Air Dog Install

[firemansdiesel]

Thanks, that's good. Any idea why that is though? What's different about the 03/04 canister that makes it work?

Someone can chime in to correct me, but the pre 2005 years. The pump located in the engine bay pulled to draw the fuel. The intank relocation in the newer trucks was designed to push rather than pull and the fuel to keep the LP cool and not burn out. That's why the lift pumps in the earlier 3rd Gens failed so quick and often. The canister in the 2005 and newer has the lift pump in them and is a big restriction.



The Air Dog & Fass are superior motors to the stock and is design to pull the fuel w/ no problems.

 

[BillGotthelf]

I have been running the AD 100 for the past 15 months and have had no problem with water seperation. I bypassed the stock filter/pump setup on my 04. 5. I still would like to know where you get the info that the AD does not meet factory specs for F/W seperation. The factory system is a POS and cannot seperate large amounts of water (try 8 ounces) before fuel pressure pushes the water through the filter.

 

[bcdiesel]

Someone can chime in to correct me, but the pre 2005 years. The pump located in the engine bay pulled to draw the fuel. The intank relocation in the newer trucks was designed to push rather than pull and the fuel to keep the LP cool and not burn out. That's why the lift pumps in the earlier 3rd Gens failed so quick and often. The canister in the 2005 and newer has the lift pump in them and is a big restriction.



The Air Dog & Fass are superior motors to the stock and is design to pull the fuel w/ no problems.

Thanks, I understand that part. But the problem that arose with the Airdog and Fass was the fact that is was draining the fuel canister in the tank faster than the canister could refill when the tank was 1/4 or lower. I've had my canister out when installing the Espar heater draw straw and it looked very similar to pictures of the 05 and up canisters minus the fuel pump of course. I'm wondering what physical difference in the canister of the 03/04 makes it not drain of fuel on a low tank compared to the new canisters, or what makes it refill faster?



Hope that makes sense!?

 

[JustinClark]

I believe the problems you are talking about is that when the people are installign the draw straws they aren't doing as the directions state and they're setting the tank flat on the ground when they measure the draw straw and then when the tank is installed the draw straw is too short as the tank will hang. The tank needs to be set as it hangs on the truck or lift the bed off the truck and do the install that way.

 

[HOBrian]

Correct!!! If the tank is flat on the ground the draw straw is going to be cut too short. The tank sags when it is on the truck, so measureing with the tank on the truck will give you a better measurement because the tank is sagging. The tank will not "sag" if on the ground. How to measure with the tank on the truck? Take the bed off!!!

 

[steved]

I only have one thing to add...



While the filter material on the AD/FASS is not as efficient for water, the stock system doesn't have a stand alone water separator either... that primary AD/FASS filter is designed to catch large debris and water...



And I'll state this again: I have, by mere accident, found the OE system is by far inadequate when talking about water. I will explain shortly. In the now 600k I have owned a dodge diesel, I have never actually seen the WIF light illuminate... but since installing the FASS and some additional filters, I catch lots and lots of water (of which, one of these filters is water blocking).



If you study the OE setup, it pumps from the tank, through the pump, and through the filter. If you look at the FASS/AD, they pump from the tank, through a water separator, through the pump, and finally through the filter.



If you take diesel fuel with a little water, and push that through a pump, it emulsifies the water/diesel... and this mixture will pass even the better water blocking filters. So back to the description above... OE system: water/diesel through a pump, to the filter... FASS/AD: water/diesel through a separator (before being emulsified), through a pump, and through the filter.



In my accidental findings, I literally (and easily) pumped emulsified fuel through a Fleetguard water-blocking filter... I had the setup plumbed similar to an OE system. To correct my mistake (and salvage what fuel I could), I replumbed the system similar to that of a FASS... and after a few days (to let the emulsion break down to water and diesel), I was able to recover all of the water and diesel as separate components (using the same setup, replumbed).



So before knocking the aftermarket pump with filters, you ought to know just how effective the OE system is... and in my experience, the OE system is very poor.



As stated by dodge to one customer with fuel system issues (you could search and find this statement on this very forum): the fuel filter was installed as a convenience to the customer, but the customer should not rely on the filter but rather buy quality fuel. This comes from the many people with fuel system problems that were not warrantied because of the open vents on top of the OE tank pulling water into the system that was not caught by the OE fuel filter.



The only two things the FASS/AD lack are a heater and WIF light/sensor. I have ran a FASS for over 80k and this has never been an issue except a single time when I picked up several gallons of water, water which would have overwhelmed the OE system.

 

[RDyson]

That makes alot of sense. I've been on the fence of how to plumb my A/D when I get it. I wanted to get the 100 and run it through the stock filter canister for a second shot at filtering/water removal. I feel better about running just the A/D now.



