Dual Racors

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
O C Diver said:
Food or thought on vaccum gauges:

Was thinking about this after consuming an adult beverage (beer), so this may not be throughly developed. My fuel tanks are about 28" tall. For the sake of the discussion, let's assume the lift pump height is at the middle of the tanks. The vaccum gauge is reading inches of vaccum. To my understanding, an inch of vaccum, if there is no restriction in the filter element, would be to lift the fuel from 1" below the level of the lift pump in the tank up to the lift pump. If the fuel level was 10" below the lift pump, the gauge would show 10" of vaccum. If the fuel level was above the lift pump, there would actually be a positive pressure in the filter and at the inlet to the lift pump. Again, assuming that my lift pump is at the middle level of my 28" tank, does that mean that the theoretical reading on my separator gauge could be anywhere from 14" of positive pressure to 14" of vaccum with a clean unobstructed element? If this is correct, with 3/4 full tank I could have 7" of diffential vaccum (difference between filter inlet and outlet with a mostly clogged filter) and show no vaccum on my gauge. Is this correct or am I missing something?

Ted
Click to expand...

A proper vacuum gauge will read in inches of mercury if you are in English units. A perfect vacuum is 29.9 inches of mercury or 14.7 psi at sea level. Inches of fuel would have to be converted to inches of mercury for your math to fall into place.
 
Wxx3 said:
:thumb::thumb:
I change the Racor as soon as I see any movement of the needle off it's peg.
And as I've said before, while I have used both 10 micron and 2; I pretty much run the 2, as I see no downside as long as there is no vacumn, and when there is, I change the Racor
Click to expand...

Why not run a much larger primary? 2 microns it seems would just lead to lots of filter changes and engine stoppages in the wrong place. I and many others run 30 micron Racors as primaries. Our two per engine on engine filters are about 5 microns (Cat specs) with a high beta number and lots of capacity.

If one has a common rail the normal setup is 30, 10 and on engine using a good set of filters with known acceptable beta numbers. As indicated in a previous post Racors as used in the old centrifugal style 500, 900 or 1000 series units have lower beta numbers.

Parker sells setups to compete with Fleetguard/Cummins and Cat filters on a Beta number basis if one were so inclined. A look at these types of filters will show several ways for determination of water.
 
Last edited:
The interesting thing I found in a Racor manual is that they recommend using a 2 micron filter if water intrusion is a risk. Likely had something to do with the pore size and effectiveness of the aquabloc coating.


I'll cut and past after work.
 
Even with my 10 gph Cat 3208s...I have only had one filter ever restrict normal cruising in tens of thousands of miles recreationally and many more commercially.

If I ever travel outside normal US recreational travel circles where volume and and quality fuel is not the norm....than a different filter setup will be in the cards.

But then micron setups I have used with US fuel hasn't let me or my commercial buddies down yet. When the fuel is suspect, the filters are changed and the fuel polished before the next trip. We do at least have that luxury. Only once did a friend of mine have an issue where he went up in micron size because of the trashed fuel he was getting from a coastal dredge outfit...and even then filter changes were almost a daily even as engine shutdown was not an option so it didn't matter what size..they all were clogging.
 
Years ago I remember reading in sailing cruising mags about people using a Baja filter to pre filter fuel as it was being taken onboard. It appeared to take out the "sticks and stones" but more importantly water. It also let you see the fuel going in. I have never used one. Does anyone here have experience?

Fwiw, my existing systems consists of a Racor R120 30 micron pre filter and a 10 micron on engine with no gages. I just (3 days ago) purchased a Seamax double double system and will have a 20/10 primary with gage, 10/5 secondary with gage and a 10 on engine. Alaska is in our future plans (from CA) so I just wanted something more robust.
 
