Who Wants A Better Fuel Filter Thats Cheaper To Replace?

BVCRD · **Posted:** Sun Feb 18, 2007 11:41 pm

retmil46 wrote:

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.

What are the size of the spray holes in the injector? Must be bigger than 3.

no-blue-screen · **Posted:** Sun Feb 18, 2007 11:45 pm

those results are very troubling in deed. :cry:

CATCRD · **Posted:** Mon Feb 19, 2007 12:01 am

BVCRD wrote:

What are the size of the spray holes in the injector? Must be bigger than 3.

Most likely about 100-150 microns in diameter. Blockage isn't really the concern though. Moving parts in the injectors I build are 1.5-2.5 microns apart.

oldnavy · **Posted:** Mon Feb 19, 2007 12:10 am

We are talking about the stuff here that causes early wear on the injectors & injection pump not something that blocks orifices.

Jeger · **Posted:** Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:21 am

retmil46 wrote:

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

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.

X2....I always like to get a second opinion. Although it wouldnt suprise me if it really sucks that bad. Keep us updated. I may be in the market for another mod soon. :wink:

BVCRD · **Posted:** Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:25 am

oldnavy wrote:

We are talking about the stuff here that causes early wear on the injectors & injection pump not something that blocks orifices.

I gottcha. Sort of like sand blasting it?

RFCRD · **Posted:** Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:29 am

BVCRD wrote:

oldnavy wrote:

We are talking about the stuff here that causes early wear on the injectors & injection pump not something that blocks orifices.

I gottcha. Sort of like sand blasting it?

Actually more like lapping compound.

retmil46 · **Posted:** Mon Feb 19, 2007 12:00 pm

Just out of curiosity, pending the posting of the full results, at what micron sizes did it get a 50%, 90%, and 95% rating, provided they listed that on the results?

Hazarding a guess, based on what the 4 micron results were, I'd say the beast couldn't be any better than a 8 or 10 micron nominal (50% efficient at those sizes).

BVCRD · **Posted:** Mon Feb 19, 2007 12:08 pm

retmil46 wrote:

Just out of curiosity, pending the posting of the full results, at what micron sizes did it get a 50%, 90%, and 95% rating, provided they listed that on the results?

Hazarding a guess, based on what the 4 micron results were, I'd say the beast couldn't be any better than a 8 or 10 micron nominal (50% efficient at those sizes).

Where did you mount the filter? I had one on a 67 Mustang to filter out gas tank rust once.

retmil46 · **Posted:** Mon Feb 19, 2007 12:18 pm

BVCRD wrote:

retmil46 wrote:

Just out of curiosity, pending the posting of the full results, at what micron sizes did it get a 50%, 90%, and 95% rating, provided they listed that on the results?

Hazarding a guess, based on what the 4 micron results were, I'd say the beast couldn't be any better than a 8 or 10 micron nominal (50% efficient at those sizes).

Where did you mount the filter? I had one on a 67 Mustang to filter out gas tank rust once.

In the post you quoted, I was referring to the OEM filter.

If you're asking where I mounted my Permacool add-on filter, I tystrapped it sideways to the back side of the battery, with foam padding underneath where it lays against other hardware, and plumbed it in ahead of the factory filter.

BVCRD · **Posted:** Mon Feb 19, 2007 5:51 pm

retmil46 wrote:

BVCRD wrote:

retmil46 wrote:

Just out of curiosity, pending the posting of the full results, at what micron sizes did it get a 50%, 90%, and 95% rating, provided they listed that on the results?

Hazarding a guess, based on what the 4 micron results were, I'd say the beast couldn't be any better than a 8 or 10 micron nominal (50% efficient at those sizes).

Where did you mount the filter? I had one on a 67 Mustang to filter out gas tank rust once.

In the post you quoted, I was referring to the OEM filter.

If you're asking where I mounted my Permacool add-on filter, I tystrapped it sideways to the back side of the battery, with foam padding underneath where it lays against other hardware, and plumbed it in ahead of the factory filter.

Yep, that's the one. Thanks.

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

OK, here are the fuel analysis reports. We took 2 samples, one from the pump that oldnavy gets his fuel from and the second from the clean side of the OEM fuel filter on the CRD. What you are about to see should be very disturbing if you are a CRD owner.

If you look at the first image you will see the actual particle counts in the lower right box.
 4 micron 6,536,695
 6 micron 1,127,930
 14 micron 140,045

The second image is the analysis report from the outlet on the clean side of the OEM filter

 4 micron 7,785,745
 6 micron 1,669,185
 14 micron 34,065

As you can see the particle counts went up on the 4 and 6 micron counts. After seeing this I got in contact with a lubrication engineer by the name of George Morrison. George has a lot of experience with fuel analysis and I asked him wh we had more particles out of the filter than out of the pump. He said he has seen this many times. What’s going on is the filter media he said must be paper and when water comes in contact with the paper that is begins to degrade and fall apart which causes the particle count to go up. As you can see the water was 708 ppm out of the filter and the pump was only 70 ppm which explains why we are seeing a rise in particle count. What we will do now is take another sample from the old filter just to verify what we already have and then take one after a new filter is put on.

This is another good reason to change to a better filter that will have a synthetic media because when water does get introduced it will not fall apart and cause even more problems.

Greg

RFCRD · **Posted:** Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:10 pm

LanduytG wrote:

What’s going on is the filter media he said must be paper and when water comes in contact with the paper that is begins to degrade and fall apart which causes the particle count to go up.

This is another good reason to change to a better filter that will have a synthetic media because when water does get introduced it will not fall apart and cause even more problems.

Do you know what major filter manufacturers are not using paper?

I have been concerned about this filter arrangement mainly because of the single canister arrangement. Would much rather see a 2-canister system. My experience with paper elements (which is all I ever could find for a Detroit) is the paper will wick water and then freeze when the fuel temp drops below freezing when parked. This causes a nasty constriction, especially if the water makes it to the finer secondary filter. Never realized the filtration efficiency would degrade too.

Only a personal choice but can't afford to take the chance so won't run this filter 25K miles like the book says. It's cheap insurance to change it as close to the freezing weather as possible.

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

Cat, Racor and some Fleet Guard have synthetic media. Its real scary to see particle count go up because of a little water. I think we are going to be offering 2 different arrangements. A Racor with the ability to use the WIF and then the Cat. Of course the Racor will be much higher in price.

Greg

oldnavy · **Posted:** Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:35 pm

LanduytG wrote:

Cat, Racor and some Fleet Guard have synthetic media. Its real scary to see particle count go up because of a little water. I think we are going to be offering 2 different arrangements. A Racor with the ability to use the WIF and then the Cat. Of course the Racor will be much higher in price.

Greg

IMHO the Racor is a waste of money, all that is needed is a Cat 2 micron like you did for the VW's and never have another bad day from fuel and still be able to due 20,000 mile filter change. That prototype ain't ready yet Greg!!! :wink:

oldnavy · **Posted:** Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:56 pm

I forgot to mention to Greg that this fuel we sampled had 12 oz of Power Service installed at fill up seems it did not help the cetane level.

retmil46 · **Posted:** Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:11 am

If I'm doing my math right, that beast is still only 77% efficient at 14 micron. That flat out sucks. The 20 micron plastic prefilter on my MB would probably do a better bloody job than this thing. Not to mention water separation, or more like the complete lack thereof.

Looks like I need to redo my plumbing arrangement, and put the Permacool in line AFTER the factory filter for the time being, just to catch all the friggin paper debris that might come floating out of this beast. Better go ahead and change out the factory filter while I'm at it, has around 10K miles on it now.

What I'd really like is to find a way to charge DC for all the reverse engineering we're having to do on this vehicle.

And as far as the bean counters that gave us this filter setup.... well, it's just a bloody shame they outlawed keelhauling and flogging about a century ago. :evil:

oldnavy · **Posted:** Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:25 am

retmil46 wrote:

If I'm doing my math right, that beast is still only 77% efficient at 14 micron. That flat out sucks. The 20 micron plastic prefilter on my MB would probably do a better bloody job than this thing. Not to mention water separation, or more like the complete lack thereof.

Looks like I need to redo my plumbing arrangement, and put the Permacool in line AFTER the factory filter for the time being, just to catch all the friggin paper debris that might come floating out of this beast. Better go ahead and change out the factory filter while I'm at it, has around 10K miles on it now.

What I'd really like is to find a way to charge DC for all the reverse engineering we're having to do on this vehicle.

And as far as the bean counters that gave us this filter setup.... well, it's just a bloody shame they outlawed keelhauling and flogging about a century ago. :evil:

I hate to tell you I told you so, but I can't resist. Sorry shipmate. :wink:

PS: Keel hauling was never allowed in USN, that was a Brit Royal Navy thing. I seem to remember it was outlawed in mid to late 1800's, but who cares. :wink:

retmil46 · **Posted:** Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:47 am

oldnavy wrote:

retmil46 wrote:

If I'm doing my math right, that beast is still only 77% efficient at 14 micron. That flat out sucks. The 20 micron plastic prefilter on my MB would probably do a better bloody job than this thing. Not to mention water separation, or more like the complete lack thereof.

Looks like I need to redo my plumbing arrangement, and put the Permacool in line AFTER the factory filter for the time being, just to catch all the friggin paper debris that might come floating out of this beast. Better go ahead and change out the factory filter while I'm at it, has around 10K miles on it now.

What I'd really like is to find a way to charge DC for all the reverse engineering we're having to do on this vehicle.

And as far as the bean counters that gave us this filter setup.... well, it's just a bloody shame they outlawed keelhauling and flogging about a century ago. :evil:

I hate to tell you I told you so, but I can't resist. Sorry shipmate. :wink:

PS: Keel hauling was never allowed in USN, that was a Brit Royal Navy thing. I seem to remember it was outlawed in mid to late 1800's, but who cares. :wink:

Yep, but if I remember right, you were recommending using the MB prefilter as a prefilter for the CRD factory filter, not as a REPLACEMENT for the factory filter.

At least I can take comfort in the fact I've had at least one decent filter in line for at least 12 of the past 18K miles. If nothing else, I know that the Permacool has been stopping water, 1/2 to 1 ounce at least when I drain it down monthly. And if it's stopping water, it's most likely stopping most of the other crud as well.

But for the life of me, I never thought I'd have to use it to catch chunks of the factory filter as well.

oldnavy · **Posted:** Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:17 am

retmil46 wrote:

oldnavy wrote:

retmil46 wrote:

If I'm doing my math right, that beast is still only 77% efficient at 14 micron. That flat out sucks. The 20 micron plastic prefilter on my MB would probably do a better bloody job than this thing. Not to mention water separation, or more like the complete lack thereof.

Looks like I need to redo my plumbing arrangement, and put the Permacool in line AFTER the factory filter for the time being, just to catch all the friggin paper debris that might come floating out of this beast. Better go ahead and change out the factory filter while I'm at it, has around 10K miles on it now.

What I'd really like is to find a way to charge DC for all the reverse engineering we're having to do on this vehicle.

And as far as the bean counters that gave us this filter setup.... well, it's just a bloody shame they outlawed keelhauling and flogging about a century ago. :evil:

I hate to tell you I told you so, but I can't resist. Sorry shipmate. :wink:

PS: Keel hauling was never allowed in USN, that was a Brit Royal Navy thing. I seem to remember it was outlawed in mid to late 1800's, but who cares. :wink:

Yep, but if I remember right, you were recommending using the MB prefilter as a prefilter for the CRD factory filter, not as a REPLACEMENT for the factory filter.

At least I can take comfort in the fact I've had at least one decent filter in line for at least 12 of the past 18K miles. If nothing else, I know that the Permacool has been stopping water, 1/2 to 1 ounce at least when I drain it down monthly. And if it's stopping water, it's most likely stopping most of the other crud as well.

But for the life of me, I never thought I'd have to use it to catch chunks of the factory filter as well.

Man you get my age you won't be able to remember where your zipper is shipmate. :lol:

I said you needed the Racor on the clean side (sic) of the OEM filter and that a MB prefilter on the dirty side of the OEM filter would be good for stopping and/or showing little dead critters floating in the fuel. :roll:

Who Wants A Better Fuel Filter Thats Cheaper To Replace?

Who is online