Fuel heater? What fuel heater?

gmctd · **Posted:** Mon Nov 24, 2014 9:51 pm

Directly copied from the GDE page noted above - my contributed alterations in blue

The (fuel) temps rarely get over 130 F and only in low fuel level situations. Towing a 5000lb trailer with low fuel one can see up to 175 F with less than two gallons remaining in the tank...ie. with low fuel light on. Not something most people would ever consider doing. A fuel limitation starts around 160 F and progesses up to 195 F at which time the engine will only idle. We have never seen (measured fuel) temps near this high.

However, this could explain why the KJ feels 'loggy' on hot days with low fuel levels

Absolute proof why the Fuel Temperature Sensor must never be disconnected or disabled

A fuel cooler can be a drawback if living in cold climates, there is more potential for line freeze with a cooler and the fuel heater on the vehicle does nothing for frozen fuel lines near the tank.

I mentioned this, also, particularly if installed in the supply line and mounted up front, but I would think the fuel lines can freeze whether a cooler is installed or not

ArmyChief · **Posted:** Mon Nov 24, 2014 9:54 pm

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.

ATX,

Do you have both installed. or did you replace the fan operated with the nice aluminum heat sink style?

WWDiesel · **Posted:** Mon Nov 24, 2014 10:12 pm

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

ATXKJ · **Posted:** Mon Nov 24, 2014 10:16 pm

I don't have a cooler installed - I just remember the posts.

both folks had previous fuel problems and were eliminating all possible problems

I still think it would be of value if you're regularly running in 100F+ weather.

gmctd · **Posted:** Mon Nov 24, 2014 10:19 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. Just remount your new LP back near the tank where it belongs - CARTER has not obsoleted these lift pumps just because Dodge had finally learned their lesson
I personally like the in-tank pump option better than the add-on outside the tank lift pumps!!!! Primary advantage of external LP is it can be replaced without draining\dropping the fuel tank - yours is already external - go with the flow

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

gmctd · **Posted:** Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:37 pm

gmctd wrote:

ArmyChief wrote:

[Gmtcd,

I hope you don't mind a technical conversation, where all parties disagree with one thing or another. I am fairly new to the forum, but been in the trade professionally for over 20 years. Your input is appreciated, Chief - hopefully I can offer some factual input to resolve any apparent difference of opinion
Now, the way it was explained to me by a cummins instructor was that CP3 pump failures are directly related to failed lift pumps on Dodge Ram trucks. True, some due to LP mounting location and some due to unsuitable substitution Pressure switches are actually installed on Cummins vehicles and the Cummins ECU has a pin for it. Dodge opted to go utilize it. I understand the CP3 pump can suck a golfball through a garden hose. However, logic would dictate if a small positive pressure were at the inlet, it would reduce stress on pump. True - BOSCH recommends LP useage You state a lift pump is only for fuel leaks, but they are standard on Dodge Ram Cunmins.Both true, but my statement references problems with our KJs - mine has been gifted with a Cummins in-tank lift pump and (FILTER GUARD) fuel manager

Maybe Dodge doesn't use a external cooler cause THEY utilize a lift pump. Not exactly true - the long-wheelbase of the Ram and fewer cylinders than the V8 are why DCJ did not use the cooler Whereas, GM Duramax decided not to utilize a lift pump, hence the reason they have an external cooler. Also not exactly true - the 5.9L has six injectors returning hot fuel to the tank - the Dmax has eight injectors returning hot fuel to the tank - GM also believed BOSCH specs for the internal lift pump - unfortuntely, Bosch didn't spec maximum distance between tank and CP3 - Jeep also followed that spec in the much shorter wheel-base KJ, with the resultant fuel system failures enjoyed by one and all - BOSCH did state that some CP3 systems would require an external lift pump - I think KJ'ers have proven that to be correct Trust me, Duramaxs biggest issue is the filter housing too, just like the CRD. leaks, no starts. True, and I also have been aware of that - many owners have installed after-market lift pumps, as have KJ'ers

Lastly, I'm in SW Florida.. HOT, plus I'll be towing a 6600 lbs Catamaran boat. I'll take a look at the fuel temp data PID while driving to see what kind of temps I get. I'll also ask some other instructors in the know about typical and max fuel temps. For those without a capable scantool to log fuel temp PID...a DVOM with the voltage to temp specs should work.

