New Mopar filter head or Racor filter head?

dtempler · **Posted:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:03 am

I went to change my fuel filter recently and found that my filter head was leaking at the fuel heater and had burnt the connector . So thank-you to this forum for making me aware of the problem so I was familiar with the problem.

Now I am in the market for a new filter, but can't decided if I should try the new Mopar filter head (part # 6804289-AA plus required connector # 68043086-AA) or the switch to the Racor 245R122. I have no warranty.

It looks like using the new Mopar parts would be the less expensive thing to try so has anybody had any problems with them? Any thoughts?

onthehunt · **Posted:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:29 am

I would use the oem parts.Cheaper and easier to install.If you do, make sure you get the updated filter head. The fuel heater and terminals have been upgraded to stop them from burning up and causing leaks. If you want aftermarket, the sky is the limit. Just do a search and you will have many choices.

ATXKJ · **Posted:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 7:32 am

If you're out of warranty - the Racor's better
2 micron filter instead of the 10 on the Mopar ones
- a little more initially but better long term

BlackLibertyCRD · **Posted:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:37 am

onthehunt wrote:

I would use the oem parts.Cheaper and easier to install.If you do, make sure you get the updated filter head. The fuel heater and terminals have been upgraded to stop them from burning up and causing leaks. If you want aftermarket, the sky is the limit. Just do a search and you will have many choices.

X2 on OEM

bugnout · **Posted:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:53 am

onthehunt wrote:

make sure you get the updated filter head. The fuel heater and terminals have been upgraded to stop them from burning up and causing leaks..

I've heard this, but have not seen any pictures or analysis from anyone. I know they will replace them if you complain, but I thought it was same design.

I have a Racor 245 with a 2 micron filter. There is a thread somewhere with very good instructions with pictures and parts list.

tonycrd · **Posted:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:14 pm

Here you go:

http://liberty.eurekaboy.com/racor.htm

retmil46 · **Posted:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:21 pm

No idea on the comparative pricing, but if you desire a "plug and play" install, and/or performed by a dealer or mechanic with a minimum of fuss, then the OEM would be your choice.

I'd add the same caution on the OEM - make sure it's the latest upgraded version in regards to the fuel heater.

A Racor or Stanadyne has advantages in being a higher quality and more reliable unit, offering better filtration and water separation capabilities, widely available and reasonably priced replacement filters, and a simple robust fuel heater controlled by an on/off thermostat - precluding what seems to be the main failure mode of the OEM version with it's continuously powered heater melting it's plastic housing and connector.

If you're not mechanically and/or electrically inclined, the disadvantages of a Racor or Stanadyne unit is that you have to make modifications in regards to the fuel temperature probe and WIF sensor.

CRDMiller · **Posted:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:45 pm

+1 to new mopar

http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/vie ... hp?t=37782

1/2 way down page one and better pictures on page 2

I've had the new unit for a month or so and i like it alot.

That said 2 micron is better than 10. But i think it's lame to loose your WIF and screw with the heater sensor/heater connector on the racor.

gmctd · **Posted:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:05 pm

I concur with oem replacement being least problematic - splice two wires and yer good to go.

Problem being: DCJ appears to be assuming the burned heater module and connector are resulted from the small connector and wiring being insufficient to carry the required current - not even the case, as the insulation on the very small awg wiring would also be darkened\burned at each failure event, indicative of failure due to insufficient current-supply capacity - actual causative is the huge air pocket at the top of the head, where the heater is not submerged in the denser fuel - the failure starts inside the puck, at the heater element - while the new setup utilizes the same connector and wire-diameter as the Cummins setup, the Fleetguard\Cummins fuel manager head is supplied by an auxiliary electric lift pump, pre-filter, preventing air pockets - tmk, noone has ever posted any burned Fleetguard heater failure in the electric-pumped trucks

onthehunt · **Posted:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:16 pm

The FSM states the oem filter is 2 micron not 10. Please spare me the absolute vs. nominal arguement also. The filter works.

ATXKJ · **Posted:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 7:58 pm

OEM is fine if you're only trying to get 100,000 miles out of the Jeep
if you want more - you have to use better parts

We won't mention the absolute vs nominal argument
and we won't mention Old_navy particle data on the stock filter
and we won't mention the Cummins / SAE injector wear data study

we'll just ignore reality so that you can keep your theories intact.

retmil46 · **Posted:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 8:32 pm

If I remember correctly, oldnavy and his associate at Lubespecialist pulled fuel samples off his CRD with a new OEM filter and sent them off for testing, then posted the actual results sheet on the forum - at best it looked to be a 10 to 15 micron filter by the results.

And the FSM lists it as being an oddball rating - 3 micron.

That still causes me to wonder - with all the mass-produced (ie, cheap) filter head designs, 2 micron filter elements, and fuel heaters that were already proven reliable and effective, and available off the shelf, why did DC think it would be more effective to come up with an entirely new oddball design and filter with a nonstandard micron rating?

Perhaps "effective" in their book meant "you can only buy it from the dealer".

warp2diesel · **Posted:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 8:56 pm

....for our CRDs:

Part Number: 33647
UPC Number: 765809336476
Principal Application: Jeep Liberty w/ 2.8L Common Rail Diesel (05-06)
All Applications
Style: Spin-On Fuel/Water Separator Filter
Service: Fuel
Type: Full Flow
Media: Paper
Height: 7.322
Outer Diameter Top: 3.444
Outer Diameter Bottom: Closed
Thread Size: 16X1.5 MM
Nominal Micron Rating: 10
Gasket Diameters
Number O.D. I.D. Thk.
Attached 2.770 2.440 0.240

Fact: 10 micron = 10 micron not 2 micron.
Comment: Magnesium Citrate works great on constipation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnesium_citrate

dtempler · **Posted:** Sun Jan 25, 2009 1:23 am

Thanks for the all the input. I would feel better with the 2 micron filter from Racor, but I don't have a lot of time or money to spend so I have ordered the new oem assembly. $172 (Canadian) plus $23 for the connector. I am hoping this comes with a filter for that price!

When I ordered it, it was very handy having the part number from this forum. The guys at my local stealership don't seem to have much experience with them. He couldn't find it when I was calling it a filter head at first, but when I gave him the part number it came up as water separator. It also came up with a note about the required connector.

Also, I have noticed that on a newer ('05) Detroit Diesel engine that I have at work, which has lots of VM parts, that the fuel filter is a VM part and it looks very similar to the ones used on the CRD's. It is the same shape, same metallic colour and it has the same white screw drain that originally comes on the Mopar filters that you have to remove to attach the water sensor. This leads me to believe that this filter was designed with or by VM for the VM engine. Although I am sure DC probably also liked the fact that we would have to buy them through the dealerships. I wonder if this filter could be cross referenced and bought through Detroit Diesel? I know the stealerships up head are charging $62 canadian for them!

onthehunt · **Posted:** Sun Jan 25, 2009 2:47 am

Somebody better tell that guy with over 100,000 miles stock that his fuel system is shot.
Please direct me to the place where I can see a fuel system failure where the inadequate oem filter was at fault. While your searching check out the fuel pumps taken out by the CAT fuel filter conversion. 2-micron filter really helped there.

The Old Navy test proved that HE had bad fuel with a water problem. If he said he had a bad oil sample would that make everyone's bad also???? One test does not make a rule.

ATXKJ · **Posted:** Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:29 am

It's interesting to note that you accept a single data point if it supports your theory but reject a single data point if it contradicts your theory.

The people who encounter problems in the CAT conversion - were the ones who really proved it was the stock fuel head that was the problem -
if the fuel head was good - they work - if the fuel head was bad - it made problems worse.
and yes there are lots of CAT conversions running around with no problem

The wear data was in the Cummins/SAE paper - it was posted a while back
basically said 6-7 micron particles cause excessive wear in high-pressure injector systems

gmctd · **Posted:** Sun Jan 25, 2009 12:25 pm

Roger Penske\Detroit Diesel owned VM Motori for a while - was another transactional move, recently - hope it wasn't Fiat

FYI: of all the thousands of KJ CRD's that rolled off the assembly line, some may have had no failures, some did, some more than others - these forums are about the ones that did fail in any of several manners - those that had no failure would have presented no reason for the owner to seek help - of those that had failures, not all owners were car-savvy enuff to seek forum help - some of those that sought help, fixed the problem and moved on - some stayed on - forum membership increases weekly, with the new members posting the same failures as had the tenured members

Seems rather unlikely, then, that a member with "no failures" would continue to hang on, lurking about, casting castignations and other thinly-veiled insults, making difficult the acceptance of proven advice by any new\old member seeking help, particularly where the member's first post relates a known failure, and responded advice specifically addresses proven resolution - sorta reminiscent of War Zone activity.....which this forum ain't about.........................

widowmaker · **Posted:** Sun Jan 25, 2009 1:11 pm

Hey, I'm the guy with 100k and no problems with the fuel system, and I certainly hope that I'm not perceived as casting castignations. I am extremely fortunate to have found this forum and have banked the info presented here for any future needs.

For example, last week I experienced the limp mode for the first time while trying to get through a busy intersection. It was scary as heck, and had I not been informed by this group, I would have been calling a tow truck. I knew what to do and am including the pump for future plans.

Thanks guys

retmil46 · **Posted:** Sun Jan 25, 2009 2:21 pm

IMHO, the problem some of the Cat conversions ran into was trying to suck fuel thru an honest-to-god 2 micron filter on a vacuum fuel system.

There's plenty of documentation on Racor, Stanadyne, and other websites detailing how a 5 micron or finer filter would actually strip entrained air out of diesel fuel on the vacuum/suction side of a fuel system.

They also detail how keeping the fuel system at just a slight positive pressure across the filter can minimize or totally eliminate this problem.

I need look no further than the Class 8 engines at work for confirmation of this - a coarse fuel/water separator on the suction, fuel pump, then a 5 micron or finer filter downstream of the fuel pump.

yakers · **Posted:** Sun Jan 25, 2009 2:41 pm

I have 48K miles on mine and no problems so far. But I attribute this to this group and a couple friends who own CRDs and are more mechanically inclined than I am. I did the EHM until replaced with a Provent. The ORM in place until I actually install the SEGR. I just installed the DC replacement fuel head. Looks similar but now I feel I can keep the heater plug connected. No lift pump yet. May do the Suncoast but the F37 was done and the trans seems to be OK, at least for now. But even if I run well past 100K mile I expect to keep an eye on things here as how else would I learn about common problems and often simple solutions. I would like to keep this Liberty a loooong time, and I really use it, had an 8,500 mile trip to Northern Canada/Alaska (1K mi were unpaved/off road) and I continue to tow a small trailer.
May the force be with all of us, but I'll be checking in regularly and hopefully, reporting no problems.

New Mopar filter head or Racor filter head?

Who is online