aftermarket lift pump gph versus CP3 gph

[JohncJordanIII]

I did a quick research since I have factory lift pump behind fuel canister. It works and pumps great like new. But I know a better lift pump and filter is crucial for these injectors I have the 5 micron filter in there now. My question is I looked up specs on the CP3 and it has a flow rate of 180-185LPH which equals to about 48 GPH. So if I'm stock and to remain stock can't I get away with a diesel lift pump that does 8-11 PSI 50GPH. I would think these fass and airdogs that does 90+GPH would the hammer/cavitate the CP3 in stock form. Thank you I'm ready to get educated!

 

[AH64ID]

The GPH rating is at 0 psi, so as psi increases the GPH drops. My own testing at home on the in-tank pump showed that the flow was in the 60-70 GPH range, maybe a little higher, at 0 psi.

The 90 GPH pumps are what I would look at. They only put enough fuel to the CP3 to maintain the set pressure and the remaining fuel is bypassed back to the tank on most of them. Some have an internal bypass.

On the pumps with filters the f/w sep gets the full flow potential of the pump and the secondary filter only gets what goes to the engine. None of the filters are rated much above 90 GPH so the 150 GPH pumps are out flowing their filters, so another reason to get a 90 GPH pump.

Personally I like the FASS 90 GPH until with dual electric fuel heaters if you want something other than the in-tank retro fit.

 

[JohncJordanIII]

AH64ID thank you for the detailed reply. I understand in racing/performance situations the extra flow is needed but as you mentioned I just can't see filters that spin on or drop in to handle 100% as you mentioned at those higher ratings. I work on diesels that burn 900 Gallons an hour on ships and other big bore diesels but there filters bowls let alone micron requirements are different. Thank you again for the reply!

 

[Prairie Dog]

Never mind.

 

[cerberusiam]

Less head pressure increase the potential for cavitation, not more pressure. Rule of thumb for a gear rotor pump is its head pressure should be 25-30% of its output pressure on fuel and light oils. Since stock CP-3 case is 75 psi that gives the potential target for best pressures. In the end the flow will be limited by the filters so unless you build a custom dual feed setup not going to get much more than the 80-90 GPH at any reasonable psi.

 

[JohncJordanIII]

Thank everyone who answering without the negative Nancy's. I don't mind noise and I'm a diesel mechanic in the industrial/marine world so naturally I'll like frame mounted. I'm straight pipe anyways so I'll never hear it lol. Thanks again! I guess 90gph area is where I'm shopping for.

 

[cerberusiam]

The frame mounted ones have their attractions but also enough detraction's it becomes a choice of lesser of 2 evils. Fleece has an in tank pump that claims capable of 150 GPH, that is enough flow and pressure to go a long ways down the power path.

 

[JohncJordanIII]

I saw that in tank pump cerberusiam but I never liked those style even on gassers. I think growing up around heavy equipment and industrial equipment I got spoil with ease of each on everything. I love my fully loaded Laramie but I don't mind upgrades that doesnt look factory if it promises function. Now my next quest is find a digital monitor that isn't a tuner or programer. Just something to plug Into my obd2 port but show transmission temp, boost,fuel pressure like my snap on scanner does. Thanks again!

 

[cerberusiam]

The thing is the in-tank pumps have been a huge factor more reliable than ANY external pump that it is hard to ignore. External is nice for ease of replacement but neither the FASS nor AD have impressed me with their longevity. Add to that if you are driving in adverse conditions, like snow and slush and cold, those filters hanging down in the way of EVERY piece of road FOD is concerning. Without some protection from elements and FOD, especially off road, I would worry all the time. In-tank lubed and cooled by the fuel where it is protected just has so many attractive benefits.

Then factor in the cost of replacing the canister to use a FASS the cost is so close it leans heavily to the in-tank solution. At that point it is a matter of preference.

 

[JohncJordanIII]

^^this makes complete sense. I was actually looking at the filter cost and just wow. You also made a good statement on the push method, while being constantly cooled and lubricated by being in tank on top of the added sealed by the tank. I am really glad your able to provide feedback that's practical and makes sense. Love this forum.

 

[Freebore]

The thing is the in-tank pumps have been a huge factor more reliable than ANY external pump that it is hard to ignore. External is nice for ease of replacement but neither the FASS nor AD have impressed me with their longevity. Add to that if you are driving in adverse conditions, like snow and slush and cold, those filters hanging down in the way of EVERY piece of road FOD is concerning. Without some protection from elements and FOD, especially off road, I would worry all the time. In-tank lubed and cooled by the fuel where it is protected just has so many attractive benefits.

Then factor in the cost of replacing the canister to use a FASS the cost is so close it leans heavily to the in-tank solution. At that point it is a matter of preference.

I did the Fleece in-tank replacement 5 months ago. Really a clean install and it works well. I like having the pump submerged in fuel - no issues with draw straws and sumps. Pressure ranges from 21-23 psi after the final filter. Did it as a PM. Took off the bed to install it.

 

[cerberusiam]

Pressure ranges from 21-23 psi after the final filter.

That is dead on for pressure even thru a couple filters. They claim 170 GPH @ 15 psi so even at 20 it is capable of pushing some fuel. Dual pumps is interesting and since it is submerged all the time it should last a lot longer. a person can run 3 or 4 filters past it and still have enough fuel for LOTS of power.

Are they pretty quiet in the tank? Is it very noticeable?

 

[Freebore]

That is dead on for pressure even thru a couple filters. They claim 170 GPH @ 15 psi so even at 20 it is capable of pushing some fuel. Dual pumps is interesting and since it is submerged all the time it should last a lot longer. a person can run 3 or 4 filters past it and still have enough fuel for LOTS of power.

Are they pretty quiet in the tank? Is it very noticeable?

The pump is very quiet - I really don't notice an increase in noise. It is pushing through 3 filters, a Fleetguard FS19732 (Mopar Severe Duty Kit), Baldwin PF7977, and a Cat 1R0750 with the pressures I listed.

They offered lifetime warranty if you follow the registration instructions. Seems to be well made. Talked with Fleece before I bought it. Apparently the setup is borrowed from the supplier who provides the fuel pump(s) in the Mopar Hellcat. If it makes any sense, the truck seems to have a crisper throttle.

I had problems with gelled fuel about 4 years ago that caused some headaches. Although the OEM pump was making 8-9 psi, it just never ran the same after that especially in the winter when it's 5°F. With this pump it seemed to correct it and restored the smoothness, even right after it starts when cold. Reached 175,000 miles last week.

 

[JohncJordanIII]

Well my mind is made up gents, off the fuel canister pump in goes fleece .

 

[AH64ID]

The pump is very quiet - I really don't notice an increase in noise. It is pushing through 3 filters, a Fleetguard FS19732 (Mopar Severe Duty Kit), Baldwin PF7977, and a Cat 1R0750 with the pressures I listed.

They offered lifetime warranty if you follow the registration instructions. Seems to be well made. Talked with Fleece before I bought it. Apparently the setup is borrowed from the supplier who provides the fuel pump(s) in the Mopar Hellcat. If it makes any sense, the truck seems to have a crisper throttle.

I had problems with gelled fuel about 4 years ago that caused some headaches. Although the OEM pump was making 8-9 psi, it just never ran the same after that especially in the winter when it's 5°F. With this pump it seemed to correct it and restored the smoothness, even right after it starts when cold. Reached 175,000 miles last week.

The big problem is those filters aren’t rated for that much flow. I’d have to find my notes, but the FS19732 is only rated for ~65GPH.


The Fleetguard FF5814 is a much better filter than the 1R-0750.

 

[JohncJordanIII]

I can't remember the part# but would the drop in Baldwin filter be rated for the drop in fleece? Or would I need to to do a remote filter head with a commercial grade like CAT filters?

 

[AH64ID]

170 GPH would take a MASSIVE filter, or pairs of filters in parallel to match. It's the biggest issue with these larger pumps... no filters to match their potential flow.

