most of the topics on fuel filtering.
All JK is doing is seeing an opportunity to provide a bolt in fuel filter kit that attempts to address all of the issues brought up by the membership.

Thank John for using his personal truck to develop these aftermarket systems. Sure he needs to make a buck. Who doesn't?

Bottom line....
Looks like so far adding a big fuel filter probably is a good idea. It certainly can't hurt. I'm putting my own in. I like the insurance.

[ 03-31-2003: Message edited by: hoot ]

LanduytG

03-31-2003, 07:48

I can't believe the one doing the most complaining has got an aftermarket filter on his truck.

"Be very careful buying into all the hype about "needed stuff or your truck will die" that could result in warranty issues down the road. Buyer beware."

Trace you say we don't need the extra filter but then you say yes cleaner fuel is better then you put and extra filter on, why? I guess you fell for the hype too.

If these engines are going to go 200K or more with a trouble free fuel system then why put it on?

You must not believe what you are saying or you would not of put on the extra filter.

You want to blame injector nozzle failure on air, soft seats or what ever. I guess Bosch does not know how to make nozzles and they have only been making them for 75 years.

When the injector is replaced its because of to much return fuel. How do you think it got to much return fuel? Well an educated guess is DIRT ground away at the nozzle.

As for the Cat study having nothing to do with our injectors. Now how can you really think that? Without studies like that how can anything be improved upon? High pressure injectors are high pressure injectors being Cat, Bosch or who ever.

Now lets discuss getting a fuel sample. Surely you can do this without any advice from the DP members. You also say the test results are not valid because of sampling procedures. Well I have to agree to a point but this is not rocket science and their have been many good samples taken.

You say that Racor says what we have is good enough. Well you know what they backed up a little and then said another filter is a good idea. They also said they were going to come out with and aftermarket filter of their own. Now why would they do that if the OEM system was good enough?

I try not to get into pi$$ing contest over these things and I have been on the sideline reading all this. What I really think is that you are a guy that know one could ever satisfy. You are to cheap to give JK the bucks for his system and then wonder why he does not give out information. The amount of time and money involved in developing a product and then you seem to think he should give away the information? Seems to me between buying the wrong filter system the first time and now coming up with the latest filter that you have spent way more than if you would of bought JK

a bear

03-31-2003, 09:26

Trace,
You sure have a way of twisting things around to your advantage.
I'm not trying to start as you call it a << dreaded air in fuel issue>> I'm simply trying to put information out there that may or may not be of interest/benefit to our members. When digging around in old threads to use as ammunition against other members why don't you dig into your own if you want to see a real pile of uneducated BS and conflict. A lot of us recieve private e-mail from other members but you seem to be the only one to use them to pat yourself on the back for everyone to see. Most members use this forum for information sharing and enjoyment. What are your reasons. Personally I appreciate the time and effort our venders spend helping us to enhance our investments.

[ 03-31-2003: Message edited by: a bear ]

mdrag

03-31-2003, 09:30

From a previous post that I made:

http://forum.thedieselpage.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=005391&p=1

QUOTE
--------------------------------------------

Racor,
Thanks for your thorough explanation on the Dmax fuel filtering system. I'm sorry to say that as a 'real world' user, I do not share the same confidence in the ability of the OEM fuel filtering system since I experienced a significant fuel filter problem on my Dmax.

Being a 5 percenter, I decided to add a second fuel filter to minimize the chances of this happening again. Kennedy's MegaFilter/Baldwin arrived Friday and was installed this past weekend as a post OEM fuel filter. I plan to change the OEM/Megafilter based on fuel filter restriction measurements using the OEM port at the front of the engine.

Why did I choose post OEM instead of pre OEM?

1) The 2001-2003 2500HD/3500 Dmax fuel filtering system was DESIGNED AND SOLD with ONE fuel filter. From this, GM and/or Bosch and/or Racor must feel that the Racor single fuel filter is adequate and could do the job with ALL PARTICLE SIZES for 15K miles (the GM recommended change interval). So why not use the Racor as a very good pre-filter, and add a second higher efficiency filter after the OEM?

2) If you want to filter down to (2) microns, the Racor OEM apparently isn't capable of this level of performance. It has already been shown by a few forum members (and warnings from filter manufacturers) that a 2 micron primary fuel filter installed pre OEM clogs too early, so a post OEM 2 micron filter is the logical remaining choice.

