best fuel sampling location?

[ndamico]

I'm expecting my fuel sample kits today from George, and was wondering where the best location to sample the fuel is? i'm planning to go after my OEM filter, since my CAT filter is PRE-OEM and i'm interested in what is actaully getting to my injectors...

i thought about the water drain, but George thought that was on the dirty side of the OEM filter.

Thanks!

[hoot]

I'm getting mine today too.

I'm taking my sample by disconnecting the line coming out of my post OEM filter. I'll make sure the end is clean as a whistle and pump the primer for a bit to make sure all contaminants get washed away.

This is where the fully filtered fuel goes on to the injection system.

[ndamico]

so if i follow the line from the OEM filter to the engine i'll have a good spot? cool. i presume we're just going to have to prime like crazy to fill the bottles? since i haven't seen them yet i don't know how much flud it will take for a good sample.

[a bear]

Recieved my kit from G.M. about a week ago. Every thing you need and instructions come with the kit. I have about 8-9K on my filters. Are you guys going to change filters first. I figured this would give me a good average about midway between changes. Waiting on a coupler to attach at the schrader valve.

[ 06-12-2003, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: a bear ]

[ndamico]

i wasn't going to change my filters. i thought that might produce skewed results..

[hoot]

My sample will be from filters with 4000 miles on them. I figured I want to know how they are doing 1/4 way through their life.

[Jack's Dmax]

Nick,

I hope that you can hold out to at least 10K before replacing your Cat filter. You are the Point man for those of us with the pre-OEM Cats.

Glad to see that you are going to have your fuel checked.
Take care,
Jack

[ndamico]

Jack,

I don't see how i can't make it to 10k at least on that CAT filter. its so much bigger than the OEM one!

I never had fuel tested before, but i like knowing that my efforts are actually accomplishing something besides fun.. :D

[Jack's Dmax]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ndamico:
[QB] Jack,

I don't see how i can't make it to 10k at least on that CAT filter. its so much bigger than the OEM one!

I am not disagreeing with you on the 10K. I thought that you might be getting anxious to see what the insides of your filter looks like.

Jack

[hoot]

My sample hit the mail today.

George,

What's the average turnaround?

[Victory Red]

Having recently installed my secondary I'm also real curious to see what people are getting for results with various filter setups and obviously different suppliers.

[srubrn]

Coming from someone who has tried taking a good sample, it is next to impossible. When they test filters, they put it in a machine and run fuel thru it with a known paticle count and the same machine counts them after the filter without removal of the filter and no human intervention. In my opinion it is the only way to get accurate results. I had one of my Stanadyne filters checked on the machine with 2300 miles on it and it rated 97% at 2 microns. I am confident you guys can let the filter efficiency issue die. All those secondary filters mentioned here do the job, just some longer than others. Don't waste your money on the test.

[george morrison]

The turnaround time for the fuel analysis is generally 48 hours after receipt by the lab. If you put down your e-mail, you will have a return PDF report within an hour of analysis completion by the lab. (Same as with oil analysis). It is dependent on lab workload (Monday arrivals can be a truckload of samples!) but 48 hours after receipt is the target.. Depending on your ups ship time to here in Ohio, add 2 days, then start checking your e-mail. Also, I get a back copy so we can begin discussing (or I will be e-mailing you) the results immediately after rour receipt should you have any questions.
George Morrison, STLE CLS
AV Lubricants Inc.

[hoot]

Thanks George.

[hoot]

Originally posted by srubrn:
Coming from someone who has tried taking a good sample, it is next to impossible. When they test filters, they put it in a machine and run fuel thru it with a known paticle count and the same machine counts them after the filter without removal of the filter and no human intervention. In my opinion it is the only way to get accurate results. I had one of my Stanadyne filters checked on the machine with 2300 miles on it and it rated 97% at 2 microns. I am confident you guys can let the filter efficiency issue die. All those secondary filters mentioned here do the job, just some longer than others. Don't waste your money on the test. I got my results. Fuel passed as acceptable but particle count in the 2 micron range was very high.

George Morrison,

Can you explain the ISO Cleanliness numbers and how they relate to actual parts per gallon -vs- target and how they set the target for the Bosch injection system? Or is that a standard diesel injection system target.

AM I asking the right questions?

Anybody else get there's back yet?

[ 06-17-2003, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: hoot ]

[george morrison]

Re: Particle Counts.. The 2 to 5 micron particles are not as much concern for us as the 5 to 15 micron group. The extensive CAT testing determined that this is the size spectrum which causes accerlated pump and injector wear rates. The target of the 15/13/10 is from both the CAT work and accepted engineering cleanliness levels. Note, however, that just one ISO grade reduction cuts the number of particles in half. Ideally, we want to be at or below the 15/13/10 level, especially the 13 level if at all possible. With that level of filtration we will be maximizing pump and injector life. If we increase particle counts by 1 level, we will be doubling the particle count throughput and cutting pump/injector life in half.
George

[mdrag]

George Morrison,

SEE THE 4TH POST (http://forum.thedieselpage.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=004373;p=3)


Yes, the results for "after filter only" are complete and the results are consistent with our previous results, at 62% efficiency for greater than 5 micron particle size. The 2 to 5 micron size spectrum was only 44% efficient... More results this week but I think we have our answer at 60% to 64% efficient in the 5 micron component, the size most affecting our fuel system life.
George Morrison, STLE CLS

I'm probably making this more difficult than necessary, but I want to make sure I understand these fuel reports.

I read your statement "...in the 5 micron component,the size most affecting our fuel system life" and took this to mean the >2 to 5 micron particles were the most important, since a 5 micron particle would not be included in the >5 or the >15 micron counts :confused:

A few more questions for you about the way the particle counts are reported, using made up values:

>2 microns = 1000
>5 microns = 100
>15 microns = 10

In this example:

1) What is the number of particles measuring >2 up to and including 5 microns? (1000 - 100 = 900)

2) What is the number of particles measuring >5 up to and including 15 microns? (100 - 10 = 90)

3) Put another way, does the >2 micron particle count INCLUDE the >5 and >15 micron particles?

Thanks for your help.

[Kennedy]

Couple of quick points:

When sampling, I use the restriction test port and a clean hose. Fuel can be moved with the primer pump. The hose is carefully flushed with a couple of gallons of "throughput" prior to sampling. The bottles are triple rinsed as they can contain contaminants as well.


Measured dirt packets are one way of testing, but in the real world, there are other factors that take place, and play into the equation.


As George said, 5-15 micron stuf is the worst offender, but pulling out the smaller stuff is also definitely a good idea!


Food for thought: I sent my OE filter with 9k miles to Mdrag and had him cut it open. It was 4/5 used/discolored indicating that it was likely at/ near the end of it's useful life. This is interesting considering that I have MUCH cleaner fuel than most straight from the pump...

[hoot]

Originally posted by kennedy:
Couple of quick points:

When sampling, I use the restriction test port and a clean hose. Fuel can be moved with the primer pump. The hose is carefully flushed with a couple of gallons of "throughput" prior to sampling. The bottles are triple rinsed as they can contain contaminants as well.

Looks like I waisted my money. I used the "out" nipple of my post OEM Racor. I attached a piece of brand new hose to it and pumped for a little bit to flush it. You don't get a whole lot withh each depress of the plunger and if you are talking gallon or more..... that's thousands of pumps don't you think? I didn't think to flush the new hose independantly before using it.

I did fill the sample container half way and agitate it and dumped it, but only once.

Guess I'll have to trust Racor's....

"The 2 micron filter (R90S) that you have is 98% efficient at 4 microns. It is 88% efficient at 2 microns."

The 98% at 4 microns is a good number.

[chuntag95]

If your test shows good results to the baseline sample, then the test is not wasted. You can be half full that your actual fuel to the injectors is even cleaner.

[Kennedy]

Either a lift pump or charging the tank with psi will expedite flushing the hose. I may have exaggerated the volume of fuel passed, but suffice to say, you should fill the hose fully prior to draining and repeat several times to ensure that it is clean.

You can also use the outlet hose from the filter.

If it is clean, you did good. If not, try again. Hopefully you can get it in one sample as this is kinda like a drivers license test. If you pass, but it takes multiple attempts...

[hoot]

Just got word from Racor about "absolute" filter ratings.....


None of our filters are rated as absolute. Our filters are rated by their
efficiency at a specific micron size at the fuel system's maximum flow rate
through the filter element. There has been a lot of discussions among the
Duramax owners in regards to absolute filter ratings. It is possible to
build a filter with a 2 micron absolute element, but to get any life from
the element it would be so large that it would have to mount in the bed of
the truck.

I guess I wasn't that far off when I posted this pic... :D

BIG FILTER (http://onramp.uscom.com/%7Ehoot/cars/duramax/gmc/propane/bigtank1.jpg)


With that said.... are any of these automotive application filters rated as absolute?

[ndamico]

JK,

where is the "restriction test port" on the dmax? or is that on the mega head? got my bottles and was going to test tonight..

thanks

[george morrison]

Regarding:
>2 microns = 1000
>5 microns = 100
>15 microns = 10

In this example:

1) What is the number of particles measuring >2 up to and including 5 microns? (1000 - 100 = 900)

2) What is the number of particles measuring >5 up to and including 15 microns? (100 - 10 = 90)

3) Put another way, does the >2 micron particle count INCLUDE the >5 and >15 micron particles?

The >2 micron number includes ALL particles greater than 2 microns. Thus the 2 to 5 micron size component would yield 900 particles throughput. So, your answer for 2 is correct also..
It can get confusing and I need to update the report to claify what the report is saying.. Thank you for your excellent question.. The report format should make this totally clear without your having to ask me.. I will work to revise.

Regarding the term "absolute" filter rating. This term was used years ago by someone but certainly not someone who actually works in lubrication/filtration. All filters work in terms of efficiency; there are several methods of determining those efficiencies. We establish the target particle size we want to capture, then build the filter to maximum efficiency for that need..
In our case, our target is the 5 to 10 micron particle (7 microns, exactly, THE culprit according to CAT's extensive study). So, ideally, we optimize the filter for the 5 micron+ capture; the 99% if possible.. As John Kennedy indicated, it is also good to reduce the less than 5 micron particles as ALL of these particles produce abrasive wear..
George

[hoot]

George,

In your opinion, if a respected filter company states 98% efficiency at 4 microns, would you take that as probably on target or do they (filter manufacturers) stretch these figures?

In other words, do they have to back up their claims to a government or other standards organization?

Thanks.

[ 06-18-2003, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: hoot ]

[mdrag]

George Morrison,

Thanks for the explanation.

mdrag