Ok, I could be missing something here, but why doesn't someone make a 2 micron fuel filter to fit in place of the factory one.

I too was thinking the same thing.


I guess I just wrote it off thinking that it was addressed a long time ago and I'm too lazy to read that many posts.

Some people have already and some are trying nowhttp://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Wink.gif

I believe its a warranty issue. Adding filtration to a system before the OEM filter shouldn't be an issue - or after for that matter. Keeping the OEM is likely necessary to prevent denied warranty claims. If one took thier truck in with just the OEM system but with a none OEM filter (or at least OEM spec filter), this could cause rise to a great rash of warranty issues.


Just my take.http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Ermm.gif

The factory filter is a 2 micron filter !

What if you could screw on a better 2 micron filter in place of the factory filter and be able to reinstall the factory filter any time you wanted too?

What BlueMaxxxx said....


You'll get lots of discussion around here about what constitutes a 2 micron filter, but those manufactured by Racor (which is the sole manufacturer) for the Dmax meet accepted industry standards for the 2 micron rating.

Just a guess, but if they had put a 90% efficient 2 micron filter on which was the same physical size as our current OEM then the change interval would be significantly shorter. There would be a lot of people very irritated about changing a filter every 5,000 miles at $20-$40 a change for a DIY.

From "Racor" - posted on "the other site" a while back - he worked on designing and testing it...

"In the lab, the DMAX fuel filter (OEM or aftermarket) is 99.6% efficient at 4 microns, and 100% at 15 microns. Racor does not make “absolute” rated diesel fuel filters. It is not cost effective or necessary to have an “absolute” rating. Engine vibrations have little effect on this efficiency, except perhaps at particle sizes too small to measure. Racor uses the “2 micron” designation because that distinguishes the filter medium as high efficiency. It is perhaps 90% efficient at 2 microns; but it’s not really possible to accurately measure down to the 2 microns. Both the OEM and aftermarket DMAX fuel filters exceed Bosch’s specifications for particle removal by a wide margin."

Unfortunately, Racor's OEM "in the lab" filter efficiencies haven't translated into anything realistic in the Dmax fuel system. It's closer to 60%.

It was also later determined that the fuel used by the lab was not straight from the pump, but had been cleaned up a little before the test were run.


By the way, if I could get a 2 micron "absolute" fuel filter I would not mind changing it every 5K if that was a reality. The current OEM fuel filters can be purchased for around $15-$17. Like a bird, that is CHEAP, CHEAP, CHEAP compared to buying a set of injectors after warranty expires. Let's say 125K then an injector set at $5-$8K or 125K : 5K = 25 filters at $17 = $425 total. No comparison in my way of thinking. Besides the cost of the fuel filters is spread over the 125K maybe 2-3+years whereas the injector replacement is a lumpsum and like Murphy's law comes when you least expect it or least can afford it.


The comment that the 2 micron Racor rating shows the filter as being high efficiency makes about as much sense as McDonalds labeling it's food as low fat! I guess those engineers sitting around running clean fuel through the filter and achieving 99.6% at 4 microns all jumped up and shouted "Close Enough" let's rank it as a 2 micron!


Go figure that one!

For me the bottom line is that their does not seem to be any correlation between extra filteration, expensive additives etc and extended injector life. Lots of good theory's and opinions but little fact to support it. I would rather have a 2 micron Cat filter than a standard Racor filter any day. But I think we have to realize we are a small.....VERY small contingent of Duramax owners. I suspect the vast majority just want to put fuel in it and do scheduled maintenance. The Fram filters might be $16 bucks a pop but the OEM filters are a tad bit more $$$ than that. They are NOT the same filter. Cut one open next to a OEM filter. The fuel injectors fail because they are defective. It's that simple. We see more of this now and think it's this big deal because we have instant access to so many people with similar products from such a wide geographic range thanx to the internet. Even with all the gear head mods here there are relatively few injector failures.

Just a comment about comparing "lab" and "real-world" test results. I am an analytical chemist, and often the most significant sources of error I see in analyses are those induced by improper sample handling. When Racor is testing their filters in the lab, the samples are being handled by trained technicians in a clean, environmentally-controlled lab. When people are taking samples from their truck, these same conditions just can't be met. Now I am sure all things being equal there is no way the filter will perform exactly the same in the lab as it does on the truck, but we all may want to take "real-world" results with at least a small grain of salt.

The sampling procedures used to capture the fuel samples were indeed 'real world' but the techniques utilized were excellent and in nearly all cases returned similar results with respect to the OEM filter efficiency. Had sampling technique not been good, results would have varied much more than the returned results, from my experience of dealing with field testing on the order of 100 to 300 samples reviewed per day.
So, I heartily disagree with the "small grain of salt" comment.. Not being critical but without your having reviewed all of the results as I have, a pretty brash statement when indeed some of the folks taking the samples are very, very skilled with proper lab procedures.
George Morrison, STLE CLS

The factory filter is a 2 micron filter !


Great! I've been trying to find out what the OEM filter is.


Now it makes sense why people are putting on a 10 micron prefilter. The 10 micron filter will trap a lot of the bigger dirt and allow the original 2-micron filter a longer life.


From reading filtration documents of various filter sites the best set up would be 3 filters 30-10-2 micron set up.

You're right George, I have not reviewed results for 100-300 samples per day; I have only seen a smattering of results posted here and there. The limited data I have seen was not nearly enough to draw a conclusion from either way.

Also, I never meant to imply people taking the samples were not skilled. No matter how skilled you are, trying to take a sample under "normal" environmental conditions is much different from controlled laboratory conditions. Sorry if I have stepped on anybody's toes (as it appears I have).

Johnny O, I think the majority installing pre OEM filters are using 2 micron canisters. Either way, more filteration is probably a good thing. I say probably based on all of the air problems some seem to have with air as well as the possability of introducing more contaminents when cutting fuel lines etc. You could do this add nauseum with water seperators and additional filteration. Their are numerous high mileage diesels on the road using nothing other than pump fuel and OEM filters. It's a individual choice. No absolutes. The best each of us can do is our home work, research and take in the info that knowlegable people like George offer. With all of that you simply have to decide what theory you want to make a financial commitment in. I buy Delvac 1 from George because I get great servive and advice. I also get a product that I have faith in and I am confident will offer my motor more protection and longevity. Others feel that way about extra filteration and DFA's. It's your $$. Just do what makes you feel good and drive it till it dies !http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Cool.gif

...From reading filtration documents of various filter sites the best set up would be 3 filters 30-10-2 micron set up.


JohnnyO,


YES!!! ... Works for me....http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Big Smile.gif


30 micron Stanadyne FM100 - AC Delco Lift Pump - 4 micron OEM - 2 micron JK Mega filter (see sig for pics)


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

I for one run a post OEM Racor 660. I have an excellent fuel report that proves I know how to take a good sample. I would be glad to test the OEM if someone would like to pay for the sample kit. It will be a waste of money though because several people on the diesel page have already done it. We have been working on this problem there for almost two years. The supporting data is there. Some of you are doing you best to dispute this data and then you close with: I think cleaner fuel is a good thing. If you wait and see what happens past the 100K mark you will be in trouble. My local dealer has had five diesels in with multiple injector failures. They all had 95K plus miles. Most all large commercial vehicle, generators, earth moving equipment etc. run two filters. Later! Frank

Regarding the statement that the factory OEM filter is a 2 micron filter.. Yes, one could say that if one considers capturing roughly 50% of the particulates satisfactory.
Yes, it does catch *some* of the 2 micron and larger but certainly does not provide a level of performance that would ensure maximum pump and injector life with most pump diesel fuels..
So, there are 2 micron filters and there are 2 micron filters.. You can have a 2 micron beta 25 and you can have a 2 micron beta 2000. (99.9% efficient).
George Morrison

Regarding the statement that the factory OEM filter is a 2 micron filter.. Yes, one could say that if one considers capturing roughly 50% of the particulates satisfactory.
Yes, it does catch *some* of the 2 micron and larger but certainly does not provide a level of performance that would ensure maximum pump and injector life with most pump diesel fuels..
So, there are 2 micron filters and there are 2 micron filters.. You can have a 2 micron beta 25 and you can have a 2 micron beta 2000. (99.9% efficient).
George Morrison


A window screen could be deemed 2 micron just for the fact that it catches SOME 2 micron particles.





Keys to filtration are simple:





Flow rate (best acheived with large surface area, and a complete "fill" or abscence of air.


Porosity or "weave" of media (must not restrict flow unnecessarily)


Multipass (2 filters are better than one Even 2 OE filters is better than stock. From there, the best way to do this is to have the "looser" filter first in line to pre screen the fuel. As fuel recirculates it is continually refined so long as excessive wear particles are not generated in the system)

Frank, I am not trying to dissprove any thing. I am saying that neither you or any one else has proven any point. You have not presented any info that is independent, Factual or any thing other than internet hype and opinion off another forum second hand from unknown users. When GM approves a secondary filter I will consider one for my truck. Untill then it appears that the waters are so full of opinions it would take a lot of filteration from people who know far more than I to sort it out. We see several people here who are running extra filteration and have very low mileage with injector failures. Perhaps you should test their filters http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Embarrased.gif

There is at least a POSSIBILITY of fuel starvation from an ultrafine filter, which becomes a PROBABILITY as it starts to get loaded up and/or when the engine is under heavy load and the fuel demand is high. I have thought about this from time to time and a way to avoid fuel starvation AND have finer filtration would be to use an aux tank with filtration between it and the main tank(s). This way the factory fuel system would be able to supply however many gallons per minute/hour it currently supplies, the factory tank could be replenished with finely filtered fuel at a more steady rate. For myself and others with dual tanks, we could put the added filters between the rear and front tanks and only fill the rear one. An inconvenience would be to have 30 or 40 gallons of empty capacity, but only be able to take a 15 or 20 gallon fill. A small modification to the wiring of the transfer pump could partly solve that; 3 ways off/auto/on. If both tanks are less than 1/2 full it would be OK to transfer all the rear tank to the front one, say a couple of miles before the fill station. If both tanks are very low you might even be able to leave the transfer pump running while re-fueling - but be careful (-:

Now I'm wondering what harm can/could result from fuel starvation. I know gas engines just run REAL LEAN as they run out of fuel, but we used to fix that with bigger float bowls (-: I'm also wondering if the stock filter was an engineering compromise between particle size, flow rate and physical size. Lastly (for now) I'm wondering if the potential for fuel starvation is the basis of the "Warrany issue" around adding finer filters.
So many questions, so little wisdom...

