Lessons learned I hope. Buyer beware

 

If anyone is interested I changed my Fass 150 series filters today. Couldn't find a Baldwin BF1212 but used a Fleetguard FS1000. It is about 1.5" longer than the Fleetguard FS1023 but same diameter and thread, fuel pressure is the same as before at 14.5 psi. Big thanks the AH64ID

 

Good info. The FS1000 is a little finer of a filter, and should do you just fine!

 

I'm not sure how else to state this, so I'll come right out. This above excerpt is complete and utter crap.

There are these things called INDUSTRY STANDARDS the eliminate the very variables claimed to be a source of variation mentioned above. When followed properly, there is no reading between the lines required. There are simply test protocols and there are test results. No prophecy or divination required. They are very repeatable-- as you'd expect. That the entire point of the standardization.

If this company was actually interested in testing the filter performance, they would have the test data. Many labs offer this testing, and it takes VERY little effort to send out a batch of filters and have them evaluated per one of the following standards.

• SAE J905 fuel filter tests
• SAE J1985 fuel filter initial single-pass efficiency test
• SAE J1488 emulsified water removal test
• SAE J1839 coarse water removal test

Southwest Research offers all of this testing.

Since I work as a common rail fuel system development engineer for a very large diesel engine manufacturer, one might expect I'd be familiar with these standards. But the simple fact is that all one has to do is Google "SAE water removal filtration test" to get the results above.

That should show how much effort went into testing the filters. Alas, since something so simple wasn't done, it surely implies that it was a lack of will and not a lack of skill that led to the omission.

Either way, it reflects poorly on the level of concern applied to the selection and distribution of filters for an aftermarket fuel transport and filtration product.

Moreover, any reputable manufacturer of these filters is already familiar with these test standards, as they are what will be used for reference when a filter manufacturer wants to claim that they meet the same performance criteria as an OEM-sourced filter. Raycor (Parker), Baldwin, et al have to validate their filters to the claimed performance spec or the OEM won't cross reference them.

There are variables in testing, but they are normal and controlled. Controlling variables is how scientific experiment is done. NO filter manufacturer worth the ink on the paper would hem and haw about how hard the testing is to do or how hard the results are to understand. They are neither hard to do nor understand. And it's not super expensive to have a lab like SWRI do the testing.


Unfortunately, the ignorance in the quoted excerpt strongly implies to me that the testing was not done, nor were specific performance tests involved in the sourcing of the filters whatsoever. Far more likely that a filter was selected purely on cost and fit.

 

Justin.. you're preachin to the choir. And if you notice they never come back and answer questions.

 

Short of a mea culpa and admitting either incompetence or dishonesty, no answer will suffice.

Nor frankly is one needed. We already know what has occurred.

 

They provided a service based on customer demands. Customer wanted a 2 micron water filter set up, they provided one.
Unfortunatly it is not a single pass filter, due to the volume and the way the pump works it takes some time before your fuel is actually filtered down to the WANTED water filtration and micron rating.

Customers took their word and their advertising as gospel, really their filters do what they are suppose to, just not the way people all thought.

Three types of water filters, active, passive and combination. Active has additives that disperse or absorb the water,
passive seperates the water and drops it to the bottom of the filter to be drained manually, or sits there untill you change the filter.

Then you have a combo filter system, such as the OEM one, it will absorb so much water within the filtering media itself then it is ineffective, at the same time it will shed some water and drop it to the bottom of the housing along with larger heavier dirt particles which you can drain. On the OEm style filters if you are draining water from the hosuing it is time to change the filter.

Good marketing goes a long way, to bad people got smart and started actualyl check their filter specs.

 

But they didn't even provide multi-pass 2um filtration.

 

You are misunderstanding how the OEM fuel filter works. It doesn't absorb water. It separates it using surface tension of water. The efficiency of the water removal is a function of IFT (interfacial tension), velocity, and water droplet size (how emulsified it is).

The so-called "active" method you mention is not filtration at all. It's dispersing by alternating the chemical properties of the water (making it miscible with fuel). This understanding is also mistaking dispersing for filtering.

Finally, water in the drain is not indicative of a need to replace the filter. It indicates water in your fuel-- oddly enough. Drain it off and press on. The filter is perfectly fine.

Filters water stripping ability decays over time because as the filters accumulates crud, the velocity of the fuel flowing through it increases, decreasing the efficiency with which the media will remove water from the fuel.

Look up the SAE standards I posted above and it will be clearer.

JH

 

Its no different than the claims of increase HP and TQ. I dynoed mine before and after and there were no gains. This happened back 6-7 years ago, but yet they still advertise a 2-3 MPG increase and a tq increase. Buyer beware

 

HOHN I am going to respectfully disagree with what you are saying about filters and their use of water absorbing materials and or the use of water stripping properties.

I know that the OEM style filter has a Maximium water absorbing capacity then it is no good any more. I have the spec sheet on disk some where and not having any luck finding it.
One of the only times you are going to have a problem with this filter and water filtering abilites is when you have to much water in your fuel. At which point the filter is overcome by the water concentration and then allows water past. Of course all filters have a limit for ability to filter water or seperate water. I will have to find the spec sheet on it for the GPH, % and efficiency of the OEM filter.

One of the major problems with people using Fuel additives that emulsify and or disperse water in fuel is they may not be compatible with the style of water Filter/seperator they are using. In those situations the additive is actually assisting the water past the Filter. Unfortunatly Racor, Cat, Cummins etc do not recommend certain additives with their filters for this reason.

The real problem with what we have on the market is it is designed with in certain specs. The Stock OEM filter is only rated at a max of 50gph and 18psi or so for it's specs. Yet if you run a aftermarket pump that is running 100gph and 20-30 psi through the OEM filter then you are outside of the rating of the filter. This is also detrimental to the ability of the filter to do it's job.

All the testing standards in the world are null and void unless they are performed by the same people under the exact test standards for all the filters being tested. Other wise individual companies can still cater to their filters abilitys and make them meet of exceed specs. When you read the requirements of SAE testing it is very encompassing of specific situations.

If you have solid information against what I am saying then please post away. I would like to see it.

Cheers.

 

The OE filter is not a water absorbing filter, period end of story.

You need to read the standards, J1488 and J1839 are separation ratings, not absorption ratings.

 

Would it not be a good idea to run a GDP FF5320 filter set up after the FASS somewhere on the frame for the time being untill they come out with a better filter for us? I made a similar set up costing me 60.00 for the housing, fittings, 1R0750 Cat Filter and bracket. It's a 2 micron filter. I know we shouldn't have to go that route but it's easy and cheap for the time being. Us guys with the smaller 95 series FASS are in worse shape than the larger body 150 FASS owners.

 

AH64ID
the water holding properties of the OEM filter are mislabled by Fleetguard. Interesting. Good to knwo that even the manufacturers don't even understand.

 

Are the mislabeled by the other 3 companies I have data from too? I'm sorry to say I believe you are misinformed.