Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 06-03-2016, 09:10 PM   #21
TF Site Team
 
Baker's Avatar
 
City: League City, Tx
Country: Texas
Vessel Model: Carver 356
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by MYTraveler View Post
Actually, I believe Tony recommends installing a large spin-off type of "mud" filter in front of the primary, changing the primary to the same rating as the secondary, and keeping the secondary with the expectation of never having to change it.
And he just so happens to sell such a set up! My only knock on it would be the inability to see water in the bowl. I speak from experience. I had a fuel cooler fail and fill the tanks with raw water. Had there not been a filter bowl, I would have been lost and likely trashed one or both engines.
__________________
Advertisement

__________________
Prairie 29...Perkins 4236...Sold
Mainship Pilot 30...Yanmar 4LHA-STP...Sold
Carver 356...T-Cummins 330B
Baker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2016, 09:11 PM   #22
TF Site Team
 
Baker's Avatar
 
City: League City, Tx
Country: Texas
Vessel Model: Carver 356
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by bilge53 View Post
I would use a 10. What did you drain out of the bowl(s). That would also give some insight.
I think the bowl would be after the filter... So only liquid contaminants would make it there???....ie....water
__________________

__________________
Prairie 29...Perkins 4236...Sold
Mainship Pilot 30...Yanmar 4LHA-STP...Sold
Carver 356...T-Cummins 330B
Baker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2016, 09:20 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
bilge53's Avatar
 
City: Oriental, NC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: M/V Major Award
Vessel Model: Senator 35 w/single Lehman
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 420
So what was in the bowls? Those filters could have been in there since the first OBama mistake.
bilge53 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2016, 09:23 PM   #24
Guru
 
Pgitug's Avatar
 
City: Punta Gorda, fl
Country: Usa
Vessel Name: Escapade
Vessel Model: Nordic Tug 37 2002
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 986
Quote:
Originally Posted by bilge53 View Post
I would use a 10. What did you drain out of the bowl(s). That would also give some insight.

I had a half cup of sludge in the bottom of the dirty filter bowl. This was expected. We purchased the boat last summer in upstate NY and brought her down to the west coast of Florida. During our passage south, traveling in the Chesapeake, we had 25 knot winds from the north with following seas. Our fuel tanks were less than half full, as I was waiting to fuel up at Top Rack Marina, south of Norfolk. So the tanks in our 2002 Tug got a good stir.
Pgitug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2016, 09:30 PM   #25
Master and Commander
 
markpierce's Avatar
 
City: Vallejo CA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Carquinez Coot
Vessel Model: 2011 Seahorse Marine Coot hull #6
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 10,262
You waited too long if there was insufficient fuel to go WOT. I use two-micron on my Racors as well as on the JD filter on the engine.



Gunk on the filter means it is working.
__________________
Kar-KEEN-ez Koot
markpierce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2016, 09:30 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
bilge53's Avatar
 
City: Oriental, NC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: M/V Major Award
Vessel Model: Senator 35 w/single Lehman
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 420
Everything is working. I would figure out how to route some fuel through the "clean" filter though. Change filters, fill her up and go see the world. Don't imagine a problem when there most likely is nothing going on that you haven't identified.
bilge53 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2016, 11:40 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
BIG CAT's Avatar
 
City: Biloxi,MS
Country: USA
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 132
the filter on the left is still basically new and could be used more. the one on the right looks like its due(not overdue) to be replaced. if you want to know for sure when its time to change them. get a vacuum gauge and adapter from racor.

the cat spec has a max fuel supply restriction of 9 in-hg. i would advise you to check with cummins for an exact number on that specific engine. as for micron size. most all diesels run at least a 2 filter arrangement primary(water separator) and secondary (typically engine mounted). for most all cat stuff we use a 2 micron secondary and a 30 or 10 micron primary. when when you get into common rail fuel systems fuel quality becomes very important and we typically see 3 fuel filters with a step down in micron for each filter.

so with all that said if your tanks on the dirty side i would run 10's till the tanks clean up. filters are a lot cheaper than an injection pump or injectors.

Racor RK 11-1669 | Fisheries Supply
BIG CAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2016, 11:46 AM   #28
Guru
 
dhays's Avatar
 
City: Gig Harbor
Country: United States
Vessel Name: Kinship
Vessel Model: North Pacific 43
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 5,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by MYTraveler View Post
Actually, I believe Tony recommends installing a large spin-off type of "mud" filter in front of the primary, changing the primary to the same rating as the secondary, and keeping the secondary with the expectation of never having to change it.
iirc, the recommendation from Seabar Marine is a step filtering. A mud filter as you mention, but then stepped down filtering. For example, Cummins calls for 10 micron primary and 2 micron secondary for my 5.9 QSB engine (common rail, high pressure system). Tony will often recommend a 30 micron "mud filter" to put before that system to make sure that the 10 micron filters don't get suddenly overloaded in the event of something that might cause a lot of debri or water in the fuel.

So far, like the OP, my tanks and fuel have never had a problem so while adding that additional filtering stage would be good idea, likely over kill for me in my particular situation.
__________________
Regards,

Dave
SPOT page
dhays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2016, 11:56 AM   #29
Guru
 
dhays's Avatar
 
City: Gig Harbor
Country: United States
Vessel Name: Kinship
Vessel Model: North Pacific 43
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 5,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG CAT View Post
the filter on the left is still basically new and could be used more. the one on the right looks like its due(not overdue) to be replaced. if you want to know for sure when its time to change them. get a vacuum gauge and adapter from racor.
My primary filters looked much like the OPs when I changed them. One dirty, and the other clean. If I recall, Racor says that the filter elements do age even if they are not dirty. I don't see anything wrong with running on one of the parallel filters for normal use. This means that your backup filter should be completely clean in the even you need to use it.

My thinking (such as it is) goes like this. In normal use, the filters should not get dirty enough to cause any fuel restriction over their useful life (for me a year). If something unusual happens, such as a load of bad fuel, rough weather that might kick up debri from the bottom of an old tank, etc... then your working filter could get clogged. In that situation, I want to be able to switch over to the standby filter and have it be able to filter and function for as long as possible. During this time I will be in the ER changing out the clogged filter.

Now, lets say that an operator is switching which is the working filter on alternate uses. Then, in theory, both filters would be getting dirty at the same rate. So if something bad happens with the fuel, both filters might not have much spare filtering capability left. ie both might clog quickly not giving me as much time to change the filter.

Does that make any sense at all? I figure that I am going to change both filters yearly anyway. If one of the dual filters performs that entire time great. I see no need to switch back and forth (other than to simply make sure both sides of the system are working well).

Edit: I just did a little looking to substantiate my idea that the filter manufacturers recommend filter replacements based on time. I didn't find anything easily, which seems to me an indication that maybe it isn't an issue? I did find a good article by Steve D'antonio. In the article he recommended that you simply use vacuum restriction as an indicator for when to change the filter. In that article he mentions that the filter manufacturers do recommend at least annual changing of filters, but he points out that they have a vested interest. He writes that in his experience, he has not seen a filter fail from being submerged in diesel fuel.

Link to the article. Look near the very end of the article for his comments on replacement schedules.

So, maybe my yearly replacement of filters is overly aggressive. I think I will still continue that practice. If nothing else, it forces me to really get up close and personal with that portion of the fuel system. While I do checks on it daily, I admit that they tend to be cursory.
__________________
Regards,

Dave
SPOT page
dhays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2016, 12:26 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
BIG CAT's Avatar
 
City: Biloxi,MS
Country: USA
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhays View Post
My primary filters looked much like the OPs when I changed them. One dirty, and the other clean. If I recall, Racor says that the filter elements do age even if they are not dirty. I don't see anything wrong with running on one of the parallel filters for normal use. This means that your backup filter should be completely clean in the even you need to use it.

My thinking (such as it is) goes like this. In normal use, the filters should not get dirty enough to cause any fuel restriction over their useful life (for me a year). If something unusual happens, such as a load of bad fuel, rough weather that might kick up debri from the bottom of an old tank, etc... then your working filter could get clogged. In that situation, I want to be able to switch over to the standby filter and have it be able to filter and function for as long as possible. During this time I will be in the ER changing out the clogged filter.

Now, lets say that an operator is switching which is the working filter on alternate uses. Then, in theory, both filters would be getting dirty at the same rate. So if something bad happens with the fuel, both filters might not have much spare filtering capability left. ie both might clog quickly not giving me as much time to change the filter.

Does that make any sense at all? I figure that I am going to change both filters yearly anyway. If one of the dual filters performs that entire time great. I see no need to switch back and forth (other than to simply make sure both sides of the system are working well).
technically everything is aging.
whether it goes bad or not is something else.
racor filter stacks can come with or without change over valve. i always prefer the ones with the valve. and its no problem to run with one as a secondary as long as your not creating an excessive amount of restriction. in fact it have seen may customers(hospitals/data centers/ect) running a racor triple stack(2020) with one as backup. we did not see any noticeable increase in restriction till we cut it down to just one filter. the engine transfer pump moves 5.5 gpm at rated speed so the flow requirements are significantly higher than anyone here is likely to see.


ps: overkill is underrated.
BIG CAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2016, 12:32 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
BIG CAT's Avatar
 
City: Biloxi,MS
Country: USA
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 132
dhays. i personally have changed racors that were setting for 4 to 5 years. they showed no signs of deterioration from being in fuel. the only thing i think could do damage over time is uv. we all know what it does to just about everything made of plastic.
BIG CAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2016, 01:43 PM   #32
Guru
 
Northern Spy's Avatar
 
City: Powell River, BC
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Northern Spy
Vessel Model: Nordic Tug 26
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,667
I think dhays may be speaking of the hydrophobic resin breaking down over time and losing its water ingress prevention. Racor does recommend changing filters for this reason. I forget the periodicity though.
Northern Spy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2016, 03:33 PM   #33
Guru
 
dhays's Avatar
 
City: Gig Harbor
Country: United States
Vessel Name: Kinship
Vessel Model: North Pacific 43
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 5,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Spy View Post
I think dhays may be speaking of the hydrophobic resin breaking down over time and losing its water ingress prevention. Racor does recommend changing filters for this reason. I forget the periodicity though.
That is it exactly. Howver, it seems that folks with a lot more experience than I haven't noticed problems with filter age.
__________________
Regards,

Dave
SPOT page
dhays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2016, 04:24 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
BIG CAT's Avatar
 
City: Biloxi,MS
Country: USA
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Spy View Post
I think dhays may be speaking of the hydrophobic resin breaking down over time and losing its water ingress prevention. Racor does recommend changing filters for this reason. I forget the periodicity though.

i looked and was unable to find any specific change interval for those water blocking filters. but i can say there are a lot of engines running without those special coated filters. in reality if you had water sensors you would know well before it could get high enough to reach the filter element.
BIG CAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2016, 04:26 PM   #35
Guru
 
Ski in NC's Avatar
 
City: Wilmington, NC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Louisa
Vessel Model: Custom Built 38
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,884
I find that after a couple of years the little seal lip that grips the center post relaxes, then crud can bypass the whole element. I you change the filter and it comes right up without needing a tug, you have gone too long.
Ski in NC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2016, 05:15 PM   #36
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,711
I would not go smaller until the filters come out cleaner. But change much more often. When they come out almost clean go to 10 microns change soon and observe how they look and if fairly clean extent the change time until normal.

30 micron is probably fine. I use 10. I did use 2 micron for a time but concluded from something I read (probably on TF) that 2 micron is excessivly fine mesh.

You may consider a fuel polish. Something I know little about though.

Are you using biobor or another alge reducing additive? Looks like the dark colored filter may be full of organic material.
__________________

__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012