3) Regarding warranty concerns: I'd rather take my chance arguing that extra fuel filtration DID NOT cause a problem...

4) The primary OEM should start to clog/restrict sooner than the secondary MegaFilter due to the smaller filter media area and exposure to larger particles. This assumption relies on the OEM being an efficient filter and little should get by to the MegaFilter. The much larger MegaFilter would function as a true 'safety net' in the event that the OEM failed.

I plan to submit fuel samples this weekend - post OEM and post KD MegaFilter.

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

Here are further explanations of 'a significant fuel filter problem on my Dmax' and the 'safety net' comment. I suffered a completed OEM Racor fuel filter 'failure'. The fuel filter in question had 3K (three-thousand) miles on it. There was practically no warning. During a cold start-up in 60 degree temps, the engine started making all kinds of racket with a very erratic idle.

I suspected a fuel filter problem. While removing the Racor fuel filter, I noticed a 'new' sound - a clanging noise from inside the fuel filter. I was completely shocked at what I found when I cut open the filter. The metal end cap had separated from the OEM Racor filter, the filter media was partially collapsed and distorted with tears through the entire thickness of the filter - it appeared that a section of the filter was going to tear off. Fortunately I was leaving my shop when this event happened. I shudder to think what COULD have happened if I had been traveling and tried to drive for any distance...

I mentioned that I had lost my confidence in the OEM Racor fuel filter - I think you can see why. When forum discussions turned to fuel filters, I was very interested in adding additional filtration. My fuel filter problem MAY have resulted from a tank of bad fuel and/or algae - but these are real world situations, and sooner or later could happen to anyone.

BTW, the results of my fuel analysis revealed that my OEM Racor filtered fuel was dirtier than Kennedy's UNFILTERED FUEL sample results that he has posted on his website. This was with a practically new Racor fuel filter. The fuel sample from the OEM Racor primary/ KD Megafilter secondary showed at least a 7X reduction in >2 and >5 micron particle counts relative to the OEM setup. The OEM Racor did a good job with the >15 micron count particles though :rolleyes:

Sounds like all hype and speculation to me tongue.gif

Filter failure MAY be a rare and isolated event - but since few cut open their filters for inspection, we may never know.

Kennedy

03-31-2003, 10:05

Glad I was gone over the weekend!

Simply put: Air and dirt in fuel are bad things.

When we take fuel with 5.8 million partcles per gallon in the 5-15 micron range down to 3.3 million, we are doing a good thing, BUT when we drop that number again to 300,000, we are doing GREAT things.

I have seen NO supporting data for any other add on filters in terms of restriction etc. Fact is, from empty to full tank levels, I have seen a 1" hg change in restriction. Now lift that fuel higher than it already goes and this will increase as well. My location likely adds most of it's minor additional restriction due to the need to lift higher as well.

Air is in there, and this will get to be a bigger subject as people begin to realize that out fuel system may be just as air riddled as the Ford PSD :eek: The culprit may be the push lock fittings, but I think it may well prove to be the primer pump. Either way, air is NOT a good thing!

56Nomad

03-31-2003, 12:00

John,

You wrote in part: "I have seen NO supporting data for any other add on filters in terms of restriction etc"

I might be missing the issue, but the Racor 660R which I'm using
has a clean element pressure drop of .05 PSI Is this what you
are refering too?

Howard

Kennedy

03-31-2003, 12:17

I'm talking down and dirty, in the trenches, as installed etc.

Basically, like Mdrag and myself have done. Measure restriction, install filter re-check restriction. I'm not saying that yours won't pass with flying colors, but to test is to know for sure...

NWDmax

03-31-2003, 12:17

Nobody twisted my arm to buy any of the add ons I put on my rig.
I joined the D Pages to learn since the bulk of my experience is with gas engines.
A couple of things my father taught me was to not believe everything you hear or read for that matter and question everything.
After compiling enough info on any given subject make a decision.
I have and I'm very happy with all the products I've purchased from a variety of vendors here and elsewhere.
"Let the buyer beware" is as true today as it ever was!
Blake smile.gif

Jelisfc

03-31-2003, 15:00

John, point me to an older post or tell me how you take restriction measurements. I know there is a schrader valve but am concerned how to hook up to it and not introduce a small amount of air or dirt into the system.