UPDATED FOR CLARITY

gmctd · **Posted:** Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:41 pm

gmctd wrote:

WWDiesel wrote:

I was told years ago by a good friend who was a mechanic at the Dodge dealership that the reason the BOSCH VP-44injection pumps were failing was due to fuel starvation when the failing\failed OEM engine-mountedlift pump did not supply enough fuel to keep the injection pump lubricated. Diesel fuel is the only thing that lubricates it! Same with the CP3- the mechanical P7800-series IP's were lubricated by pressurized engine oil
This is when I added a fuel pressure gauge that I could monitor at all times on the pump side of the filter housing and started adding a quart of 2 cycle oil in the fuel at every fill up....Good - this is required for the mechanical pumps because of the low-sulphur fuel with reduced lubricity
I also had the OEM lift pump replaced under warranty before it ran out due to I had noticed a drop in fuel pressure when engine was under load even with a new fuel filter installed.Also good, but you should seriously consider mounting it near the fuel tank, far back as you can safely mount it - it is a pusher-type pump, intended to pressurize the fuel supply system from the tank forward - the design severely-limits any draw-from-the-tank capability - 'nuther words, in shade-tree-ese, it don't suck too good - which is why the VP-44 eventually fails - again, BOSCH's official report to DODGE on the unusually-high failure rate of the VP-44 was electronic module failure resulted from insufficient fuel volume - the pump itself seldom showed any mechanical failure, and some of that could be traced to owners mixing used crankcase oil with Diesel fuel to increase fuel-use economy
What I am having trouble wrapping my brain around is how could the motor keep running if fuel volume got low enough to fail to lubricate the injection pump but allowed the engine to run to the pump failed...Reduced LP output could supply enuff to run the engine, but not enuff to cool the internal electronic module, which required constant hi-volume fuel-over to keep it cool - all volume in excess of that required to run the engine is constantly bypassed back to the tank, ensuring thermal stability of the electronic driver module
What is your thoughts.... :dizzy:

I likes gurls............. :BANANA:

Another comment, we going to heat the fuel coming in and cool it with an in line cooler before putting it back in the tank???Heating the filtered fuel in the filter is a winter-time requirement to keep the fuel from freezing - cooling the engine-heated return-fuel is required when towing\hauling, or off-road use when not acting like an idiot - hmmm...well, maybe even moreso when acting like an idiot - as can be seen on WORLD'S DUMBEST videos
I presume this would only be a summer time issue, high ambient temperature concern when say temperatures are above say 90 degrees or so??? It get up above 100 here in the hot summer time!!!I would specifically recommend a cooler for severe use in those temperatures

UPDATED FOR CLARITY

ArmyChief · **Posted:** Tue Nov 25, 2014 4:45 pm

Ok, since we are talking about HP pump failures, some due to LP failures and restrictions. That begs me to ask this question.

I saw WW's thread on installing a second 2 micron filter in series with existing 20-30 micron filter head. Wouldn't this 2 micron filter be an added restriction to the HP pump and 'could' this cause a HP failure?

Would you say adding this mod would only be prudent if adding a LP ?

As always, enjoy the conversation

greiswig · **Posted:** Tue Nov 25, 2014 5:03 pm

ArmyChief wrote:

Ok, since we are talking about HP pump failures, some due to LP failures and restrictions. That begs me to ask this question.

I saw WW's thread on installing a second 2 micron filter in series with existing 20-30 micron filter head. Wouldn't this 2 micron filter be an added restriction to the HP pump and 'could' this cause a HP failure?

Would you say adding this mod would only be prudent if adding a LP ?

As always, enjoy the conversation

I use a 2 micron filter (Parker R60S) as my only filter now, and even when my lift pump had (unbeknownst to me) failed, I never seemed to get any indication of restriction on that filter. I had been using a 90S for awhile, but ended up only able to get the 60S once, and just ran it. It's shorter, less filter area, but seems to only require replacing once every couple of years on my fuel, which is admittedly pre-filtered before it enters the tank. In fact, the only time I've actually HAD to replace it was when I had clogged it with wax/gel in cold weather and was in a hurry to get going.

That said, I think the answer is that any level of filter can be restrictive if it has an insufficient designed flow rate. Parker's numbers refer to the maximum designed gph flow rate on a clean filter.

