Fuel filters question

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
sunchaser said:
Bigfish

It is not necessary to debate the issue too passionately if you have a low gph Lehman built and nearly half a century ago.

But, if your very nice vessel has JD 1225s or similar, twins to your vessel do as I remember, by the book staged filtration on those expensive engines is well warranted.

Without repeating some excellent points made, posts #45 ( must read articles IMHO) and #55 (by the book current technology application) are worth re-mentioning.
Click to expand...

Good post.

....and exactly my point...I will admit its a tiny point to many, but TF does have a lot of low power Lehman 120 users that dont have to follow NASA level considetations.

For the old style Lemans, and any similar engine...its not a big deal...not enought to spend one dime more to chsnge any decent setup you have.

As I posted, bigger, newer, more finicky engines, etc...absolutely progressive.

I reread the Athens article...he pointed out very specifically...know your system, know your engines total fuel draw, maintain your fuel, etc, etc...

If you have a Lehman 120, with good clean fuel and tanks, and run it like many Lehman owners at 45hp or less....all the "better" ideas are still marginalized.
 
It would seem debating the cost of filters on a + half million dollar boat is :facepalm:
 
So folks if your engine manufacture recommends a primary filter (Racor) and then, like mine, a engine mounted secondary and your boat is running great. Then what is the problem?


I use NAPA filters. Racor (3799) and the Secondary (3356). I have put almost 10,000 miles on my boat with no issues. Clean tanks and no blocked filters in this time. I change my filters once a year. It's not rocket science.
 
sunchaser said:
It would seem debating the cost of filters on a + half million dollar boat is :facepalm:
Click to expand...

I agree that dropping 20 or so grand to have someone come in and rearrange a fuel system on a half million dollar boat and the cost of filters is nothing.

But then again, if a guy buys a 36 foot trawler for 25 grand and his fuel is clean....and has a Racor 500 in front of his hard to change secondaries (read broken oarts and air leaks)....and he runs the iCW in populated areas 99 percent of the time...I am just ssying its worked for many for decades....no need to rush out and change things or spend money that could be spent elsewhere.

There are some and more coming soon that fit that description here....they need to realize the difference between safety, precautionary and nice to do projects. If they go back through Mr Athens article and check the blocks they are sure of, then like you first posted...no big deal..as long as the shoe fits.
 
Being tired of best anchor debates, may I ask what is the best filter?
Ok I know, I shut up.

[emoji2]
L
 
If your core reason is that you don't like changing the on engine filter, then put another filter between the crud and water catcher and that one. R=Then you can change the last two on some regular basis. On most engines, the secondary comes after the the fuel pump. You can install a pressure gauge to monitor that one.
 
Too many straw man arguments here. If you know why you are doing what you are choosing, you are probably fine. Plus, most here actually use their boats. Do that and very few will have fuel issues. I mean unless you are silly enough to fill your winter tanks full because you believe in the condensation ferry. Sorry, just a little pot stirring.

My reason for preferring progressive filtering is that it massively increases the capacity of the overall system. I trust my final filter to keep me sufficiently clean. Single handing all the time, I like the insurance of not getting surprised with an engine that quits. But who am I kidding, my bowls are crystal clean and my filters have been on for awhile.

One point probably more pertinent than the primary size is actually not changing filters too frequently. In the interest of having everything clean, I've seen people with no issues or indications change out filters after a single month of cruising. Filters work better after they have caught a bit of stuff and created a filter bed on top of that media. Dirtiest fuel to the engines is when you just got done changing both filters at the same time and those filter beds are not developed yet. That's probably more of a real world issue than primary sizes for those who probably have clean fuel anyway.
 
ghost

“My reason for preferring progressive filtering is that it massively increases the capacity of the overall system. ”

Very well said. To paraphrase it is economically advantageous. So that pretty well sums up my point that the real advantage to using progressive filtration is economics.

Thanks.
 
Bigsfish said:
So that pretty well sums up my point that the real advantage to using progressive filtration is economics..
Click to expand...

Or, to insure your (non Lehman) engine does not stop at the wrong time. But, one man's economics is the next's good practice.
 
Sunchaser

I’m confused, are you saying a Lehman will never clog a filter and stop or by using progressive filtration a non Lehman Diesel will never clog and stop?
 