Thanx.

george morrison

03-31-2003, 16:46

Regarding the TraceF comment "The CAT study showed injector problems were the result of dirt"...argument. What do CAT injectors have to do with Duramax issues? There has been absolutely no proof that dirty fuel has anything to do with OLDER Duramax injector issues."
The direct relevance in the CAT high pressure fuel injector study and our Duramax engines is "high pressure fuel system". In a high pressure hydraulic system (our 25,000+ fuel system) Vickers established wear rates for high pressure pumps and servo valves directly related to 5 to 10 micron contaminant levels. The CAT study validated the correlation of the original Vickers work accomplished 20 years ago. It is very simple: when one has a piston creating upwards of even 6,000 psi, the clearances of the piston with the wall are in the 5 to 10 micron region. A wear particle in the 5 to 10 micron region will cause wear: the higher the particle concentration, the higher the wear rates. The fuel injector (a form of servo valve) will also have the same operational clearances, the same wear factors.
Hopefully this will provide the direct relationship of not only the very complete CAT fuel injection system study but also the simple Vickers/Hydac ISO cleanliness wear relationships. Certainly factors such as air and water entrainment in diesel fuel can be contributory to fuel system wear rates but given the research and real world data concerning the direct relationship between dirt levels and wear rates, it is a quantifiable starting point to move toward fuel system life extension.
George Morrison, STLE CLS

[ 03-31-2003: Message edited by: george morrison ]

Kennedy

03-31-2003, 17:40

There is a factory issue gauge used to measure restriction. I have been looking into setting up a "consumer grade" gauge setup, but things are progressing slowly...

FirstDiesel

03-31-2003, 17:42

Seems to me if someone is trying to earn a living and they differ in opinion with our friend, or don't give him info he wants for free then he starts to take shots at them.

Then the answer is his posting emails from others praising him.

Seems to me these vendors he slams have info and equipment and experience to back their statements and opinions up. What does he have, praising emails??

srubrn

03-31-2003, 18:18

You boys need to drink a beer and chill out. I have been on the side lines for a while. I think all this filter business has gotten out of control. I do what I want to do because I want to do it. If I read something I think that is credible then I will investigate. I ran what Racor original said about filtration by my engineer friend at Stanadyne and he agreed. I am continuing to run the Stanadyne 2 micron filter with no apparent problems. The 4.3 in filter stopped up at 3k miles. I now have a 6in. 2 micron filter on my truck. I will see how long it last. I am willing to go up to a 10 micron filter if that is what it takes. I offered any help when this whole business of secondary fuel filters first got started. Everyone at the time was talking about it and doing nothing about it. I just did what I thought was right for me and if it helped anybody then so be it.

You run what you want to. I think my injectors are as safe as anybodys.

If your in the Talladega Race area this weekend call me on my cell. 601-479-4936, we'll drink a beer and talk about something else other than fuel fitlers.

I said I had nothing to gain by all this, I lied. Go to my new web site, I sell something but it ain't fuel filters. I will get the pics up soon.

www.hunterworks.com

TraceF

06-01-2003, 12:38

What would be ideal is if we could BUY 2-micron filtered fuel everywhere. Lacking that when I set out on this project, my goal was to send 2-mic prefiltered fuel to my fuel system without risking any warranty complications. This is why I went pre-oem.

My pictures are updated to show the Baldwin prefilter after 9300 miles and the OEM after 12,700. The OEM has never seen fuel that wasn't prefiltered. Before I installed the Baldwin I ran a Stanadyne that was too small to last more than a few thousand miles.

I am getting ready to take a trip and pull my boat a little over a thousand miles so I changed the filters. The curiosity was killing me too. I cut the filters open and the result was impressive.

The OEM filter shows surprisingly little black, evidence of asphaltines or dead microorganisms depending on which thread you read. In either case, the prefilter is working, apparently very well.

My LOF and filter change intervals are finally in sync so my plan is to change the oil every 6k, the prefilter every 12k, and the OEM fuel filter every 24k. If it looks good when I change it next I may go 30k with the next one.

I haven't read lately so I hope all of you are having equally satisfying results with the various fuel filter systems you have tried. I am pleased with mine. Did anyone ever figure out how air was getting into the Mega Filter Systems?

GM Smitty

06-01-2003, 12:44

Trace - Nice to see you around. Also glad to see someone else happy with their pre-oem filter. 12K is impressive. It must not be doing a good job if it's not clogging in 500 miles. ;)

ndamico

06-01-2003, 15:46

TraceF,

Glad to see your results. that's exactly what i'm hoping for with my CAT setup. Thanks again for faxing me the bracket measurements!

