Fuel sample results

[a bear]

Just got the results via e-mail from George. I am very pleased with the numbers. Was also really close to scoring the next lower numbers in the 5 and 15um range.

>2um 12
>5um 12
>15um 10

Sample was also taken @2000 RPM with a full tank of fuel to duplicate worst case conditions for the filters.

[mdrag]

a bear,

Are those particle counts #s or ISO codes? Either way - very impressive http://forum.thedieselpage.com/ubb/icons/icon14.gif http://forum.thedieselpage.com/ubb/icons/icon14.gif

It appears that you've got the sampling technique down pat. Comforting to know that the results did not degrade with the engine running. That's about as 'real world' as it gets tongue.gif :D

[a bear]

mdrag,
Those are the ISO Cleanliness Codes. I also had 4530 Mi on the filters at the time of sampling and pulled the OEM afterwards. I will be shipping it UPS tomorrow per our previous discussion. The thing I would be most interested in is the element coverage with the lift pump. Hopefully there will be no stripes.

[mdrag]

a bear,

I figured your numbers were ISO Cleanliness codes...George must be salivating heavily :D

Makes my 16/14/9 seem like I took it in a dust storm :eek: Again, great job on your sampling technique.

The filter media use pattern with a fuel lift pump http://forum.thedieselpage.com/ubb/icons/icon2.gif exactly what I'm interested in investigating. Thanks for sending the filter.

mdrag

[Corndog]

abear
Great numbers, I cut open an OEM filter last week with 11,000 miles on it. Have run a lift pump the whole 11,000 miles. The media was black all over, no stripes like without the lift pump.

[jbplock]

Tommy,

Excellent!!! :D Your megafilter results now hold the record for the >2um ISO code at 12. The previous low level for >2um was 13 by OC_Dmax and myself. OC_Dmax’s Racor still holds the record for the >5um and >15um ISO codes at 11 and 8 respectively.

OC_Dmax’s fuel test summary tables have been updated as follows:

ISO Fuel Test Summary - pdf (http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO/OC_Dmax.pdf)
ISO Fuel Test Summary - Excel (http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO/OC_Dmax.xls)

(Tommy, If you also post your particle counts I'll add them to the tables)

[ 09-24-2003, 06:12 AM: Message edited by: jbplock ]

[a bear]

Bill,
These are the particle counts.
39
22
6
Thanks,
Tommy

[Kennedy]

Excellente!

Looks like one thing is clear here. Better filtartion can yield cleaner fuel in field test results! I've been contemplating retesting to see what my current status is with a supply pump installed.


Now A bear, we need a ferro and particle count at 7,000 miles to see if that "twine ball" can match a 16-14-11 like my CRANKCASE oil... :eek:

[mdrag]

Originally posted by jbplock:

(Tommy, If also post your particle counts I'll add them to the tables) @ 2000 RPM

mdrag

[SS396]

Abear, great results.

I will get a kit and test mine, now that I have a lift pump and 3rd filter (primary 30 mic) added. I am running the mega post oem.

I would hope my results would be like jbplock's since we are running the same setup except for the lift pump.

I sure appreciate you guys engineering the lift pump setup, it's nice runnig air free and cleaner fuel to boot.

Pat.

[jbplock]

Originally posted by mdrag:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jbplock:

(Tommy, If you also post your particle counts I'll add them to the tables) @ 2000 RPM

mdrag </font>[/QUOTE]Mdrag, Good Point!! I'll add the "tested @2000" rpm too...

[ 09-24-2003, 06:49 AM: Message edited by: jbplock ]

[OC_DMAX]

Excellent results Tommy!!

I am convinced that all the supplemental filters that people are adding to their trucks are working correctly (independent of brand, Racor, CAT, Baldwin, Stanadyne). Examining the results captured in the Fuel Analysis spreadsheet, the CAT, Racor and Baldwin when used with the OEM are all getting well under the ISO Cleanliness Levels originally defined by George Morrison. I also believe that in order to obtain the excellent results you and I have obtained, meticulous sample techniques are required. Per emails that I have exchanged with you, we each know the level of effort that we took in sampling in order to achieve our results.

I would be interested in seeing the actual report you received from AVLUBE. Any possibility of posting it on your website or emailing it to me?

It must feel good to achieve the end results that you have. I know you, Bill and everyone else went through a lot of effort with trying to determine where the entrained air was coming from. First fighting quick disconnect connectors and then engineering a lift pump for use with your particular filter set-up. Sure seems like emotions run high on this topic at times!

Have a good one,
Alan

[chuntag95]

The exciting part is that those levels are so small, you are slitting hairs with the differences. smile.gif The REALLY exciting part is I have the same system on my truck. :D

[a bear]

Now A bear, we need a ferro and particle count at 7,000 miles to see if that "twine ball" can match a 16-14-11 like my CRANKCASE oil...
16-14-11 Hmmm! Must have developed a channel through that toilet paper. :D

On a serious note how do these numbers rate. Are there any target levels established. I may have to get one of those kits to see if the twine ball can hang. :D :D

[george morrison]

And yes, I am sitting here reading these posts, smiling from ear to ear. This discussion is as if there were a group of lube engineers discussing a nuclear power plant's hydraulic system oil analysis results! I must congratulate all of you with your incredibly excellent work, for obtaining this level of fuel system cleanliness and sampling integrity is a monumental task and achievement. There some industry engineers (talked with one yesterday) reading these posts with comments of "I don't believe the level of discussion taking place here!" :)

And as you drive down the road passing 18 wheelers you can look at them knowing that the non CAT engined trucks very likely have ISO 18/16/14 diesel fuel (at best) flowing through their 30,000 psi injectors..... And the sound of Ka Ching!!

George

[GM Smitty]

That's awesome Tommy! I really would like to do a fuel analysis myself eventually, but until then I'm pretty comfortable with my set-up (especially after seeing those numbers!! :D )

Josh

[Lone Eagle]

What is the matter with those numbers George? That is what my test showed after running thought two two micron filters. Later! Frank

[george morrison]

Regarding the 18/16/14. My reference is that with the exception of the CAT engined trucks, the absolute best is an 18/16/14 which is double/triple our target number of abrasive particles. However, with 18/16/14 the highest level of cleanliness, a probabe 19/17/15 would be the norm. And that is double the amount of particulate throughput of an 18/16/14... i.e. injector/fuel system life is significantly reduced, very likely half of what an 18/16/14 would provide. Now, getting down closer to the 15/13/10..... Then we are talking optimum fuel system component life. My point was that 95% of the over the road truck engines have relatively poor fuel filtration verses the number of miles and gallons burned in a year's time. I get to talk to entirely too many owner/operators whose income depends on 'being on the road'. Fuel injector and fuel system related problems are creating significant, unplanned maintenance costs and in some cases where drivers are living from payment to payment, parked trucks. It is a very sad condition when a person works day and night to purchase a new truck only to have it in the shop more than his/her old one. (Class 8, over the road). It is eating some of these drivers' lunch/lives.. Falls under the "I"m mad as Hell" and "This isn't right!l" area of life for me, personally......
George

[ 09-28-2003, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: george morrison ]