Randy

 

[TimothyLong]

That makes alot of sense. I've been on the fence of how to plumb my A/D when I get it. I wanted to get the 100 and run it through the stock filter canister for a second shot at filtering/water removal. I feel better about running just the A/D now.



Randy

I agree that this does make a lot of sense. In the 10 years that I've owned Dodge Ram diesels, I have never had the WIF light come on either, but I just attributed that to the fact that I change the fuel filter like clockwork, which by default drains the filter housing and any water that may have accumulated (but not enough to trigger the WIF sensor). This has definitely made me reconsider a bit of plumbing through the stock filter/housing.



Steved, thanks for the insight!

 

[HOBrian]

Steve that is /was a great way to explain why AD or FASS are better at filtering than factory!



Thanks!

 

[steved]

Again, all my findings were purely accidental... nothing I set out to find on my own.



I will add only one other finding in that accident... I have a home-made WIF sensor in my water knockout and warning LED. It senses water in fuel quite nicely...



The sensor is nothing more than a pair of stainless screws, with a 1/8" gap between them, in my water knockout. You use these screws as the switch to turn the LED on... ground one screw, the other is attached to the negative side of the LED, and you power the positive side of the LED from the battery. I tested it quite a bit when I built my setup, and it does work as built, very similar to the OE WIF sensor in our trucks.



The only issue is when talking about emulsified fuel... there is not enough "free" water to trigger the LED, and the diesel insulates the contacts further... the LED will not light when emulsified diesel is passed... so imagine this when talking in terms of our OE system and the reason we never see the WIF light illuminate.

 

[AH64ID]

While you present those findings I still have a very hard time believing a filter that is rated only for 50% of free water removal at 19. 82 GPH, and receiving 95gph (or more) can out filter a filter designed for 95% free and emulsified water removal at 60GPH, and receiving less GPH. .

I do agree with the WIF light thou. . . I don't beleive there is a light out there that would really work on emulsified water, they are designed to tell you when you got a bad batch of fuel... And yes the OE design is a ways up in the filter bowl, so it would take a bit of water for it to light... Want to test it, pull the sensor out and place it in a cup of water...

 

[steved]

While you present those findings I still have a very hard time believing a filter that is rated only for 50% of free water removal at 19. 82 GPH, and receiving 95gph (or more) can out filter a filter designed for 95% free and emulsified water removal at 60GPH, and receiving less GPH. .

QUOTE]





Again, my findings with emulsified fuel were using a Fleetuard water-blocking filter as the secondary.



And further, the main point I feel you keep overlooking is the fact the FASS/AD use a water separator prior to the pump... a filter specifically designed to catch water, which the OE completely overlooks. Not to mention the position of the pump in the system.



While I can't speak for the AD, the FASS filters are rated for 33 gallons per minute, not gallons per hour... so as far as particulate filtration, they actually increase in efficiency. But they are only hydraulic filters...



And again, these are my findings... as everyone else says, your mileage may vary. Take them for what you feel they are worth.

 

[AH64ID]

Again, my findings with emulsified fuel were using a Fleetuard water-blocking filter as the secondary.



And further, the main point I feel you keep overlooking is the fact the FASS/AD use a water separator prior to the pump... a filter specifically designed to catch water, which the OE completely overlooks. Not to mention the position of the pump in the system.



While I can't speak for the AD, the FASS filters are rated for 33 gallons per minute, not gallons per hour... so as far as particulate filtration, they actually increase in efficiency. But they are only hydraulic filters...



And again, these are my findings... as everyone else says, your mileage may vary. Take them for what you feel they are worth.

Yes the AD/FASS are good in that they pull water prior to the pump, which may be part of the reason the OE filter requirement is 95% removal of emulsified water, the water is emulsified more.



You say a similar to OE setup, so which filter were you using?



Also FASS and AD both use the FS19768 for there f/w pre-filter... which is rated at 19. 82GPH... so which filter are you talking about?

 

[steved]

Also FASS and AD both use the FS19768 for there f/w pre-filter... which is rated at 19. 82GPH... so which filter are you talking about?

Mine uses a FS1203... not a 19768...





And the simple point of fact is:



OE system: no water captured... ever.

FASS and my current aux system: some water in almost every tank.

 

[AH64ID]

Mine uses a FS1203... not a 19768...


And the simple point of fact is:

OE system: no water captured... ever.
FASS and my current aux system: some water in almost every tank.

Interesting... FASS told me 19768. . do you have a spec sheet on the 1203? A 1203 is a canister filter... how does that work on your FASS?

My OE system catches water every time I drain in. (you were on the old 10 mic setup right? I do believe they increased the f/w specs with the 7 mic setup in 06). . I even get water at my 2nd f/w sep and both my 1st and 2nd water sep are above 90% of free and emulsified water removal.

 

[TimothyLong]

I did a little bit of research myself on this and here are some thoughts. First, both the AD100 and the FASS 95 use the 3/4-16 UNF-2B threading. The only Fleetguard FS filters I could find with that threading are the ones that have been posted and are in question as to their efficiency. There are better Fleetguard FS filters, but they use the more common 1-14 UNS-2B threading. You could make these FS filters work but you would have to have a custom adapter machined to do it. That would be mongo expensive!

On the other hand, the FASS 150 series uses the 1-14 threading. According to technical information I got from Fleetguard's website, the FS1015-B is rated at 90% for free water and 90% for emulsified water at 90GPH and it uses the common 1-14 threading. This being said, the FASS 150/95 (for those of us who only need 95 GPH) could be used with the Fleetguard FS1015-B. The draw backs to this set up are as follows:

1) The FASS 150/95 is more expensive than the AD100 or the FASS 95/95.
2) The FS1015-B is a big filter, a bit over 9" long. It comes with a clear plastic drain cap. Nice for seeing how much water you have, but I'm not certain about durability hanging under the truck.
3) I haven't priced them, but I would also be willing to bet that the FS1015-B is not a cheap filter either.

Going the FASS 150/95 route with the Fleetguard FS1015-B is definitely a more expensive option than the standard AD100 or FASS 95 set up. However, it would be cheaper than the custom machined adapter to fit the AD100 or the FASS 95. Who knows, in the long run it could be cheaper in terms of replacing injectors or CP3's because of the high efficiency fuel/water separation. Just some food for thought.

 

[AH64ID]

Okay Steved I figured out you meant 1023, not 1203. Which does, and TimothyLong said, use the better 1-14 thread. . So I guess the FS19768 is used on the smaller FASS and both AD's.



Yes the big issue is the lack of filters for the 3/6-16 threading. The two I have found are



FS19768 (currently used on AD/ FASS 95), which is 19. 82 GPH 140 microns, and 50% free water removal.

FS19594 (same size as FS19768), which is 19. 82 GPH, 20 microns at 96%, 10 microns at 79%, and 90% for free and emulsified water removal.



As for the 1-14 you could use the FS1212, 96% at 20 microns, rated for 89GPH, and 90% for free and emulsifed water. . and is only 7. 9" tall.



There is also the FS1242, 6. 6" tall, 89GPH, 96% at 20 microns, and 79% at 10 microns, 90% both free and emulsifed.



Then the FS1000 fits, but is 9. 8" tall. . thou its absolute at 10 microns, 83% at 5 microns, 89GPH, and 95% free and emulsified water removal.



Last but not least is the FS1015, 7. 5" tall and the same specs as the FS1000...



So the FS1000 and FS1015 have the same specs but the 1000 hold 72gr dirt vs the 39 for the 1015. .



Same with the 1212 and 1242, the 1212 holds 22gr and the 1242 24gr. Which is odd as the 1242 has the same ratings and is smaller.

 

[TimothyLong]

As for the 1-14 you could use the FS1212, 96% at 20 microns, rated for 89GPH, and 90% for free and emulsifed water. . and is only 7. 9" tall.



There is also the FS1242, 6. 6" tall, 89GPH, 96% at 20 microns, and 79% at 10 microns, 90% both free and emulsifed.



Then the FS1000 fits, but is 9. 8" tall. . thou its absolute at 10 microns, 83% at 5 microns, 89GPH, and 95% free and emulsified water removal.



Last but not least is the FS1015, 7. 5" tall and the same specs as the FS1000...



So the FS1000 and FS1015 have the same specs but the 1000 hold 72gr dirt vs the 39 for the 1015. .



Same with the 1212 and 1242, the 1212 holds 22gr and the 1242 24gr. Which is odd as the 1242 has the same ratings and is smaller.

The size that you quoted for the FS1015 is just for the filter by itself. I was led to believe by what I read on Fleetguard's web site, and I could be wrong about this, that the FS1015 requires a drain cap, the plastic thing I mentioned in my last post, which makes the over all length a tad over 9". The FS1015-B is the filter + the cap. Are you sure that this is not the case for the other FS1000 series filters that you quoted? Just curious.



Thanks!

 

[AH64ID]

Okay, maybe I interpretied it wrong. . I thought it was the same filter, just without a bowl... But looking at the WIX cross reference I see that you are correct... so yes, a bowl would make it a very tall filter.

 

[PKnoerzer]

This is just the type of informative and positive discussion that justifys my TDR membership. Thanks to all.