The 325 HP..7 micron fuel filter curse

[AH64ID]

Yes it helps with cat heat as well as a little power from the additional burning, so a mixed purpose unlike the 4th and 5th even the 6.7 uses which are emissions only.

 

[cerberusiam]

The 3rd is part power and part emissions, th power you see in the flat TQ and HP curve that runs out to 2900 rpms. The emissions is the high DP and in-cylinder EGR effect. A diesel CAT works a but differently than a gas one as the exhaust is usually hot enough to activate the conversion process without extra fuel all the time. The high load conditions and a late event will accelerate that a bit to help with the increased NOX levels and soot generated by a stoich rich mixture.

 

[TGVET]

Just a reminder that there is no such thing as a 2um absolute fuel filter by current standards, and there hasn't been for many years.

The most common filter thread size used is 1-14" and the best filter is the FF5814 from Fleetguard (3um NanoNet which is Fleetguards premium HPCR media), followed by the Donaldson P551313 (3um), then the Cat 1R-0750 (4um), and lastly a FF5320 (5um). IMHO those are the only filters to run in the final filtration application. The Baldwin cross is 7um and Wix is wix.

I now run the FF5814 and haven't ran the Cat filter since 2011.

I just spoke with Baldwin and Cummins (Fleetguard) filtration Tech specialists. First off, there is no 3micron as per each tech specialist.

All absolute efficiency ratings are based upon 98% filtration. The Fleetguards are: FF5814 is 4micron absolute (98.% eff.) The FS19856 is 7micron 98%.

I'm using BF7633 4micron 98% and their OEM canister PF7977 5micron 98% I also use their open media transmission filters and buy all the filters in bulk at a great discount vs. any retailer including Geno's.

The 2micron rating is based upon 92% eff.

Posted from Cummins Sept. 2012: https://www.cumminsfiltration.com/html/en/about_us/newsroom/corp_news/corp_story62.html
"Cummins Filtration’s patented NanoNet™ fuel filtration media traps 98.7 percent of all particles as small as 4 microns (12 times smaller than the smallest particle visible to the human eye) to deliver superior protection and performance from expensive High Pressure Common Rail (HPCR) fuel injection systems running at pressures at or exceeding 30,000 psi (2000 bar)."

 

[AH64ID]

Interesting that you get different information from Cummins/Fleetguard than I do. Both Fleetguard and Dondaldson have told me the current standard can go as low as 3um, and both of them have ratings as low as 3um on multiple filters (or at least have used 3um). It's been a little while since I dag into it deeper but 3um is a legit rating, or it was earlier this year. Multiple Fleetguard tech's have said the FF5814 is a 3um absolute filter. I do recall it being called a 4um filter before it was available for sale thou. I have also seen Fleetguard data that calls the NanoNet media B4=1000, or 4um @ 99.9% which also supports 3um at 98.7%. Maybe the 3um is tech specific?? Maybe they simply cannot decide how exactly they want to publish it?? I do see more data today calling it 4um, but at 99.9% not 98.7%.

Absolute is 98.7%, or a beta ratio of 75. 98% is a beta ratio of ~73.

The BF7633 is 7um @ 98.7% when using the same SAE standard as the filter is crosses to, the 4um is a different test to make the filter look better (IMHO). Baldwin is very tricky on their standards so be sure you ask them what SAE specification they used. If you ask for J1985 on the BF7633 you will get a different rating than you were given. They probably won't want to give it to you, at least they were very reluctant to give it to me several years ago.

The PF7977 is 5um at 98.7% using the same SAE standard as OEM, so it's a better media than the BF7633.

The Fleetguard 2um rating is based on an old test and it was found to be 92% efficient, but that does not mean other filters were 92% efficient at 2um. That same older standard had the Cat 1R-0750 with a 2um at 98.7% rating while the FF5320 was 5um at 98.7%.

At the end of the day I don't think you can beat the NanoNet media and I wouldn't use Baldwin for the final filter but that's just me. I do have 2 Baldwin fuel filters on my truck but neither are the final filter.

EDIT: I just found a J1985 rating for NanoNet. 4um @ 98.7%. So it appears single pass is 4um @ 98.7% and multi-pass is 4um @ 99.%. That's the filter I want!

 

[S.Morris]

In our experience (fleet of 3500's) with a truck that has stock filtration anything after 6000hrs and you are on borrowed time. (We buy older CR trucks and put them to work, and have found over several years that it will take $5000 one way or another to bring a used work truck back into shape, and ALWAYS an auto transmission within the first 6months.

