Diesel Place banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
679 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I see that there are slightly different versions of a racor pre-filter setup floating around as well as the ever famous and justly popular Nicktane kit. As I have suppliers within 15 minutes of me for both Caterpillar and Racor products, I am looking for some direction here. I have read there are rumblings about GM endorsing one or actually installing one kit as part of an option. Probably don't need a heater but wouldn't hurt. I like the idea of a petcock drain but that lends itself to failure due to exposure to flying debris - (CAT is all metal housing).


Any clarity would be helpful. I should do something soon as I am approaching 40,000 Km's and don't want to get the injector problems - although I'm still not convinced its a flat out design flaw or a QC problem at the factory. Reversable would be nice, in that I can take it off because the truck is leased for another 34 months and I can give it back at that point. If the truck treats me right I will keep it for the long haul. With regular maintenance I achieved 340,000 Km's out of a freakin Plymouth Sundance 2.5L Turbo. No failures except a radiator rotting from road salt and CV boots. Original engine/turbo/tranny and clutch. Sold it to a kid in town and he's still running it. I would hope I should be able to obtain at least that type of reliability out of this unit.



Thanks for the input.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
It's a personal choice so many different ways to setup.The best thing to do is search on the site.IMHO you are on the right track with what your looking at and can't go wrong.There is no right or wrong just what you feel most comfortable with.There is so much info on additional filters you could talk on the phone for hours,I have
. Once you narrow your choice down a bit the questions will be easier to answer
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
693 Posts
Here is the data sheet for the kit that is being sold directly from Racor... (and is rumored to be co-developed and approved by GM - this hasn't been confirmed/approved from GM side).


http://www.gasgasrider.org/Racor_2500HD.pdf


It also has an optional guard. These are just becoming available now - I recieved a call from oregon fuel injection that they had a shipment of 4 coming (I think they have 20 on backorder) - it should arrive monday-tuesday. Oregon Fuel Injection has this kit listed on their website for $307 -> http://www.oregonfuelinjection.com


In terms of whether it is "needed" or not - I think it is insurance; Personally, I don't think it is the "magic bullet" that some here believe will prevent all injector failures. The Bosch study shows that fuel lubricity is quantifiably lacking with respect to european standards; And the issue is only worse if you are running winter blend fuel. Running low lubricity fuel will obviously lead to lower injector and pump life. I am running Stanadyne lubricity formula to counter this issue -> it is what VW distributed to their customer's when low sulfur diesel was introduced in Canada (each owner got a coupon for a free case).


The fuel system recirculates the majority of the fuel (after filtration) back to the tank - I understand that some is recirculated back from the injectors, some from the pump itself. The particulate wear studies presented here don't account for this. Organic particulates are formed from the heat encountered at the injectors (fuel is used to cool the injectors) - how much, I don't know, but noone accounts for this in their numbers either. But, I read somewhere that inorganic particulates (metals) produce more wear than organic particulates. Makes sense - This makes a Filter Mag sound very attractive.


But, I don't feel comfortable adding a strong magnet close to the electronics for the fuel system. Given this, adding it to the new racor primary filter that will be added to the frame rail sounds like a very good option I also wonder whether any components of the fuel additives that I am using (Stanadyne PF and Stanadyne LF) will be attracted to the magnet... - I don't think so, just a thought...


I am keeping my fuel cleaner now by simply refueling when I reach half full mark (that's when the guage reads 3/4 right!
!) You have to remove half the particulates to drop 1 count on ISO rating - which I think is all that is needed to get the OEM filter to achieve the magic numbers tossed around from Cat study. So how long would you have to drive at 55 mph before the recirculated fuel reached that magic cleanliness rating? And how long before it drops another number? I don't know the answer. (e.g. if flow is .5 gallons per minute - at a half tank - fuel would pass through filter once every 28 minutes.)


Others have questioned the ability of the OEM filter to remove water. Adding the new racor unit will also add another water trap. Others have stated that both the OEM (Racor Interceptor) and Racor(listed as "heavy duty") filters use aqua-bloc media; Racor
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
298 Posts
.......Why would they put that filter on the frame rail under the truck?? My (pre-OEM) installation is practically the same except my element is a R90S (2 micron) vice the (R60T) 10 micron. Why do they use a 10 micron element when the goal here is to stop any contaminants from reaching the OEM filter. My installation is under the hood beside the airconditioning pump and above the power steering pump. (re: pictures below) Easy to access and service and no need for a fuel heater........Steve...














Edited by: shuffman
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
693 Posts
The placement of the fuel filter out of the engine compartment? One reason stated by a Racor engineer was that modifying the placement or size of a fuel filter would require GM to have the truck crash tested again with federal government. $$$


Can you use your filter location if one wants to run two alternators?


For 2004, with new motor - oem filter is longer...


jeff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
298 Posts
Duramaxdiesel asks:


QUOTE "Very nice install shuffman. What does that setup you have go for? $$"



.......................In Canadian funds the filter assy was $158.00 and the install (dealer) was $300.00 so all totalled $458.00 taxes included. Not bad for the extra protection I'd say!!


Jeff asks:


QUOTE " Can you use your filter location if one wants to run two alternators?"


......................I'm not sure about that one but I can't honestly say when I'd ever need a second alternator. The one I have seems to provide sufficient juice even when our camper is loaded. I'll gladly give up a second alternator to have that fuel filter under the hood and handy to service!!!
...................................Steve...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,484 Posts
I have 3 different Racor kits available. Standard non heated without WIF $160, heated only $210 and the works heated and WIF $285. Kits come with everything needed, filtere system, wiring harness (if needed) bracket, hose and fitting. Installation uses holes already in the frame and wiring is very easy. Depending on the kit you get installation will take 30 minutes to and hour.

Greg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
693 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
509 Posts
Great info Jeff, thanks for the link. It's kinda hard to believe the debate has been going on for so long.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
693 Posts
The Racor engineer who posted on "the other site" was the project lead on the DMAX filtration. You can find all of his posts "on that other site" by searching by his member number. Member number 9602.


Another one related to emulsifiers - water corrodes even if it is "locked up" by an emulsifier...


From "Racor"...


"Some people here in the forum seem to think that emulsifiying water in the fuel system with additives will avoid corrosion. But there is some evidence that those types of additives allow water to bypass the filter and enter the injection system. There the water corrodes sensitive parts. Even Bosch is worried about that. A water de-emulsifier would be a better choice. Get the water out before the injection system."


"Racor" said the results from all these filter cleanliness studies were highly inaccurate; Breaking lines lose stirs up alot of crap, etc -> he states that it is very difficult, if not impossible to measure filter effectiveness on the vehicle. The only conclusion I draw from all the data that has been thrown around here and elsewhere is that fuel gets cleaner if you filter it more, and that's not a bad thing.


But, there is nothing that has been presented here or elsewhere that conclusively proves to me that the stock filtration is junk. So, like I said in my first post, I view it as insurance; I am buying the insurance. The kit from racor will be installed on my truck next week.


jeff
Edited by: dmax lover
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
Jeff


Thanks for doing all the research,posting links and giving points to ponder.There is a lot of info for new and old members alike to digest and to try and make a informed choice.Also was a good history lesson as it has been awhile since I read a lot of this info.Keep the info coming this is a BIG debate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,309 Posts
Jeff, if you go over on the dieselpage and type in "OEM filter" you get will get the data you haven't been able to find. Do you guys expect Racor to say anything their filter is only 65% efficient at catching 2-4 micron size particles? I followed the secondary filter discussion there from day one. It didn't take long after seeing some of the fuel analysis before I installed a post OEM Racor 660. My last sample had an ISO cleanliness code 13/11/9. It doesn't get much better than this. Later! Frank
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
693 Posts
Frank Blum said:
Jeff, if you go over on the dieselpage and type in "OEM filter" you get will get the data you haven't been able to find. Do you guys expect Racor to say anything their filter is only 65% efficient at catching 2-4 micron size particles? I followed the secondary filter discussion there from day one. It didn't take long after seeing some of the fuel analysis before I installed a post OEM Racor 660. My last sample had an ISO cleanliness code 13/11/9. It doesn't get much better than this. Later! Frank
From Chevron's Website...

"Unstable diesel fuels can form soluble gums or insoluble organic particulates. Both gums and particulates may contribute to injector deposits and particulates can clog fuel filters. The formation of gums and particulates may occur gradually during long term storage, or quickly during fuel system recirculation due to fuel heating."

So some particulates measured at the return line were allowed to pass through the filter (and can be used to measure filter efficiency). And the formation of particulates happens due to fuel heating (and these particles should not be used to measure filter efficiency). Also, "Racor" stated that breaking the return lines open would cause increase in measured particulate count...

So, twenty or so guys crawl under their truck with it idling and take fuel samples by cracking open the return lines...

1. With twenty different sources for fuel, how stable was the fuel and what component of the particulate counts are due to fuel heating? What was the operating temperature of each truck during the sampling? How many of these trucks have modifications to the fuel injection system (juiced, etc.) that modify fuel delivery and have either lower or higher fuel heating as a result?

2. With twenty different trucks with different mileage and using different fuel - what was buildup of material inside the fuel lines? How much material was broken loose when the fuel lines were broken loose to take fuel samples; What contribution was there to the particulate measurements due to this?

3. What is margin of error from the company performing analysis on the fuel? "Racor" stated that is difficult to measure particles in the 2 micron range. How much error?

Everyone wants a definitive answer. But in reality, I think only time will tell if additional filtration is a "silver bullet". And that amount of time hasn't passed yet.

For me, there are too many questions that can't be answered. Like I said before, nothing I have seen (and I have looked at all of it), convinces me that there is definitive proof that my OEM fuel filter is junk.

One thing is sure, cleaner fuel is better and you never know what you will get in your tank. And at some point, the fuel can be so dirty coming in that stock filtration or even the added filtration won't be able to handle it. With inconsistent regulation and monitoring of diesel fuel quality in the U.S. it is good insurance to have. And as I said, I am buying that insurance for my truck.


jeff
Edited by: dmax lover
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,309 Posts
Jeff, it sounds like you have made up your mine already and don't need any help. Good luck with your OEM system. Later! Frank
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top