I actually talked to Eric about doing just that with a auxillary tank. I had a company that would custom build a tank with a extra bung for the filter. Basicly the filter would constantly cyle the fuel through the auxillary filter. The price tag was around $1500 http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Cry.gif But it is a good idea. PS, I dont tow enough to justify it but if I had a travel trailer or towed more I think that set up would be the Berries !

It was also later determined that the fuel used by the lab was not straight from the pump, but had been cleaned up a little before the test were run.


By the way, if I could get a 2 micron "absolute" fuel filter I would not mind changing it every 5K if that was a reality. The current OEM fuel filters can be purchased for around $15-$17. Like a bird, that is CHEAP, CHEAP, CHEAP compared to buying a set of injectors after warranty expires. Let's say 125K then an injector set at $5-$8K or 125K : 5K = 25 filters at $17 = $425 total. No comparison in my way of thinking. Besides the cost of the fuel filters is spread over the 125K maybe 2-3+years whereas the injector replacement is a lumpsum and like Murphy's law comes when you least expect it or least can afford it.


The comment that the 2 micron Racor rating shows the filter as being high efficiency makes about as much sense as McDonalds labeling it's food as low fat! I guess those engineers sitting around running clean fuel through the filter and achieving 99.6% at 4 microns all jumped up and shouted "Close Enough" let's rank it as a 2 micron!


Go figure that one!








Chevy, I believe that a lot of the members here don't complain much about fuel filter costs as in DIY, but keep in mind that there are also folks here who have the dealer do service for them. Keep in mind a lot are brand new to diesel and many gasser owners NEVER change a fuel filter, they get the deer in headlights look when you ask them about it. It doesn't matter if you tell them that it could save a fuel pump, injectors or whatever. Some are mechanically challenged and are hit in the pocket by their servicing dealer for the sum of 100.00 or more per filter change. If it were that incredibly simple for everyone it would be a different story but you still see an awful lot of "trouble replacing fuel filter" posts on this site so someone must find it difficult. There's also people who just dont want to be wrench turners, I cannot imagine being in their shoes with a short change interval because I've seen some of the prices these folks post on how much a filter change cost them. The way I personally see it is for the grand sum of 250-300 dollars better filtering is easily had thru Kennedy or Nick or others. I thought the Nick was incredibly simple to install but I just read of someone having major install difficulties with theirs. Simple, cheap, or acceptable intervals for one isn't always simple, cheap, or acceptable to all. Edited by: Hound

I actually talked to Eric about doing just that with a auxillary tank. I had a company that would custom build a tank with a extra bung for the filter. Basicly the filter would constantly cyle the fuel through the auxillary filter. The price tag was around $1500 http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Cry.gif But it is a good idea. PS, I dont tow enough to justify it but if I had a travel trailer or towed more I think that set up would be the Berries !

I've kicked the idea around here before, also in the lesser forum. I still havn't done it, but probably will if/when I get into more trailering - which I hope to do. I would use a regular aux tank, about 65 gallons if I can find one of the right proportions, I was thinking something in the 300 to 400 dollar range if I do the plumbing work myself. Why 65 ? My factory tanks total just about 50, a pint of Stanadyne additive treats 60 gallons, anything much bigger takes up too much space and costs disproportionately - I dunno, 65 just seems about right (-:
BTW, for anyone thinking about an aux tank. If you havn't already done so grab an empty plastic 55 gallon drum and carry it around in the bed of the truck for a week to get an idea of how much space you'll have to give up. It will have a different shape, but it will give you SOME idea of the volume you'll need. Look at it, to fit under a toneau cover it will have to be lower, which means longer and/or wider. Do some imagineering on the size and shape.

Blue Max, forget everything I posted. Good luck with your OEM system. Later! Frank

I am saying that neither you or any one else has proven any point. You have not presented any info that is independent, Factual or any thing other than internet hype and opinion off another forum second hand from unknown users.


WOW! You are uninformed. I know (for a fact) that multiple individuals have proven the OEM system does not produce the fuel cleanliness levels requried to prevent damage based on in depth research from CAT. (You know, that small Mom and Pop shop that tinkers with diesels?) I know these same lowly DIY guys have also added extra filters and lift pumps to their trucks to correct the problem that has been proven to exist in the system. They have retested the new setups and supplied the data that proves the dramatic improvement in the fuel system efficiency. There is a spreadsheet where one individual has taken the time to put it all together with who, what, when, etc. etc. etc. Now, deem my statements as hype, but they are not second hand, nor are they from an "unknown" user. If you would like, I will gladly email you the files of my fuel samples taken at the pump and after the OEM filter. You can go out to JK's site and see that our results are very close, showing good repeatability. I'm sure George has a GR&R or calibration certs for his equipment, so you can have confidence in the data. I have found having the same lab do all of your testing is much better when trying to compare. I did not do a final system test as there were 2 others with the same setup that showed great results. The original tests they did matched mine, so I can say I trust the final results they provided. Maybe it's a trust issue for you, but after working with George, JK, a bear, jbplock and numerous others to test, retest, duplicate results and be the guinea pig, I feel rather confident in results. By the way, I started this mess AFTER I had 2 injectors fail at 25K miles.


Worried about fuel starvation from too many filters? Add a lift pump. It works great and stops all "air" issues seen by others. I forgot who said that earlier while I was on my box.


Rant off.http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Embarrased.gif

<TABLE id=HB_Mail_Container height="100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0 UNABLE="on">
<T>
<TR height="100%" width="100%" UNABLE="on">
<TD id=HB_Focus_Element vAlign=top width="100%" background="" height=250 UNABLE="off">


i agree with hound...i'm one of "those" who has his "baby" serviced by a dealer...i'm NOT mehcanically inclined at all, which i know is somewhat heresy here, lol!


both the service writer and the mechanic have LOTS of diesel experience w/ford, dodge and gm...i've told them of some of the posts here, and they are NOT enthusiastic re any modifications..they think the stock D/A is a great engine!


i've not had my D/A too long, but i REALLY like it!...i DO haul a horse trailer, which is why i adopted it, and am VERY interested in it operating as efficiently as possible and doing whatever i can to keep it healthy...


any advice offered to those ends will be greatly appreciated...


</TD></TR>
<TR hb_tag="1" UNABLE="on">
<TD style="FONT-SIZE: 1pt" height=1 UNABLE="on">
<DIV id=hotbar_promo></DIV></TD></TR></T></TABLE>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=f6d650b8>


It was also later determined that the fuel used by the lab was not straight from the pump, but had been cleaned up a little before the test were run.


By the way, if I could get a 2 micron "absolute" fuel filter I would not mind changing it every 5K if that was a reality. The current OEM fuel filters can be purchased for around $15-$17. Like a bird, that is CHEAP, CHEAP, CHEAP compared to buying a set of injectors after warranty expires. Let's say 125K then an injector set at $5-$8K or 125K : 5K = 25 filters at $17 = $425 total. No comparison in my way of thinking. Besides the cost of the fuel filters is spread over the 125K maybe 2-3+years whereas the injector replacement is a lumpsum and like Murphy's law comes when you least expect it or least can afford it.


The comment that the 2 micron Racor rating shows the filter as being high efficiency makes about as much sense as McDonalds labeling it's food as low fat! I guess those engineers sitting around running clean fuel through the filter and achieving 99.6% at 4 microns all jumped up and shouted "Close Enough" let's rank it as a 2 micron!


Go figure that one!








Chevy, I believe that a lot of the members here don't complain much about fuel filter costs as in DIY, but keep in mind that there are also folks here who have the dealer do service for them. Keep in mind a lot are brand new to diesel and many gasser owners NEVER change a fuel filter, they get the deer in headlights look when you ask them about it. It doesn't matter if you tell them that it could save a fuel pump, injectors or whatever. Some are mechanically challenged and are hit in the pocket by their servicing dealer for the sum of 100.00 or more per filter change. If it were that incredibly simple for everyone it would be a different story but you still see an awful lot of "trouble replacing fuel filter" posts on this site so someone must find it difficult. There's also people who just dont want to be wrench turners, I cannot imagine being in their shoes with a short change interval because I've seen some of the prices these folks post on how much a filter change cost them. The way I personally see it is for the grand sum of 250-300 dollars better filtering is easily had thru Kennedy or Nick or others. I thought the Nick was incredibly simple to install but I just read of someone having major install difficulties with theirs. Simple, cheap, or acceptable intervals for one isn't always simple, cheap, or acceptable to all. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Well learn ya right up there Pony. Just read, read, read and you to will learn everything there is to know about making your baby live till you're old. http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Big Smile.gif As it is your money, you have to decide what's right for you. If your service writer and mechanic like everything stock, find new ones that are as passionate about it like dmaxAllitech. They are few and far between, but can be found. They are correct in the engine is great, but the filter, well, sucks. I don't think you need to upgrade the tranny, stack boxes and melt the tires, but clean up the fuel makes sense and if it doesn't to them, I'd question it, if it were me.http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Geek.gif

Hello,


I am leaning towards a Nictane Cat setup. I however am concerned about the extra vacum put on the system by the increased resistance.


I would really like to install a lift pump after the tank yet before the Nicktane. I see several benifits from running a lift pump in this location. First you are creating a system that is under pressure vs. vacum. This will keep the air in the fuel. This will also keep your filters completly full and allow them to filter at maximum effeciency.


A regulator after the nicktane with a return line back to the tank would benifit the system even further. It would allow large portions of fuel to be recirculated and filtered multiple times. I doubt this regulator is required just an extra goodie.


These are just my observations and I have not proven them. Do any of you have a reccomendation on a lift pump and or regulator that will fit my application?


Thanks,


JeffEdited by: Bronco

Bronco,


My lift pump returns to the second inlet of my "pre" filter that is before the pump. The "regulator" is a needle vavle that is set to have the system run a around 1 psi. The pump I used is the same as the old 6.5 that is flow through if a failure occurs. http://community.webshots.com/scripts/editPhotos.fcgi?action=viewall&amp;albumID=77657687 (http://community.webshots.com/scripts/editPhotos.fcgi?action=viewall&amp;albumID=77657687) Here are the pictures of my install. Some of my other albums have the fuel filter work as well.

Chuntag95,


Thanks for the link. However it is not working? It is telling me that I am not the owner of the photo album?

