I found a Baldwin equivalent of the 1R0749. See


http://catalog.baldwinfilter.com/PartSpecification.asp?partnumber=BF7587&VehicleRef =1 (http://catalog.baldwinfilter.com/PartSpecification.asp?partnumber=BF7587&VehicleRef =1)





And, I found you can buy them by the dozen from www.adiesel.com (http://www.adiesel.com) for $135.84, shipping included ($11.32 each) and you can get almost as good a deal on 6 filters.





I have dealt with this vendor before and they are good. I have no economic interest in Baldwin or Adiesel. Just posting this to share information.

check the specs first.. i had someone email me about that, and his findings were that the micron rating was not the same as cat. just make sure you're using the best filte you can get!

Cut them open you can see a lot of difference.


Geno

geno,


Have you cut one open? i'd be curious to see the difference. i have pictures of the cat one posted on nicktane.com..

Heres the specs.



<TABLE width=600>
<T>
<TR>
<TD align=middle colSpan=2>
<H2 align=center>Baldwin High Efficiency Fuel Filters
For Caterpillar Applications </H2>
</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top width=300>Baldwin Filters introduces a new line of High Efficiency fuel filters. This new technology is driven by the increasing need to protect the sensitive fuel injectors in today's heavy-duty engines. This new line of filters was developed primarily to meet recommendations set forth by Caterpillar regarding the filtration efficiency for the fuel systems on Caterpillar engines.

Caterpillar recently developed new filters for the fuel applications on their engines. The new filters have improved efficiency over the Cat filters that were previously used. Baldwin Filters quickly responded to these new recommendations by developing our own line of High Efficiency fuel filters. These filters use a filtering media that has excellent efficiency, while maintaining high contaminant holding capacity. Higher capacity provides longer filter life and better performance. </TD>
<TD vAlign=top width=300>Society of Automotive Engineers J905 testing shows that the new Baldwin High Efficiency fuel filters meet the efficiency and exceed the contaminant holding capacity of the new Caterpillar fuel filters.

<TABLE cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=7 border=1>
<T>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top></TD>
<TD vAlign=top>
<CENTER>Baldwin
BF7632</CENTER></TD>
<TD vAlign=top>
<CENTER>Caterpillar
1R0751</CENTER></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top>Average
Efficiency %</TD>
<TD vAlign=top>
<CENTER>96.74</CENTER></TD>
<TD vAlign=top>
<CENTER>95.95</CENTER></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top>Capacity
(grams)</TD>
<TD vAlign=top>
<CENTER>10.5</CENTER></TD>
<TD vAlign=top>
<CENTER>8.75</CENTER></TD></TR></T></TABLE>
The new Baldwin filters and the Caterpillar numbers that they replace are listed below:

BF7631 replaces Cat 1R0753
BF7587 replaces Cat 1R0749
BF7632 replaces Cat 1R0751
BF7633 replaces Cat 1R0750
BF7639 replaces Cat 1R0755</TD></TR></T></TABLE>

The CAT short version is the 1R-0750 and is $10.49 each at the local CAT dealer (Holt Caterpillar Truck Service) in Irving, TX. I see Baldwin has an equivalent.


Tom

Regarding the statement in Baldwin's ad indicating higher performance than the comparable CAT; CAT distributed a fuel filter performance comparison where they evaluated fuel filter efficiency in a real, working engine very similar to the procedures we have been using. The results showed the CAT to be clearly superior to all of the available filters on the market, including the Baldwin. I will try to resource that work so we can publish. Again, this CAT comparison is NOT a laboratory ASTM, using ASTM dirt, but real diesel fuel in a real running disel engine, with all the fluid dynamics occurring. As we have previously discussed, from my experience, in terms of quality, consistency, performance, price, the CAT fuel filter is difficult to beat.
George Morrison, STLE CLSEdited by: Georgecls

Would I take a Baldwin filter over a Cat? No way! I do use some Baldwin oil filters, but am a diehard Cat fan. I haven't decided which way I am going with my auxillary fuel filtration, but if I don't go with the F.A.S.S. system, or Fuel Preporator, It will definately be a Cat filter. tpitt

Regarding the statement in Baldwin's ad indicating higher performance than the comparable CAT; CAT distributed a fuel filter performance comparison where they evaluated fuel filter efficiency in a real, working engine very similar to the procedures we have been using. The results showed the CAT to be clearly superior to all of the available filters on the market, including the Baldwin. I will try to resource that work so we can publish. Again, this CAT comparison is NOT a laboratory ASTM, using ASTM dirt, but real diesel fuel in a real running disel engine, with all the fluid dynamics occurring. As we have previously discussed, from my experience, in terms of quality, consistency, performance, price, the CAT fuel filter is difficult to beat.
George Morrison, STLE CLS





Paul Harvey: "And NOW, the REST of the story...


Like MOST propaganda out there, they (Cat) used a filter from Baldwin's lineup (BF7587?) that was NOT using Baldwin's high efficiency media.http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Ermm.gif It may well be that Baldwin hadn't upgraded at the time, but the high efficiency media IS used in other models, and is ALMOST as good as the one that I use on my truck. The one that I use is about .5% more efficient yet.


Where's the water going to go in a Cat filter w/o a drain?





Baldwin also did some testing:


http://www.baldwinfilters.com/engineer/98_7.htmlEdited by: Kennedy

Everybody that has opened their drain to expel water raise your hand.

The only reason I said that is that without a see through bowl, how many people will actually open that valve between filter changes. I wonder why CAT decided to leave the valve out since they did the extreme testing?

In over 60,000 miles I have yet to see enough water to justify a drain before replacing the filter.

Now lets say you get a load of water from a fillup. You won't know it until the water gets to the OEM filter... right? That's where the water sensor is.

That is a good question as to what happens to you guys with pre-OEM filters and you get a load of water. The pre-OEM filter will fill up with water first without you knowing it?

Georgecls,

Did CAT do a water test? Or was a judgement made that it is a rare occasion that you get enough water to justify a valve? Or is the CAT filter depending on another unit in the big rigs to catch water before the filter?

BTW: The difference in filtering in that chart is pretty much insignificant in the real world. Also, the fact that they are interchangeable, makes the competing kits that use those filters, compatible with either filter you choose.

<font size="3">The Baldwin costs twice as much for little if any improvement.</font>



On edit....

It also appears the "News Release" originates out of Baldwin. It looks like Baldwin did the testing using "Society of Automotive Engineers J905" test procedure.
Basically it's a Baldwin advertisement.

Not that I personally have anything against Baldwin.. at all. Just looking at the presentation.


Edited by: hoot

If your concerned about water, then the filter is the wrong place to try and catch it IMHO. As a last resort OK, but not the best answer. I don't know if my experience is typical, but the only water problem I've ever had was so much at one time that the filter loaded up on the farm tractor and shutdown.

Kennedy,


in response to your question about the water drain- I've never drained a drop of water from my oem filter, nor has anyone i know of. That was before i ran an additive. Now that i run the primrose it will tie up the free water (if i ever get any), so why do i need a drain? Besides, the CAT will pass water if i get a big shot of it, which in turn will collect in my oem and light the WIF sensor.


and CAT propaganda? I would only point out 2 things:


1)CAT is not in business of selling aftermarket fuel fliters for non-CAT applications. They design and make their filters for their own products and that's it.


2)CAT spend several hunderd thousand dollars with a third party firm to figure our what the fuel-related problems were, and how best to solve them. They conducted real-world tests based on the way equipment is really used, not laboratory tests which can vary from real-world applications. They did this from a business standpoint as their bean-counters realized that better filtration equals less repairs which in turn equals more profit for them.


That being said, I'd like to see GM learn from the testing paid for by CAT. If any of you have access to the filter study by CAT i suggest you read it. Its well worth it!


Nick

The drains may or may not be used. Bottom line is when you need it your glad it's there. This became evident to me by a load of water I recieved out of state on my way to catch a 2 hour helicopter flight that if I would have missed would have cost my company $23 a minute for a 4 hr plus round trip flight. So you can't write off the drain as not needed because it is only not needed untill you need it.


Also one can holler lab filter tests, better filtration, blah blah blah untill your blue in the face but the fuel tests per the spread sheet Nomad posts here shows the CAT filter in a clear LAST place on efficiency. Untill more results show up it will remain there so if any one want's to promote one filter over the next I suggest doing it the only way.(REAL WORLD) as a duramax filter in our application. Real answers are recieved by sending in a sample. Not by punching keys on a computer or quoting filter companies.

I think we can agree that they all have shown to produce stellar results. Too close to even knock whichever one took last place.

We can also agree that since it is very difficult to have exact sample comparisons, in other words, different trucks, different fuel, different methods and so on, any results that are close, might as well be identical for margin of error's sake.

My filter is under my wheel well. I don't even bother looking at it. That's the way I like it. The head on my filter is designed by a leading fuel filter company. I like that too.

Winter is on the way. About February or so.... let's all be honest.

For the most part, I think I'm agreement with a bear on this. Anyone can overstate lab tests for marketing purposes. And so we don't need more tests results we need valid real world tests for comparison. I would be more apt to believe a real world result submitted by a Diesel Place member and tested by George.


Regarding the cleanliness comparisons I've seen between Nicktane and Mega, the Nicktane was hands down winner in all particle levels. In addition, the pump particle count for the Nicktane was much higher so how can anyone claim the CAT filter to be in dead last? Remember we're talking real world results here not marketing mumbo-jumbo.


Mega


&gt;2um Target 320 Actual 169


&gt;5um Target 80 Actual 56


&gt;15um Target 10 Actual 10


Nicktane


&gt;2um Target 320 Actual 100


&gt;5um Target 80 Actual 31


&gt;15um Target 10 Actual 5

I never meant to start another heated filter debate....OYYYYYY!


But its fun to learn what others have to say.


The Baldwin filter I cited as being available as an equivalent of the 1R0749 (at least Baldwin considers it an equivalent) has, like the 1R0749, no water drain. Baldwin sells other filters with drains, but not this one. I only meant to point out a source of filters that the manufacturer claims are equivalent that are available for $11.32 each delivered if bought by the dozen. Is it worth it quality wise compared to the $17 and change charged by CAT? I don't know.


It seems to me that, if you are using a 1R0749 or equivalent as PRE-OEM and it fills up with water and your truck stops, can't you just change it?


Another thing that is interesting at the Baldwin filters web site is that you can enter the Baldwin filter number, BF7587, in the cross reference section and it will bring up many competitors filter equivalents. I wonder how many manufacturers are actually making filters for all these brands? I wonder if all claim to be 2 micron? I think i have a little research project.

Ray403Dmax,


You may want to take another look at the updated sample results list. As it stands now the Cat results you posted come in third to the Racor and Mega. Like Hoot says, Sampling methods are probably the biggest influence on these already great results. We are really splitting hairs here. Why does it even matter which filter someone uses at this point. They are all doing a excellant job as far as the media goes. I think what one needs to consider is their weather conditions in summer or winter, then decide if they want pre, post or whatever and then go with the one that best suits their needs. I even think the filter costs verses life expectency for all comes out to be very close. The only advantage the Racor and Mega have now is the water separating media (Aqua block and the treated media) with the drain that may or may not ever be used. Another thing Hoot mentioned that's very important is for us to see what happens this winter. Just about all of these different setups are fairly new and haven't seen the winter yet so this should be our last hurdle to overcome. It's possible we may see more growing pains yet.

K1XV,


I have purchased oil filters online from Adiesel on several occasions. Their service was always good.


Looks like they have pretty good prices on Baldwin fuel filters. I am certain the Baldwin equivalent will perform satisfactorily in place of the CAT if that is the way you decide to proceed. All these fuel filters are well under the ISO Code 15/13/10 with margin to spare. Like several have said, just splitting hairs here.


A note for the Mega filter users (Baldwin Filter BF7635) the prices are as follows:



<TABLE cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=3 width=800 align=center border=1 rowspan="0">&lt; name=ADIESEL__3731 =http://www.freeportway.com/shoppingcart.php method=post&gt; <T>
<T>
<TR>
<TD>Your Price: $34.67 </TD>
<TD noWrap>6 Pack: $193.50
($32.25 ea) </TD>
<TD noWrap>12 Pack: $367.56
($30.63 ea) </TD></TR></T></></T></TABLE>


Orders over $125 include free shipping, otherwise a flat rate of $7.


Not a bad deal!!





The Racor prices are a little high. The best deal I have found so far is at Diesel Injection Services. Their website indicates they are temporarily out of stock.





Regards,


AlanEdited by: OC_DMAX

Regarding winter operation with the ultra-fine filtration medium. I do have extensive experience to relate with the CAT element in that I work with both on-highway fleets and off-highway construction/mining that utilize the CAT fuel filter element. During extended single digit cold soaked weekend periods, the engines start and run after cold-soak with no filter clogging. However, in all cases they are either using a high quality winter fuel such as BP Diesel Supreme or an additized fuel. As previously discussed, cellulose filter elements start to constrict as freezing temp is passed due to the expansion of the water component of the medium as it begins to freeze. The synthetic blend materials are much less affected by sub-freezing and flow very well. Bottom line, with winter fuel additization there should be no cold flow problems with these filters.
George MorrisonEdited by: Georgecls

For the most part, I think I'm agreement with a bear on this. Anyone can overstate lab tests for marketing purposes. And so we don't need more tests results we need valid real world tests for comparison. I would be more apt to believe a real world result submitted by a Diesel Place member and tested by George.


Regarding the cleanliness comparisons I've seen between Nicktane and Mega, the Nicktane was hands down winner in all particle levels. In addition, the pump particle count for the Nicktane was much higher so how can anyone claim the CAT filter to be in dead last? Remember we're talking real world results here not marketing mumbo-jumbo.


Mega


&gt;2um Target 320 Actual 169


&gt;5um Target 80 Actual 56


&gt;15um Target 10 Actual 10


Nicktane


&gt;2um Target 320 Actual 100


&gt;5um Target 80 Actual 31


&gt;15um Target 10 Actual 5











And that is just one set of results. Others have bettered my results with the Baldwin.





We can debate till the cows come home and then some. Hell, lets get Mr X involved.





The reality is, that when a large slug of water hits a filter, the first thing that will happen is it will strip repell the water and it will sink to the floor. Frome there, you need an equivalent amount by volume of the demulsifying additive to wrap it up. This will not likely be found in the normal dosage of even 4-5 tankfulls of additized fuel.





If you want, I can go and get some results better than ANY posted so far. Heck, I can find a dirty OE sample as well.





The real winner?


The only REAL winner here is the Bosch fuel system on the truck equipped with additional filtration...

I bet all this talk is just that talk. When the it comes to the nut cuttin when the engines have 300,000 miles on them you won't be able to tell the diff in one using an OEM, CAT, or Baldwin.


I am installing an extra filter because I use an aluminum aux tank that will sweat causing the condensation to collect in the tank. It is a peace of mind thing with me. I shopped the best price vs quality. When the CAT dealer gets the Donaldson filter price if it is a good price I will buy it, especially considering the info provided in another post says it is a Racor.


BTW, the CAT parts person told me today that CAT buys filters and rebadges them also. I hope no one thinks CAT is in the business of making filters. All manufactures of products requiring filtering use a product made specifically for there needs or find one available that meets the spec requirements. This is same way the aerospace industry does it. Every company has their speciality.


Another BTW, filters have been rusting for 50 years that I know of. Look at the type material used. It is not a corrosion or rust proof material. Oil filters and fuel filters are protected when installed by the fluid. The rust accumulated on the exposed services is caused by exposure to the elements and the fact that steel will rust. We would not like the price of stainless steel metal in the filter nor the costs to corrosion treat the metal.


Tom

Diesel Power


only cut them open with saw to see why and what they were plugged with, this was done in the oil field on gen sets, what empressed me was the aluminum that takes the place of the tin, Have not cut the new baldwins just the older ones.


Geno

Tom Cobb


Next time you are at a cat store look at any of there element type filters, In the oil patch you use what you can get your hands own and I have yet to see any other brand that is wrapped like a cat, yes I believe someone makes them for them but to cats strict specs.


Geno

geno


I would agree with you. I work in the aerospace business and we specifiy strict specifications for parts manufactured for us and I would have to believe with CAT's equipment reliability they don't buy off the shelf parts unless they have spec'ed it out and then test and qualified it. The auto industry does the same thing. This be the nature of the manufacturing world and as it should be. Every manufacturer has it's niche, it's speciality. Some things they trust others to do some they don't. Bell Helicopter tried outsourcing transmissions and other gearboxes and found no one could build them to the exacting specs we require so we build them all ourselves. This is a critical part to a helicopter. Again the nature of manufacturing.


Tom

The most recent fuel analysis spread sheets are at the links below. For the small group of us who have been maintaining them, the intent is to document the results of the forum members (at the Dieselplace and TDP) who have had a fuel analysis performed. So often, this type of information gets lost over time.


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


or in PDF format:


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


(Note: the above is hosted by JBPLOCK from the Diesel Page)


The most recent addition to the spread sheet was the fuel analysis that a_bear did with the engine running (only those with lift pumps can do this). What this test showed was the filtering system was still working under a more dynamic test scenario than what had previously been tried by others.


I believe Hoot provided one of the better summaries:


"I think we can agree that they all have shown to produce stellar results. Too close to even knock whichever one took last place."


With the addition of one of these supplemental fuel filters, you will be achieving a 15/13/10 ISO Cleanliness Code on the fuel going to the pump and injectors on your truck; with margin to spare. Like Kennedy says above, "the real winner is the Bosch fuel system on our trucks".


AlanEdited by: OC_DMAX

CAT has a good write-up at the link below about their filters that applies to all filters. It agrees with what Kennedy says.


http://www.cat.com/products/shared/parts_n_service/04_filters/fluid_filters/_filters/high_eff_fuel_filters.html


Tom

As previously discussed, CAT does indeed manufacture its fuel filters and the majority of its oil filters; all of the oil/fuel filters for its own engines. CAT built a totally automated factory for the production of these filter elements and they are committed to building a zero tolerance fuel and oil filter. The CAT filters that are for Cummins, Detroit, etc. are outsourced and painted yellow... However, there really IS a difference in CAT fuel filters.
George Morrison

<H1 style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Wear Index Testing</H1>

Wear Indexing was developed by an industry consortium to provide more meaningful and credible test results. The Wear Index number is based upon a correlation between physical damage observed on high pressure fuel injectors and the amounts of 5, 10 and 15 micron particles measured in the filtered fuel. A higher number indicates more wear and damage to fuel system components.

To determine the Wear Index shown below, a Cat 3406E Engine was driven by a dynamometer, while low sulfer diesel fuel, vibration, fuel flow and temperature closely simulated real world conditions.

Bottom line conclusions.
Four competitive fuel filter brands and the Cat 1R-0749 High Efficiency Fuel Filter were tested to determine Wear Index. As illustrated by the graph below, the Cat 1R-0749 outperformed all four competitors by a significant margin, indicating that it provides superior protection against destructive particles. As the graph below indicates, the next best filter, the Fleetguard FF5319, may cause fuel injector life to be reduced by up to 50%.

The others would rapidly lower life even more significantly. Fuel consumption and emissions would also increase. The cost of these increases would quickly exceed any price premium paid for the Cat High Efficiency Fuel Filter.

Wear Index
. Real world vibration
. Test fluid is low sulfur diesel fuel
<P class=Msonormal s

I wish some more of you CAT guys would post test results.


Right now in our un-official (rather than manufacturer marketing programs) 56Nomad test result string, CAT is just a little behind.


You would think with all the official test information showing CAT to be superior, one would think that they would be way ahead of the others. I agree we are splitting hairs, but everytime we see information like X provided, I wonder about the validity of that information. Not flaming anyone.

To all CAT filter users:


Its easy to do, I've done it. Go to avlube.com and order the kit and test your filter installation. Why wait for others to do what you could do?

I don't believe that the Baldwin BF7587 tested in the Wear Index Testing is the same filter model used in the Mega filter kit.

i've got another sample kit around.. last time i sampled mine i poured pump diesel into the filtered bottle by accident and had to dump it out.. also i have to get a better way of sampling it as my method was quite crude.. once i get the proper fittings i'll take another. i'd like to see other people run samples as well!





Nick