Fuel system / check valve / filters

[rangerscott275]

Hello,

I recently added a fleetguard filter to my existing fuel filtration system. I have VT8-370s so my set up is prob different than most. Originally I had twin racor 1000's set up which then fed into a big blue canister on the side of my engine. Inside the canister was a drop in type filter....I assume this was OE. A combination of reasons made me want to get rid of this big blue sucker....namely air leaks, difficulty servicing and filter replacement issues. So, in it's place I installed the fleetguard filter head package and an FF 104 fuel filter.

Now my fuel runs into racor, then from there through a check valve and then into the fleetguard, then into the engine itself. I was working with the cummins dealer to get this setup worked out. A couple of notes....first, the cummins dealer actually charged me hourage for his time researching what parts I'd need....unbelievable at $110 an hour....Second, I am looking at my bill now more closely....and I was charged $86.29 per checkvalve!! Is this normal? It is a freaking elbow with threads on it and a ball in it... In the future, is there a better way to order this type of part?? Finally, I can't seem to get through to the cummins guys who I had been working with to ask him this...but....he sold me two FF 104 filters for this new filter head. I can't seem to find what Micron they are online (the stuff came in mail so I didn't speak to him directly since receiving), nor can I find out if they will be able to adequately handle the flow required for my engines. They are pretty small filters...like just over 4 inches tall. My Racors have water seperator on them so I know I don't need that in this filter as much (since it is secondary), but is this the right filter for the job? I notice in the pics posted by others that when installing the 'Tony' from seaboard system that everyone loves, they use a combo of the FF 5103 and the FS 1000. Is my setup using the racor and the FF 104 achieving same thing?

Thanks!

 

[Genesis]

That's insane.

If they'll fit, I'd use the FS1000s on that filterhead.....

 

[rangerscott275]

they should fit...they have same thread - I believe 1 in -14.

 

[rangerscott275]

welll...I found some of the info for those interested. The FF 104 filter flows 89.83 gallons per hour and for 20 microns it is rated at 96% efficiency and at 10 microns, 79% efficiency. The FS 1000 filter is rated for same flow, but at at 10 microns for 98.7% efficiency and 5 microns at 83% efficiency. Bottom line is FS 1000 has better filtration media and screens out smaller particles better. By the way, Cummins is pushing the FS 1009 for marine applications which is same as FS 1000 but has metal valve at bottom instead of plastic - apparently meeting OSEA approval.

 

[egaito]

welll...I found some of the info for those interested. The FF 104 filter flows 89.83 gallons per hour and for 20 microns it is rated at 96% efficiency and at 10 microns, 79% efficiency. The FS 1000 filter is rated for same flow, but at at 10 microns for 98.7% efficiency and 5 microns at 83% efficiency. Bottom line is FS 1000 has better filtration media and screens out smaller particles better. By the way, Cummins is pushing the FS 1009 for marine applications which is same as FS 1000 but has metal valve at bottom instead of plastic - apparently meeting OSEA approval.

Terminology-wise, I tend to consider the filters on the engine as 'secondaries' and the big guys as the primaries. I run 10 micron secondaries and I believe it's 5 on the primaries, though I could be wishing on that one without looking again. I change the primaries only after 2 or 3 secondary changes.

BTW, since you mention Tony, I've purchased from them, and have followed many of the threads of his on the site. I love those guys. Between Seaboard's advice and my "advanced amature" mechanical skills, I've been able to troubleshoot and maintain my engines with more confidence than the local Cummins guys have been able to instill. He knows his stuff, especially when it comes to C's and QSM's.

 

[Genesis]

Wrong way around.

The correct setup for virtually any Diesel is a 30 micron bulk separator and a FS1000 on the suction side of the pump, then, if you wish, another FS1000 as a "last chance" filter on the engine.

Why the second one? Because some day it will save your injectors (or injection pump), that's why, and its cheap.

That setup, by the way, is sold by Tony over at Seaboard. I had it on Gigabite and loved it. Once-a-year filter changes, no hassles, and no injector problems.

I strongly recommend that over anything Racor makes.....

 

[Paul45c]

I've heard some talk here about Fleetguard being superior to the old Racor 1000 system for the primaries. Can someone share as to why? 30 microns is typical for the 1000, as well, and the engine spin-ons are usually 2's or 5's, depending on brand & spec. Seems like good protection.

One other question re: Fleetguards...how can you tell when it's time for a filter change? Racors have the clear bowl, and they're also a piece of cake to open up for when you want to lift the filter out and examine the extent of the fouling. From pics I've seen, the Fleetguards look like a metal oil filter. How do you know when she's done, other than RPMs not getting up there where they should? I'd like more early warning than that.

 

[MikeP]

You can (and should) purchase the fleetguard system with the Vac gauges which will show you the degree of restriction and, therefore, the approaching time for a filter change. I plan to change them at 10" of vacuum. Currently, they are running at 6-7 after a season and a half! On our boat they run at 5" when newly installed.

I purchased the system frankly for reasons not entirely related to "better" filtration. I was equally interested in improved access to the engine rooms because the big racors were essentially in the doorway. That made it easier to change for someone who didn't care to be in the engine room much but it was a PITA as far as I was concerned.

 

[egaito]

Wrong way around.

LOL, after explaining my own terminology, I got is a#$ backwards....it's 10 then 5, not the other way around. I guess the 10 is overkill from what I'm reading here though.....

 

[Paul45c]

I was going back and re-reading this somewhat old thread, and I guess I'm still not understanding the key benefits (other than physical size, it sounds like) of switching from Racor 1000 to Fleetguard filters.

Do the FG's flow better or something? As I pointed out earlier, I see one disadvantage of FG vs. Racor, since there's no bowl. Another is that you can find Racor 1000 filter elements absolutely everywhere, whereas the FG's appear to be a rarer bird. Still, if there are big benefits to switching, I'm open to the idea.

 

[Genesis]

The primary benefits are:

1. The FG setup is progressive filtration. That is, you do your bulk separation of trash and water in the first filter, then your polishing in the second. The RACOR does not allow this, since its one filter. Progressive filtration gives you more capacity before the filters become plugged.

2. Quality of filtration. The Fleetguard's are actually rated using an ASTM testing method. RACORs are NOT. All you have to go on in terms of RACOR is their claim - what you have with the Fleetguard's is a standardized test. I know which I prefer. In addition the Fleetguard system is approved for common-rail engines (which have MUCH tighter fuel quality requirements than our old tech detroits) while the Racor is NOT. Clean fuel is important.

3. Ease of maintenance. The RACORs are a pain in the arse to maintain PROPERLY. Oh sure, element changes are easy, BUT doing so contaminates the downstream fuel (NOT good) AND tearing them down to replace the seal at the bottom of the tower is a royal PITA, along with removing the bowl to clean all the fiddly little bits. With the Fleetguard there is no downstream contamination on a filter change since the entire thing is removed and tossed, and there is no maintenance for the same reason.

4. Cost per unit of time. The Fleetguards are cheaper to operate. The RACOR units are cheaper to buy "one at a time" but you'll need more of them by far in a unit of time than the Fleetguards! I got a full year out of my last set and was nowhere near the maximum restriction number. I changed them simply to give the buyer of Gigabite a new set of filters.

5. Size - the Fleetguard system is MUCH smaller, especially more so than a dual Racor 1000 switchable system!

5. The clear plastic bowl is actually a minus, from where I sit. The FGs have bottom water drains - just stick a cup under there and drain a bit. If there's no water, there's no water. If there is drain until you have fuel only.

6. The "shut off ball" (if there's water in the fuel) is a great idea in theory. In practice it can fail due to the tiniest bit of trash in the ball or seat. The Fleetguard primary simply won't pass water, so if you fill up that filter with water the fuel supply is choked off. No moving parts. I like it.

 

[Paul45c]

OK, wow, there's plenty of reasons. Thank you, Karl.

Just one thing I'll point out re: my 6v92 setup -- I've got progressive filtration with having Detroit spinons on the engine. So, as you pointed out, I use the 30 mic elements in the Rac 1000's for bulk separation, and then rely on the finer filtration of the spinon as my "last chance" filter.

 

[rangerscott275]

just wanted to add to this....

I took apart and cleaned the water seperation bowls from bottom of racors this weekend....cleaned out all the crap in the bowls and all the other parts....this took hours, was exceptionally messy, used up about 4 gallons of diesel to refill...and generally was a pain. It's not complicated (as anyone whose done it knows), but it is just time consuming and uncomfortable (depending on where your racors are located). It made me TRULY appreciate the merits of why one would completely eliminate the racors and go for the multistage fleetguard setup. Drain 'em....or screw on new ones...that is your maintenance with the fleetguard system.

 

[rangerscott275]

one other note...with fleetguard system, you don't even really need tools!!! drain is wingnut and of course, filters are spin on!

 

[Fanfare]

I don't have the Fleetguards. I put in twin Racors 35 years ago because Hatteras had nothing better than the old cannister fuel filters. They have been great, especially when Racor came out with the vacuum gauges on each unit. Now I pretty well know when my filters are filling up. Later I added a smaller Racor for the generator, and the only change I would make would be to go to a larger size so I wouldn't have to change this so often. (We spend a lot of time on the hook.) I run Racor 10 micron filters on the mains, and it's rare that I have to change one during a season.

I try not to look at new stuff that costs boat bucks unless I feel I need it. Since I already have the Racors I see no reason to change. If I had no filtration, I would surely look closely at Fleetguard, and perhaps choose it based on the info I have learned from this forum. But so far, I'm pleased that it ain't broke.

 

[rangerscott275]

I agree with you....that is why I kept my racors and added the fleetguard as the secondary filter since I wanted to replace the OEM canister that was there. I guess I have the best (and worst) of both worlds!

 

[LSC4]

Does anyone know where to get a filter head for a Fleetguard Filter?

 

[Brian Degulis]

OK, wow, there's plenty of reasons. Thank you, Karl.

Just one thing I'll point out re: my 6v92 setup -- I've got progressive filtration with having Detroit spinons on the engine. So, as you pointed out, I use the 30 mic elements in the Rac 1000's for bulk separation, and then rely on the finer filtration of the spinon as my "last chance" filter.

Plenty of reasons if you believe them I don't. You actually answered your own question in your first post. The only advantages to the spin on's is smaller size and much easier to change and maintain.

The Racor 1000s have a much larger filter area (longer time between changes) and you can see what's trapped in the element when you change it.Then you have a transparent bowl so at a glance you can see water or sediment building up. Then the elements are less expensive and available everywhere. On trucks and stationary equiptment the spin on's are standard and often replaced with Racor's for an upgrade.

This forum is the only place I've seen plain old spin on filters take on some magical alure and it's just BS. There's good reason that Hat and other quality builders use them. They are definetly higher maintenance than spin on's but they do the job an awfull lot better.

Brian

 

[MikeP]

Here's a pic of the Fleetguard system and the Walbro priming pump in the port eng room of our 53MY. The Fleetguard filters/priming pump setup and the Outback 3232 Inverter are the two best things I have installed on our boat.

There are three valves to route the fuel either through the prime pump or not. Two additional valves and associated plumbing on the return side of the engine allow fuel polishing if desired.

 

[SKYCHENEY]

Plenty of reasons if you believe them I don't. You actually answered your own question in your first post. The only advantages to the spin on's is smaller size and much easier to change and maintain.

The Racor 1000s have a much larger filter area (longer time between changes) and you can see what's trapped in the element when you change it.Then you have a transparent bowl so at a glance you can see water or sediment building up. Then the elements are less expensive and available everywhere. On trucks and stationary equiptment the spin on's are standard and often replaced with Racor's for an upgrade.

This forum is the only place I've seen plain old spin on filters take on some magical alure and it's just BS. There's good reason that Hat and other quality builders use them. They are definetly higher maintenance than spin on's but they do the job an awfull lot better.

Brian

Brian,
I tend to agree. The Racor has been the standard upgrade in the trucking industry for decades and it still is. I would not change from a dual Racor setup to anything else. It is not necessary and you would just be throwing your money away.