View Full Version : Racor's Comments on Fuel Filter Test Results
I was interested to read Racor's comments on the Fuel Filter Test Results thread yesterday. Racor implies the the existing OEM filter exceeds Bosch's requirements for the system. Being a newbie, I'm a little confused on what (if any) additional filtering might be necessary for my truck. From the reading I've done so far, I've seen the following options:
1. JK's Baldwin setup that can be pre or post OEM. Baldwin system.
2. Cat Filters installed both pre and post OEM. (both large and small micron ratings)
3. Racor filter installed pre OEM. (both large and small micron ratings)
4. Racor rep saying OEM should be fine.
Speaking for us beginners, how do we weed through all this information? Can I assume that any additional filtering is better than none? Also, how do I know if I need a heater? When I registered here at the DP, I knew I was in for a diesel education, but I'm now overloaded... :D
larryalster
03-08-2003, 11:26
roegs
AS a relative newbie here too I've been reading all this info with great interest. Here's my take and position.
I couldn't care less that Racor says the filter meets Bosch's spec. What's he going to say, we made a piece of c**p?
The point is there have been way to many injector failures. Somethings wrong and it sure looks like it's dirty fuel.
Both George and John have test data showing the fuel is not clean enough for our trucks. A better filter is needed.
I don't think it really matters how you do it as long as the result is fuel clean enough to not damage the injectors.
This will be one of those you pay your money and make your choice deals. There will be cheap solutions and expensive ones and they both should work fine if designed right.
I for one have a Kennedy system on order. Are the other solutions okay?? Probably just fine. But I don't want to have to design and build it myself. I want a "plug and play" tested solution. So I bought the Kennedy system.
JMHO
[ 03-08-2003: Message edited by: FirstDiesel ]</p>
roegs,
Previous post; sound sdvice. You had a question about heaters for a filter. You are from MN. You would need a heater IF you put a pre-filter under your rig. That I'm pretty sure of. I dont know if a heater is needed if an auxiliary filter is added under the hood. I live in WI and would like a contributor who knows to fill us in on this! SPICER
I've been in question for some time now as to the procedure by which these filters are rated in microns. My question being if these filters are rated in ideal lab conditions how would real world conditions like mechanical and transmitted frequency type vibrations/pulsations affect the filters ability to trap small particles as rated. By having these filters mounted to the engine (a vibration source) I would think it would be possible for the nominal rating to change toward the worst allowing larger particles to pass through the media by constantly rearranging the particles. Kind of like the way a shaker is used to distribute small particles. (a salt or shale shaker for example)
What do Yall think? Would we benefit by mounting the OEM on a more stable surface. Possibly the fender or firewall.
[ 03-08-2003: Message edited by: a bear ]
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: a bear ]</p>
george morrison
03-10-2003, 20:51
Regarding "lab ratings" of these fuel filters. The CAT and Baldwin were both tested "before and after" in real live, running diesel engine environments. This is/was a very important point in that the harmonics of the diesel engine injectors firing were backfeeding to the filter causing an ultrasonic 'cleansing' to occur. When we did the filter efficiency calculations for the CAT and Baldwin, they were real, dynamic results. Same for our original sampling of the OEM filter although in that case, revealing its deficiency in capturing the 5 to 10 micron particle. (our nemesis).
George Morrison, STLE CLS
Well I am going to my local dealer where I bought my truck Tuesdayfor state inspection. My question to them if I add the extra filter will it VOID my warranty?? I bet they say yes.
pinehill
03-10-2003, 21:22
Brucec,
The answer you get from your dealer will probably depend upon how you pose the question. If you just flat ask without setting the stage first, you may well get the answer you don't want to hear. But if you first start with a discussion of the injector failures you know of, and the data you've seen on dirty fuel (NEVER MENTIONING THE INTERNET!!), and solicit some opinions from the dealer techs, before stating that maybe some additional filtering wouldn't hurt, you will be much more likely to hear the answer you want.
Thats why I feel it's important to have a good working relationship with your dealer. They may not be the sharpest individuals out there but they are the one that may have to go to bat for us on some warranty claims. I happen to be a repeat customer at my Chevy dealer and on a 1st name basis and this has proved to be to my advantage. smile.gif
Trace Funderburk
03-11-2003, 07:08
Because of my profession I know a lot of car dealers personally, in particular the service directors and managers.
I have been asking a lot of questions about the Duramax and it amazes me that the dealers know so little. The often say that they just haven't seen that many of them yet.
One of the larger GMC dealers in Orlando got his DMax tech in and they said (in short) that they have seen very few problems with the Duramax. The tech emphasized to use quality fuel, that he had seen the "gooked up" injectors. I told them I had added a filter pre-oem and they both agreed this would be beneficial.
I know there is a lot of disagreement on this but they weren't comfortable with the idea of it being plumbed in after the oem. Actually, I got the impression the idea of making alterations under the hood is where they got apprehensive but they seemed OK with the filter under the truck.
FWIW.
Well your dealer may not be the one you have to deal with. I travel all over the USA and if i brake down 1000 miles from home that dealer whoever he may be may say you changed your original factory equipment and call GM who will the say you added a third party filter this voids your warranty.
Trace Funderburk
03-11-2003, 20:53
Anything is possible.
BigLakeDMAX
03-11-2003, 21:02
My experience has been similar to Trace's. I've had my truck into two different dealerships several times now, and they aren't all that familiar with the Dmax. I don't worry too much about adding a second filter as I've asked the service managers at both dealerships about it and they told me they thought it was a good idea and would cause no warranty problems. I know this leaves the repair at a remote dealership as an unknown, but I believe both of the dealerships I frequent would back me up for what it's worth. And, if the filter was mounted under the truck, I doubt if they would see it anyway. Or, if mounted under the hood such as Kennedy's setup, some of the techs that have worked on my truck wouldn't know it didn't belong there anyway smile.gif
Like BigLakeDmax said, Most dealer "techs" that I have dealt with wouldn't know any better. With an add on filter under the airbox like JK's installation its totally inconspicuous anyway. And I'm not concerned about the dealers general position on the topic. What concerns me is that if and when my truck is at the dealer for any injection related failure that my mods would be used as leverage to deny warranty repair. I would not be suprised if they changed thier tune under those circumstances. I'm also concerned about heating for an add on filter, and I'd like to see some ideas come forth.--Nick
Nixter wrote "I'm also concerned about heating for an add on filter
george morrison
03-12-2003, 07:23
Regarding "waxing" of filters. Some of what is called "waxing" is really as a result of the cellulose filter medium shutting down. Cellulose filter medium has a high percentage of water content as it chemistry makeup. As we go below freezing, the water in the cellulose crystalizes and expands, as water does when it freezes. The expansion restricts filter flow, sometimes to shutdown. This is one of the advantages of synthetic/microglass medium, as it contains no water and is thus unaffected by temperature extremes. Additionally the synthetic medium filter can hold up to 5 times the contaminants comapred with cellulose medium. This is why a 2 micron synthetic blend filter such as used in the CAT and Baldwin filters may actually last longer than a 10 micron cellulose filter. A fully synthetic fuel filter medium would be better yet but at this time there are none available.
George Morrison, STLE CLS
Hoot you no good. LOL :D :D
Nice tank though. What propane setup you use.
George,
Thanks for the clarification on "waxing" and cellulose vs. synthetic media. Is it reasonable to assume that the larger Mega filter will be less prone to plugging at lower temperatures? Also do think the OEM heater will warm the fuel in the mega filter if it's installed post OEM?
smile.gif
george morrison
03-12-2003, 09:05
Yes, that is exactly correct: the mega filter will be much more efficient, much less prone to 'waxing' plugging than a conventional cellulose only filter. Additionally, I always recommend the use of fuel additive (Primrose or FPPF) to prevent even the possibility of clouding/waxing during cold weather operations. We have discussed at length that the fuel filters are ineffective removing emulsified water. However, over time, there are minute levels of water that do get absorbed by cellulose filter elements. The absorbtion causes the cellulose to swell, further restricting fuel flow in summer operations and your basic shut down in winter. The use of synthetic blend filters greatly reduces this tendancy. Racor uses a proprietary coating on our OEM cellulose which rejects water, according to Racor. But it is still cellulose medium..
George Morrison, STLE CLS
Another piece of information or two:
Vibration and the OEM fuel filter:
I have personally run a "single pass particle removal test" on a filter using the current DMAX filter medium while it was mounted to a vibration test stand, (running a linear sweep at engine frequencies), and can say that the filter efficiency down to 4 micron was not affected. I don't know know about smaller particles as the equipment could not see below 3 micron.
Old 15 micron filter media has problems with vibration, but any good "direct injection rated" filter medium will do just fine. On the other hand, if there are high back-pressure waves from the injectors hitting the filter, any filter can have problems. But I don't think the DMAX system has this problem.
Bottom line: In spite of all the concern here, the OEM filter is fine. Bosch publishes efficiency requirements for light to heavy duty systems. The DMAX filter exceeds heavy duty requirements. If the fuel filter had an efficiency problem, I'd be on a plane to Japan right now. You really can't improve the system unless you either (1) exchange the filter for a substantially larger filter, or (2) add a pre-filter.
If you challenge ANY fuel filter with a load of sandy, oily, bacteria-slime laden gunk, you will have problems. Fuel filters are designed for the 95% who have reasonably clean fuel. The other 5% should add a pre-filter and gripe at the fuel supplier, not the filter maker.
Cloud point, etc:
I've perfomed a lot of cold flow testing over the years and I have never experienced a cellulose media clogging due to moisture expansion. That's a new one to me. I think the average guy gets a load of #2 and then a cold-snap hits and his truck won't run. You need #1 when it's cold.
Diesel fuel cloud point varies a lot. Cloudpoint can be +50F to -10F, or none at all if it's #1 diesel. You can use additives to modify the cloud point crystal shape to make it less likely to clog the filter, but you can't stop it from forming. I won't even talk about pour point; people with that problem already know they need extra heat. It takes serious BTU's to get more than a trickle of fuel through a cloudy-fuel clogged filter. The "97 watt" (runs about 119 watts)heater in the OEM filter is just enough to let you limp along under severe conditions until the return fuel heats the fuel in your tank. If in the morning your truck is very cold and the fuel is not #1 (sorry for you), then you should sit in your truck at idle for maybe 10 minutes before you take off. If you don't do that you could wax the filter faster than the heater can handle it and end up on the side of the road. Real fuel heaters use coolant heat exchangers. Electric heat is just to get you going.
[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: Racor ]</p>
george morrison
03-12-2003, 18:47
Regarding the comment "Fuel filters are designed for the 95% who have reasonably clean fuel." What is your definition of "reasonably clean fuel" in terms of ISO cleanliness?
A reasonable "average" of diesel fuel analsys that I have gathered (over 100 samples at this point) from around the country is 19/17/15, at best, with many fuels contaminated as high as 26/24/22 ISO. Given that our OEM filter efficiency is slightly over 50% efficient as it operates on our Duramax engines from our "real" fuel testing, our fuel is a very long way from what I consider "clean fuel". i.e. 15/13/10 or better as a minimum.
I would suggest you do a search for some of the fuel system/injector horror stories that exist on this and other sites.
George Morrison, STLE CLS
When I say reasonably clean, I do not refer to ISO ratings on hard particle removal. Removing hard particles is a straight forward process. The real problem is natural asphaltines, bacteria slime, water, clouded fuel, etc. That's what shuts down filters and causes headaches. If you are running on a filter that should have been replaced months before, particle removal will become an issue, as well as water corrosion inside the injection system.