O C Diver said:
Food or thought on vaccum gauges:

Was thinking about this after consuming an adult beverage (beer), so this may not be throughly developed. My fuel tanks are about 28" tall. For the sake of the discussion, let's assume the lift pump height is at the middle of the tanks. The vaccum gauge is reading inches of vaccum. To my understanding, an inch of vaccum, if there is no restriction in the filter element, would be to lift the fuel from 1" below the level of the lift pump in the tank up to the lift pump. If the fuel level was 10" below the lift pump, the gauge would show 10" of vaccum. If the fuel level was above the lift pump, there would actually be a positive pressure in the filter and at the inlet to the lift pump. Again, assuming that my lift pump is at the middle level of my 28" tank, does that mean that the theoretical reading on my separator gauge could be anywhere from 14" of positive pressure to 14" of vaccum with a clean unobstructed element? If this is correct, with 3/4 full tank I could have 7" of diffential vaccum (difference between filter inlet and outlet with a mostly clogged filter) and show no vaccum on my gauge. Is this correct or am I missing something?

Ted
Click to expand...

After doing some research, the Racor gauge is calibrated in inches of Mercury and there is about 13" of diesel fuel to every inch of Mercury. So for my tanks the vaccum gauge might show 1" of vaccum when the tanks are near empty.

Ted
 
sunchaser said:
Why not run a much larger primary? 2 microns it seems would just lead to lots of filter changes and engine stoppages in the wrong place. I and many others run 30 micron Racors as primaries. Our two per engine on engine filters are about 5 microns (Cat specs) with a high beta number and lots of capacity.

If one has a common rail the normal setup is 30, 10 and on engine using a good set of filters with known acceptable beta numbers. As indicated in a previous post Racors as used in the old centrifugal style 500, 900 or 1000 series units have lower beta numbers.

Parker sells setups to compete with Fleetguard/Cummins and Cat filters on a Beta number basis if one were so inclined. A look at these types of filters will show several ways for determination of water.
Click to expand...

Northern Spy said:
The interesting thing I found in a Racor manual is that they recommend using a 2 micron filter if water intrusion is a risk. Likely had something to do with the pore size and effectiveness of the aquabloc coating.


I'll cut and past after work.
Click to expand...

Maybe some of you have seen this before, but it was new to me:

Racor’s 2 micron filter medium should
only be used in final or secondary
filters where the fuel is first filtered by
a primary filter. The primary filter for
a 2 micron final filter should use a 10
micron medium. The exception in using
a 2 micron filter in place of a primary
filter is to obtain high-efficiency water
separation, and is usually used in marine
applications where the fuel supply may
be cleaner but also may contain water
more often. If the installation can allow
the use of a filter large enough, then a 2
micron filter can serve in a system as the
only filter in that system.
 
sunchaser said:
My Racors, as with many other vessels with good draft, are lower than the fuel tanks so gravity works just fine to refill. Have you ever found water in the Racor? If so, where did it come from?
Click to expand...

I have not read every single post in this...got to page 4.....BUT...to answer this question.... If I could not have seen water in my bowl, I very likely would have trashed an engine. The water came from a ruptured fuel cooler. A LOT of water. As soon as the symptoms appeared(amazingly the boat continued to run...but not well), a quick glance down below and I immediately knew what was wrong. I did not know at the moment where it was coming from but I certainly knew I was in trouble by the "strawberry milk" colored stuff in the filter bowl. Have to remove and dump a filter just to see what is going on is just plain stupid if you ask me. The more information, the better. I do not know how Y'all can argue with that.
 
I have used a Baja filter (a nice monel version made by Rybovitch for sport fish) and found gropsch and water at different fuel stops all along the Atlantic.

It slows down filling , even in a larger size , but it does work to catch water and trash.

The fuel stops that complain the most .>> thats not required,,our fuel is clean<<,, are usually the dirty fuel locations.

One was so insistiant his fuel was filtered,, that after paying ,
I dumped the 5 or 6 table spoons of crud in the dock , telling hom it did not exist , he has filters.

Since it was a sail boat 20G at the usual fill, I shudder to think of what a larger tank would have been filled with.

Much on board water comes from fuel deck fittings that have not been maintained.

Change your O ring lately?
 
Northern Spy said:
Maybe some of you have seen this before, but it was new to me:

Racor’s 2 micron filter medium should
only be used in final or secondary
filters where the fuel is first filtered by
a primary filter. The primary filter for
a 2 micron final filter should use a 10
micron medium. The exception in using
a 2 micron filter in place of a primary
filter is to obtain high-efficiency water
separation, and is usually used in marine
applications where the fuel supply may
be cleaner but also may contain water
more often. If the installation can allow
the use of a filter large enough, then a 2
micron filter can serve in a system as the
only filter in that system.
Click to expand...