I'm curious to see how your 12k run goes. As much as i drive, i'll be looking at probably 8 months before i get 12k miles. at least...

TraceF

06-01-2003, 16:15

Nick- you are very welcome! I am glad to have helped. What head did you finally use? Did you use flared fittings or compression fittings? The pics are great!

[ 06-01-2003, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: TraceF ]

ndamico

06-01-2003, 16:45

Trace,

I used the CAT filter head, PN 1N-3789. i ran my lines from the top of the tank to the head, and from the head to the steel line by the fuel cooler, eliminating 1 GM OEM line.

i bought my flare tool, and when i dropped the tank and got ready to flare that end i realized it was PLASTIC. argh! i could have used compression, but it could have been a one-way ticket to a leak and new sender if it didn't work. So, i opted to clamp the fuel line to it. i used a hydraulic line hose clamp that's suppose to clamp more uniformly than a standard automotive clamp. i know the clamp isn't the best idea, but given the plastic i didn't have much choice. the plastic measure exactly .5" OD so i took a piece of scrap steel line .5" OD and clamped my line too it, not tightening it so hard as to crush a plastic line. i then vac tested it. lastly i attached it to my rafters in the garage and dangled by it, so i doubt it will come loose... smile.gif

since i couldn't use flared fitting on both sides, i decided to just clamp the other end as well. i figured that if i do have a problem, it will be with the plastic end, as i made the steel tighter. so far i've got a few thousand miles on it with no starting problems.

i would have spliced into the fuel lines along the frame rail, but my 45 gallon tank blocks access to that. this was basically a step 1 project. if it starts to give me grief i'll probably drop the tank entirely and attach to the steel lines i splice into.

but here's how i look at it: if my OEM QD connectors hold (which after looking at their design they look pretty crummy) then i can't see how my clamps won't. i was able to spin my QD connectors on the line very easily which made me feel better about my clamping idea..

Your thoughts please?

TraceF

06-02-2003, 04:38

hoot

06-02-2003, 08:10

Nomad and I are using the large Racor 2 micron post OEM setup in the JK position.

Neither of us so far has had any issues whatsoever.

No air, no premature clogging.

My question is, does anybody really know how fuel restriction truly effects performance? The pump has a gear type first stage fuel pump that probably does a pretty good job sucking fuel even in a restricted situation. Anybody care to argue that ;)

I've got close to 3000 miles on mine so far and no noticable drop in performance.

I also think that pulling fuel from a filter in the rear of the truck might not be the greatest idea. Another reason I went post OEM.

Here is the next experiment for somebody to develop...

Set up a 1-2 micron pump/filter loop that continually filters the tank fuel when the truck is running? Possibly by adding tee's into the supply/return lines?

It could have a switch that allows you to turn it on and run for a while after fueling up? You could calculate how long it would take to run a full tank through the filter. Once that is accomplished, you now have a tank of 2 micron clean fuel. No effect on the rest of the system.

ideas....

[ 06-02-2003, 08:20 AM: Message edited by: hoot ]

svpdiesel

06-02-2003, 08:38

I, too, noticed that my truck ran better after installing JK's Mega filter. It was smoother and quieter at all rpms and loads, and is getting better mileage. Mine is a post-OEM install, because of the posts I read regarding the OEM coming apart in service and sending chunks of itself through the system. A pre-OEM setup is not going to fix this. JK's sytem does trap air and keep it out of the pump, and I have not had any stalling or no-start problems.
As regards an oil-bypass filter, they have been in use for eons, and have proven to keep oil cleaner, longer than a single stock filter. Diesels put a lot of contaminants like soot into the oil, and the stock filter won't catch it all. If you don't want one, don't get one- its your engine.

Jelisfc

06-02-2003, 08:39

Hoot, I'm still undecided on filter location but I do have a brand new OEM filter waiting to be installed. I've got 12,500 on the original. Before I change it I want to replace the fuel line post OE filter. In it will be a tee and vacuum gauge with a long enough line to put in the cab. I want to do some testing with a used filter then a fresh OEM. Once that's done I'll have a base line. I'll even hook the 4K sled trailer on and take it for a spin. Unfortunately I leave for Europe Sunday so I won't get to it until late June. It doesn't matter to the pump where the restriction is pre or post OEM but maybe I'll be able to use the baseline to gauge when either filter needs replacing better.