I agree that there are pleny of fuel system horror stories out there, and I take each one seriously. But the one solution is not to toss the OEM filter, because I know it works much, much better than your test indicated.
Racor, thanks for contributing your proffessional knowledge and expetise on the board here. One point of clarification if I'm not misunderstanding- I don't think anyone is considering getting rid of the factory filter. I believe the concern is that inadequate fuel quality/fuel filtration may eventually cause injector failure, as some members have experienced. This brings up the real possibility of a warranty battle with the servicewriter/tech./manufacturer tag team. The peace of mind with the addition of a supplemental filter that will absolutely, without a doubt polish the fuel will relieve much anxiety. I'd rather spend a few hundred on the best supplemental filtration system possible than fight with GM over big buck repairs. Once GM turns down warranty coverage, the customer is over the barrel, so to speak. I think we are trying to protect our purchases. I have no way of judging the quality of fuel before it's in the tank and squeezing through the injectors.
Your explanation on the development of the filter is very impressive and does give me some confidence in the OEM filter but I don't trust GM to do the right thing if my injectors go south.
george morrison
03-12-2003, 20:15
Caterpillar spent hundreds of thousands of dollars doing research on why their HEUI fuel systems were failing at an early/alarming rate. The results of their work indicated that it was the 'hard particles' in the 5 to 10 micron range that was causing premature failure of pumps and injectors in their electronic, high pressure fuel systems. Current diesel fuel is unfiltered below 30 microns when it leaves the refinery. The diesel fuel continues to pick up contaminants with each transfer, each step of the way until it is finally deposited in its final underground cesspool before delivery to our Durmax engines. If you have not read the CAT research papers, I would highly suggest you review the work. Nowhere in their study are asphaltimes, slime, etc. mentioned relative to a cause of early injector/pump failures. Granted, these contaminants can be contributory to clogged fuel filters/shut down/problems. However, the 5 to 10 micron particulates has been singled out as "the" culprit in high wear rates by not only CAT/Southwest Research but is a texbook failure cause in high pressure hydraulic systems. In the CAT work, reducing the ISO grade by one single number doubled the life of the fuel injector/pump system.
The exact same premise is true in high pressure (6,000 psi) hydraulic systems.
We have a number of fuel analysis results (not just *an* analysis) showing that our Duramax Racor filter, as it is installed on our *real* vehicles, is slightly more than 50% efficient removing the 5 to 10 micron size component. Given our 19/17/15 ISO fuel cleanliness, this resulted in an 18/16/14 ISO. An 18/16/14 ISO cleanliness would cause accelerated servo valve wear in a 1,000 psi garbage truck hydraulic system, much less our 25,000+ PSI fuel sytem (hydraulic sytem)...
George Morrison, STLE CLS
[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: george morrison ]</p>
I think that if the OE unit were doing a thorough job in the sub 10 micron range, we would have VERY short filter life due to it's rather smallish size. The issue at hand is not plugging filters, it's catching dirt.
When it comes to water and cellulose (paper), we all know what happens. We also know what happens when water goes through the freeze/thaw process...
On a related note:
I'm seriously considering purchasing a 300 gallon storage tank/pump so I can be certain that I am FILLING with the cleanest, dryest possible fuel. PLUS I can do my fuel treatment by the bottle, rather than by the oz...
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.
Vaughn MacKenzie
03-12-2003, 21:26
mdrag, putting your high-efficiency filter after the OEM filter is a logical way to do it. I work at a hospital where surgical tools are sterilized in equipment that uses highly-filtered tap water. There are two filter canisters inline with the machine. The first stage is a 5-micron filter, the second is 0.3 microns. The 5-micron filter generally is replaced 3 times more often than the 0.3 micron filter. This filter is much more expensive.
I have a 2003 Dodge Cummins on order which as you probably know utilizes the same basic injection system as the DMax. I find this thread very interesting and hope that my OEM filter will "do the job." After reading this thread I have my doubts! When I get my truck that is one thing I am going to look into. . .adding a secondary filter.
