Dual Racors

drb1025 said:

I have 30 micron Racors, then an on-engine 10 micron, followed by the final on-engine 2 micron. Both final on-engine filters are also water separators for the JD4045's. This is what JD recommends for this engine.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a perfect setup. Sequential filtering at its best.

sunchaser said:

For much less money and space you can get spin ons with dual filters, valves and vacuum gauges. And your filter changes will be ever so much quicker. Look up Seaboard's units for comparison.

Click to expand...

sunchaser said:

Really, I don't think so. I have stated I rely upon a Racor in line but don't like it because it is messy and time consuming to change.

I have hinted but will now say racor plastic bowls have cult status as an inline filter. Good for PH, who by the way will quite happily sell you spin ons for the same application touting their easy no mess design. In fact PH will sell you a fuel filter that has a priming pump built in to the head, now that is slick!

Remember too, I have stated I like Racors for fuel polishing provided big volumes are flowing.

Click to expand...

When you're saying "spin on" in this context, are you referring to the on-engine secondary filters?

Or do you mean off-engine primary filter/fuel-water separators that happen to be of spin-on design? IOW, unlike the RACOR 900s and so forth, but used for the same function? "Seaboard" refers to sbmar's SMX system?

-Chris

ranger42c said:

When you're saying "spin on" in this context, are you referring to the on-engine secondary filters?

Or do you mean off-engine primary filter/fuel-water separators that happen to be of spin-on design? IOW, unlike the RACOR 900s and so forth, but used for the same function? "Seaboard" refers to sbmar's SMX system?

-Chris

Click to expand...

SMX system

OC -- You're right just typing faster than thinking!! Thanks for calling me out on that one.

Just to be clear the dual filters that we have are the paper element racor primary filters with see through plastic bowls.

We change these primary filters every 200 hours (3 times per year on average) see foot note a. This equates to roughly 3600 gallons of fuel through the filters with 1/3 of it being burned. Same volume numbers for for our polishing filter which is the same size.

We change our on engine secondaries every four hundred hours (see foot note b).

Foot note a: every 200 hours or annually whichever comes first or when water or contamination is discovered in the bowl and engine fails to reach max rpm during daily tests.

Foot note b: every 400 hours, or whenever water is discovered in the primary filter or the engine fails to reach maximum rpm during daily tests.

With the dual primary set up this means throwing the lever to the #2 filter after 200 hours and changing all filters after 400 hours unless something abnormal happens. It's a boat after all.


Via iPad using Trawler Forum

For some real filter porn, you guys need to check out the Fleetguard Diesel Pro line of filters.

I agree with sunchaser. Racors are the has-beens of fuel filtration. Never seen one off of a recreational boat. I think that Parker Hannifin is a bit skimpy with the filter specifications for a reason.

PS: I has an ancient Racor, pre-PH even.

There is nothing magic about Fleetguards. I've had them on boats I've run. No easier to change elements than Racors and the element size are not greater either. Good filters that have been around for decades but nothing magical about them.

This is a pretty silly discussion, dare I say boarding on stupid. No one has shown that Racors don't filter fuel just like they are designed to and filter it as well as spin filters do. While in most cases giving you a window to see what they are filtering out as well. And do it with easy to change, inexpensive elements. Sure it may take 60 sec or so longer to change out the element than some spin ons but that hardly is a reason to run out and pull out your perfectly good Racors, throw them in the trash and install a new set of spin ons. Well at least for most people I would guess.

Northern Spy said:

For some real filter porn, you guys need to check out the Fleetguard Diesel Pro line of filters.

I agree with sunchaser. Racors are the has-beens of fuel filtration. Never seen one off of a recreational boat. I think that Parker Hannifin is a bit skimpy with the filter specifications for a reason.

PS: I has an ancient Racor, pre-PH even.

Click to expand...

I would grant you that you don't see them much on non recreational boats over 50'. That probably do to engine size and other factors. They're very common with the sub 50' sport fishing charter boats, potters, long liners, Chesapeake Bay waterman, and many other work boats....all of which are non recreational. I know every dive charter boat out of MD (both of us) uses racors.

Ted

Capt.Bill11 said:

There is nothing magic about Fleetguards. I've had them on boats I've run. No easier to change elements than Racors and the element size are not greater either. Good filters that have been around for decades but nothing magical about them.

Sure it may take 60 sec or so longer to change out the element than some spin ons but that hardly is a reason to run out and pull out your perfectly good Racors, throw them in the trash and install a new set of spin ons. Well at least for most people I would guess.

Click to expand...

And...I'll bet I can change a Racor element faster than a spin on. Because with a Racor I don't need to pre-fill or prime after the element change.
So the faster theory is out the window as far as I'm concerned.

Sigh. No one actually looked at the Fleetguard Diesel Pro, did they?

Hint: It is not a spin on...

Northern Spy said:

Sigh. No one actually looked at the Fleetguard Diesel Pro, did they?

Hint: It is not a spin on...

Click to expand...

I did. It looks to me like it would be messy to change elements? The element is on the top side of the unit?
Or am I missing something?

Northern Spy said:

Sigh. No one actually looked at the Fleetguard Diesel Pro, did they?

Hint: It is not a spin on...

Click to expand...

Design looks interesting. The part that jumps out at me is that you can't see water accumulating in the filter until it reaches the cartridge section. IMO, that's a great deal of what makes the Racors so popular, visual inspection for contaminants. Like the idea of being able to see the element though.

Ted

Northern Spy said:

Sigh. No one actually looked at the Fleetguard Diesel Pro, did they?

Hint: It is not a spin on...

Click to expand...

Like I said, I've not only looked at them, I've used them. Nice units. But I wouldn't remove perfectly good Racors to install them.

But perhaps that is not what you are trying to say. Speak up man!

jleonard said:

I did. It looks to me like it would be messy to change elements? The element is on the top side of the unit?
Or am I missing something?

Click to expand...

They are not to messy. You drain them before you chance them. But you do have to use the special wrench supplied with them to loosen/tighten the filter bowl retaining ring and the top mounted drain cap.

Northern Spy said:

Sigh. No one actually looked at the Fleetguard Diesel Pro, did they?.

Click to expand...

I did and although I continue to be a Duel Racor fan, I must admit that the Diesel Pro is very interesting. While checking the applications section of their web site, I saw no mention of marine use.

Found this on eBay. They mention marine use.

Seems you have to buy a retrofit kit to get it to ABS and IMO standards however.

Capt.Bill11 said:

But perhaps that is not what you are trying to say. Speak up man!

Click to expand...

All I'm saying us that there are as good as or better filtration solutions out there than Racor. Just as sunchaser says.

Racor makes good filtration and water removal systems. But the reason Racor is predominant is because of marketing and positioning.

I won't rip out my existing Racor as it functions fine. But if I have to replace I will consider more robust, user friendly, lower initial and operating costs, smaller and less complex designs that achieve as good as or better beta ratings than the "traditional" Racor.

sunchaser said:

SMX system

Click to expand...

Thanks. -C

My only complaint about Racor elements is they cost about $80 each here, while CAV types are about $10. I fitted Racor to replace the original cylinder filters with no drainage provision. I think they do a good job, after 4 years of Racors plus adding snake oil to the tanks (readily available,lots of snakes over here), judging by the filter bowl drainage we have gained significantly on tank condition ignored by POs.
BTW, I carry a spare plastic filter bowl.

Racor elements are about $10 here. Did you ever considered buying 12 in the USA and paying the shipping and import duty on $120? Can't imagine $200 not covering your importation.

Ted

O C Diver said:

Racor elements are about $10 here. Did you ever considered buying 12 in the USA and paying the shipping and import duty on $120? Can't imagine $200 not covering your importation.

Ted

Click to expand...

Thanks Ted, I did, from an ebay seller, worked well costwise, but the source seemed to disappear. I should do it again, there is a certain CM I should ask. At present it`s just shipping cost, purchases sub $1000 don`t attract 10% GST tax. I did well bringing in heat exchangers and exhaust elbows, splitting them into 2 lots to avoid the tax.

One thing I would like to hear explained. If the advantage universally touted for Racors is being able to visually see what's being filtered, why is the number one recommendation to add a vacuum gauge to tell when the element needs to be changed?

CPseudonym said:

One thing I would like to hear explained. If the advantage universally touted for Racors is being able to visually see what's being filtered, why is the number one recommendation to add a vacuum gauge to tell when the element needs to be changed?

Click to expand...

Contrarily to what many think, the advantage to the clear bowl is the ability to see if there is water in the fuel. You can have fuel with enough contaminates to clog the element without seeing a lot of junk in the bowl itself.

In my opinion installing the water probes and alarms is more important than installing vacuum gauges.

CPseudonym said:

One thing I would like to hear explained. If the advantage universally touted for Racors is being able to visually see what's being filtered, why is the number one recommendation to add a vacuum gauge to tell when the element needs to be changed?

Click to expand...

The clear bowl is not an indication that the filter needs changed, it simply gives you a sight warning of what your filter is removing from the fuel.

The gauge is an indication as to how dirty the filter is.

Found in the Racor catalog 7480H:

Racor makes filters with various
filtration efficiencies, but its standards
for non-OEM (Original Equipment
Manufacturer) are 2, 10, and 30 micron
filter elements. The actual efficiency
ratings for these are 98%, 95%, and
90% respectively.

So they use Nominal Micron Ratings.
I learned something today and now I can go to bed.

CPseudonym said:

One thing I would like to hear explained. If the advantage universally touted for Racors is being able to visually see what's being filtered, why is the number one recommendation to add a vacuum gauge to tell when the element needs to be changed?

Click to expand...

What a nice sensible question. Especially when the thrust of the thread is having a T handle to turn to bring a fresh filter online when one gets plugged or vacuum increases - unrelated to water in the Racors. If one is so inclined, there are some very good ways to check for water in our boat fuel. Or better yet, avoid watery fuel to begin with.

O C Diver said:

Unless you have yours plumbed differently, you're measuring inches of vaccum. While it's important to take into consideration the limitation of the racor element, you need to make sure you are also within the limitation of the engine lift pump. Cummins C series has a very low tolerance for lift pump vaccum.

Racor lists the 900 & 1000 series filters as capable of 10" of differential vaccum. I'll switch after 2".

Ted

Click to expand...

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.

Also, I know everyone on this forum is very trusting and truthful, so I will share with you the warm fuzzy feeling I get when I put on those new secondary spin on canister, that have been loving made in China to the specifications of the mood of the worker getting paid 2 cents for every filter.

My Racor filters are made in Shanghai, China, Gebze, Turkey, and Chennai, India.

My Volvo/Perkins spin on is made by Baldwin in Gothenburg, Nebraska, or Yankton, South Dakota, which does not bring warm thoughts at all...

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

The truck filters have many advantages over the Raycors.

The level of fuel in the bowl, how high it rises is used as the measure of how plugged the filter actually is. No vacuum gauge required.

The big knurled nut on TOP of the filter allows easy priming , just pour in a can or two of ATF , or diesel fuel , and away you go.

The AK folks might be able to use the fuel heater option , but most folks wont need it.

Any std strap wrench will remove the cover ring to change the element.