pinehill

06-02-2003, 08:53

Jelisfc,

It might be best to use an electrical transducer type pressure guage. Otherwise, depending upon how it's plumbed, you may be bringing fuel into the cab, and a leak could give you a face full of diesel. :eek:

Jelisfc

06-02-2003, 11:55

Pinehill, I have a gauge isolator at work that will do the same thing. Unfortunatley I don't have any vacuum transducers just pressure. I'm visiting my vendor before testing so we'll see what goodies they might have. If not I'll zip tie the gauge to the windshield wiper. You're right diesel in the cab would be bad.

wild bore

06-02-2003, 19:06

ndamico, What are the other part numbers for the cat filter setup that you used? I think that is the one I will use. Dealer said to put it before oem filter to avoid warranty issues.

TraceF, how is it going dude? :D

ndamico

06-03-2003, 08:30

wild bore,

shoot me an email and i'll get you the list. i'm still working on it, as the list i got from here had some overlap from what i actually used. i'm working on my complete list so you won't have any extra parts left over.

biker Wayne

06-03-2003, 09:05

ndamico,
I've been following the filter "saga" and I am interested in your setup. Could you email me a list of parts to wacsmith@aol.com? I would appreciate it. Any more ideas on the best way to tap into the fuel line on top of the fuel tank?

I also saw somewhere that a company (maybe Racor) is going to be offering an additional filter kit. Anyone have anymore details or how to contact about the kit? I know Kennedy has a kit, but I prefer the idea of pre-OEM, 2 or 5 mic BIG filter, like the CAT filter.
Thanks.

steeltech

06-03-2003, 20:05

Ndamico,

I've been paying attention to this fuel issue for quite a while and have decided to jump on the bandwagon-sort of. My truck has a 70 gal. transfer-flow tank installed and I'm planning on installing the Cat filter between the transfer-flow and the factory tank. I never fill the factory tank, so all fuel delivered to the factory tank will be filtered. I've been visiting with Josh on the installation and appreciate his feedback. The only question is I'm having a difficult time getting answered is how much back pressure will be developed by the Cat filter. The transferflow pump is rated at 6 psi @ 1/2 gpm. I'm also discussing with Cat a head which will indicate a clogged filter. I've installed "kidney filters" on all hydraulic systems in the plant and have reduced parts replacement by 90% over the last four years. For this reason alone I feel the cleaner fuel will increase the life of my truck. I appreciate all the hard work from everyone involved with this project.

a bear

06-03-2003, 20:10

Nick- I think any of us can experience air leaks in the fuel system, nothing is perfect. But, we stand a lot higher chance of air leaks if we modify the fuel system. The compression fittings are better suited for pressurized systems. The flared fittings for vacuum. Good luck!
We service numerous high dollar vapor recovery VAC systems. They are shipped and serviced with the recommended COMPRESSION fittings. Flare is a No No. :eek:

TraceF

06-04-2003, 15:25

Compression fittings are used throughout the lubricants industry for running carbon steel tubing to primarily, but not exclusively, oil, atf, and gear lube reels and dispensers. A major car dealership, with 30 or so bays for example could have a few hundred fittings in the overhead lines. On the install, a percentage of them leak. The leak is easy to find because fluid is coming OUT due to the pressure. If there is vacuum, how do you find the leak?

In the case of the vapor recovery system you are referring to Tommy, would the system be tested before put into use or would you just install the fittings and go to business? If the answer to this is they are tested first, how can we duplicate the test (with a vacuum fuel system) in our driveways? If the answer to this is that you just go to business with no leak check, how do you get a 100% seal on every install? How many leak?

Compression fittings are a no-no?

In these forums you can read that Juice is bad, Baldwin filters are bad, Racor is bad, GM is bad, Dale Jr. is bad, etc, etc.

Everybody has an opinion. That makes it a forum.

a bear

06-04-2003, 16:50

All units are tested as per standards set by OSHA and Mineral Management Service (Govt.)API-RP-14C as air and gas do not mix without the possibility to create a bomb. :eek: The compression fittings are rated for pressures and harmonic vibrations up to 11000 Psi. Flare fittings are not recommended for high pressure/vac applications and vibration due to the fact that there have been recorded failures at low pressure/vibration due to the metal stress and weakening at the flare itself from the deformity of the tube. This has been stated in MMS safety alerts and the fittings were outlawed accordingly. Flare fittings for the production/refining industry are limited to copper lines for H2O plumbing only and are quickly becoming obsolete for that also. They are just not kept in stock.
As far as testing my system with the compression fittings I have vac and pressure tested all very thoroughly per prior posts. How did your vac test come out on the flare fittings. :eek:
I find it highly unlikely someone can convince a gov. agency to use flare fittings because its their opinion. If the lube industry are having all these leaking problems why do they continue to use the product. Sounds like someone got fed a line.
How can someone refer parts based on an opinion. I would loose a lot of sleep over this out of concern for that persons potential problems.
Flare fittings for vac service are a NO NO!
Proceed with caution. :rolleyes:

a bear

06-05-2003, 08:31

Not to mislead anyone, the fittings that I was refering to in the last post are the stainless ones and are shown in my pics below. They are excellent fittings but run about $8 to $9 a pop.
The brass ones may work on steel but are not recommended.
Bill, Thanks for bringing this to my attention. smile.gif

jbplock

06-05-2003, 08:51

Tommy,

Thanks for the clarification on the SS compression fittings. What brand (P/N) are you using? The local Napa only carries weatherhead brass compression fittings. I would like to find the same type you used. I have just about all my parts and hope to start installing the lift pump this weekend.
smile.gif

a bear

06-05-2003, 09:17

I purchased them at the local True Value hardware store. I'm not sure what the PN is but they are made the same as the Parker CPI fittings. The information should be available at the parker site or possibly in the McMaster Carr Cat.
If this doesn't help let me know and I will check the PN at true value.

jbplock

06-05-2003, 09:23

Thanks again Tommy,
I'll try to track down the SS compression fitting P/Ns and post here for anyone else who may be using the AC Delco Lift pump. smile.gif

dieselburb

06-05-2003, 09:28

Steeltech, check Baldwin's catalog for PRESSURE side fuel dispensing pump filters, just like the ones on commercial fuel stations. There are a number of filters and micron ratings available as well as water and particulate removal options. You will also find a 1/8" gauge port available on the housing to monitor filter restriction.

steeltech

06-05-2003, 16:57

Dieselburb,

Thanks for the response. I will check that catalog. Today I had the Parker guy on the phone for quite a while. He faxed me info on several Racor heads and filters, one is rated at 2 micron absolute. I asked if he was sure on the absolute and he said yes. The Racor head has an option for a water sensor and a clogged filter indicator. Both can be wired to an indicator light located in the cab.

hoot

06-05-2003, 17:26

Originally posted by steeltech:
Dieselburb,

Thanks for the response. I will check that catalog. Today I had the Parker guy on the phone for quite a while. He faxed me info on several Racor heads and filters, one is rated at 2 micron absolute. I asked if he was sure on the absolute and he said yes. The Racor head has an option for a water sensor and a clogged filter indicator. Both can be wired to an indicator light located in the cab. Let us know what the 2 micron absolute filter fits on. I'd like to use them.

steeltech

06-06-2003, 19:14

Hoot,

I'll get some part numbers at work on Monday.

TraceF

04-13-2004, 04:53

I thought I would give you all a long term update on my pre filter set up. My truck now has 56k miles on it and I continue to run the same configuration I described in the first message on this thread, with one exception. I never found more than a teaspoon of water in the filter so after I used the first 3 Baldwin elements I had bought I switched to the CAT 1R0755. The filter actually holds more like a gallon of fuel and there is 30-40% more filter media.

I have adopted a 12k change interval servicing the fuel filter every other oil change. I will change the next oem at 36k although the last oem was changed at 24k and it looked new with the exception of a little darkening of the media at the bottom inch or so. Asphaltines I think the discoloration is described as.

I maintain that there are advantages to the pre oem set up that are worthy of consideration when you buy and install an additional fuel filter on your DMax.

For example- I prefill the filter because this is only the equivalent of the oem filter seeing about a gallon of pump fuel every 12k miles. I don't have to prime, the truck just starts and runs. I don't know where the air that is in the hoses goes but the truck seems to digest it without any problem.

My oem fuel system only sees 2-micron prefiltered fuel and as I said before, I think this accomplishes what we would all like to see without doing any modifications to our trucks.

There is one thing that bothers me though. When I change the elements the filter is trapping air on the dirty side. As far as I can tell it isn't effecting performance but I still don't like it.

When someone comes up with a plug and play lift pump I will probably try one if I can get it to fit between my prefilter and tank.

Any updates on this?