Chuntag, I understand what you are saying I just do not agree. I do not think Cat has ever tested the Duramax or the Racor filters. They set standards that benefit the products they sell. Big suprise. You throw out a lot of innuendo's but again no hard facts. You do not address the issue of those who have still had injector failures WITH extra filteration. If the injector deseign was not flawed from the beginning I think your ideas would be more valid. As it is I think you run the risk of injector failure with or with out extra filteration. I am neither miss informed nor I am I miss lead like a sheep just because some one puts up their results on a web site. With some of the answers I have gotton from some of the self proclaimed "experts" here I would not give you two cents for their opinion. Now I do trust and believe George because he has the credentials and the experience to back it up. Maybe I missed it but I have not seen any results from George where he tested all the filters side by side. Do I believe the Cat filter is better ? Of course I do. As George said their are filters and then their are FILTERS. Regrettably I am not confident installing the Nicktane set up in my garage after all the posts I have seen about difficulty installing it. I fail to see the advantage of installing more filteration and exposing the fuel system to more contaminents while I fiddle around with it. Many are using Racor set ups. The problem I see with those is all of the Racor filters with rust in them from the factory due to their manufacturing process. Why do I want to run two filters with rust instead of one http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Disapprove.gif


The bottom line is no one has proven that if you run extra filteration you will not have injector failures. It has been proven that the majority who support it on their web sites profit from it http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Evil Smile.gif


When you come up with a Cat filter that will simply spin on and replace the OEM filter please let me know http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Big Smile.gif Untill then I wish you the best of luck with your system. I am not saying you are wrong and I am right. I am saying this is what I am going to do for now with my truck. Edited by: BlueMaxxxx

Wow Bluemaxx, I hope you got your flame suit on! Your comments mirror my thoughts almost exactly. I am a scientist, and as such I don't believe anything until it is published and corraborated by independent studies. Even then, if you believe every single published article on heart disease, for instance, you wouldn't be able to eat anything without fearing it was going to kill you. The fact is, we are all human, and like it or not we often find the results we are looking for. I have no doubt of the findings of the Cat tests, but until I see it backed up by published findings from Bosch, Racor, etc., I am not going to put full faith in it. I am also not going to put full faith in everything touted by vendors.

As far as the lift pump idea goes, I think that is a very good idea when adding the extra filtration. My father builds high-pressure power wash systems for a living, and even though he has no letters behind his name, he builds, rebuilds, and otherwise repairs several pumps a day. Far and away the number one cause of pump failure he sees day in and day out is from water starvation, not particulate matter. Now is our fuel injection system exactly the same as a pressure washer pump, no. But there is no doubt that liquid starvation will damage a high pressure pump. I am not sure this is a problem with our trucks, but I think it is surely something to be concerned about. But this is just my opinion, I don't claim to be an expert.

I am saying that neither you or any one else has proven any point. You have not presented any info that is independent, Factual or any thing other than internet hype and opinion off another forum second hand from unknown users.


WOW! You are uninformed. I know (for a fact) that multiple individuals have proven the OEM system does not produce the fuel cleanliness levels requried to prevent damage based on in depth research from CAT.


Yes! http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Approve.gif

Hi Habanero,
Your post reminded me of one of the possible ill effects of fuel starvation, that of running a pump dry. Diesel fuel IS a lubricant and that fact is probably relied upon in many parts of the design. I'm not considering a lift pump, if I did I would want some sort of fuel pressure regulator or excess return. I'll probably go with the aux tank and filter between that and the factory tank, that way the truck's fuel system won't be compromised or disturbed in any way. In other words I don't want warranty questions to even arise if I get problems later on.

I agree, we're taking what is at best a hypothesis and rushing solutions into implementation. Given the circum$tance$ I think it might be a reasonable response. There is the problem of not being able to prove the negative, "We can't prove that it isn't so", etc.

Yeah it could get hotter than a jalapeno in here http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Big Smile.gif It is trully amazing how so many "experts" and others know this stuff for a fact ! Yet they can not produce any reliable independent results. I wish I could go to court like this......Judge I know little Jimmy is innocent.....It's a fact ! Judge: How do you know counselor ? Well I am an expert Just ask me !http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Clown.gif lol Some one pointed out a "expert" a few posts back. Go to his web site. Go read his claims to the effect that if you do not use extra filteration your injecters ARE IN FACT going to die prematurely ! Of course he will be glad to sell you a mega filter kit and a lift pump for the low low price of $$$ But wait that's not all, for only another $175 you too can have a magical mystery filter magnet....ROTFLMAO !


Maybee some of this stuff works, maybe not. At this point the fact remains that it has not been CONCLUSIVLY proven. I have talked to several hundred Duramax owners the last few years. All are happy a few had mods, none had injector failures. The biggest complaint I hear is about squeeks and rattles. Only one of those people had ever heard of this web site and did not run extra filteration. I guess all of them are Doomed to injector failures because they have not been here ! http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Cry.gif

I might have missed it, but if fuel quality is a significant factor and if fuel quality is locally (State level) regulated, I would expect SOME geographic correlation of injector failures. Not that we need ANOTHER freakin' poll, but has anyone tried to "Do the demographic thang" on these failures ?
I mean anyone other than GM, Ford, Dodge, oil companies, etc., whose results we probably can't get.

{I thought I was open minded about this... maybe, maybe not}

BlueMaxxxx,


We will agree to disaggree. You say you trust George, the very person who did all of the fuel testing that has been posted. I was one of the people that worked with George to evaluate the system in the beginning. This was before anyone had any kits available. I offered to send you the data from George. Your mind is made up, so I'm not going to waste any more of my time giving you the facts.


Bronco,


Try this. http://community.webshots.com/user/chuntag95 (http://community.webshots.com/user/chuntag95)


Chris

That is right, at this point we just dissagree. No biggie. We all have to do what we think is best for our own trucks. As always I wish everyone the best of luck with their ride.

Chuntag95,


By the looks of those pictures I can tell you put in a lot of time and energy to this project. How does your truck run as compared to before? Or is it more of a piece of mind thing?

Bronco


My set up is like chuntag95's but I use a different lift pump witch lets me regulate my fuel back to the inlet side of the pump via a needle valve an I set the pressure at 3/4 lb. I also put a push button under the hood to use after I change filters to bleed all the air. So far so good and I am pleased with how all works. Save injector's I dont know, but I feel a lot better knowing I have very clean fuel whitch was my main objective. Push button under hood also saves wear an tear on my thumb having to push that dam primer pump so much.


Geno

Chuntag95, … How does your truck run as compared to before?

Bronco,
About a year ago Chris (Chuntag95), a-bear (Tommy) and I collaborated and installed similar MegaFilter (http://community.webshots.com/album/67970835fahHeh) and Lift Pump (http://community.webshots.com/album/77018086bLHHHC) setups on our trucks. The effort included extensive testing to isolate the cause of vapor build up in our MegaFilters, which we determined was caused by vacuum/heat induced out gassing of the fuel – not leaks. The solution to the vapor problem was to slightly pressurize the system with a lift pump. Tommy pioneered the AC Delco Lift Pump bypass regulator design (http://community.webshots.com/album/73924877DZObcY) and Chris and I added the FM100 pre-filter to the bypass loop. In addition to eliminating the vapor problem, each of us noticed that the lift pump produced a noticeable “seat-of-pants” improvement in throttle response and a “smoother” running engine. We also noticed a slight improvement in fuel mileage and our Fuel Test Results (http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO/OC_Dmax.pdf) meet the ISO targets. Piece of mind AND performance …plus it was also a lot of fun! http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Big Smile.gifEdited by: jbplock

Bronco,


The truck runs great and I sleep better too. Better mileage (~1 mpg) and a smoother engine were noticed. Also, I was seeing one injector that was hitting the 5-6mm range when I put the lift pump on. After, it settled back down to the 2mm range.http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Clap.gif All of my other injectors continue to be in the 0+/-1 range. I check them every couple thousand miles when I check my pressures for the fuel with and without the pump on. I did loose the mileage gain when I went to 265s. http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Cry.gif Check out some of the other albums and you will see the filters, air traps, and all the other junk that was done to test, retest and confirm all of the hypothesis that were generated.


I also have the button under the hood for filter changes like geno. It's great and should have come on the truck instead of the thumb killer, IMO. http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Geek.gif I put a pump on the dirty side of the Mega to pull fuel through for filter changes and to purge fuel vapor. I reused the switch from that project when I pulled that pump and added the lift.


If you decide it's something you want to consider, check out Bill's stuff as he has done a really nice job with parts list, schematics, etc.


Thanks for posting the links and the data Bill.

Pretty plain and simple here folks, if the factory fuel filter can't stop the small stuff, then why does it plug up at low miles?


The factory filter does exactly what it is supposed to do...it filters the fuel and does a very good job at it.


Those that complain about the OEM plugging too fast and costing sooooo much money to replace it every 10,000 miles, yet then they add a $150-$250 pre filter set up......THEN they end up changing TWO filters every 15,000 miles!?!?!?!?!?


Yeah, that realy saved you some money, didn't it? http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Disapprove.gif


This all boils down to a big old heap of bull sh1t that the aftermarket world is feeding to the people who are willing to swallow!

Hello,


I like the idea of the underhood primer. To aid the factory primer I squirted oil around the aluminum push button. It does help the fingers. I am definately going to install a lift set up.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="98%" align=center bgColor=#999999>
<T>
<TR>
< name=frmPoll =poll_cast_vote.asp method=post>
<TD>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" bgColor=#ffffff>
<T>
<TR>
<TD bgColor=#ffffff>
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=4 width="100%" bgColor=#ffffff>
<T>
<TR>
<TD class=ting background=forum_images/table_bg_image.gif bgColor=#cccccc colSpan=4>Poll Question: Have you had injector issues?</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD class=tiing noWrap width="47%" background="" bgColor=#e8e8e8>Poll Choice</TD>
<TD class=tiing noWrap align=middle width="6%" background="" bgColor=#e8e8e8>Votes</TD>
<TD class=tiing width="47%" background="" bgColor=#e8e8e8>Poll Statistics</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD class=text background="" bgColor=#f8f7ef><LABEL for=P301>No secondary filter / No injector issue.</LABEL></TD>
<TD class=text align=middle background="" bgColor=#f8f7ef>185</TD>
<TD class=smText noWrap background="" bgColor=#f8f7ef>http://dieselplace.com/forum/forum_images/bar_graph_image.gif [60.86%]</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD class=text background="" bgColor=#fefefc><LABEL for=P302>No secondary filter / Injector Issues.</LABEL></TD>
<TD class=text align=middle background="" bgColor=#fefefc>16</TD>
<TD class=smText noWrap background="" bgColor=#fefefc>http://dieselplace.com/forum/forum_images/bar_graph_image.gif [5.26%]</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD class=text background="" bgColor=#f8f7ef><LABEL for=P303>Secondary filter / No injector issue.</LABEL></TD>
<TD class=text align=middle background="" bgColor=#f8f7ef>100</TD>
<TD class=smText noWrap background="" bgColor=#f8f7ef>http://dieselplace.com/forum/forum_images/bar_graph_image.gif [32.89%]</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD class=text background="" bgColor=#fefefc><LABEL for=P304>Secondary filter / Injector Issue</LABEL></TD>
<TD class=text align=middle background="" bgColor=#fefefc>3</TD>
<TD class=smText noWrap background="" bgColor=#fefefc>http://dieselplace.com/forum/forum_images/bar_graph_image.gif [0.99%]</TD></TR></T></TABLE></TD></TR></T></TABLE></TD></></TR></T></TABLE>





I'm no expert, but I can do math.


201 trucks have no secondary filter, 16 have had injector problems, in my calculations that's 7.96% with issues.


103 trucks have a secondary filter, 3 have had injector problems, that works out to 2.9% with issues.


The way I figure that's a 63.6% reduction in injector problems. it might not be accurate or scientific but it's enough for me to order a Nicktane filter for my truck.

Mr. 1fatcat, your statement "The factory filter does exactly what it is supposed to do...it filters the fuel and does a very good job at it"


Surely you jest.... A filter which filters slightly more than half the damaging particulates from our fuel system: if you do a half a day's work do you consider that having done a very good job??


Please do some research on what has been taking place over the past year in terms of writing, fuel and filter testing, result validation; there are literally hundreds of posts relating to this subject which you have obviously not read... Nor have you had the wonderful pleasure of writing out a $6,500 check for fuel system repairs...


To come flying into this discussion with unfounded, undocumented acculsations of aftermarket scaming will not be said without some significant rebutals.. The information presented in this forum relating to fuel system life extension has been well, well documented and backed by hundreds of thousands of dollars of research done by componies such as CAT, Cummins, etc. relating to high pressure injector failure and methods to extend life...


You, sir, have some homework to do before you can make statements such as you have...


George Morrison, STLE CLS


and no, I do not sell aftermarket fuel filters nor do I have any affiliation with anyone who does... Or, do YOU work for Racor??? Hmmmm....

Did you fail math or are you younger and a victom of "new" math ? You overlooked the 85% disparity in the voting ! oooops http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Embarrased.gif You also fail to account for what model year the group is representing and more importantly on this forum how many performance mods were present in those vehicles with failures.


Now what many of you guys are saying I am buying and it makes perfect sense. IE You did the lift kit/filters etc because it was fun, you like to work on your trucks and you like knowing you have cleaner fuel whether the results are measurable or not. The only thing I am opposed to is the notion being advertised by some so called experts selling this stuff that if you do not use these modifications you are definately going to have injector failures.

Jbplock ,Chuntang95, Abear,


The AC delco set up looks pretty good. Is there a parts list? What is the price? Do you have any specs. on the lift pump flow/pressure capabillatys? Do you think this would fit before the Nicktane setup?

Did you fail math or are you younger and a victom of "new" math ? You overlooked the 85% disparity in the voting ! oooops http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Embarrased.gif You also fail to account for what model year the group is representing and more importantly on this forum how many performance mods were present in those vehicles with failures.





85% disparity???


Got me on that one, no idea what you're talking about.


I also over looked that most people have put several thousand miles on before adding a second filter. I wonder how much injector damage is done by that time. It makes no difference what year the trucks are, the poll is comparing injector problems with and without secondary filters. If you think engine mods might increase injector problems, I think you'll find most people doing performance mods have also added a second filter, if anything, that means the poll would show more failures for trucks with secondary filters. I have no mods on my truck and really don't want to shell out $1,000.00-$8,000.00, after warranty, if injectors start to fail (an ounce of pervention). I do not sell filters nor do I profit from anyone that does.


victom?? is that a male turkey from Victoriahttp://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Big Smile.gif

Why yes it is ! I did not know their were any other Turkey hunters from Victoria here !http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Big Smile.gif Actually the percentage in disparity works to your advantage http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Cry.gif

Pretty plain and simple here folks, if the factory fuel filter can't stop the small stuff, then why does it plug up at low miles?


Try cutting one open some time and you might have a better understanding. Then again, I have my doubts. The filter media doesn't flow evenly, rather the fluid drips unevenly down one side of the filter media. The surface area of the media isn't being used fully.


The factory filter does exactly what it is supposed to do...it filters the fuel and does a very good job at it.


Right, and your basing that on it what? http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Big Smile.gif


This all boils down to a big old heap of bull sh1t that the aftermarket world is feeding to the people who are willing to swallow!


I have a better conspiracy theory. GM screwed the pooch on the fuel system design, and you're laughing all the way to bank.http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Big Smile.gif

Bronco, My I suggest you wait to see weather you need a lift pump. I don't think the Cat adds much to the suction head. (vacuum) I know the Racor adds very little. Something less than .25 HG I think. All the data (facts) that you need is over on the dieselpage. Later! Frank http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Big Smile.gif

Frank,


I want a lift pump for other reasons than the .25 drop. I am a believer in the theory that fuel under pressure is more stable than fuel under vacum. I am also a believer in the theory that all fuel filters suffer from a condition called suction side. This basically means that only part of the filter is being utilized. I want to insure that both the Cat and Racor are completly full of fuel. I am also preparing for the long term plan of my truck. When warranty comes to an end and I have a new vehicle I will most likely add some serious power adders and go to the track occasionally. A lift pump will address all of my concerns. I understand that they are only theorys and the stock Racor is probally just fine as it sits. I just like to tinker a little bit every now and then.

Those that complain about the OEM plugging too fast and costing sooooo much money to replace it every 10,000 miles, yet then they add a $150-$250 pre filter set up......THEN they end up changing TWO filters every 15,000 miles!?!?!?!?!?


Yeah, that realy saved you some money, didn't it? http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Disapprove.gif


This all boils down to a big old heap of bull sh1t that the aftermarket world is feeding to the people who are willing to swallow!





If your post was directed at my statements then I'd suggest you go back and read what I have said. You wont find me saying that I find that the OEM is 1. expensive for me or most DIY folks or 2. that 10K was too short of an interval. For you I'll clarify, a 5K interval for a 90% efficient 2 micron OEM of the same physical size as our current filter would irritate a lot of folks due to the short change interval and be very expensive for the non-DIY folks out there at 100 + per change. Maybe try reading the thread from the start before showing your wisdom. http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Ermm.gifhttp://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Confused.gif If that's an example of the knowledge and comprehension that you normally show in your postings, then I see why your poll garnered the results that it did, based on the choices given. http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Wacko.gifEdited by: Hound

Bronco, 10-4. I think the term you were looking for was cavitation. This must be avoided at all cost. Later! Frank

Jbplock*,Chuntang95, Abear,


The AC delco set up looks pretty good. Is there a parts list? What is the price? Do you*have any specs. on the lift pump flow/pressure capabillatys?*Do you think this would fit before the Nicktane setup?

Bronco,
I included a parts list ( page 1 (http://community.webshots.com/photo/77018086/78204546Wuvkwf) and Page 2 (http://community.webshots.com/photo/77018086/78204764nfgMjd) ) with my Lift Pump/Pre-filter pics (http://community.webshots.com/album/77018086bLHHHC). There are two AC Delco pumps to consider - the EP158 and EP309. Depending on where you buy them the price can range from less than $100 up to $150. I'm using the EP158 which is a little less expensive than the EP309. Both pumps look identical but have different pressure ratings - not sure if flow is different. I have not found any "official" published specs but if IIRC the EP158 produces about 10-12psi and the EP309 is in the 6-7 psi range. I believe the EP309 has an internal regulator while the EP158 does not. The EP309 is better for those adding a lift pump with out the bypass loop regulator while the EP158 works well in the bypass arrangement. These parts are also the OEM lift pumps on the GM 6.5 with the EP309 being supplied with the later models. The pump has a 3/8 fuel line fitting which seals with an o-ring to a "bump tube". There are two nice features with these pumps - they are relatively quiet and they are a flow though design such that if the pump fails, fuel still flows. I believe the EP158/309 will work fine for most applications but if you are looking to add significantly more power and need a pump to push more fuel, I believe there other "racing" pumps that might be better. However the trade off is increased noise and loss of the flow through feature. As Frank pointed out a lift pump is not a necessity when adding a secondary filter but there are some benefits to a slightly pressurized system as you have pointed out (i.e. fully utilized filter media, elimination of fuel vaporization, easy bleeding etc). I also can't think of any reason the AC pump could not be used with a Nicktane filter. The only other thing to consider is that there is a benefit to having a pre-filter in front of the pump. On the 6.5's lift pump failures are fairly common (my 98 6.5 lost one at about 60kmi) and there has been speculation that adding a filter in front of the pump would help improve longevity (many 6.2.6.5 owners have done this). This is the main reason I added the Stanadyne FM100 pre-filter to my setup. The FM100 head also has two inlet and two outlet fittings which made it easy to plumb the bypass regulator return. The bypassed fuel is also re-filtered. Hope this helps…
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Geek.gif

and no, I do not sell aftermarket fuel filters nor do I have any affiliation with anyone who does...** Or, do YOU work for Racor??? Hmmmm....


*

How many fuel analysis kits has avlube sold since all this fuel filter debate came up?

Anyway, I am not really looking to bicker. I really do want to see data. I have spent quite a bit of time searching the internet for fuel system test data and the only papers I have come up with that have any data relate to lubricity properties of diesel, not particulate matter. I have a multi-million dollar research library just across the street that should have some data on this if any has been published. Just point me in the right direction.

… Just point me in the right direction.

Habanero,

Here is a snip from a post by Alan (OC_Dmax) in the Factory fuel filter, just how bad is it? ( http://dieselplace.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3958&KW=OC%5FDMAX&TPN=1) topic.

<font color="blue">"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"</font>

There was also a study by CAT … Anyone have a link ?

Hope this helps…

Thanks for the reference. The library doesn't have it, but I put in a request through the inter-library loan service. Hopefully they can get it for me.

How many fuel analysis kits has avlube sold since all this fuel filter debate came up?



habanero,


George gave me a free kit to do my testing with when evaluating the OEM. I paid for one to take a reference point at the pump. He actually did that for several people when we were starting to figure this all out. I thought spliting the cost was more than fair.

I think George's prices are more than fair. That should be clear as I have stated I buy products from him. He is entitled to make a living just like the rest of us. With all due respect to George I will be trying Stanadyne DFA in the future. This is due to the hard line stance of DFA by GM and NOT because I do not believe George. In regards to filters if some one makes a better spin on OEM replacement filter I will buy one. As far as multiple filters, lift pumps, fuel tests etc. That is just not for me. I am not worried about replacing a 6k fuel system. If I really was I would buy a extended warranty that would cover my entire drive train for about 1/3 of that price.

Thanks for the reference. The library doesn't have it, but I put in a request through the inter-library loan service. Hopefully they can get it for me.

Habanero,

Here is a link to the SAE.ORG webpage - the papers are downloadable for $12.00

980869 : High-Pressure Injection Fuel System Wear Study (http://www.sae.org/servlets/SiteSearch?charset=iso-8859-1&ht=0&qp=&col=portal&qs=&sae_qt1=&qc=&pw=100%2525&ws=0&la=en&qm=0&st=1&nh=25&lk=1&rf=0&oq=&rq=0&si=1&ql=&jsp_name=simplesearch.jsp&qt=980869&x=5&y=2)

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

If somebody pays for the report then post it here on the site then it would not be plagerism? Just make sure you list the credits.

If somebody pays for the report then post it here on the site then it would not be plagerism? Just make sure you list the credits.

Bronco,

I downloaded the document but I'm not able to post it due the SAE Usage Agreement as follows:

"All SAE papers and standards are copyrighted. Before downloading an SAE document, you must agree to a license that grants you the rights to view and print the document for your personal use from one computer. You may not alter, in part or in whole, any document, nor may you make copies in any format (print or electronic) for distribution to other users or computers."

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

Takes care of that bright idea!

If George Wrote the paper can't he post it ?

Hound and others, you are right, I didn't think about the owners who have it done at the dealers.....let's re-do the math


25 filters @ $100 each (is that enough?) = $2,500 still way below a set of injectors and spread over time vs an unscheduled lumpsum and remember here we are calculating changing an "absolute" 2 micron at 5K if that is necessary, bump it to 10K (if it doesn't plug) and we cut the cost in half.


Someone was questioning the effectiveness of fuel samples taken in the field vs. the lab boys in the white coats working in sterile conditions inside the controlled environment....easy to agree with that, but wouldn't the "field samples" always come up dirtier and worse than the lab boys every time if we follow that logic? Then how come our "field samplers" managed to submit very clean samples getting well below the standard numbers?


If we use the lab logic, then those ultra-clean samples taken in the field still just had to be contaminated and the unsampled fuel being filtered twice, must be far cleaner than the so called contaminated samples and that would mean far purer than our below standard samples. Yee Haw!


Now if you are really that suspicious then you could say all the samples were bogus and and only very clean fuel was submitted or that the aftermarket secondary fuel filter suppliers are in cahoots with George and the mailed samples were thrown away and George used some pure fuel he had laying around for the test to prove we all need secondary filters that he does not even sell by the way. LOL Or maybe George just made up the numbers.....starts to sound a little rediculous doesn't it.


OK all kidding aside what you are saying is the field samples could not match the lab boys for cleanliness, however the samples came out far cleaner (not all of them by the way, there were some errors made in the sample taking process) than the target ISO cleanliness standard.


These tests included before and after samples using OEM only and then again with the secondary. Impact of the secondary to clean up the fuel is above reproach. Whether it solves the injector problems or not remains to be seen, but clean fuel was the first and primary objective (mission accomplished) and all the benefits remain to be realized.


We "think" and it is logical that clean fuel should extend the life of the injectors and pump (all the fuel system components that come in contact with the fuel) and have Cat and other studies that indicate there is extended benefit of cleaning up the fuel.


It is starting to baffle me on why cleaning up the fuel just for the sake of cleaning up the fuel is not well received and understood on it's own merits, never mind claiming it will solve all the injector problems, which it won't if the injectors are inherently defective.


To me it's just a couple of hundered dollars well spent even if all the injector issues suddenly went away tomorrow....I would still want cleaner fuel running throught my trucks veins.


I was going to stop, but for the sake of verbosity.....why is the fuel filter &amp; filtering systems market so huge (forget DMAX),. why do the big rigs and anyone running diesel fleets or standby diesel plants have huge PM programs involving multiple fuel filtering systems, what do they know that we are just learning?


Well for me the cleaner the fuel, the better!!











Edited by: Chevysrus

George M. did not write the paper. It was a study performed on the wear of High Pressure Fuel Systems for diesel engines. In particular it used a Cummins N14 engine with a CELECT injection system. The study measured wear on fuel injectors by running different levels of contaminants in the fuel. From this, they were able to develop a series of wear curves to define wear rates of various cuts of test dust. It also determined that the critical particle size is 6 to 7 micron. The study had industry participation from the following companies:


Allied Signal


Catepillar


Cummins


Davco


Donaldson


Fleetguard


Kaydon Custom Filtration


Pall


United Defense


The research and testing was performed by Southwest Research Institute.


I obtained a copy of the document about a year ago when the whole fuel filtration issues started on the Diesel Page. I too had some doubts about what was being presented on the internet, ie. is this a sales job OR was it the truth. But what I found was that the 15/13/10 ISO Standard being preached by George M was indeed backed up by actual research and test data. I suspect that I am one a just a few people on these forums who actually took the time to search for and read some actual research papers. I subsequently purchased a kit from Greg Landuyt, made some modifications to it, installed it on my truck and then tested it. It amazes me with all the people here who spend time pounding insults on the keyboard and posting to these forums,,,,,, a little basic research first is more appropriate. Then ask some intelligent questions. At that point, make your own minds up. I have made mine up, I have a supplemental filter that I know for a fact will extend the average life of the injectors on my truck by many miles.


Edited by: OC_DMAX

Ditto Chevyrus and Alan. Later! Frank http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Clap.gif

... But what I found was that the 15/13/10 ISO Standard being preached by George M was indeed backed up by actual research and test data.... I have a supplemental filter that I know for a fact will extend the average life of the injectors on my truck by many miles.





It is starting to baffle me on why cleaning up the fuel just for the sake of cleaning up the fuel is not well received and understood on it's own merits, never mind claiming it will solve all*the injector problems, which it won't if the injectors are inherently defective. To me it's just a couple of hundered dollars well spent even if all the injector issues suddenly went away tomorrow....I would still want cleaner fuel running throught my trucks veins.... why is the fuel filter & filtering systems*market so huge (forget DMAX),. why do the big rigs and anyone running diesel fleets or standby diesel plants have huge PM programs involving multiple*fuel filtering systems, what do they know that we are just learning?
Well for me the cleaner the fuel, the better!!

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

In regards to the "sales pitch or TRUTH " statement their is a bit of sand bagging going on here by some of the vendors. Claims that you WILL have injector failures if you do not use secondary filteration are simply FALSE ! Cleaning up the fuel for the sake of cleaning up the fuel and any residual long term benefits seems to be a sound choice. I can not do this myself so the question I face is this : Are those residual benefits worth driving several hundred miles to a competent mechanic to get this done ? At what expense to benefit ratio ? One way people learn things is buy asking and talking on theese forums. Sometimes it is difficult to wade through this stuff if not impossible. This is the first strand I have seen about this paper or any documentation And it is certainly a positive note on a topic that seems to be widely supported by opinions and sales. So while it may have seemed a common sense approach to some to locate such documentation and research it, It is also important to note that not everyone has access or is aware of how to get theese reports with out coming here. Further insults are as uselees as the initial ones http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Embarrased.gif Edited by: BlueMaxxxx

This is the first strand I have seen about this paper or any documentation


I have posted about this document on several occasions (here and on the Diesel Page). It is the document most readily available for everyone to get access too. Both Bill (jbplock) and I have maintained references to it in the Excel spreadsheet on Fuel Analysis results that we maintain for everyones use. The information is there, just requires a little digging.





Claims that you WILL have injector failures if you do not use secondary filteration are simply FALSE


Fact of the matter is the injectors will fail!!! (eventually and independent of any supplemental filtration). It is just a question of when. Most of us would like it to be at 200K miles instead of 100K milese. There certainly are more than one mode of failure for the injectors; they are electro-mechanical devices. For the ones that are failing with 30K miles on them, it is unlikely that supplemental filtering would have made a difference (most likely something else went wrong -- and of course this is just my opinion with absolutely no factual information to back it up). I have read several studies on the topic of wear on high pressure fuel systems and contaminant levels. The wear on these components is integrated over a long period of time. What you are buying with added filtration is essentially more time before failure. To see maximum benefit from the supplemental filters, it is my opinion that you would need to keep the vehicle for a long period of time. Only you can determine if that is of benefit too you.


If you are looking for a cost to benefit ratio (which is actually a good question), then you have to ask yourself how long do you plan on keeping the truck and what do you do with it? Only you can answer these questions. Each of us is different. Example, if you do NOT plan on keeping the truck beyond the 5yr/100k mile engine warranty and use it just for daily commuting, then why bother? There is very minimal cost benefit. GM is on the hook to fix it for you. On the other hand, if you use the vehicle for business, hauling loads over many states and if the vehicle leaves you stranded because of early injector failure, now you can attach a dollar value to minimizing those types of failures. There are probably a hundred other scenarios one can come up with.

Hello all,


Although I have not added secondary filtration yet, My decision has been made to do it for quite some time. I have not been logging very many miles at all so I have been using my time to shop for the correct system for me. The sooner you agree with additional filtering the sooner you can start shopping. Other than injector relateed issues there are other parts of your engine that benifit from clean fuel and clean oil. Basically all moving parts will benifit. After reading all of the post on injector failure vs. filters I am convinced of one thing. There are multiple causes of injector failure! I believe dirty fuel over the long run will cause accelerated wear and tear on your injectors. I am attempting to sort through the post and offer othere theorys as to why injectors fail. The pattern and events that surround injector failures is baffling. If we could all move past the filter thing maybe we would realize another cause. XYZ fuel station? GM ECM? Onstar(haha) Highly conductive oil? Magnetized fuel? Maufacturing flaws that can be corolated to a certain batch/date? I wish the thinkers of this site would move forward and look to the future. There has to be more than meets the eye! I bet if the truth be told it is something that either GM or Isusu could be held legally accountable for. It could save us all alot of money. We just have to put the facts together and prove it. I have already started saving my money for a new set of injectors. I would sure rather spend it on the next super bad wombat transmission!http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Big Smile.gif

I have spent a lot of time the last couple days looking for papers on injector wear testing (probably more time than I should be spending at work). I have talked to the interlibrary loan people and they are supposed to be getting me the famous SAE paper listed above, but I have not seen it yet. The most relevent articles I have read so far have all been published by Fleetguard and they have mostly been aimed at knocking other filter manufacturers (Cat and Baldwin primarily). These papers still show very little hard data on actual results. While searching for data on wear tests, I have found many papers about the effect of lower sulfur (i.e. lower lubricity) fuel on injector wear. From the shear volume of research, it seems like that may be a larger problem than particulates. The fact is, I don't know. I just want to see real, independently-proven data.