When truck shopping ALWAYS check the hours....You will find many low mileage trucks with high hours, indicating lots of idling and low speed(city type driving). As posted earlier in this thread someone had 4500 hrs and 117k miles IIRC. My personal sig truck has (ironically) 4500 hrs at last service and 220K miles.

Also be aware IMHO that a very high percentage of 2500's have been hopped up compared to 3500's and more likely to be unintelligently modified. More is always better , right???

 

[TCDiesel]

This debate will never end until thiers a penalty for mis-leading labels , and 1 standard Filter rating . Something like this Filter tested at Xpsi @ x volume @ x time = Mic on 1st pass %.

For example You can label your filter 2mic...OK @ what PSI and What %. as it stands now you can get 2mic rating at only stopping 1% of 2 mics @ 3psi, So the filter label/rates at 2 mic gets 1% of 2 mics and less then 50% of 10 mics on 1st pass. See how misleading this is.

When I decide to change our calibrating fluid for the Pump stand ,I have one of the most elaborate filtering systems (Simple but it takes all the high tech trash testing out) I contaminate the fluid with solids and water, Its capable of testing 3 filters at once 1,2,3 the 3 filter is The filter of My choice, 1&2 are candidates..1 of the most popular 2 mic filters mentioned on this site and other fails every time I tested them, I found solids in 2&3 pass this 2mic filter.

More filters the better the filtration, That's exactly what it is filtration, NOW stopping contamination is another. It would be rare to purchase contaminated fuel at retail locations that practice good hygiene, (scrubbing tanks yearly, correct pump filter, keeping the raiser and pots free of debris, ETC,) its the storing and transferring that most contaminates develop.

Here's picture of the fuel pot that fed My new 2013 with contaminated fuel, I demanded a simple, they refused until I called the Police, then Mnblue dip tank We did not find the water contaminates I was looking for But the torpedo had sold material that was clearly visible to the naked eye. If I would have NOT install the auxiliary transfer tank with AE-3AZL filter the fuel would have made its way to My factory Tank, The filter did exactly what was design to do it Plugged 100% shut, thus saving $$$$ the Truck was new and only had less than 500 miles.

Mnblue suck My tank dry and I went on My way. I had 66 gallons in the auxiliary tank (Holds 90) .The AE-3AZL filter plugged almost instantly when I started the Nozzle.

Every one want proof so here's some pictures

 

[BillDriscoll]

The truck in the video.......331396km equals 205919 miles.....our speedometers dont go to 200mph!! I wish though

 

[promisedland]

TCDIESEL,=
Would you advise me which filter to use? I am adding a aux filter to my truck. I have a FASS 150 pump with one filter [ws] and want to add the new one prob after the OEM filter.

 

[TCDiesel]

1st Choice (not legal for direct injection filtering) AE-3AZL Zinga (Bypass or Auxiliary only). 2nd Choice R120s (2Mic) Racor Brown color. The Zinga filter is so tight/restrictive it would kill your Fass in short order.

promisedlandorganicfarmer I would just spin the best filter I could fine that fits the fass and call it good... with OEM canister in operation.

The only 100% way of stopping contamination is Auxiliary or Bypass filtration, in the unlikely event it happens. The cost of these systems $1K-$2K+

 

[SSage]

TCDIESEL,=
Would you advise me which filter to use? I am adding a aux filter to my truck. I have a FASS 150 pump with one filter [ws] and want to add the new one prob after the OEM filter.

On my 150 Air Dog which is like the FASS I run this Donaldson fuel filter: http://www.amazon.com/Donaldson-kfP551313-P551313-Filter/dp/B007A5X10O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1449104519&sr=8-1&keywords=P551313

And this Baldwin Separator: http://www.amazon.com/Baldwin-BF1212-Diesel-Spin-On-Filter/dp/B0015RO3PU/ref=pd_sbs_328_3?ie=UTF8&dpID=21eYn4HqnfL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR160%2C160_&refRID=036R64YQ33MHXHMJJKV7

Some like to run the CAT filter, haven't tried it personally, rather use the one that screws on with no issues: http://www.amazon.com/Caterpillar-1R-0750-Advanced-Efficiency-Multipack/dp/B00T85IQOA/ref=pd_sbs_328_1?ie=UTF8&dpID=41V8OEko87L&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR160%2C160_&refRID=036R64YQ33MHXHMJJKV7

To me a FASS or Air Dog is a must have on a common rail, my 2003 only has 104,000 miles, but the injectors are fine so far mostly using the Air Dog filters before I learned about better the ones above. Should put the Pump/Dual Filter on from day one, it ain't cheap but the fuel injection ain't cheap either. If your going to run a better filter system then you should put the better filters on. The Air Dog should come with better filters IMO. The Donaldson filter should be provided with the kit. Its a readily available filter with much better specs than the Fleetguard provided in the kit.