 

[JohncJordanIII]

I know it's expensive but I feel like the cure all would be the racor filters used on yachts and over the road to match that GPH

 

[AH64ID]

I know it's expensive but I feel like the cure all would be the racor filters used on yachts and over the road to match that GPH

I've worked around a bunch of those in the marine industry, they are great filters for sure.

From what you've posted I am not sure you need the Fleece pump. I think the stock in-tank would be plenty of fuel.

 

[Freebore]

The big problem is those filters aren’t rated for that much flow. I’d have to find my notes, but the FS19732 is only rated for ~65GPH.


The Fleetguard FF5814 is a much better filter than the 1R-0750.

My day job involves working with hydraulic fluids and filtration for a major OEM. I work with filter and fluid manufacturers frequently and get involved with a lot of troubleshooting. Engine oil, fuel, and hydraulic filters typically use the same standard for specifying the filtration capability which is documented in ISO 4406.

The ISO 4406 standard was changed in December 1999 as a result of the availability of test dust. Up to that point, ACFTD (AC Fine Test Dust) had been used for several years for filter standards. This finely ground dust ceased to be available in the early 1990s, and a new test dust standard was required for filter calibration. The old calibrated size for ACFTD was called out in ISO 4402.

ISO 4406 adopted a new standard test dust which is calibrated under ISO 11171 by NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology). When NIST calibrated the size of the dust, they found the ACFTD particles under 4 microns in ISO4402 were actually larger than stated, and particles over 14 microns were slightly smaller than stated.

Since December 1999, most filter companies rate filters using the NIST ISO 11171 dust and if someone is telling you their filter has a 3-micron rating, you should ask them what standard it is based on. It’s either marketing hype or the old standard. Filters previously rated at 3 microns based on ISO4402 are now 5.1 micron under ISO11171. See page 5 of the attached FuelFiltrationRealityCheck PDF.

There’s more to fuel (and other filters) than just micron ratings. A micron rating doesn’t mean much without stating what percentage of a certain particle size is stopped. Beta ratings must be included such as a B75 4 micron filter means 98.7% of 4 micron particles are stopped. Calculation is simply ((75-1)/75)*100 %. You can have 4 micron filter that is 50% efficient too, but B75 is the absolute rating. See details in the attached Beta rating PDF.

Too many get wrapped into micron ratings, where the 3 or 4 micron filter is king over the lowly 5 micron filter. Really? Are we going to split hairs and hang our hat on that alone? 3 microns is 0.0001181102 inch, 5 microns is 0.0001968504 inch and the difference is a whopping 0.000078740200 inch! I agree we need to be clean, but I need to be educated how this alone is significant. My injectors were replaced because of a failed solenoid at 102K, and it ran on the factory fuel filter until then.

So, what is the definition of better, or much better? What is the measure? Are we not going to include burst capability, vibration resistance, manufacturing inconsistencies which can lead to metallic process contamination as well as end cap and seam leak paths? I think overall filter quality is certainly important as I don’t want someone who is making a filter to leave a burr behind that has a good chance of doing a lot of damage. Cat, Fleetguard, Racor, Baldwin, and Donaldson all make good filters and I’ve never had a failure using them. I’ve been in filter manufacturer R&D labs observing exhaustive tests of competitive filters, there’s more to it than efficiency tests. I’m more concern about getting fooled some counterfeit junk, and they are out there.

With respect to high flows - I want as much reasonable flow potential as possible and I am not really worried about maximum filter flow capability. A system uses what is needed, the pump regulates the flow to maintain desired pressure and excess flow is returned to tank. Early common rail systems by more than one manufacturer had injector problems from heat due to insufficient cooling and cavitation was also an issue. Increased flow was a great help in some cases. Ensuring sufficient flow gives me some peace of mind that I am reducing the potential of cavitation as well as quite possibly improving my injector’s lives by keeping them just a bit cooler. The choice for me wasn’t difficult, and after doing so it was the first time in 7 years I was able to get 23 highway mpg hand calculated. Yes, the Fleece pump is not cheap, but I have no regrets.