Umm, took the words right out of my mouth.

Well, really Marin's mouth, since last year he had a persuasive argument for the 2 micron AND since it does not restrict the fuel IN MY SYSTEM any more than 10 micron, why not use the 2 and keep the stuff as far away form the engine as I can.??

Now, if anyone remembers, in the late spring of 2013, I did post this question because it was the one and only time I did have an engine stoppage because the filter was clogged.

I quickly turned the lever and the engine started right up again.

So, that was when i discovered all the black stuff in the filter, BUT not in the tank itself. Which is why I am such an advocate of Fuel Polishing.

I had polished that fuel as I came up the east coast and this was only the second day in Long Island Sound, after 220 hours of engine time.

I did not change that Racor.

The lesson learned was that I should have been changing the Racors initially far more often to see what was coming out.
 
FF said:
Much on board water comes from fuel deck fittings that have not been maintained.

Change your O ring lately?
Click to expand...

Yes I have, thank you very much. Both were in need of replacement. Spares for all fillers are now onboard and this item is now on my annual checklist. :thumb:
 
Baker,
Are the fuel coolers you refer to the "Cummins On Engine"? These are the ones located on the port side of each engine. Was there any indication these were suspect? What was the age of the coolers? These are the only items I did not remove, clean and inspect on my just completed raw water side service. I am now questioning my wisdom. I have heard of some folks who just remove the fuel coolers and just use the fuel tanks as the heat sink.
 
There are too many dam posts here for me to read all sooo. What ever you use consider the wisdom(not mine) of using a screw on mud filter with a large capacity, a closed loop OB bulb priming SX, and vacuum gauges on the mud filter. All this installed prior to any other filtration. If you don't know what I am talking about another learning exercise opportunity. Go to Seaboard Marine and to Tony's tips and read about filtration Tony's way. The white vertical units with gauges on top are screw on the first in line the high capacity mud filter the second 10 mic this is before the two motor mounted units. This is common rail and needs good filtration. The closed loop prime SX is also visible.
 

Attachments

  • fluid control center.jpg
    fluid control center.jpg
    80.3 KB · Views: 97
Last edited:
Well they are good at self promotion and writing marketing copy I'll give them that.
 
Last edited:
I posted a bit of a blurb about a friend in the Sea of Cortez whose engine stopped at sea due to fuel he picked up in Santa Barbara...
 
eyschulman said:
Just had the suspicion you saw a problem. I have been wrong before and it will probably happen again sorry.
Click to expand...

I see a problem...not sight bowl! I like a lot of things Tony does...this is not one of them. If water got in there you would have no clue until symptoms showed up. Symptoms that could damage your engine.

How do common rail engines tolerate water???
 
Last edited:
woodsea said:
Baker,
Are the fuel coolers you refer to the "Cummins On Engine"? These are the ones located on the port side of each engine. Was there any indication these were suspect? What was the age of the coolers? These are the only items I did not remove, clean and inspect on my just completed raw water side service. I am now questioning my wisdom. I have heard of some folks who just remove the fuel coolers and just use the fuel tanks as the heat sink.
Click to expand...

Yes these were the stock fuel coolers. They were likely the same ones that came with the engine/boat. 13 years old. I replaced both after this happened. Seaboard has a shitload of these things laying around since Tony does not believe they are worth the risk. They take them off of brand new engines. So they sell them cheap. I got a new pair for $70 each. I think they have since gone up on the proce but not too much...maybe a $100 a piece. My compromise is that I will change them when I do the after cooler service. I feel once every few years and they should be fine.

I had a hard time just removing them. My boat is heat soaked just sitting at the dock. My tanks are relatively small(110 gallons a piece) and they are rarely full...and only full for a short period. These engines pump four times more fuel than they use so that continuous cycling of fuel would cause non-cooled fuel to get quite hot. Tony says if it stays below 140degrees you should be fine. In the summer, my fuel starts out above 100.