ArmyChief · **Posted:** Tue Nov 25, 2014 5:11 pm

George,

May I ask about your filter setup? Did you completely replace the filter head? What parts list did you use? I'm assuming you reused the fuel temp sensor, or a compatible replacement.

Lastly, is there a port to install a vacuum switch like the new Duramax's have to indicate a restricted filter?

Yes, I would like fries with that :mrgreen:

Thanks sir

greiswig · **Posted:** Tue Nov 25, 2014 5:27 pm

ArmyChief wrote:

George,

May I ask about your filter setup? Did you completely replace the filter head? What parts list did you use? I'm assuming you reused the fuel temp sensor, or a compatible replacement.

Lastly, is there a port to install a vacuum switch like the new Duramax's have to indicate a restricted filter?

Yes, I would like fries with that :mrgreen:

Thanks sir

Yes, I replaced the filter head assembly, which bolts on to the existing studs. It's one of their 400-series heads. The 460R comes with the 60gph filter, the 490R...well, you can guess. I was able to find a compatible FTS. The head itself has two inlet ports and two outlet ports. The FTS went into one of these. Perhaps not perfect, but I figured it was at least as good as stock. That leaves another port into which you could thread a vacuum gauge to warn of a clogged filter. I got the bowl with a 200W heater in it as well as the water indicator. I highly recommend them. More expensive, yes...but cheap insurance against injector damage and other issues. Mine has been on there for probably 90k miles, and I think I changed the filter once out of need (the wax issue) and once out of trying to diagnose an issue that turned out to be the turbocharger. Filter subs are readily available at places like NAPA, for example.

gmctd · **Posted:** Tue Nov 25, 2014 5:35 pm

Seems like I read somewhere the the KJ has a 3ucron filter element, but I could be confusing that with Cummins - each additional filter results in increased fuel flow impedance, as does each reduction in element micron area - BOSCH specifies minimum allowable micron filtration for the CP3 in non-external lift pump application, and most oem's comply with that spec - only requirement for reduced micron filtration is in extremely dirty application, such as off-roading, or desert-traveling, etc - it's much easier just to replace the filter element frequently in those applications

I have seen some 4-filter installs used for off-roading, which is ludicrous because 4 dirty filters are worse than 1 dirty filter, maybe even worse because of thinking the extra capacity warranted not changing the filters over extended periods of time - they also required the after-market 100psi 18-wheeler lift pumps to get any fuel pressure to the IP - gave them much-envied bragging rights, tho................

IMO, service the KJ filter at factory-spec'ed intervals - reduce those intervals when conditions demand, such as playing off-road every weekend, and you should be safe - air-filter is way more important due to direct exposure to conditons in which the KJ finds itself - air filter conditon should also point to fuel filter consideration

ArmyChief · **Posted:** Tue Nov 25, 2014 5:35 pm

greiswig wrote:

Yes, I replaced the filter head assembly, which bolts on to the existing studs. It's one of their 400-series heads. The 460R comes with the 60gph filter, the 490R...well, you can guess. I was able to find a compatible FTS. The head itself has two inlet ports and two outlet ports. The FTS went into one of these. Perhaps not perfect, but I figured it was at least as good as stock. That leaves another port into which you could thread a vacuum gauge to warn of a clogged filter. I got the bowl with a 200W heater in it as well as the water indicator. I highly recommend them. More expensive, yes...but cheap insurance against injector damage and other issues. Mine has been on there for probably 90k miles, and I think I changed the filter once out of need (the wax issue) and once out of trying to diagnose an issue that turned out to be the turbocharger. Filter subs are readily available at places like NAPA, for example.

I'm assuming I can just do a Google search for Racor filter head?

Do you have part numbers for the items? (head, FTS, bowl with heater (did you wire the heater into the existing heater wiring?))

Lastly, did you do a scantool comparison of the FTS vs the original or use a resistance to temp spec sheet for the sensor compared to the OE sheet?

I have the original design, but its not leaking (spent it's life in Florida..probably very few times it activated), but I like the idea of replacing the existing, instead of a second filter.

Thanks,

ArmyChief · **Posted:** Tue Nov 25, 2014 5:39 pm

gmctd wrote:

Seems like I read somewhere the the KJ has a 3ucron filter element, but I could be confusing that with Cummins

What number were you trying to put above?...I used WWDiesels spec.

gmctd wrote:

BOSCH specifies minimum allowable micron filtration for the CP3 in non-external lift pump application, and most oem's comply with that spec

Do you know what that spec is?

Lastly, why would off-road use affect FUEL filtration? The cap is tight in the back??

Thanks

greiswig · **Posted:** Tue Nov 25, 2014 5:49 pm

ArmyChief wrote:

I'm assuming I can just do a Google search for Racor filter head?

http://www.parker.com/portal/site/PARKER/menuitem.7100150cebe5bbc2d6806710237ad1ca/?vgnextoid=f5c9b5bbec622110VgnVCM10000032a71dacRCRD&vgnextfmt=EN&vgnextdiv=&vgnextcatid=2759464&vgnextcat=400+SERIES+HAND+PRIMER+FUEL+FILTER+WATER+SEPARATORS&Wtky=

ArmyChief wrote:

Do you have part numbers for the items? (head, FTS, bowl with heater (did you wire the heater into the existing heater wiring?))

You should be able to see what you need at that URL.

ArmyChief wrote:

Lastly, did you do a scantool comparison of the FTS vs the original or use a resistance to temp spec sheet for the sensor compared to the OE sheet?

It has been many moons, but IIRC I got help on this very board, pointing me in the direction of someone who makes the sensors. From there, it was a question of making sure that the R curves matched the stock sensor. Since then, yes, I have a scantool that has verified the FTS is telling the ECM a temperature that tightly coincides with what I can measure with an infrared thermometer on the outside of the filter; the FTS generally reads about 5 degrees F warmer when it has been running, and right on the money when it has been idle. That is about what I would expect.

ArmyChief wrote:

I have the original design, but its not leaking (spent it's life in Florida..probably very few times it activated), but I like the idea of replacing the existing, instead of a second filter.

Thanks,

I agree. If I remember right, the stock filter was only rated for 5-7u. I make my own fuel, and have a 1u final filter prior to storage, but this time of year I have to use some petrodiesel, too, and I like the idea of having tighter filtration to prevent wear on the injector$.

ArmyChief · **Posted:** Tue Nov 25, 2014 6:01 pm

How do I know what flow I need?

gmctd · **Posted:** Tue Nov 25, 2014 6:50 pm

ArmyChief wrote:

gmctd wrote:

Seems like I read somewhere the the KJ has a 3ucron filter element, but I could be confusing that with Cummins

What number were you trying to put above?...I used WWDiesels spec. Scientific symbol for micro is a type of cursive lower case u, which we don't have - ucron would then indicate micron when attached to a number, as in 3ucron

gmctd wrote:

BOSCH specifies minimum allowable micron filtration for the CP3 in non-external lift pump application, and most oem's comply with that spec

Do you know what that spec is? Not at this juncture- lemmesee if I can find it

Lastly, why would off-road use affect FUEL filtration? The cap is tight in the back?? True, but the KJ, and most Diesels, fuel cap is vented for +/- 1psi - 'nuther words, air-borne atmospheric detritus does enter the fuel tank, and as the vents are ~0.125"i.d., some very large particles can enter the tank
- do not think to plug the vents - it is very important for Diesel fuel systems to vent excessive pressure as well as excessive vacuum because of aeration, those tiny bubbles you see (and many you can't see) in Diesel fuel - we want some vacuum in the tank to reduce surface tension on the fuel, allowing the below-surface aeration to coalesce and emerge from the fuel - IIRC, API states that ~75% of all Diesel fuel is aerated, bad for pumped injection systems - too much vacuum reduces efficiency of the lift-pump - so, 2"HG, or -1psi, vacuum is required - outside BARO is 15psi, in-tank is (15psi - 1psi) = 14psi, or 2"hg vacuum

Thanks No problemo.......

greiswig · **Posted:** Tue Nov 25, 2014 6:58 pm

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.

CP3 is tested on a stand to flow about 48gph, from what I recall. So 60gph ought to be enough, but all other things being equal the 60S will clog sooner and start to flow slower than a 90gph filter will. The 90S will fit. Either one will work.

ArmyChief · **Posted:** Tue Nov 25, 2014 7:14 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.

CP3 is tested on a stand to flow about 48gph, from what I recall. So 60gph ought to be enough, but all other things being equal the 60S will clog sooner and start to flow slower than a 90gph filter will. The 90S will fit. Either one will work.

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?)

greiswig · **Posted:** Tue Nov 25, 2014 7:30 pm

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.

Fuel heater? What fuel heater?

Who is online