Vaughn
Racor...its good to have you here at the DP, as you're able to provide good insight on the OEM requirements for the filters. There have been some other posts indicating that Racor may come out with an aftermarket filter for the Duramax that can be added on in addition to the OEM. Any truth to this?
ChevysRus
03-12-2003, 22:27
MDRAG........any pictures of that Kennedy post OEM install??? Dying to see the Kennedy setup installed and working.
Thanks in advance and Post OEM of course LOL
Steven Krause
03-12-2003, 23:27
Racor- Welcome to The Diesel Page, I hope you find it as useful as I have. I have been following these fuel filter threads with much interest and appreciate your input. To help evaluate what I'm reading, are you a Racor employee? Can you offer a brief overview of your training or experience in this area? Please don't take this as a challenge, you sound knowledgeable and I just want to learn.
[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: Seattle Steve ]
A little more reading tonight and I answered my own questions! If interested, look at the topic "Fuel Filter Test Results" near the bottom of page 7.
[ 03-13-2003: Message edited by: Seattle Steve ]</p>
Trace Funderburk
03-13-2003, 06:33
mdrag wrote- "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.""
All of this is true but... there is no consideration given to media size in this statement or in any of the statements I read in the previous warnings mdrag mentioned. I keep saying over and over, if we want primary filtration this is going to be all about media size. This is what I learned first hand through my own experimentation.
My first goal is to find a 2-mic primary that will go 2 oil changes or roughly 12,000 miles without performance loss.
The media size of JK's filter (from memory) is 1919 square inches. The Stan I am using (again from memory, it's been about 6 or 7 weeks now) is 364 square inches. Maybe Todd can confirm this last number.
My second goal is to get 12,000 miles or 2 oil changes from the oem consistently. I have followed these filter threads contently and many DMax owners are not enjoying this success due primarily in my view to poor fuel cleanliness.
I also would be more comfortable with changing the filter where I have it as opposed to where the oem is if I get a slug of bad fuel and it shuts the truck down on the side of the road.
Life is full of choices and either way will have pros and cons. Either way will undoubtedly be beneficial as well.
As long as the user is happy, that's where the real satisfaction is, at least in the short run.
Well Geez Hoot. No wonder it's not workin well. Ya got it layin on it's side! :D :D
zip
TraceF,
"My first goal is to find a 2-mic primary that will go 2 oil changes or roughly 12,000 miles without performance loss."
I believe EVERYONE would be thrilled with such a filter....
Good luck in your search.
ChevysRus,
There will be a full review when all tests are completed.
mdrag
[ 03-13-2003: Message edited by: mdrag ]</p>
:D :D
Hey, has the Racor R90 2 micron been tested as primary yet. That's what I got but haven't had a chance to install yet. Pretty big filter with water and heat if needed.
I am aware of the CAT(and SWR)papers and I agree with the conclusions.
True, slime and asphaltines are not the cause of injector wear. My point was simply that most owner's problems will be due to asphaltines, bacteria, and waxing shutting them down, not injector wear. I would add a pre-filter to the fuel system because it traps asphaltines and bulk water, allowing the secondary to do it's job of removing hard particles and remaining water.
I maintain that that the OEM filter is removing the significant 5 to 10 micron particles and protecting the injection system as required.
woundedbear
03-13-2003, 12:05
Racor,
I believe the "as required" part of your statement is what causes me concern.
First, let me thank you for sharing your experience and familiarity of the Duramax OE filter on this forum.
Now, I know from my job experience that there is a difference, especially to a company trying to squeeze the highest margin they can out of any given product, between "as required" by average duty cycles determined by the manufacturer and the duty cycles that many of us here are seeking.
I, for one, after paying $1083/month for 36 months for the luxury of driving one of these fine vehicles want to minimize the maintenance cost I will be paying over the additional 7-12 years of ownership (with no payments ;) ).
I have scheduled an appointment next week at my dealer to have some things looked at prior to 36K and then will be completing my post OEM CAT filter project. Figured it would be better to wait then raise questions.
Trace Funderburk
03-13-2003, 12:49
mdrag- If it don't work I hope you recognize by now that I will be the first to admit it. I wouldn't want anyone on this thread to follow me down the rosy path into a manure pile.
pinehill
03-13-2003, 13:15
Racor,
First, I applaud your efforts to defend the OEM Racor product. As project/program manager, it's your baby. I've been there and done that (Aerospace) before critical audiences such as this DP membership. It's not always a whole lot of fun.
You referred, in an earlier post, to the difficulties of obtaining valid, consistent results when sampling fuel while the filter resides on the truck. Can I correctly infer from this statement, that the testing by Racor was confined to analysis of samples obtained from lab fixtures only, employing ISO test procedures? If that's the case, there may be two mechanisms that might cause differences in results from lab samples versus samples from trucks.
One is noted in this post by DP member, Spoolin'It:
"I've got to add something else here before the lynch mob lights the torches and shows up on Racor's door. The 95% efficiency numbers are obtained using fuel conforming to ISO/TR 13353, the ISO test for fuel filter particle retention and efficiency. This fuel is dosed with a much larger percentage of contaminant than you will ever see out of the pump, it looks black when totally mixed. This is done first to speed up the test so it doesn't take a month to perform, second it levels the playing field so everyones results can be compared at a predetermined contaminant level(George I assume will agree that initial contaminant level in fuels will vary widely depending on location), and third sets the contaminant at a level we should never see(makes
the test harsher on filter). With that said, **as contaminant levels drop, your effective efficiency at removing them will fall accordingly** [emphasis added]."
The other is that either the high pressure pump or the injectors (not as likely, since the pump is interposed between filter and injectors) may be feeding pressure pulses back through the filter.
The procedure used to rate the DMAX fuel filter was SAE J1985, which uses a hard contaminant level much higher than what would be expected in the field. The reason for this is that you need sufficient particles up and downstream for the efficiency numbers to be statistically significant. There is the chance in a test like this for a particle "filter bed" to build up and make the filter look more efficient. However, the filter rating is based on the initial readings in the test, effectively giving an accurate "single pass" result. The particle concentration throughout the test is still low enough to avoid significant cake filtration.
Diesel fuel was used instead of 5606 oil, which puts the test results closer to real world results.
ISO/TR 13353 was not run. We feel the test is flawed because it uses 5606 oil as a test fluid. This test has been superceded anyway.
The SAE 1985 type test was also run on a vibration test stand, with little change to the efficiency results.
son of a gun
03-13-2003, 17:33
Thanks to all for the details and data,
Racor,
Comment from my point of view:
George has provided us with a lot of data that suggests that our pumps, with their super high injection pressures, can do a lot of damage over time if they are passing a lot of material that can hit and damage metal. I don't know what that level is by the micron measurement but I do believe this: since this engine system is using much higher pressures than previous diesel(and gas) systems it seems logical that getting all the junk out of the fuel you can is important. I wouldn't be the first time that OEM providers have assumed that what has worked for years is good enough. I don't mean they don't carefully think things out (or we wouldn't have this great truck) but until someone tells me that 5 - 10 micron passage is ok at 25,000+psi I would rather trap it down to some lower number. I change my primary fuel filter every 7500 miles so I don't worry too much about it getting cruddy with the particulates you mention. That, I think, is the primary difference between what you and George are saying. I think you are both right. I'll use the OEM to catch the crude you mentioned and JKs Mega to trap the 2 - 10 micron missles that may destroy the engine I would like to use for 150,000 miles. The worst case is I've sent JK some more of my money for a system I might not need. He can use the cash and I like the piece of mind.
regards,
Bob
larryalster
03-13-2003, 17:53
son of a gun
I agree with your ideas and have followed by sending JK some of my hard earned money. I would rather over filter than have to deal with pumps and injector issues.
I especially agree with the last line of your signature.
Racor,
I beleive everything you have said thus far. But,
why are we getting injector failures as early as 15k miles? It has been blamed on dirty fuel. If we have fuel that is dirty enough to cause an injector to go bad then it got by the fuel filter and we all know Racor is the only manu. of the fuel filter that fits the OEM base.
Installed the Mega filter post OEM this evening. Setup installs real slick. :D :D Have a SES light though. Forgot to hook up the MAF sensor. :mad:
Will check in AM. Has anyone disconnected the batteries to clear the light. It works on most but not sure about this one. 1st time for the new truck. :rolleyes:
[ 03-13-2003: Message edited by: a bear ]</p>
chuntag95
03-13-2003, 22:00
Racor,
First, welcome and thanks for adding your info.
I was one of the people who did OEM testing with George. I am an engineer that works with particle issues down to 0.09 micron in high vacuum. (2 micron is chunky for me.) :eek: I understand the importance of testing methods. My test showed some of the best efficiency from the OEM filter of the group of DP members that worked on this project. My final post numbers were very similar to JK's OEM testing, indicating a consistant performance of the system. I believe he is as retentive as I am (That's a compliment JK :D ) in getting good data. We needed a baseline to work with that was repeatable. Measurements always contain some amount of error, but if consistant, improvements can be made. The data showed plenty of room for that.
I believe that your data is good as well, but I do know that the real world and the lab don't meet very often. There are theories and then what really happens. (I do get tired of explaining that to PhD types right out of school :rolleyes: ) Most of the people on the DP are looking to improve their trucks or need them to stay together for 1/2 million miles. It's half the fun. :D We generally over do maintenance, use better products, buy the most expensive trucks and in general threat these things like a mule, a mistress or a child. The OEM filter may meet minimum requirements, but we are maximum users who want better than the minimum.
If you did a count, I am pretty sure much less than 5% of the folks out there have tested there fuel, much less at the pump and post filter. We are die hard tinkerers. (Is that a word?) We have 5 or 6 folks buying parts and putting together different systems and testing them. We have JK making his own from scratch. All of this for a little piece of mind.
So, my long winded point is we just want to make it better. Remember when you were an idealist and just wanted to make the very best and money wasn't the top priority. That's how we look at it.
Chris
george morrison
03-13-2003, 22:06
Chris,
Amen...
Tommy,
You aren't the first! I've done this myself, and had guys call with solid illum SES after installing one of those intake kits just scratching their heads.
I wouldn't worry about it. It will sit in history, and cycle out in time...
Trace Funderburk
03-14-2003, 01:47
a bear- I did the same thing when I pulled out my air box to close examine that side of the engine compartment. I called my dealer service buddy who also has a DMax and he said the same thing Kennedy just said. Within a day or two the light went out and never came back on.
Trace Funderburk
03-14-2003, 07:33
Two additional questions for Racor-
There has been some concern expressed in these forums about "fuzzies" that could enter the fuel system when a spin-on filter is installed. The crumbs between the threads I believe.
1) Does the Racor 600 series spin-on have the integral seal below the threads?
and
2) if installing pre-oem, does it matter? Would these particles be small enough to go by the oem filter?
Thanks again.
Chris---
Your points are well taken. You are right, the OEM filter (however excellent doing what it was designed to do) is not 100% efficient at all measureable particle sizes. I understand the quest for perfect fuel filtration; and that requires more and bigger filters. Whether or not that translates into a 500,000 mile truck, I don't know.
If I had a $50K truck, I'd put a Racor 1000FH as a pre-filter on the back of the cab. You can't have too big a fuel filter.
Other Items:
Two additional questions for Racor-
There has been some concern expressed in these forums about "fuzzies" that could enter the fuel system when a spin-on filter is installed. The crumbs between the threads I believe.
1) Does the Racor 600 series spin-on have the integral seal below the threads?
Yes. What you describe is not a problem with the 600 series filter design.
Any damaging particles shed by a primary will be caught by the secondary.
[ 03-14-2003: Message edited by: Racor ]</p>
Diverguy
03-14-2003, 14:04
If the Dmax owners are starting to have concerns regarding their fuel quality and the affects on injector life how this affect those of us with 6.5's? Is this simply restricted to the Dmax because of direct injection? I would be curious to know...
george morrison
03-14-2003, 15:56
Excellent question.. Everything we have discussed here is directly relevant to the 6.5TD series....
George Morrison
BigLakeDMAX
03-14-2003, 16:46
Diverguy,
It's because of the failure of the injection pump on my 97 6.5l at 80k miles that I'm so interested in this topic. Thankfully, it was replaced under the 100k warranty, but if it had been 20k later...
And, it was not uncommon for the 6.5 pump to fail at about that mileage. I tend to believe it was fuel-related. When I sold it last fall, a common question asked by prospective buyers was if I'd replaced the pump yet. Knowing then what I know now, I would have installed an additional filter.
I definitely want to do what I can to prevent the same thing happening on my duramax.
chuntag95
03-14-2003, 16:59
As far as the 6.5 pump, I believe there was a design flaw the size of Texas. GM even extended the warranty to 120K miles if memory serves. My father in law went through 3 in under 60 miles. He has always bought his fuel at the same place and only had issues with that truck. Let me stranded with my mother in law once :eek: That was a looooonnnngggggg day. Extra filters may help it, but I think there is more to that particular issue than just fuel.
A long overdue update.
In response to GM's request a year or so ago, Racor participated in a lengthy test program to determine the most damaging particles sizes and to then improve the filter to catch those particles. Turns out that ultrafine particles (less than 4 mic) are the problem. After probably a million dollars and a lot of blown test injectors, the result was the dual layer filter. The current filter is now rated at 99%+ at 4 microns. That's why it's extra long now, to make up for the smaller amount of media area available due to the added layer.
Buy a new Racor filter for your DMAX and your injectors are protected from the finest particles.
Another improvement is the water sensor has been changed to signal at 125cc instead of 160cc. When the light comes on, drain the filter. Never let the light stay on. If it's a constant problem, change diesel suppliers and have your tank checked.
Stay tuned for further developments. Research never stops.
As for adding a primary filter, it's your call. Probably a good idea anyway.
So the burning question is: Do we now have 2 layers of the same media, or is the media "tighter" also?
Racor,
Thanks for the update!! http://forum.thedieselpage.com/ubb/icons/icon14.gif
Can you share any details about the nature of the failures caused by the <4 micron particles?
Also, the new Duramax equipped Express Vans have a prefilter/lift pump - RACOR by chance?
smile.gif
kerry witherspoon
02-18-2006, 19:28
as required , by who what spects . Someone who wants his engine to last 300.000. or dealer to last till warranty runs out. also what would you pur on your personal truck racor. being from alberta our fuel quality is usually very good but being mechanic wanting to have my 2002 last me till im to old to drive i run cat pre oem kennedy mega post oem . I change all 3 filtres every other oil change , which i change 7500 k.m
for me it works have had no fuel problems or injector bought this truck to be my last at 43 i want it to last my 2 cents
Remember, the ratings of a filter are based on multi pass testing, not just a single pass. I have been running my Mega as a secondary for a long time now, and have had the Super Mega 1um synthetic media element since about the time that BMDMAX did his install/test.
I have recently gone to a 550 gallon storage tank and pump all of my fuel through the Super Mega element prior to hitting my tank. With a 90 gallon aux tank for trips, it's not very often that I have to buy fuel on the road.
Overkill? yes, but in this case overkill will not hurt you...
racor, I believe I read in the racor instructions( can't find then now ) that the water seperation
feature of the filter works best if filter is
on suction side of pump. ?????
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.