Anyway, because of the water intrusion into my system I was changing filters and emptying filter bowls VERY often...underway all the time. And during those times when I had the fuel cooler on the right engine bypassed, that fuel was extremely hot while I was handling filters and emptying bowls. Was it 140...I don't know but it was too hot to have my skin remain in contact. IOW...quite hot to the touch. Sooooooooo......hence my compromise. The 140 degrees is a Cummins spec....I think you are losing rated power above that temperature. I don't know what else hot fuel would cause. It does cause the flash point to lower...So maybe a fire hazard.
 
I never could have lived through the above scenario without sight bowls!!! And it is a very important part of my preflight scan of the engine room.....now!!!
 
Last edited:
Baker said:
Yes these were the stock fuel coolers. They were likely the same ones that came with the engine/boat. 13 years old. I replaced both after this happened. Seaboard has a shitload of these things laying around since Tony does not believe they are worth the risk. They take them off of brand new engines. So they sell them cheap. I got a new pair for $70 each. I think they have since gone up on the proce but not too much...maybe a $100 a piece. My compromise is that I will change them when I do the after cooler service. I feel once every few years and they should be fine.
Click to expand...

My guess and it's only a guess is that they suffer the same deterioration as many gear coolers, no sacrificial anode. Surprised tony doesn't make one or modify the original to take a pencil zinc.

I agree that he has a nice filter system, but without a bowl on the first filter to see what is or has happened, it's a non starter for me.

Ted
 
O C Diver said:
My guess and it's only a guess is that they suffer the same deterioration as many gear coolers, no sacrificial anode. Surprised tony doesn't make one or modify the original to take a pencil zinc.

I agree that he has a nice filter system, but without a bowl on the first filter to see what is or has happened, it's a non starter for me.

Ted
Click to expand...

I think it is marine age more than anything. 13 years is a long time in the marine environment.
 
Yes I also was able to dodge a bullet once because I saw the Racor bowl full of water. It was early spring and I had just run the boat 150 feet from the launch well to a slip. An hour later while doing a visual in the ER for leaks, etc. I saw the bowl almost full of water.
I ended up draining the bowl and building a rig to suck the water from the bottom of the tank. In total I got about 3 quarts of water out of the diesel.
That would have done some damage!
 
eyschulman said:
Just had the suspicion you saw a problem. I have been wrong before and it will probably happen again sorry.
Click to expand...

I was just commenting on what seemed to me their making out of their filter system to be something vastly superior to Racors or other filters.

I started to comment on some of the pumbing in the photo but then I wasn't sure if they had put that system together themselves or if it was one some one else had worked up with their products.
 
Baker said:
I see a problem...not sight bowl! I like a lot of things Tony does...this is not one of them. If water got in there you would have no clue until symptoms showed up. Symptoms that could damage your engine.

How do common rail engines tolerate water???
Click to expand...

According to their web site they expect you to drain off a sample of your fuel from their filters to check for water. And they claim it's not easy to tell if you have water in your fuel by just looking at the bowl of a Racor.

The first part is perhaps easy enough to do before you get underway. But more than a bit of a PITA once you're up and running I'd say.

And as to being able to see water in a a Racor bowl, I've never had a problem doing that. But I guess it's possible if the bowls full of crud. But if the bowl was that full of crud I'd be checking the filter element any way and draining the bowl.
 
O C Diver said:
My guess and it's only a guess is that they suffer the same deterioration as many gear coolers, no sacrificial anode. Surprised tony doesn't make one or modify the original to take a pencil zinc.

I agree that he has a nice filter system, but without a bowl on the first filter to see what is or has happened, it's a non starter for me.

Ted
Click to expand...

Ted

If your ESI is working properly, where does the water come from that you see in your engine filter loop?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
racor drain fitting leaking
2 3 4
Replies
97
Views
6K
paulga
P
L
Vetus fuller filter
Replies
2
Views
214
C lectric
C lectric
P
fuel manifold installation
2 3
Replies
77
Views
4K
paulga
P
P
Racor filter - Wireless Vacuum Gauge?
Replies
13
Views
812
RickyD
RickyD
PhilPB
Fuel Filters
Replies
15
Views
2K
jleonard
jleonard

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom