Diesel Place banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
868 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,063 Posts
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!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,252 Posts
Cut them open you can see a lot of difference.


Geno
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,063 Posts
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..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,185 Posts
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>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
541 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
394 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
212 Posts
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
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
9,676 Posts
Georgecls said:
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.
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
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,539 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
448 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,063 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,185 Posts
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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,539 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
909 Posts
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


>2um Target 320 Actual 169


>5um Target 80 Actual 56


>15um Target 10 Actual 10


Nicktane


>2um Target 320 Actual 100


>5um Target 80 Actual 31


>15um Target 10 Actual 5
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
868 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,185 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
994 Posts
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">< name=ADIESEL__3731 =http://www.freeportway.com/shoppingcart.php method=post> <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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
394 Posts
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
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
9,676 Posts
Ray403Dmax said:
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


>2um Target 320 Actual 169


>5um Target 80 Actual 56


>15um Target 10 Actual 10


Nicktane


>2um Target 320 Actual 100


>5um Target 80 Actual 31


>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...
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top