Bigsfish said:
ghost

“My reason for preferring progressive filtering is that it massively increases the capacity of the overall system. ”

Very well said. To paraphrase it is economically advantageous. So that pretty well sums up my point that the real advantage to using progressive filtration is economics.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

You utilize staged filtration as it give you 3-4X (or more) the filter life between changes of filters. That means that you can go 3-4 times as far between engine problems generated by overloaded filters. Its like having a car that can travel 3-4 times the distance between fill ups.
Having vacuum gages allows you to see the status of your filters so that you know how much time is left before you need to change. This also has the effect of letting you know how long you have before you get into ‘trouble’.
By adding a relatively cheap bulk filter that is easily serviced in front of your existing filters you can fairly easily increase your filter capacity by the order of 20X or more.
The vacuum gage tells you how you are doing, the staged filtration gives you many multiples of filter life and the bulk filter increase the life many time over staged filtration.
How can these help above and beyond just a financial decision if you use your boat for longer trips then a couple of dozen miles each week?

Safety – you want to run 100 miles to the ‘islands’ but do not know the status or life of your current filtration. You may hit rougher seas which will churn the tanks plugging existing filters much more quickly.
You may need to take on fuel at locations other than a few right near your marina – unknown quality may have an adverse effect on your filter life. You really do not want to be in a position to have to change filters in a rough sea state – especially if it’s a single engine boat.

Diagnosis – If you change filters at some specified time limits without knowing the filter status there is no baseline data. If you have vacuum gages and record your changes you will see a very large increases in time between changes by going to staged filtration. You can utilize the vacuum gages during engine problems to either eliminate or isolate potential fuel issues quickly and save time , money and maybe a trip. You can utilize vacuum gages with staged filtration to make your trips problem free and remove most fuel ‘surprises’.

The posted links to articles detail these advantages as well as others.
 
You guys never fail to disappoint. :popcorn:
 
To me the "best" filter system is fed from the fuel tank by gravity.

There would be a fuel cut off valve on the tank with a deck remote push pull cable , in case of a fire.

1st in line would be a jar style filter with a "sock" that stops most water , which can be seen as it collects in the jar.

The fuel line would then have a valve setup to select one of a pair of filters , this also would be done out of the engine space .

Either filter would be serviced by a pail under with room to drop the contaminated filter.

What brand ?, who cares ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
 
So found this in my CAT maintenance manual. Never thought about wax...
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0312.jpg
    IMG_0312.jpg
    127.7 KB · Views: 57
“Important in cold weather “. What does that mean? What is cold weather?
 
When fuel gets to about freezing the wax in the fuel can gel and cause hard starting , or shut down the engine.

Your local truck stop will have chemicals to liquify the wax , should you have a tank of fuel from a warm location , and are now in the cold.

This is a OTR truck problem as few pleasure boat folks venture out in freezing weather.

A search,

"Diesel fuel gelling happens when the paraffin usually present in diesel starts to solidify when the temperature drops. At 32 degrees, the wax in liquid form will crystallize and leave the fuel tank clouded. At 10-15 degrees, it will finally start to gel and clog the tank and fuel filters.

How to Prevent Diesel Fuel Gelling | Advanced Fuel Solutions Inc.

yourfuelsolution.com/2015/01/how-to-prevent-diesel-fuel-gelling/
 
ghost said:
Too many straw man arguments here. If you know why you are doing what you are choosing, you are probably fine. Plus, most here actually use their boats. Do that and very few will have fuel issues. I mean unless you are silly enough to fill your winter tanks full because you believe in the condensation ferry. Sorry, just a little pot stirring.

My reason for preferring progressive filtering is that it massively increases the capacity of the overall system. I trust my final filter to keep me sufficiently clean. Single handing all the time, I like the insurance of not getting surprised with an engine that quits. But who am I kidding, my bowls are crystal clean and my filters have been on for awhile.

One point probably more pertinent than the primary size is actually not changing filters too frequently. In the interest of having everything clean, I've seen people with no issues or indications change out filters after a single month of cruising. Filters work better after they have caught a bit of stuff and created a filter bed on top of that media. Dirtiest fuel to the engines is when you just got done changing both filters at the same time and those filter beds are not developed yet. That's probably more of a real world issue than primary sizes for those who probably have clean fuel anyway.
Click to expand...


“””My reason for preferring progressive filtering is that it massively increases the capacity of the overall system.””””

I am 100% on board with progressive filtration.
As Y’all should be too.
Hello??? —There is no better option.
I can quote this again later if anyone needs a reality check, because quite frankly, anything else is misguided.
 
Last edited:
"Hello??? —There is no better option."

The good option is a genuine fuel tank, instead of a box to hold fuel.

Almost all of the water and grunge will settle in a sump where it can easily be removed.

A second option is a centrifugal fuel filter which can remove far finer gunk than a filter bank. .
 
FF agreed. There are always better options if price is not a consideration.
 
As far as regards "(anything but NAPA)" I would have to agree. Never had any probs with NAPA lube oil filters but the secondary fuel filter on DD gensets, the NAPA's would sprout pinhole leaks resulting in a huge engine room mess. This happened at least once annually. I finally had to buy anything but NAPA for the secondary fuel filters. Must have been something in the manufacturing process as I did not have the same problem, ever, with other brand I bought.
 
hmmm, this thread, including the articles has left me more confused, not less. And, no, I don't have any answers, only questions and some observations.

observation #1: Engines come with an on-engine filter. Obviously, the vendors don't trust what is happening upstream??

observation #2: reports are that 2 micron filters have as good a flow rate as 10 or 30 microns. interesting.

observation #3: its easier to work with remote filters, than engine mounted filters, plus they have nice options (transfer to a standby filter, water detection, vacuum monitor)

observation #4: I have yet to read about the media life of a filter. Not the amount of crud it can handle, but the ability, over time, to actually survive as a filter. That is, not to disintegrate.

With all this, it seems reasonable to have only a single, small (2) micron filter with monitoring, and a fast ability to change over to a second one. It also seems to me that the on-engine filter doesn't get anything to filter? Or, does it? what is the filtering efficiency of the 2 micron filter? Less that 100%??

Seems we would need to answer these questions before we design filter schemes?
 
diver dave said:
hmmm, this thread, including the articles has left me more confused, not less. And, no, I don't have any answers, only questions and some observations.

observation #1: Engines come with an on-engine filter. Obviously, the vendors don't trust what is happening upstream??

observation #2: reports are that 2 micron filters have as good a flow rate as 10 or 30 microns. interesting.

observation #3: its easier to work with remote filters, than engine mounted filters, plus they have nice options (transfer to a standby filter, water detection, vacuum monitor)

observation #4: I have yet to read about the media life of a filter. Not the amount of crud it can handle, but the ability, over time, to actually survive as a filter. That is, not to disintegrate.

With all this, it seems reasonable to have only a single, small (2) micron filter with monitoring, and a fast ability to change over to a second one. It also seems to me that the on-engine filter doesn't get anything to filter? Or, does it? what is the filtering efficiency of the 2 micron filter? Less that 100%??

Seems we would need to answer these questions before we design filter schemes?
Click to expand...

You would need to read not only the articles but also spend time understanding the ratings of filters and their beta ratings.
Or you could follow the manufactures specs on what they consider best practices for staged diesel filtration - like some of these:
- Racor
- Cummins, etc
- Westerbeke gensets
- My diesel Pickups (Navistar and Cummins)
- Our facilities back up fire pump
- My past factories stand by gensets

"With all this, it seems reasonable to have only a single, small (2) micron filter with monitoring, and a fast ability to change over to a second one."
You can do that , your choice. If you go this route one suggestion would be to buy really "BIG" 2 mic filters for a decent working capacity.

It also seems to me that the on-engine filter doesn't get anything to filter?
It will get stuff to filter - read up on beta ratings and how filters really work and are rated.

"Or, does it? what is the filtering efficiency of the 2 micron filter? Less that 100%?? "
Of course it is less than 100% and its not even at the 2 mic number. As I mentioned above you can read quite a long time about diesel and fuel filtration.
 
I read the progressive filtration argument. Clearly, when faced with a fuel mixed with various particle sizes, the idea being, ALL the filters start loading up, at the same time. Big particles in the first, then sequence down to the smallest, presumably, on engine. So, if this worked to perfection, all the filters need to be changed at the same time, and you have, let's say 3x the media to do that filtration. Lots of filter area, seems to be the plan there.
But, I think there is a flaw.

First, economically, I'm not sure this is cost effective. Are you going to monitor all 3 filters? And, you need to buy and plumb 3 housings, not including the off-line spares. SIX filters now in 6 housings. (two rows of 3). And, the fact that all 3 on line filters get the same flow. All else being equal, higher flow per unit filter surface area results in less efficiency. Efficiency meaning failure to capture an unwanted molecule of water or particle of rust or...

Alternate view: One, very large monitored filter with a standby. The very large filter has the same filter area as the three in the sequence, but now enjoys a 1/3 fuel velocity per sq in, thereby significantly improving efficiency. And, only 2 total housings needed, and associated monitor systems. And, in a situation where you do find an unfortunate dump of 30 to 50 micron particles, or larger, you have the VLF that is 3x the size of the option 1 above. OVerall, 1/3 the complexity, close to 1/3 the cost, and better ability to manage a migration of large particles or water.
 
diver dave said:
what is the filtering efficiency of the 2 micron filter? Less that 100%??
Seems we would need to answer these questions before we design filter schemes?
Click to expand...

We need to go one step further and research the injector design. If the nozzles have 200um holes, why do we need 2um filtering? Why are your nozzles clogging? Carbon buildup?

I think we need to understand the nozzle and fuel specifications before we approach filtering design. How many holes in the nozzle? What is their diameter? Tapered or straight? What's the opening pressure? How far do they protrude into the chamber?

Obviously we should send our injectors out for weekly SEM's so that we can tweak our filtering schemes.
 
Last edited:
diver dave said:
I read the progressive filtration argument. Clearly, when faced with a fuel mixed with various particle sizes, the idea being, ALL the filters start loading up, at the same time. Big particles in the first, then sequence down to the smallest, presumably, on engine. So, if this worked to perfection, all the filters need to be changed at the same time, and you have, let's say 3x the media to do that filtration. Lots of filter area, seems to be the plan there.
But, I think there is a flaw.

First, economically, I'm not sure this is cost effective. Are you going to monitor all 3 filters? And, you need to buy and plumb 3 housings, not including the off-line spares. SIX filters now in 6 housings. (two rows of 3). And, the fact that all 3 on line filters get the same flow. All else being equal, higher flow per unit filter surface area results in less efficiency. Efficiency meaning failure to capture an unwanted molecule of water or particle of rust or...

Alternate view: One, very large monitored filter with a standby. The very large filter has the same filter area as the three in the sequence, but now enjoys a 1/3 fuel velocity per sq in, thereby significantly improving efficiency. And, only 2 total housings needed, and associated monitor systems. And, in a situation where you do find an unfortunate dump of 30 to 50 micron particles, or larger, you have the VLF that is 3x the size of the option 1 above. OVerall, 1/3 the complexity, close to 1/3 the cost, and better ability to manage a migration of large particles or water.
Click to expand...

Alternate view: One, very large monitored filter with a standby. The very large filter has the same filter area as the three in the sequence, but now enjoys a 1/3 fuel velocity per sq in, thereby significantly improving efficiency. And, only 2 total housings needed, and associated monitor systems. And, in a situation where you do find an unfortunate dump of 30 to 50 micron particles, or larger, you have the VLF that is 3x the size of the option 1 above. OVerall, 1/3 the complexity, close to 1/3 the cost, and better ability to manage a migration of large particles or water.[/QUOTE]

It does not work that way - one large filter at 2 mics may have the capability of 'holding' 4-5 times that of a much smaller 2 mic filter (think Racor 500 vs 1,000) in direct comparison, But compared to a staged filtration set up that 1,000 Racor will be 10-30 times less or even more of a difference.
FWIW - spin on bases are not expensive ($45 maybe) , utilizing the filters you have already as part of the system is 'free' , relocating filters are 'free' , decent vacuum gages are $20-$25 each.

Please - read the articles especially the one by Tony Athens. I have run both setups and know that what is written is what really happens from first hand experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Why a secondary fuel filter?
Replies
15
Views
4K
Davil1
D
R
Racor Vacuum pressure unchanged post new filter installation
Replies
6
Views
2K
Lepke
Lepke
B
Fuel issues on 120 Ford Lehman
Replies
7
Views
336
Comodave
Comodave
PhilPB
Fuel Filters
Replies
15
Views
3K
jleonard
jleonard
C
Fuel Valve position question
Replies
2
Views
584
O C Diver
O C Diver

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom