Who Wants A Better Fuel Filter Thats Cheaper To Replace?

retmil46 · **Posted:** Sat Feb 10, 2007 1:07 am

OK, if you pull the spare filter out of the box, you'll see the white knurled drain fitting with new gasket screwed into the bottom.

This is the same thing that is presently in the bottom of the installed filter on the Jeep, with the addition that it has an electrical connector and WIF sensor molded into it.

When you change out the fuel filter, you transfer the drain fitting with the WIF sensor from the old filter to the new one, you always reuse the original drain fitting w/ WIF sensor.

The drain fitting that comes with the new filter is either just a blank or for vehicles that don't have a WIF sensor.

They do recommend in the FSM that you take the gasket off the blank fitting and use it to replace the one on the original WIF sensor fitting.

Harness connects to the sensor with a standard push-in electrical connector. You disconnect the harness and tie it out of the way before you unscrew the drain/sensor fitting.

That would be a quick simple test to see if this beast would throw any codes by not having the WIF sensor hooked up - just unplug the harness, and start the engine. Frankly, given the way a conductivity type probe like this is supposed to work, I'd be surprised if it did cause a problem. But the way DC has screwed around with the programming on this beast, who knows?

oldnavy · **Posted:** Sat Feb 10, 2007 1:17 am

retmil46 wrote:

OK, if you pull the spare filter out of the box, you'll see the white knurled drain fitting with new gasket screwed into the bottom.

This is the same thing that is presently in the bottom of the installed filter on the Jeep, with the addition that it has an electrical connector and WIF sensor molded into it.

When you change out the fuel filter, you transfer the drain fitting with the WIF sensor from the old filter to the new one, you always reuse the original drain fitting w/ WIF sensor.

The drain fitting that comes with the new filter is either just a blank or for vehicles that don't have a WIF sensor.

They do recommend in the FSM that you take the gasket off the blank fitting and use it to replace the one on the original WIF sensor fitting.

Harness connects to the sensor with a standard push-in electrical connector. You disconnect the harness and tie it out of the way before you unscrew the drain/sensor fitting.

That would be a quick simple test to see if this beast would throw any codes by not having the WIF sensor hooked up - just unplug the harness, and start the engine. Frankly, given the way a conductivity type probe like this is supposed to work, I'd be surprised if it did cause a problem. But the way DC has screwed around with the programming on this beast, who knows?

I was wondering what or how this setup worked. I just could not understand how the thing worked though the drain valve that came with filter. :roll:

Thanks I will give that go tomorrow and see if it throws a code. If it does I can clear the code with my ScanGage or if that fails just run out to the dealer for a quick clear. This info on throwing a code should be posted by 2 or 3 tomorrow afternoon.

BVCRD · **Posted:** Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:49 am

retmil46 wrote:

OK, if you pull the spare filter out of the box, you'll see the white knurled drain fitting with new gasket screwed into the bottom.

This is the same thing that is presently in the bottom of the installed filter on the Jeep, with the addition that it has an electrical connector and WIF sensor molded into it.

When you change out the fuel filter, you transfer the drain fitting with the WIF sensor from the old filter to the new one, you always reuse the original drain fitting w/ WIF sensor.

The drain fitting that comes with the new filter is either just a blank or for vehicles that don't have a WIF sensor.

They do recommend in the FSM that you take the gasket off the blank fitting and use it to replace the one on the original WIF sensor fitting.

Harness connects to the sensor with a standard push-in electrical connector. You disconnect the harness and tie it out of the way before you unscrew the drain/sensor fitting.

That would be a quick simple test to see if this beast would throw any codes by not having the WIF sensor hooked up - just unplug the harness, and start the engine. Frankly, given the way a conductivity type probe like this is supposed to work, I'd be surprised if it did cause a problem. But the way DC has screwed around with the programming on this beast, who knows?

I missed the new gasket on the white plug. I must have just reused the old one. No leaks so far. My wife commented on how much more quiet the engine sounded last night when we went for a ride. Don't know what caused that.

retmil46 · **Posted:** Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:11 pm

Just went out and unplugged the harness to the WIF sensor, then started up the CRD.

No CEL, no WIF light, nothing. Ran just fine.

Harness is now tied up by the filter head and the connector taped over. Going to run a few errands this afternoon and see if it tries to throw any codes after a few cycles.

oldnavy · **Posted:** Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:06 pm

retmil46 wrote:

Just went out and unplugged the harness to the WIF sensor, then started up the CRD.

No CEL, no WIF light, nothing. Ran just fine.

Harness is now tied up by the filter head and the connector taped over. Going to run a few errands this afternoon and see if it tries to throw any codes after a few cycles.

Just did the same thing, no cell and no codes when checked with ScanGage. We did plug it back in as I didn't have anything to seal it with handy. When I switch to the Cat filter later I will take care of that problem.

oldnavy · **Posted:** Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:45 pm

Also decided unless you have small hands, it would be easier to remove the filter head from the firewall, then disconnect the sensor harness. Then clamp the two hoses to prevent leakeage when removing the hoses. Set flter assembly on bench after draing and removing the sensor to remove the filter. One can remount the filter assembly and use a strap wrench to loosen the filter. Anyway the removing of the filter assembly to change filter IMO is the fastest and easy way to change the fuel filter. To remove the filter assembly and disconnect the sensor took about 2 minutes. Doing the filter change this way taking your time one should be able to change the filter and be back on the road in 20 minutes easy.

Ripster · **Posted:** Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:59 pm

If you leave the hoses connected, then you can turn it sideways and loosen the filter, then back to the firewall and loosen completely and remove, then you don't drain or leak fuel removing the filter the rest of the way, add fuel to the new filter and it fits right back on, without
removing the hoses.

BVCRD · **Posted:** Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:49 pm

oldnavy wrote:

Also decided unless you have small hands, it would be easier to remove the filter head from the firewall, then disconnect the sensor harness. Then clamp the two hoses to prevent leakeage when removing the hoses. Set flter assembly on bench after draing and removing the sensor to remove the filter. One can remount the filter assembly and use a strap wrench to loosen the filter. Anyway the removing of the filter assembly to change filter IMO is the fastest and easy way to change the fuel filter. To remove the filter assembly and disconnect the sensor took about 2 minutes. Doing the filter change this way taking your time one should be able to change the filter and be back on the road in 20 minutes easy.

I considered your advise, but after looking the thing over, and trying underneath, on top , I used a strap wrench. I turned it side ways, and went down the master cylinder side of the filter and when I got to the bottom, turn the strap wrench right side up and slid it up the filter. Most of the wrenching took place to the right of the filter. There isn't to much to slow you down over there. Didn't have to take anything loose. I did manage to get another 1/4 turn on the fuel line clamps though. I did take the engine cover off and slid the now unmounted filter out on that side.

oldnavy · **Posted:** Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:17 pm

Ripster wrote:

If you leave the hoses connected, then you can turn it sideways and loosen the filter, then back to the firewall and loosen completely and remove, then you don't drain or leak fuel removing the filter the rest of the way, add fuel to the new filter and it fits right back on, without
removing the hoses.

I had thought about that but didn't know if it would work for sure. When I do mine again I will give that a try for sure, maybe save myself a step.

retmil46 · **Posted:** Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:19 pm

oldnavy wrote:

Also decided unless you have small hands, it would be easier to remove the filter head from the firewall, then disconnect the sensor harness. Then clamp the two hoses to prevent leakeage when removing the hoses. Set flter assembly on bench after draing and removing the sensor to remove the filter. One can remount the filter assembly and use a strap wrench to loosen the filter. Anyway the removing of the filter assembly to change filter IMO is the fastest and easy way to change the fuel filter. To remove the filter assembly and disconnect the sensor took about 2 minutes. Doing the filter change this way taking your time one should be able to change the filter and be back on the road in 20 minutes easy.

Now you know why I added the Permacool as a prefilter. :wink:

This ain't no side-of-the-road/rest area/truck stop evolution.

oldnavy · **Posted:** Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:30 pm

retmil46 wrote:

Now you know why I added the Permacool as a prefilter. :wink:

This ain't no side-of-the-road/rest area/truck stop evolution.

Actually from todays tinkering with the filter assembly I think I could change the filter in 10 minutes at the truck stop/rest area if I had a couple of tools with me. If I didn't have the WIF connected I would only need a strap wrench to remove the filter and maybe a screw driver for the hoses if needed. My guess only time it would be a problem would be a night change on the side of the road.

retmil46 · **Posted:** Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:33 pm

Did about 45 miles of driving this afternoon with 3 stops mixed in, all with the WIF harness disconnected. Still no CEL, no codes, ran just fine.

Stopped by O'Reilly's in Statesville and picked up the WIX equivalent to the CAT 2 micron, $15. Wanted to check and see if it would work on the Permacool mounting head. It does.

Means if I wanted to, could end up running two CAT filters in series. Turn the CRD into a rolling CAT house. :lol:

oldnavy · **Posted:** Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:45 pm

retmil46 wrote:

Did about 45 miles of driving this afternoon with 3 stops mixed in, all with the WIF harness disconnected. Still no CEL, no codes, ran just fine.

Stopped by O'Reilly's in Statesville and picked up the WIX equivalent to the CAT 2 micron, $15. Wanted to check and see if it would work on the Permacool mounting head. It does.

Means if I wanted to, could end up running two CAT filters in series. Turn the CRD into a rolling CAT house. :lol:

You're just to funny dude. :wink:

Are those Wix filters you mentioned a 2 micron absolute like the Cat filter? I sort of doubt that is is any more then a 5 or 10 micron nominal filter wit 10 to 20 micron the absolute.

retmil46 · **Posted:** Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:08 pm

oldnavy wrote:

retmil46 wrote:

Did about 45 miles of driving this afternoon with 3 stops mixed in, all with the WIF harness disconnected. Still no CEL, no codes, ran just fine.

Stopped by O'Reilly's in Statesville and picked up the WIX equivalent to the CAT 2 micron, $15. Wanted to check and see if it would work on the Permacool mounting head. It does.

Means if I wanted to, could end up running two CAT filters in series. Turn the CRD into a rolling CAT house. :lol:

You're just to funny dude. :wink:

Are those Wix filters you mentioned a 2 micron absolute like the Cat filter? I sort of doubt that is is any more then a 5 or 10 micron nominal filter wit 10 to 20 micron the absolute.

Most likely. Their spec page lists them as 2 micron, but then AFAIK no one has tested them like the CAT. Picked it up just out of curiosity for fitment purposes.

Ranger1 · **Joined:** Mon Oct 17, 2005 7:40 pm **Posts:** 1137

I found this info on diesel fuel filters from Parker (Racor). Interesting statement about common rail diesels. Racor claims that high pressure common rail diesels require 3 micron, 95% rating. The 2005 CRD FSM claims the Bosch diesel filter is 3 microns nominal.

Look on page 2, next to last paragraph for filter statement on common rail diesels.

Link here:

http://www.parker.com/racor/ProductCata ... Rating.pdf

oldnavy · **Posted:** Sat Feb 10, 2007 11:13 pm

Greg took a sample of the fuel from clean side of my OEM filter, and was stopping where I buy the fuel for a sample of their fuel to also test. I can't wait to see the out come. He left a fuel sample kit for me to send in once we get the Cat filter on the Jeep, for a before and after test. That should also be interesting.

LanduytG · **Joined:** Sun Dec 11, 2005 6:59 am **Posts:** 188

Fuel analysis are on the UPS truck headed to the lab. I should have results by the end of the week. But I won't be here so I'll post them next week.

Looking over the OEM mount this will be easy to adapt a Cat and with a lttle work we can use a Racor and use the WIF but the cost will go way up.

Greg

retmil46 · **Posted:** Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:50 am

"adapt a cat" - Hmmm, that one's not in my handbook on how to deal with cats - otherwise known as "101 Uses for a Dead Cat". :shock:

LanduytG · **Joined:** Sun Dec 11, 2005 6:59 am **Posts:** 188

Fuel analysis reports are back and as soon as I can figure hgow to upload them you will see just how bad the OEM filter does. 4 micron is in the 15% eff range. Not good at all.
Particle count was 7,785,745 before the filter and after was 6,536,695 which equals only 16% eff at 4 micron. That is just the worst I have ever seen. When we did the GM Duramax add on in 2002 the OEM was 90% eff at 2 micron. Who ever says the Lberty OEM is a 3 micorn filter is must be mistaken.

Greg

retmil46 · **Posted:** Sun Feb 18, 2007 11:35 pm

LanduytG wrote:

Fuel analysis reports are back and as soon as I can figure hgow to upload them you will see just how bad the OEM filter does. 4 micron is in the 15% eff range. Not good at all.
Particle count was 7,785,745 before the filter and after was 6,536,695 which equals only 16% eff at 4 micron. That is just the worst I have ever seen. When we did the GM Duramax add on in 2002 the OEM was 90% eff at 2 micron. Who ever says the Lberty OEM is a 3 micorn filter is must be mistaken.

Greg

That's the FSM that says it's 3 micron. Maybe they forgot the "0" after the "3".

Gawd, I hate to think what got past that beast and went thru the pump and injectors, the two times I've gotten fuel bad enough to clog one of these spaghetti strainers. :shock:

OTOH, in the silver lining department, getting a clogged filter as early as I did, at 3300 miles, PO'd me bad enough to add on the Permacool filter. As an old master chief once told me, "some days I'd rather be lucky than good".

Oldnavy told me you're going to do a second sample to confirm the results. If the second sample backs up the initial results, I'd agree it's definitely not 3 micron - and from the sounds of it, not much of a filter at all.

Who Wants A Better Fuel Filter Thats Cheaper To Replace?

Who is online