Habanero,


Spicy food lover?


Don't let any one ever tell you there is no money in the additive/filter buisness. If any one company could gain a 50% share, they would be laughing all the way to the bank.

Habanero,


The SAE publication will provide you with plenty of test data that shows a correlation between the cleanliness of fuel vs injector life.


Also,,,


http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/gasoline/meeting/2003/022003bosch.pdf


Just FYI (in case you missed it in some other posts) at the following link is a presentation by Bosch. In particular read slide 23, where one conclusion by Bosch is "All high pressure fuel lubricated injection systems are exceedingly lubricity sensitive and require clean fuel (no free water or contamination)"

No free water or no water ?

No free water or no water ?


No FREE water. Free water is the absolute destroyer of the common rail system. That's why I refuse to run a demulsifying additive to CREATE FREE WATER in my system and hope that the "aquablock" media in the filter will stop it!http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Confused.gif

Speaking of INJECTOR FAILURE. The truck listed in my signature is actually my second DMAX. The first was identical to the one I have now (Including color and MSRP). Anyway, I drove the first one for 12 miles, yes, 12 miles before the crankcase was full of diesel. I had it towed back to the dealership by a F##D towtruckhttp://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Cry.gif. According to the service guys one of the injectors had failed and filled the crankcase with the fuel. He said since diesel is a lubricant they will fix the problem and have the truck ready. I said, YEA RIGHT, and marched over to my salesman and demanded a new truck. He was great and we went out to the back lot and I found the identical truck and approximately an hout later I was on my way.


So was this a filtration problem or an injector problem?

Without a fuel sample no one will ever know.http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Cry.gif

It was free water problem because none of the engineers at GM or Chrysler know what they are talking about http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Wacko.gif

So was this a filtration problem or an injector problem?


A guess? A defective injector. There may have also been some contamination introduced into the Fuel Injection system during assembly of the engine. I seriously doubt you would have avoided the problem by have a supplemental filter installed prior to leaving the lot.


Glad the dealership took care of you. Which one was it in SoCal if you don't mind me asking? Bought mine from Guarantee Chevrolet in Santa Ana.


Edited by: OC_DMAX

Thanks for the link OC, that was a pretty good presentation. Is the EN590 the current EU spec? If so, why is the particulate spec set so high compared to US fuel? Then the next dumb question: if their spec for pm is that much higher, and they have had common rail injection systems in use for longer than the US, is their on-car filtration systems that much better? Anybody know specs on the VW fuel filter or who it is made by?

OC_DMAX,


The dealership was Connell Chevrolet (Harbor/Adams, Costa Mesa). I have nothing but good things to say about Connell. My salesman Steve was great. Including myself I have sent 10 people to see him, all of which bought trucks (4 DMAX).

Thanks for the link OC, that was a pretty good presentation. Is the EN590 the current EU spec? If so, why is the particulate spec set so high compared to US fuel? Then the next dumb question: if their spec for pm is that much higher, and they have had common rail injection systems in use for longer than the US, is their on-car filtration systems that much better? Anybody know specs on the VW fuel filter or who it is made by?

I don't know the answers to your VW questions, but you might find some of the answers here http://www.tdiclub.com/
I think you have to join to be able to post, but there is little/no spam as a result. BTW, we talk about reliability in terms of MILES here, I'm not going to suggest you think in terms of kilometers, but you might want to think in terms of "fuel used" instead of "distance travelled" when comparing VW reliability and wear to DMax. We're probably burning 3 or 4 times the amount of fuel for the same distance traveled.

Here is the thing I find mildly amusing about this. Lets asume we could get perfectly clean pure diesel. Where does the fuel go ? The combustion chamber. What else is in the combustion chamber ? Soot, Ash, oil, blowby with dirt, Air. Of course the air is perfectly clean as well and you also need to add a triple Bi pass oil filter system http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Disapprove.gif I can not help but wonder how many swiss cheese air boxes have had injector failures. The same is true of DFA. Some stations here run Primrose and Meijers uses Schaeffer's. Now it's no big suprise that most fuel stations seem to emulsify. After all they sure don't want that water in their tanks. So does it matter whether YOU emulsify or De emulsify ? Or is a greater factor that the fuel you purchase has already been treated and the you are adding more additives http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Geek.gif I also think we need to add the engineers at Allied Signal, Bosch and Racor to the "don't know squat" list http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Clown.gif

It is my understanding that underground storage tanks should never be emulsified. The reason is simple. Underground storage tanks have the pickup located a few inches off of the bottom of the tank. The bottom of the tank is where all of the water and grime are suppose to settle. The water is to be removed by dropping a water absorbent sponge down to the bottom of the tank. You leave it in the tank for a couple of days and then you pull the rope back up. No more water! Just imagine if a tank had a hole in it or alot of condensation. Add emulcification. Pull out all of the bottom water. You would be putting more water in your dmax fuel tank then you knew what to do with. Then if you turned around and put a demulsifying agent in your dmax fuel tank. Talk about free water. I think we should all be out lobbying for more rigid diesel fuel manufacturing,storage and dispensing standards. This is the only way to end the contreversy! Edited by: Bronco

Bluemaxx....did not mean to hurl insults and hope you did not take it that way (but I guess you did). I have to remember that just because I have been on both boards for 2+ years and have read / learned all the "early" trial and error stuff, that not everyone has...... I have to keep telling myself "Patience Grasshopper" LOL


On the other hand I don't see any vendors here hawking or pushing anyone to buy a secondary filter or pushing additives. The questions come in and are answered by members who use one product or the other. At times we get input from our "experts" on what they would recommend especially to the question of emulsifying or demulsifying.


George's experience says emulsify and Primrose is better, but I don't see that as hawking or pushing us to buy his product. I am sure if there was something that worked better in his experience he would be stocking it and making it available for those who want to try it.


Likewise Kennedy drops in with a post now and then about what his experiences have been with different products. I don't think anyone in business wants to sell a defective product (well maybe the tobacco guys might qualify for this one) and they want to sell a lot of product obviously, so they sell what works best in their experience.


This is Nicks site and I have not sen him hardly at all posting anything about "ya gotta have a Nictane". The info is there is you want to read it, but there is no constant push or pressure to buy anything coming from the vendors.


Most of the reccomendations for one product or the other comes from the individual members based on what they prefer or have had a good experience with. I don't think anyone has made FALSE claims or has used any scare tactics to push people to their products.


There is an issue with the OEM getting the right amount of particles out of the dirty fuel, the particles that are getting by can cause pre-mature wear....those are the facts. The solutions are very limited (a better OEM does not exist yet) and involve secondary filters if one is inclined to want to do it. The development of secondary fuel filters has been on the market for decades. Getting one to work with the 3-4 year old DMAX model has been difficult until some of the members/vendors stepped up to the plate and made one to fit our trucks. Again all of the above are facts.


Whether anyone needs one or not is an individual decision based on the facts presented to date. If anyone needs more convincing, then so be it and they can wait until additional studies are forthcoming (when?). But how much wear is going on while they wait?


Anyway, there should be no doubt left that secondary filtering is a good thing and helps clean up the fuel and slowing down the abrasive wear that goes on in the fuel system. But who should care about it?


As OC DMAX said if you are not planning to keep the truck over 100K then you may not want to invest in the secondary filtering systems. I would suspect that eventually once the issues with the injectors are identified any truck for sale that has a secondary filter will bring a better price than one that does not.


That should stir up a bigger discussion, after all the re-sale value of these trucks will be severly damaged if it turns out the problem is real and not isolated. If I was looking for a used DMAX I would be more inclined to grab one that has a secondary filter than one that did not just based on what I know today.

Yes now that I agree with with one exception. Go to JK's web site and it certainly seems he is saying any one who does not use secondary filteration is going to have injector failure. I think that is simply false. As far as the rest of the vendors I agree with you completely, even to the extent that if I had a local option of having the niktane installed I would. http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Big Smile.gif Regrettably my options seem to be systems with Lift pumps or Racor. Not quite sold on that yet but My new truck is still at very low mileage and I change my stance the more I take in. In regards to DFA I think it's rather difficult to say either side is totally right or wrong in the real world especially considering that most Diesel in my area is already treated from the pump. I do not believe I said that George or nick Hawk or push their products. I have been running FPPF and now I am running Primrose from George. I intend to try Stanadyne next and try it myself. This is what I find works best for me. Trying to take it all in then decide what I think is best for me. In either event I hope every one is as pleased with their truck as I have been with the two I have had.

Max, I'm sure someone in Mich would be willing to help you install one. If you were close to me I'd give you a hand with the install.

So I went and looked at the data again for the oem filter - posted here...


http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO/OC_Dmax.pdf


When I look at this I see only two out of the twelve "testers" actually have measurements for the oem filter efficiency. George Kennedy and "Mdrag" have numbers which vary greatly. Mdrag's fuel looks like his pump fuel cleanliness is on the same order of magnitude as others and Kennedy's fuel was abnormally clean to start out with (I believe he has his own storage tank with filtration coming out of the tank). So, for a "real world" situation with real pump fuel - one would throw out Kennedy's numbers, leaving one data point.


So am I right in looking at the numbers here - two data points on oem filter efficiency with drastically different numbers? Am I missing something here??? Is this "the data" that has been used to come to the conclusion that the oem filtration is "woefully inadequate"???


So add in a little error analysis on the one possibly valid data point and where are we? The fuel samples were taken at the return lines, right? If this is the case, add in some particulate formation due to fuel heating (from fuel cooling the injectors) and where are we? Add in a little error for shaking stuff loose in the fuel lines while taking samples and where are we? And add in a little error by the lab and where are we?


jeffEdited by: dmax lover

One more thing...


If you look at Mdrag's numbers and calculate the efficiency for the OEM filter (particulate removal) - you end up with...


At 2 micron -&gt; 16% efficiency.


At 5 micron -&gt; 43% efficiency


At 10 micron -&gt; 94% efficiency


You need more than one data point to give numbers like this any credence. Frankly, I don't think the numbers above are plausible.


jeff

Am I missing something here???


Yes…


Jeff with all due respect, I would suggest that you read ALL the fuel filter posts both here and at The Diesel Page forum and then draw your conclusions. Many smart, experienced, &amp; educated people have been working on this issue for well over a year and many of them have concluded that adding secondary filtration is beneficial to the duramax.. If you are looking for justification NOT to add a secondary filter, just ask your dealer or contact GM directly. They will most likely tell you that that the OEM filter is adequate.


On the other hand, if you truly want to understand how some of us have reached these conclusions I would suggest a more non confrontational tone to your posts.

The fuel samples were taken at the return lines, right?
NO.
Most samples were taken from the schrader valve test port near the alternator or from the output of the added filter. This is the setup I used… Fuel Test ( http://community.webshots.com/album/83846161wSIlBH)
There have also been some excellent posts on fuel sampling techniques by A-bear (Tommy) and OC_Dmax (Alan). Alan had his sample bottle analytically cleaned prior to his test.
There are many informative posts out there … it just takes time to wade through them.
Bottom line …let’s all enjoy our Duramax Trucks! They are Awesome!!http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Big Smile.gif

Man, I'll tell you what - I've been trying to avoid confrontation on this issue. I've resisted getting involved in a non-productive and unresolvable peeing contest, but it's just too much. Jeff, you are an educated man and welcome to your personal opinions and analysis - heck! that's what most of us try to do. You ARE, however, VERY negative and confrontational in almost all of your posts. This borders on "Trollism" and I'm no longer going to waste my time trying to read and reason through them. This issue has been going on for a very long time and researched and analyzed by a lot of very capable, generous and well-trusted people. You have come into the issue very late with a very strong and liberally expounded negative attitude backed up by limited and misconstrued information. I too am an engineer, you do not do the profession much honor. Seeya - I'm out of this.http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Geek.gif Edited by: Idle_Chatter

Thanks for the correction on where the "test port" was. And, I don't question that adding secondary filtration is beneficial for the truck; Cleaner is better and all the data shows positive results. I have actually received the new racor kit (the new one that is developed by Racor) and will be running the 10 micron filter that comes with this kit. I am waiting for the filter rock guard to come in - expected at the end of next week - at that point Oregon Fuel Injection, who I purchased the kit from, will do the install for me...


I do question and do confront the lack of data that I see in coming to the conclusion that the OEM filtration on the truck is "junk" and is the primary cause for injector failures. Those that have come to the conclusion that it is, to me, seem too personally invested in their work to be objective.


Idle_chatter -


I am confrontational for a reason - I had a woman contact me who read everything on this board and was terrified that her first diesel purchase, a duramax, was a colossal mistake. She said she was really enjoying it until she found this site....


As an engineer, do you think the analysis and conclusions here concerning the effectiveness of the OEM fuel filter would withstand scrutiny from a professional organization or a governmental agency? Only one data point with "pump fuel" where the results look suspect? Mdrag measurements indicate a filter efficiency of 16% at 2 micron - does this sound plausible to you? Sorry, but without more data and professional and independent analysis - it sounds suspect to me.


Unless we step up and pay Southwest Research Institute to perform an independent analysis on the oem fuel filter using standard test methods, its all just talk that doesn't have any weight. (and that includes everything that I have said too). Look here..


http://www.swri.edu/3pubs/brochure/d03/filtra/home.htm


If we did pool our money together and have this done - and it showed similar results to what has been initially found here - it would have weight - alot of weight. Enough weight to potentially impress the EPA and CARB to tell GM to fix it; If it truly "sucks" as bad as Mdrags numbers indicate (which is possible) - it easy to envision the EPA stepping on GMs toes and getting either a retrofit to the existing oem fuel filter setup or additional primary filtration installed at GM's expense.


Anybody interested?


jeff Edited by: dmax lover

dmax lover and others,


A little history here for those that have not followed this topic for the last year and a half;


With respect to the number of people who have performed before and after measurements on the OEM filter; there were actually a number of people who made some original measurements in the October, 2002 timeframe. They are not recorded on the spreadsheet. I remember that George M of AVLUBE was offering the fuel analysis kits for half price to get a number of measurements done. Maybe this was his cost (I don't know). Anyway, a number of people stepped forward and spent some of their money and took some measurements. In each case, none of the results for the OEM approached the 15/13/10 ISO Cleanliness code that was being proposed as a goal. (And by the way, that is when I began researching why 15/13/10 was being proposed; I wanted at least one independent source. The SAE/SWR paper supports fuel cleanliness near 15/13/10). Unfortunately, I did not record those early results in the spreadsheet. I did not start to record the data until people started appearing with supplemental filter solutions. The whole purpose of the spreadsheet was to try and document FOR EVERYONE on these forums the end result of each of the available supplemental filters (CAT, Baldwin and Racor). Otherwise, information tends to get scattered and lost overtime. (Bill -Jbplock and myself started the documentation project) For a fact there are a number of others who originally tested just the OEM filter by itself. Maybe if George M can come up with the results (assuming they were kept), we could update the spreadsheet with them.


So step back for a minute, put emotions aside and look at the data one more time. There are four cases where we have input/output data recorded. Three of them, Kennedy, Mdrag, and Ndamico (Diesel Power) have two filters in-line (GregL was a standalone test on the Racor supplemental). In these cases, it took two filters to get below the 15/13/10 target. The OEM is not capable of approaching this level on it's own. Another "what-if" exercise and a different way to look at the data is as follows; take the cases of the people who did not measure the input (or pump fuel), but took a sample at the output (that includes myself). Assume for a minute that each of the two filters inline has equal filtering capability. Next try to determine an average ISO Code for the pump fuel (input fuel). There are four cases to get an average from. So what result would you get with just the OEM for all the others listed in the spreadsheet? (Its probably short of the goal)


The bottom line is this, the cleaner the fuel the longer the injectors will last in the long term. &

Hello all,


I will restate my OPINION of the situation. Fuel in the storage tanks contains many particles larger than 15uc. The stock Racor does an excelent job of filtering these 15uc and larger particles. 99.9% effeciency at removing particles larger than 15uc. Resulting in rather clean fuel. However the industry is moving or evolving to a higher standard. I see 2uc filtration becoming the industry standard for all diesel engines in the near future. At this point it is a personal choice to give your Dmax a little extra protection.Edited by: Bronco

Thanks Alan. I will follow your lead and take the dogs out for a play - just got another irish wolfhound pup - five months old and about 75 pounds. The cute little guy tries to chew my arm off if he doesn't get his ya-yas out at the dog park...


FYI - For those who want to look at "racor"'s posts on the diesel page - you can search by user number -&gt; his user number is 9602...


For anyone I may have offended, I apologize. I am attacking numbers, claims - it is not my intent to attack an individual in the process. Sorry if I am boring in too hard...


thanks,


jeff


Edited by: dmax lover

dmax lover,


I know this thread was not my thread as I was merely just throwing in ideas at random times. I was never offended by your comments. I have followed your work in the filter/additive area and found it to be refreshing. You are taking an unbiased approach to this entire subject. Like myself, I assume you do not want to needlessly throw cash around. Although you are generally rehashing research that has been previously discussed there is no telling when a new detail may be discovered! Even if it is just a subtle detail. It is the same reason I rehash many topics. Besides, I am sick of talking about the weather and who all is taking their clothing off in front of a national television audience. Truck talk is good.Edited by: Bronco

I took my sample at one of the discharge ports on my secondary filter. Posting that you are an engineer by itself doesn't impress me unless you are a ME with experience with hydraulics. There are a lot of engineers on this forum and over on the diesel page. They are not all MEs but some have earned my respect. I am a recently retired Maintenance Foreman/Millwright and I worked with engineers on almost a daily basis. A lot of people here think that 23K is something new for a hydraulic system. My son is a ME that has been designing and installing 36K water cutting robots that wash out the rubber in Space Shuttle segments. I will give you a few facts to chew on and then you can come back and tell me why we don't need another filter. To start with the water is filtered through a 5 micron. It then goes to a recirculating system with a 1 micron filter. From there it goes through another 1 micron filter. All this before it even gets to the inlet side of the pump. They have had some problems in the past with the 1 micron filters. He said almost immediately it washed out the valves in the pump. Now for the best part. The nozzles are made out off rubies. (precious stones) No one makes a steel nozzle that will hold up to this pressure. There are a lot of high pressure systems out there that cut steel. They introduce various particles into the water to get the wanted results. Now we are not running 36K on our system but I am sure most of you can see the similarities. If you really want some food for thought, neither my son or I think these systems will go much over 100K even with two filters. I am not talking about system failure. But I can guarantee you the the pump will have some wear and the injector nozzles will be washed out. I think we will just notice a decrease in performance. I hope down the road we will be able to install a set of rebuilt injectors for a reasonable cost. If this isn't available by the 100K mark, I will be buying a new truck. How is that for dome and gloom? Please don't read any insults into this post because there aren't any. Later! Frank Edited by: Frank Blum

Not to be adversarial but we are not driving space shuttles. Does any one really think that with two, three or even four fuel filters their will be zero injector wear at 100k miles ? Even if we could purify fuel to that extent it would all be wasted unless we ran our trucks in a vacum of pure air and pure oil. Even then their would be measureable wear, as their should be at 100k. As far as the notion that the fuel injectors are not even going to last 100k with or with out extra filteration RUBBISH ! That is the very same wild kind of claim JK makes on his web site. In fact that site states that with out extra filteration the injectors will CERTAINLY fail. Of course the pump and injectors will have wear at 100k http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Wacko.gif Of course performance will be diminished at 100k Vs new. http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Pinch.gif Did any one expect to drive 100k and have no wear ? I sure didn't, don't and never will. Edited by: BlueMaxxxx

Like I said: Now we are not running 36K on our system but I am sure most of you can see the similarities. I never doubted for a minute who wouldn't get anything out of my post. Later! Frank

I was one who had fuel tested in October, 2002. We tested from the station pump, from the tank unfiltered, and from the return. All samples were collected in sterile containers. The one from the tank was contaminated for some reason, the others were good. The results were similar to what we have seen in the spreadsheet, except that the fuel I buy was in the top 1% of all samples for cleanliness, cetane and lack of moisture. George picked up the tab on everything but the shipping. I will try to find the results, the hard drive on the computer that had them having decided that it was FULL.


Based on what I saw in the results, and the fact that I buy fuel all over the country, I installed a pre OEM Racor with a 2u filter - bass ackwards, but better that what the truck came with. Do I think that this will prevent injector failure - h**l no! I do think that it will prolong the life of the system to some reasonable level.


When I worked on Mercedes-Benz diesels, we usually had to rebuild injectors around 125k - depended a bunch on the type of driving. We did them in house - new nozzles, set the breaking pressures, etc. Took about 3 hours on a 4 cyl. So, why should we not expect similar results with what we have - go to 125k? Problem is that instead of costing a couple hundred, it costs many thousands.


Right now, we have no real idea what causes injector failure - probably several different things. I prefer, for reliability reasons, to try to prevent problems in those areas where I can exercise some control. And, even if the test proceedures won't stand up to scientific scrutiny, the results obtained are good enough for me.

Not to be adversarial, but I understand what you're saying Frank! http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Big Smile.gif Edited by: Ray403Dmax

If Frank knows as much as he thinks and I believe him then why would I bother with the expense of a extra filter ? In fact why bother with DFA or any thing but the cheapest fuel. You are making a better case against extra filteration than for. With a 100k warrenty who cares if it dies before then ? In fact the best case scenario would be that they all die at 90k. Why the heck spend money to make them last just outside of warranty http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Ermm.gif This is my second max with zero problems. As of now I am just done worrying about it. If you are that convinced that your injectors are going to fail the cost of a fuel system is totally moot when you can buy a extended warrenty for a few k. Time to drive and enjoy the truck http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Big Smile.gif

As far as the notion that the fuel injectors are not even going to last 100k with or with out extra filteration RUBBISH ! That is the very same wild kind of claim JK makes on his web site. In fact that site states that with out extra filteration the injectors will CERTAINLY fail.


BlueMaxxxx - Why don't you take your case to Kennedy? He visits this site most days. If you don't want to do this, maybe you can get the "Lone Ranger" to take up your cause.http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/HiHi.gifEdited by: OC_DMAX

With those cute little white tights I thought you were the Lone Ranger http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/HiHi.gif You guys kill me really. Their are claims to be ME's and "experts" but your reasoning now suggests it would be foolish to use additional filteration. Yeah, my truck is going to be dead by 100k ok yeah right, yup uh huh I am starting to think some of you guys bought your expert degrees off a pop up http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Ouch.gif Geez I guess its a good thing I sold the last one just before it died ROTFLMAO Edited by: BlueMaxxxx

Well, you've gone total Troll now Bluemaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx add some more "x's" to your name and just xxxx-off. I will waste no more time on you or your posts. I suggest everyone quit feeding the Troll and let him fade away.http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Evil Smile.gif

BlueMaxxxx,


Are you trying to convince yourself or the rest of us? Per GM's own news release, DMax injectors have a 100,000 mile "service." Check your owner's manual, as I've never found any such information in mine.


The Dmax injector game is only beginning to be understood by diesel experts, Dmax owners and the general. Yep, unfortunately in that order.

Right o. If I don't run along like a sheep sniffen the experts exhaust pipe I am a troll http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Confused.gif I am not trying to convince any one of any thing. You paid for your truck and I paid for mine. The thing I find to be a eye opener is those that claim to be so knowledgeable and then contradict themselves. I really think this comes down to a issue of what you feel is common sense. Their are apprently no definative tests or papers etc that have been aluded to on this strand that prove much of anything. If I can get one of nick's kits installed here as he suggested I might be able to that is probably what I will do. Do I think it is going to save my truck ? I doubt it considering that I drive so much off road in dusty conditions. Now if I can just figure out where to get those ruby tipped injectors and a lone ranger mask http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Wink.gif


Hi Ho Silver Birch Max http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Big Smile.gif

Guess Bluemaxxx didn't catch the "Lone Ranger" joke.http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Disapprove.gif

BlueMaxxxx


I notice you are using synthetic oil in your engine and tranny, are you doing this because you like to spend more money on fluids??? Or are you trying to extend their lives? No matter what you do, every thing in your truck is going to wear out, including the injectors, we just try to maintain our vehicles so they last as long as possible with spending as little as possible for repairs. There is no more evidence that using TranSynd in a tranny will make it last longer than using a secondary fuel filter will extend the life of the injectors. It's just spending a little money now to save big dollars down the road.

Like I said: Now we are not running 36K on our system but I am sure most of you can see the similarities. I never doubted for a minute who wouldn't get anything out of my post. Later! Frank


Frank, Agree there are definitely similarities, but don't think so in the area we are most concerned about which is the catastrophic results associated with an injector sticking (not leaking). The high pressure water system you reference is probably not a system that has a high speed valve that operates at up to 1600 cycles / minute which is what our Duramax injectors do, right? From what I have read, the injector valve failure is the root of most failures reported, not tip errosion. While I sure don't like the idea of spending $5000 for new injectors at 100,000 miles as part of routine maintenance for continued good performance because of nozzle errosion, (the price of a replacement gas engine installed), at least it's still driveable. It's the sticking injector scenerio that concerns me (us I think) the most, dead on the side of the road. Not disagreeing that extra filtration is important, I think that it is (installing my Nicktane this weekend), just a comment about the analogy. Edited by: srode

From what I have read, the injector valve failure is the root of most failures reported, not tip errosion.


I've never understood all root causes of Dmax injector failure to be known, let alone the most frequent cause of injector failure. For now, the public is in the dark as GM is keeping this information tight to the vest. I suppose a class action lawsuit would change all of this.

srode,


Interesting comments about the injector valve failures. As a side note, the SAE/SWR test measured exactly what you mention as a function of contaminant levels. (The test did not measure tip corrosion.) Over time, the amount of force to open the injector was measured. When this force reached a level deemed to be unacceptable for proper injector operation, the test was stopped. The force required to operate the injector was measure over the test run and plotted. This exercise was repeated for many different contaminant levels. This test was run on a Cummins CELECT injector, which is not exactly same as ours.


Our injector is an electro-mechanical device with many modes of possible failure. Contaminant levels in the diesel fuel can affect the ability of the valve to operate over a period of time. There are most likely other factors that can affect the valves operation also. I think we will never know the real cause of these failures unless someone was to take apart a failed injector and use a very high powered microscope to examine the parts to determine where the excessive wear occured. Until someone figures it out, I will just minimize two variables in the equation by keeping my fuel as clean as possible and the lubricity as high as possible.


Later,


Alan

Well i am new here and have been reading this post in particular with much interest.


From my perspective--which is that of a new owner trying to understand all the history/information that has been presented--I do not feel that anyone is making claims of failures without extra fuel filtering. People can and do make statements of what they think will occur--but one needs to use common sense.


For me--I feel extra fuel filtration is needed--to deal with the wear that integrates over time from dirty fuel. It will not guarantee trouble free injector performance since there appears to be different failure modes.


I will say this--I do appreciate all the work others have done and who have shared it with everyone.


We are all adults and can read the results and draw our own conclusions.


Btw: Alan--do you work for Raytheon in El Segundo, CA? I use too, but now work for a startup out of Raytheon--at Mariposa and Continental in El Segundo.


Ron

From what I have read, the injector valve failure is the root of most failures reported, not tip errosion.


I've never understood all root causes of Dmax injector failure to be known, let alone the most frequent cause of injector failure. For now, the public is in the dark as GM is keeping this information tight to the vest. I suppose a class action lawsuit would change all of this.








I wasn't clear, thought your point was that tip errosion was a big issue, which I don't think it is for most of us as that wouldn't fill a crankcase full of fuel but would instead screw up performance. Sticking valves, which would also be caused by a number of things including contamination, is what fills crank cases with fuel which seems to be the most common secondary symptom of the failures. I don't know what else could fill a crankcase other than a sticking valve?

RonJT


Yes, I work at the El Segundo south (old EO) facility at Nash and El Segundo Blvd. I know of at least one other on this forum that works at the same facility and another forum member works up at the Boeing Space and Com facility off of Imperial/Nash. So there are a few of us floating around here.

Alan, I tried to borrow an injector that stuck open but my dealer had to send it back for warranty credit. I have repaired a lot of sticking hydraulic valves by simply cleaning. All the parts of the injector valve and nozzle see the same pressure.


Srode, The water system I referenced actually uses several multi-cylinder piston pumps with intake and exhaust valves. I am not worrying about things gradually wearing out over the years. I don't want a problem going over a mountain with my trailer on. Sooner or later these injectors will hit the after market. The injector repair shops will tell us what the problems are. Later! Frank

I don't know what else could fill a crankcase other than a sticking valve?


Srode,


I think that a leaking return line seal on the injector would also fill the crankcase with fuel. Besides the serviceablity aspect, I believe that was one of the other reasons they moved the injectors/supply/return line connections to the outside of the valve covers. There may be other sources too.

Good point, forgot all about that.... Thanks, now I have more to worry about!! http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Confused.gif

A sticky ECM or power module!

What we need to do, is get a hold of a falied injector/s - one/s not under the warranty, and where someone will spring for the core charge. Then we can have it/them examined to determine cause of failure, wear, etc. I would like to think that Bosch is actually doing that right now, and will be able to make changes that will benefit us all. If this is a large problem (which we don't know), I think that a warranty extension on injectors would be appropriate as well.


I seem to recall a picture that George M sent me - it was an injector tip examined under an eletron microscope. The wear was amazing. George - can you refresh my memory?

So, we're into 5 pages of repies already, what matter if I add a short post http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Big Smile.gif

In thinking through this while passing the local GM dealer today I saw a few C4500 and 5500 series and thought, "Gee, I think they come with a duramax option, so do some of the Isuzu trucks" (obviously). So I was wondering if GM and Isuzu put larger, finer, "better" fuel filters on the trucks where space might not be such a limitation. I'm assuming that there might have been a trade-off between flow rate(high), particle size(small) and filter size(small) - - pick any two. The trouble I had was finding a suitable filter site that didn't insist that I knew detailed Isuzu truck model numbers. So, anyone know what the filter set-up is on the mid sized trucks ? Anyone have an easy way to find out ? Lastly, is it "better" and if so does that fact "add fuel to our fire" ?

A sticky ECM or power module! Can an FICM stick? Any data on failures? I haven't seen any posts on that failure mode, only injectors and return lines.

Accidental duplicate post - please ignor...Edited by: dmax lover

So, we're into 5 pages of repies already, what matter if I add a short post http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Big Smile.gif

In thinking through this while passing the local GM dealer today I saw a few C4500 and 5500 series and thought, "Gee, I think they come with a duramax option, so do some of the Isuzu trucks" (obviously). So I was wondering if GM and Isuzu put larger, finer, "better" fuel filters on the trucks where space might not be such a limitation. I'm assuming that there might have been a trade-off between flow rate(high), particle size(small) and filter size(small) - - pick any two. The trouble I had was finding a suitable filter site that didn't insist that I knew detailed Isuzu truck model numbers. So, anyone know what the filter set-up is on the mid sized trucks ? Anyone have an easy way to find out ? Lastly, is it "better" and if so does that fact "add fuel to our fire" ?




I think someone checked into this before - if I recall,the filter was the same size, but a different color? Do a search on 3500, 4500 and filter and see what you find (I'd do it but gotta go pick up my daughter...)

Along the same lines that you were thinkin' -&gt; I was wondering if the new LLY filter (that is longer than LB7 equivalent) would be more efficient,etc and also has a different media - someone called racor and the guy on the phone said it doesn't - I still wonder...

jeff

Edited by: dmax lover