Fuel heater? What fuel heater?

ArmyChief · **Posted:** Tue Nov 25, 2014 7:35 pm

greiswig wrote:

ArmyChief wrote:

Bigger in this case (as long as it fits comfortably) is better I take it (would create LESS of a restriction to inlet of HP pump..yes?)

Yes, all other things being equal.

Look at it this way: you can breathe pretty easily through a small piece of window screen. Now try doing the same through the same size piece of a pillow case when your wife tries to kill you in the middle of the night. (No, no personal experience there..why do you ask?) Not as easy, eh? Now, try just breathing through the whole pillow case. Easy.

ArmyChief · **Posted:** Tue Nov 25, 2014 7:37 pm

greiswig wrote:

ArmyChief wrote:

How do I know what flow I need?

You could trust me when I say that the 60S filter is sufficient for my needs, and has substantially more surface area than the stock filter.

.

I take it to use a 905 filter I would need the 490R housing?

Something like this?

Code:

http://www.dieselfiltersonline.com/490r122_parker_racor_fuel_filter_water_separator_assembly.html

greiswig · **Posted:** Tue Nov 25, 2014 10:02 pm

ArmyChief,

I'm not positive, honestly. Ask the dealer you buy it from. But I am pretty sure that the head is exactly the same, the bowl, heater and other items are exactly the same. The only difference is which filter it ships with. IOW, the 460s can later be fitted with a 90 series filter without issue. I bought a 490R assembly because for some me reason at the time I got it dirt cheap, and later put a 60S filter on it.

ATXKJ · **Posted:** Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:28 pm

on the Racor- most folks go with the 245's - physically about the same size as stock
2 micron available - heater element in the bottom (that's what I have)

Stan's writeup
http://liberty.eurekaboy.com/racor.htm

Biohazard's
http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=98&t=36977

as to the comments about 3 micron filters - the Service Manual says that Bosch recommends 3 micron.

at no point does Jeep/Chrysler say what the stock filters are - and Wix - which tries to copy stock exactly - says their version is 10 micron.

the only time anyone pulled a sample and analyzed it - particle counts were in line with a deteriorating 10 micron

10 - would be paper based - self destructs with water - 2 would be synthetic.

(and we won't mention that a single number cannot describe a filter - you need an efficiency at that size - whether nominal or absolute
- dependent on your definition - all filters can be both 2 and 10 micron)

ArmyChief · **Posted:** Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:43 pm

If Bosch recommends 3 micron, why would Wix (more than likely Mopar also), use a 10 micron? Wouldn't that be a possible way for Bosch to come after DC if they would have had pump issues? Not to mention the manufacture of the injectors.

I got Mann filters from IDParts and I'm going to email Mann and ask them what their filter spec is.

Thanks for the conversation!

ATXKJ · **Posted:** Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:50 pm

Jeep max Warranty is 100,000 miles - injectors will still last 100,000 with the 10 micron filter.

somewhere there's a Cummins article about the wear on high pressure systems - I'll see if I can find it.

rancherman · **Posted:** Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:33 pm

gmctd wrote:

I 'spect they do, but I don't have the figures - back in ought 7-8, when I posted the CP3 operational description, there was absolutely no definitive data on the CP3, not even in the Dodge\KJ\GM\FMC service manuals, in which limited descriptions contained many errors and omissions - I spent several months hitting every reference to CP3 that I could find on the 'net and in book stores to get the meager data that I corrected and posted - very slim pickings at the time

I posted that data on each venue with specific numbers relevent to the oem's application - this is the KJ version:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=25047&hilit=bosch+cp3

You will find similar on the DODGE Cummins and GM DURAMAX forums, specifically edited for their application

All CP3 versions utilize the FQS and COV to regulate fuel volume thru the rail, and fuel volume bypassed to maintain minimal tanked fuel temperature - FQS in all cases always commanded by the ECM - this was the spec'ed requirement noone chose to ignore - GM chose to install return-fuel cooler because the V8 DMAX is available in the Suburban - DODGE offers no such option in the DCJ sport-utes, likely also assuming that long return-fuel line and equally long fuel-supply line in the long-wheelbase trucks could be sufficient additional fuel-cooling for the big 6-cyl, having less return-fuel volume than the big V8

An extermal lift-pump solves the problem of leaky fuel lines - it does nothing for cooling because fuel flow thru the CP3 is controlled by the mechanical COV, which is after the internal, very powerful gear-type lift pump, which can pull ~20"HG on the fuel tank - KJ CP3 regulated housing pressure is 78psi - Cummins and Dmax regulated housing pressure is 180psi - external lift-pump (recommended pressure less than 15psi) has no effect on any CP3 internal fuel flow or return volume

NOTE: the fuel cooler must be installed in the return-fuel line - cooler-radiator exposure to winter temps could cause shut-down if installed in the fuel supply line

Further:
My big 3500 Cummins Ram dooley returns ~24-26mpg at 50mph
If I drive 50mph for one hour, fuel consumed at 25mpg in 50 miles is 2gal
Fuel consumed per hour is therefore 2gph - 10mpg would be only 5gph
What is the thinking behind the universal Dodge forum claims that my truck needs a $700 200gph fuel lift pump system, or it will never ever run right again?
200gph at 50mph = insanity
$700 = dementia

To wit: a 15psi 15-35gph lift pump is more than suitable for my big Cummins, and for the smaller KJ, 2.8L being half the 5.9L displacement of the Cummins

Bigger is ain't always better

Word up, dudes................

'some' may think this.. we sure don't. It's pretty recognized the vp44's need a tad more than Dodge reasoned, mainly for the cooling. We got it down to the bone at http://www.mopar1973man.com

Fast forward to Cp3's, and the only time I've ever seen a need for a 200 gallon pump is when there are 2 cp3's. 25 mpgs at this venture isn't really the goal! Sub 10 second quarter miles, or pulling a 20k sled down a track is. 1000 hp requires about 45 gallons per hour... Then add in the return, frictional losses by the fuel line, filter, it's pretty easy to see the need of a 200 gallon(@zero pressure) pump!! By then, an additional measly 700 bucks is nothing. In fact, a belt driven pump is probably more suited anyways.
As long as the internal 'supply' part of the cp3 is met with airless, and very little negative pressure, it'll do the rest.

rancherman · **Posted:** Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:42 pm

WWDiesel wrote:

Follow up,
I will look into a small cooler for the Jeep, plenty out there to choose from! Plans are to upgrade the Dodge to an in-tank fuel pump. Dodge has abandoned the motor mounted lift pump entirely and the in-tank conversion is all that is available OEM Mopar now.
I personally like the in-tank pump option better than the add-on outside the tank lift pumps!!!!

Thanks to all for all the input, great discussion by all!!!! WE all learn from these type of threads.... :-)r

For a pretty dang good pump for your Dodge.. Fass Drp 02 Direct replacement. I've been running one for 2 yrs. now, and FP is 18 idle, and 16 wot.
no fuss, no muss on install.

gmctd · **Posted:** Thu Nov 27, 2014 12:47 am

I don't entirely disagree with you, rancherman - my concern is the new members that join because their Ram is having long-start\no-start symptoms, bucking\hesitating, etc - the usual symptoms when the engine-mounted lift-pump is failing\failed and the VP-44 is on it's way out - his question for solution is always met by members that have installed the FASS and copies systems designed for 15-liter 18-wheeler systems, running 100psi and several hundred gph, way more than the street truck requires, and at $600 and up way more expensive than the guy is expecting - I have read the utter shock in the member's response, usually with the indication that if there is no other solution he would then sell the broke Ram and replace it with a gasoline-fueled truck - the general forum response is that he could waste time and money trying cheaper solutions, but his truck would never ever again run right without the hi-dollar 18-wheeler system

And this was not isolated event, but on every Ram Cummins forum that I was member to

Upon seeing that happen time and time again, I posted the $118 alternative to that on each of the Cummins forums - you can verify this with a search under my gmctd handle, sometime prior to ought nine, when I quit posting on all forums due to year-long move outta the big city
- my response indicated the DCJ screw-up in mounting the pusher-type LP on the engine and the several resulting failures in the pump and resulting failure of the VP-44, with symptoms
- that they buy the standard $118 Cummins\CARTER replacement LP
- that they follow the enclosed CARTER instructions to mount the LP back near the tank - if instructions had been removed by DCJ, go to the CARTER website for the PDF download
- comparison to the pre-98 12-valve system, which had the mechanical LP mounted on the side of the engine where it could be pumped by a rod actuated by the camshaft, and was specifically-designed for draw-from-the-tank service - this in response to those that always bring this up as justification for putting the replacement lift pump back on the side of the engine :banghead:

And what was the general forum response, from members that had already sunk huge volumes of dollars in purchasing the 18-wheeler systems, and even more money in the machinations required for adapting and installation ?

In so many words, that my response was B.S., and would just cause further repeated failure of a system that absolutely cried out for the 18-wheeler LP - 'course, the obvious reasoning was that they'd made their beds, and wanted others to suffer along with them - misery loves company................. :twisted:

I agree, that if you've installed injectors and turbocharger designed for the HMS TITANIC, with a 6" diameter pipe directly from the turbine exhaust elbow up thru the hood, with hogged-out single or dual injection pumps and you're running 16" wide slicks for the drag-strip or those huge sand-paddle tires on 18"-wide wheels and hooked up to the sled, those huge LP systems can make the difference in competing\winning, and rolling coal :roll:

But not for the now shell-shocked owner that just wants to get his street-use truck running before work-time on Monday morning - DCJ engineers created the then-current failure, lasting from 1998 thru 2004, but is easily corrected by following CARTER's mounting location instructions, said instructions having been continuously included in their LP cartons since way back in the '50s, when I first began using their LP's

If you buy the CARTER LP from DCJ you're likely to not get those instructions - but if you buy the identical CARTER LP from, say, NAPA, f'rinstance, the instructions are in the carton

That was the intent of mentioning the Ram scenario, here, that bigger is ain't even always better

Addendum: I had just recently popped over to a few of the Ram forums, including the one you've short-cutted above, only to find the afore-mentioned scenario currently repeated, with no letup, or currently-offered recourse - guess it's time for ta-daaaa: LP MAN to come outta retirement for one more appearance across the boards.............. :mrgreen:

And those revisitations prompted my earlier mpg\gph rant, ^

Almost fergot: this was DCJ's interim solution as cure for the engine-mounted lift pump failures (Dodge Cummins fuel managers are made by FLEET GUARD)

Did this fix it? Guess.............. :grim:

rancherman · **Posted:** Thu Nov 27, 2014 10:16 am

Does LP man wear a mask and cape? :mrgreen:

yah, I'll agree with the block mounted position of an ELECTRICAL pump is short lived.. but ya know, all the pumps I've replaced were MOTOR related, not so much actual pump failure.
Bearings, seals, brushes. Heat and vibration my friend, heat and vibration. I really think if a 'bullet proof' electric motor was part of this design, (oem) then 99% of Dodges problems would've been eliminated... 'Dodge' went a different route! (in tank relocation)
Fass' got a relocation kit for their drp Direct replacement pump, So even they recognize this problem too. Getting the pump closer to the tank can't hurt either.
I too fell into the bigger trap, and installed a 150 airdog which promptly took a dump within 10k miles. "seal problems" flooded the motor with fuel. That was 600 bucks in the toilet. Back to a more 'original type'.
I was too lazy for the relocation part of this last 'stocker' type pump, so it's riding in the same place as the oem Carter.
I swear, there is at least 2 new posts per week asking about converting a 24v cummins to a mechanical side block LP.
I have both a 12v and 24v rigs, Both work trucks. They gotta be reliable first. I too am amazed at what is perceived as a "MUST HAVE" In todays world. Methinks it is not only limited to trucks, regardless of brand..
One could look into home appliance forums and see the 'need' for a souped up can opener, pizza oven....
Happy Thanksgiving :rockon:

gmctd · **Posted:** Thu Nov 27, 2014 1:14 pm

Dayum.........thought today is WEDNESDAY - thanks, and right back atcha, my friend

Yeah, but the mask and cape now have moth-holes in them.....................

I've also seen the majority of block-mounted pump motors failed due to heat\vibration from the big 6cyl - DCJ redesigned the fuel manager head with attached LP - see below - didn't even solve the pusher\sucker conundrum

Remember, (tho maybe not obvious!), my rant is that CARTER LP is a pusher, not a sucker - I've not seen any sucker pumps lately, butcept the huge 4" trash pumps - I still have an old AC sucker-type fuel pump from back in the '60's, with two (count'em: 2) rubber diaphragms, could be mounted back at the tank, or up near\in the engine bay for ease of installation when replacing the camshaft-driven diaphragm-type fuel sucker pump attached low on the front cover - I bolted it to an 8" square 3/4" plywood piece, used to transfer fuel, and in place of syphoning - it easily sucks fuel for 10ft or more - but not the CARTER gear-type pump

Not just a matter of opinion, here: you should really invest some time in relocating it per CARTER's instructions - again, in shade-tree-ese: it don't suck too good................

Happy Thanksgiving, all............

From Mr. Green, and LP MAN, aka the happy guitarist :rockon:

jd

highironcrd · **Joined:** Wed Nov 19, 2014 4:52 pm **Posts:** 133

ATXKJ wrote:

papaindigo wrote:

Way back in 09 GDE said a fuel cooler was not needed. See http://www.greendieselengineering.com/j ... st/23.page

that didn't stop folks from installing coolers before 09 - never heard of any problems with them.

getn reasy to squeeze the trigger on all this ,with a million solicitors cn you offer a place to shop thats real and reliable?
:ALONE:

thermorex · **Posted:** Mon Jan 12, 2015 3:05 pm

highironcrd wrote: