Is the factory fuel filter really a bad design? If so, give your thoughts and oppinions as to why.

Fatcat,


I have been sitting on the fence for quite a while on this filter thing. (I hope not too long.) After getting information overload from all these posts, today I went by the dealership and asked the diesel tech what he thought. His response was "They have some problems with injectors and pumps. I believe that GM is making some changes on their filters. In the meantime if you want to keep your truck past the 100k mile warranty I would suggest adding a filter. If you get one, bring it by and I'll install it."


That is all I know. I ordered a filter kit today.


Lee

I think it is a great design, so long as your goal is not clean fuel or effective water separation.http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Ouch.gifI am not even an expert, but the first time I held a replacement filter in my hand my honest reaction was....You must be kidding!!!!. That was BEFORE I learned about the forums!!!!http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Cry.gif In my opinion if it was as effective as they claim it is, we would all still be better off with secondary filtration. When I'm out of warranty I will look to replace the factory filter. SPICER

IMHO it's not really that bad, for it's size. I don't believe you can get where we need to be with one filter if it can't be considerbly larger than the stock one. My opinion is that you need two filters. First one should be about a 10 micron or so and the second should be about a 2 micron. Water seperation should not be done in the filter. If water is a problem then a seperate seperator should be in place prior to any filters. I realize this is in a perfect world and we don't live in one. No I don't currently have such a system, but a machinest I met here is making me an adapter so that I can replace the stock filter with a 2 micron and I intend to run a 10 micron similar to the nicktane setup. Maybe even a nicktane, I haven't decided yet. I believe once the fuel is in your tank it's too late to seperate it. You need to disperse it so I don't intend to have a seperator. My opinion and probably worth what it cost.


glclary summed it up pretty well.http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Clap.gif

Let's see, rusted right out of the box, and they've been known to come apart internally, allowing the fuel to self-clean the dirty side and carry the accumulated crud right out the outlet. Yep, Racor makes good stuff.

I was just curious about it's filtration abilities because everyone seems to hate them soo much. I realise it may be a little on the small side, but as far as its ability to clean the fuel?


I did not realize that the element has been known to come apart inside. Never seen one do that. Obviously that would create some serious problems. But for one to get a hole sucked through the element, wouldn't it have had to have been plugged really bad? And the truck be run with a plugged filter long enough for the suction pump to pull a hole in the element?


I guess my thinking here is that if the filter can get plugged solid within just 10-20K miles or less, to the point where the truck looses power from fuel starvation, then the filter is actually doing it's job very well.


To get plugged that bad and that fast, it has got to be stopping a very large amount of crud!


I would be more worried about the filter if it could go for 100,000 miles without pluging up solid because then it is obviously not stopping the crud. Just letting it pass through the element.

There are probably more threads on this forum and others then one could read on the inadequate OEM fuel filter. Numerous fuel tests have also been done with and without secondary filters ... enough information to convince me the OEM is inadequate for our engines. If GM is in the process of providing a secondary fuel filter setup (and they are) IMO this only reinforces the fact the OEM filter is not adequate to provide the protection the injectors need.

Racor makes quality filters. Racor is very well known in the diesel industry. They are used in ship, boats, and big generator sets to name a few.

The OEM filter is produced to GM/Isuzu specifications, including cost. Racor should be careful with this specific filter cause I don't think it's helping their reputation. On the other hand, the people that use the industrial Racor products probably don't know about this end of their business.

I run a big Racor R90S fuel filter that no doubt is an entirely different animal than the stock filter.

Here are a couple of comparison pics...

Comparison (http://www.uscom.com/~hoot/cars/duramax/gmc/fuel_filter_comparo/FILTER_COMPARO.html)

Here are my install pics (http://www.uscom.com/~hoot/cars/duramax/gmc/fuelfilter/)

I don't promote my particular filter setup as being any better than the other choices. I do feel it is protecting my fuel injection system from excessive dirt that the OEM has been proven to let by. As far as the OEM filter falling apart.... I think that is a very rare occurrance.Edited by: hoot

Based on independent Fuel Test Results for the OEM filter alone, the RACOR OEM filter is not as efficient as claimed. It may perform well in a lab environment but test results from at least two fuel samples taken from in-service filters indicate other wise.

See Kennedy's and Mdrag's test results for the OEM filter ALONE and compare them to the pump fuel values (pre-filter) in the Fuel Test Results (http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO/OC_Dmax.pdf) file. The numbers tell the story…

OEM Only, ISO Codes (2u/5u/15u Target ISO 15/13/10)
JK: 16/14/11
Mdrag: 19/17/10

OEM >2u Efficiency - OEM ONLY filtered output compared to unfiltered pump fuel input
JK: 44%
Mdrag: 16%

Also see ISO Contamination Code Table (http://www.edm-mechatronics.com/iso_table.htm) for an explanation of the ISO codes.

http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Geek.gif Edited by: jbplock

1FatCat, I want to commend you for asking this question. It shows that you are interested in the content and basis of some of the concerns we've been voicing and the beginnings of an unbiased approach to the questions.http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Clap.gif

I believe the single filter design on our trucks is marginal (Not saying it is bad, just marginal). The quality of fuel varies from station to station, city to city, etc.


There was a study/test conducted several years ago (SAE Paper # 980869 - High Pressure Injection System Wear Study) that evaluated a Cummins fuel injection system. The end result supported the ISO Cleanliness Code of 15/13/10 that George Morrison (the sites lubespecialist) has been pushing as a goal for our trucks. In the study, when fuel was above the 15/13/10 level, injector wear was above normal.


Now look at the Fuel Analysis Spreadsheet that has been maintained by forum members. You will see that, when the OEM filter is used by itself, it fails to meet the 15/13/10 goal. Its close but never meets the 15/13/10 criteria. That is why I say it is marginal. There is room for improvement.


By adding a supplemental filter, (example - CAT, Baldwin, Stanadyne or Racor) the additional filtering supplied is enough to push the fuel cleanlines below the 15/13/10 criteria and allow sufficient margin for the varying fuel cleanliness from station to station.





Thats my 5 cents worth,


Alan

If we knew the OE filter would hold together (VERY isolated instances of failure) a system running pump fuel that is relatively clean like mine could likely live a long life on the OE as a single.





Even adding a second FACTORY filter will help, and in my case should (assuming based on the statistics) provide decent results.





Adding a simple Filtermag to the OE shell will do wonders and a 2 minute installation. Note: does not help with anything other than ferrous metals...

I am impressed with the dealership who knew about adding a second filter. Everytime I ask the dealers in my area they look at me like I am nuts. Yesturday I asked the parts guy if the injectors had any problems he said yes...they had three Duramaxs down at the same time. Then on the way out I asked the Service Manager the same thing he said they had no problems with them at all. That is good?


It sounds like you have a good dealership....I would keep the truck with them.http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Clap.gif

I got to tell ya that most of the guys at the dealers are not thinkers. I asked the service manager what he would recommend for secondry filtration. He said, "do yuo know that these are high pressure systems?? They are not like the old systems. I would not recommend any mods to those systems." Well, no S...., but we are not talkin' about modifying the high pressure system. In the case of the Nicktane (my choice) we are takin' working at the tank outlet, probably under some degree of vacuum. The pump is sucking.

My position...Cleaner is Better...http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Geek.gif I do not think there is an over the road rig that does not filter the stuff in two or more stages. Diesel Fuel is...http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Throw Up.gif .dirty, and to clean it seems right!!http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Ermm.gif If GM two satges their filtration, good on them, they get the point. If not spend the 200 bux, and enjoy the ride!http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Big Smile.gif

1fatcat,


The filter is probally fine with most clean fuel. I see the problem being a numbers game. If you always run clean fuel the stock filter is fine and you could run your truck forever. If you always run dirty fuel that is a whole together different story.

YA KNOW ITS FUNNY TO ME I CAN GO TO AN OUTDOOR SUPPLY SHOP AND BUY A HAND PUMPED WATER FILTER SYSTEM (25 BUCKS) FOR THE OUTDOORS AND DRINK VERY CLEAN WATER FROM A MUD HOLE AND GM CANT DESIGN SOMETHING TO CLEAN THE FUEL ON A TRUCK EVEN AT 48 BUCKS A FILTER......

rickles04,


That is very true!!http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Clap.gif


But you are scaring me with all the yelling.http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/HiHi.gif

rickles04,

I roger that, would seem that the technology was advanced enough to do that. Was thinkin' though, when was the last time you drank water from a mud hole at the rate of 3-4 gallons per hour? I doubt that hand pump would keep up.http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/HiHi.gif

Mind you I said water, not beer, now that would be quite another storyhttp://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Big Smile.gif

The oem filter is a joke! OK lets think for a second...fuel water separation-would you use a metal that would rust as water would potentially sit in the bottom of the filter for a month? I bet you won't find Racor filters on any German diesels (Toureg Benz etc).http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Confused.gif





Smokeymax

HEY SMOKEYMAX, I SEE ON YOUR SIGNATURE YOU HAVE TRANSFER TANK AND NICTANE FILTER. HOW ARE YOU HOOKED UP? MY THOUGHT WAS AUX TANK THROUGH FILTER THEN TO OEM TANK. THIS WAY I DONT HAVE TO CUT FUEL LINES( WARRANTY ISSUES). IF YOU ARE SOME OTHER WAY...TALK TO ME...THANKS

All though I tend to agree with most of everyone's opinion, if you change your fuel filter four times a year you shouldn't have any problems. I have a 2002 Duramax with 51000 miles on it and the fuel filter has been fairly clean with little water in it. A good key to remember is to fuel with premium diesel, and also watch where you get your fuel. High volume places tend to have better diesel fuel anyway, from my experiences. Change them often and you will have little to worry about. Real Trucks don't have spark plugs, Drive ON!!!

I did not realize that the element has been known to come apart inside. Never seen one do that. Obviously that would create some serious problems. But for one to get a hole sucked through the element, wouldn't it have had to have been plugged really bad?


That wasn't the failure mode. The filter element itself came off the end cap. Only discovered because the owner noticed a rattling sound coming from inside the filter. Cut it open and that's what he found. Makes you wonder how many have failed that way and gone unnoticed. Could explain some of the multiple simultaneous injector failures people have seen.

I don't remember who it was, and for some reason I can't find the post & pictures, but it wasn't that long ago, and I'm almost sure it was posted on this site.

In my mind, failures like that as well as all these rusted filters people have found are indicative of poor quality control at Racor. I don't believe for a second that GM can be blamed for how they specified the filter, there ain't no way in hell they specified rust in the canister or filters coming apart inside. That's just poor quality control. I'm very wary of buying any product from a company that has such poor control of their process. It can be labeled an isolated incident, but considering the consequences and the cost of repair, even once is too many IMO. It makes a strong case for the post OEM setup, that's for sure. At 100K, I'll go post.Edited by: ZFMax

Based on independent Fuel Test Results for the OEM filter alone, the RACOR OEM filter is not as efficient as claimed. It may perform well in a lab environment but test results from at least two fuel samples taken from in-service filters indicate other wise.

See Kennedy's and Mdrag's test results for the OEM filter ALONE and compare them to the pump fuel values (pre-filter) in the Fuel Test Results (http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO/OC_Dmax.pdf) file. The numbers tell the story…

OEM Only, ISO Codes (2u/5u/15u Target ISO 15/13/10)
JK: 16/14/11
Mdrag: 19/17/10

OEM >2u particles removed - OEM ONLY filtered output compared to unfiltered pump fuel input
JK: 56%
Mdrag: 84%

Also see ISO Contamination Code Table (http://www.edm-mechatronics.com/iso_table.htm) for an explanation of the ISO codes.

http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Geek.gif


OOPS…http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Embarrased.gif http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Embarrased.gif

It has been brought to my attention that the efficiency numbers I posted above are incorrect…http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Embarrased.gif The efficiency numbers previously posted are the percentage of particles that made it through the OEM filter not efficiency…. The efficiency - % of particles removed - for the OEM filter alone are as follows:

OEM >2u Efficiency - OEM ONLY filtered output compared to unfiltered pump fuel input

JK: 44%
Mdrag: 16%

(It’s summer school for me)http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Embarrased.gif<o:p

Somebody needs to school me! I believe the test results. I understand the ISO target range. I understand the ISO numerecial assignment chart. I just do not understand how you are all calculating filter efficancy??? It seems we are all not using the same math book? Somebody show me there formula or notes. I need to see it to believe it. I have a feeling your calculations are all low. I bet the OEM is more likely to be in the 85% an upward range at removing all sizes of particles. Please help me understand why I need to buy an extra filter. Once I understand I promise I will buy one!

why are you guys so worried about adding another filter. Is GM actually voiding warranties for filters?

why are you guys so worried about adding another filter. Is GM actually voiding warranties for filters?


Welcome to the fuel filtration funhouse, Clydesdale. You are about 18 months and 10,000 pages of reading behind, so I'd start staying up late if you are interested.http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Approve.gif


All kidding aside, the concern is injector wear and failure, which is strongly suspected to be "encouraged" by poor fuel filtration. Many cases are just making it over the 100,000 mile warranty threshold - many that don't are being challenged for warranty approval by GM.

Okay, here we go with filter efficiency 101..


John Kennedy's Pre-OEM counts for &gt;2 Microns were 1078 particles per ML. After the OEM the particle count was reduced to 602 particles.* We subtract the remaining particles from the original particles to calculate the number of particles removed, which is 478 particles.**To determine the percentage*efficiency, we divide the part by the whole, or the actual particles removed as it relates to the original level.* Dividing 476 by 1078 yields a percentage reduction of 44% for all particles greater than 2 microns.* If we do the same calculations for the greater than 5 micron component, we get 62%.* A little more than half..* NOT good performance by any standard..


If we do the same for MDrag's numbers, we come up with a 16% efficiency for the greater than 2 micron particles and 44% effiency for the particles greater than 5 microns..* And somehwere between these two is where all of the OEM fuel analysis I have reviewed*average; around 50% to 55%. And then when we translate these particles per ML into particles throughput per gallon, it results in millions of particles per gallon..


I hope this explanation clarifies our discussion.** The OEM is woefully inadequate to deal with 'real world' diesel fuel...


George MorrisonEdited by: Georgecls

George,


Thank you for responding to my question. I believe your math work and agree with your calculations. The fuel cleanliness charts that are being gathered at this site tell me nothing about the OEM filtering capabillitys. There are only 2 sources I have to draw assumptions from. One being the fuel samples provide by Nick on his website and the fuel samples provide by John Kennedy on his web site. I find it very interesting that the fuel from the pump on Nicks site is much dirtier than the fuel from the pump on Johns site. The biggest item I noticed was the fact that both fuel samples after being ran through the OEM have the EXACT same particle counts. Nicks fuel was much dirtier to begin with than Johns fuel. It is only logical that the effeciency of the OEM will appear less if the original fuel is cleaner. I think calculating fuel filter effeciency by comparing filtered fuel to unfiltered fuel is only one part of the puzzle. You also need to compare filtered fuel to the ISO target to calculate at what percentage you fell short or exceeded the ISO standards. I really do not understand how NICK and John both came up with the exact same specs after the OEM? If this is a true measurment of effeciency then I could go find the absolute dirtiest fuel I can find and do a before and after and that will make my effeciency very very high. My final comment would be that the OEM filter misses the ISO standards as follows. 47% shortfall in the 2um range, 34% shortfall in the 5uc range and less than 1% shortfall in the 15uc range. The OEM filter is not close in the 2uc range, coming close in the 5uc range and is perfect in the 15uc range. This is coming close to the highest standard in the world! Not to bad! I know it could always be better. George if I need to be corrected in my math work I understand.

Bronco, hopefully you can see the problem a little more clearly now, we were sold a filter advertized to be a 2 micron fuel filter and it's not. If they (GM) had said it was a 15 micron filter then we got what we paid for. In this case we got less than expected and results are higher and quicker wear out issues due to abrasive particles getting by the OEM. Thank God it's stopping the 15 micron stuff, but I really want to stop the 2 Micron stuff as well. Only way to do that if you see the need is with a secondary filter or an improved OEM. Since no improved OEM is apparantly coming from GM, we had to do it ourselves in the form of the secondary filter. Now here comes GM late to the party offering a secondary or primary filter setup. Better late than never for the new truck buyers, but the rest of us are trying to save what we got left.


I'll grant you the OEM is better than my wifes Collander, but it is suppose to be better than it actually turns out to be, that's all we are saying.One click better on the ISO cleanliness doubles the life of the components, that's all I and others are trying to achieve. Edited by: Chevysrus

Believe or don't believe. They're your injectors. But if you're wrong, every hour your engine runs without efficient filtering increases the liklihood of damage. While Nero fiddled...


I believe.

OKAY OKAY OKAY I get the point!http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Approve.gif


I just have to buy the BEST one. That is the hard part. There are several that will do the trick.

There is no best one. Any of the top 3 are good. Nicktane, Mega, or Racor. I chose Racor Pre-OEM because I wanted to minimize any warranty issues and I need a heated filter where I'm at. I went with dual filters (both with heaters) to ensure that I had a coarse (30u) / fine (2u) order of filters. Next change I will use 10u instead of 30u. Will it absolutely protect me from injector issues? I hope so but no guarantee. I now have 6500 miles on my setup with no problems (air, rock damage, etc.) to date. Hope I didn't just jinx myself.


Good Luck

If you have not seen it go to the Nicktane vs OEM. George has posted the injector picture.

Does GM ok this new pre oem filter? Any part numbers out there? Would want to go with this filter just for warrenty issues. Going to GM dealer this week to see if he knows about this set-up

Bruce, I am going with the Nicktane kit. If that is what you are planning to do, let me make a suggestion. I went to www.nicktane.com (http://www.nicktane.com) and printed out all of the info. I took this info to the service managers where I bought the truck and showed it to them. They said it looked like a nice setup and could see no warranty issues with it.

Is it just my imagination or does the Nicktane kit have no provision for water seperation/draining?


It would appear that may be a major difference between the Cat filter vs. the Racor set up.


Am I wrong here? http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Ermm.gif

Vincent,


You're right, but one WIF sensor seems like enough to me. Also, many prefer emulsifying type fuel additives so that should keep low water content situations in check. The WIF sensor will catch the other.