 

[promisedland]

Thanks guys.
I had my FASS [it only has ONE filter, not two] from my 2nd gen that i sold...[VP pump] Now im waiting till spare time shows up to install my FASS on my 04.5
While i wait im listening to you guys spating about which filter is the BEST.... ...I did get the draw straw and new wiring for this truck. [draw straw is said to quiet down the pump], i hope!!

I have a new FASS FWS 3003 for my FASS 150. I just bought a filter head and a CAT 1r 0750 filter. Im not sure what i have in my oem can but i hear you all agree on the Baldwin pf7977.
I was planning on the baldwin bf1212 on my fass/ pf7977 in the oem can/ cat or donaldson p551313 in my aux....prob after the oem can..... please say yes so i can close the door on this! :-laf

 

[cerberusiam]

All that sounds good for filters, about the best you can do.

Draw straw as in a tank bulk head or in the canister? Do NOT do a draw straw in the tank if you want to avoid issues.

 

[promisedland]

Ill check my instructions,... i think it goes in the top through a hole i need to drill. Has a alum. fitting that fastens to to the tank. I was pleased that i dont need to cut the filler hose with this ... Ill check the part #....

Sigh! just when i think i got something good someone pees on my parade...:-laf

Soo, what is the concern?

 

[Wayne M.]

You need to see where you're at with the lift pump. If it's been updated to in tank, you'll have to figure that out, but if it's still original, the pump will be behind the stock canister. If yes to that, then you can leave the tank alone. There are fittings out there to bypass the OEM lift pump on the canister so you can rely on the FASS which has it's own pump- correct?

When she's done, please throw up some pictures!

 

[cerberusiam]

There are no internal baffles in the tank, you have to cut the draw tube to be right on bottom of the tank and you do not want to do that anyway as all the garbage is floating around in the bottom couple inches. At low fuel like 1/4 of tank you loose fuel coverage on the pickup point and it sucks air. From about 1/2 tank down a straight cut pickup tube creates a whirlpool effect that sucks air. The fix for that is cut it an angle which then reduces how much of the fuel you can suck without air and it doesn't really fix the issue as it will still create a whirlpool and suck air.

Unless you are using a lot of throttle about 75% of the fuel being pumped is going to be returned to the tank, that needs to go back right at the pickup to keep fuel in the pump or it will hurt itself. To do that all the return fuel from the LP and the CP-3 and the injectors should be routed back into the canister to make sure you do NOT suck air. The canister will hold fuel around the pickup tube and sits up off the bottom of the tank in a low spot to be able to use most of the fuel without sucking air and garbage into the system.

You want to get another canister and just replace the one you have, or, get a new pickup tube and upgrade it 1/2 inch draw tube and line to the FASS. There are kits to do the older cannisters or you just buy one pre-made from Glacier Diesel.

 

[Wayne M.]

Totally agree. I never liked the draw straw idea much. Can't beat the stock pickup unless you plan on real big HP.

 

[promisedland]

Yipes! i JUST GOT WET!! :-laf
Hmmmm, i dont know what to do. I do have the in tank pump.

 

[cerberusiam]

Spend the $$ and buy a new canister and just swap them.

 

[Wayne M.]

Spend the $$ and buy a new canister and just swap them.

Canister meaning the fuel filter canister on the engine, or what some call the module/ part that drops in the tank?

 

[AH64ID]

Canister meaning the fuel filter canister on the engine, or what some call the module/ part that drops in the tank?

The part in the tank.

This is likely the way I will go. 3/8" hose flow a LOT more fuel than most people think and ~90 GPH is plenty and filterable. None of the filters on the 150's are rated for the flow potential of the pump (except the older 150 FASS with the HF filters, but hydraulic filter specs are very different than fuel specs and it takes many times thru the filter to catch all the particles).

I personally like the idea of feeding a 90 GPH pump with 1/2" suction line and 3/8" to the CP3.

http://www.glacierdieselpower.com/product.aspx?pf_id=0511-FTSM