Dual Racors

Xsbank said:

Condensation, no.

One pound of dry air = 13.15 cu feet. At 90% humidity and 22 degrees, there is about 0.4 cu inch water. Therefore an empty 400 gallon fuel tank, 64 cu feet, has about 12 cu inches of water in the air in there, or .3 Imperial pint. In a half full fuel tank, 200 gallons of air, there is about 0.15 Imperial pints of water in the air in that tank.

Ergo bingo, condensation not a problem. My head hurts now so I am going to take a nap.

Click to expand...

Your head hurts? How do think I now feel trying to get my head around that

Anyway, I will stick with the current plan. Maybe it is just the o-ring on the fuel filler cap. I certainly hope so because if it is not that or condensation then I have a real problem. Also will be getting a day tank with a drainable sump made and fitted within the next 2 weeks.

eyschulman said:

ski you can keep the bowl after the spin on, as to the mess first drain some fuel from the spin on with stopcock take off dump in container spin on new filter and fill with closed loop OB bulb pump reopen fuel stop cocks ready to go. Where is the big mess?

Click to expand...

Not all spin-ons have drain cocks. Those without, once you crack them loose a few oz of fuel will spill out. Those that have cocks you have to drain a few oz while cracking filter from base to allow air in. Then you have to keep a container to dump the filter contents. What are you going to do with a bucket with an old filter and a qt of fuel sloshing around with it?

If good with your hands and procedure, you can change a spin on without mess. But is it easier than a racor?

Again, what is benefit of having a mud filter prior to the racor, granting the visual bowl is an advantage? Ok if your tanks are full of junk, but that is another issue.

Not trying to argue, you can use spin ons if you like, they will work fine. I just do not see the advantage of using them vs a racor and engine mounted secondary.

eyschulman said:

ski you can keep the bowl after the spin on, as to the mess first drain some fuel from the spin on with stopcock take off dump in container spin on new filter and fill with closed loop OB bulb pump reopen fuel stop cocks ready to go. Where is the big mess?

Click to expand...

Or you could just install a big Racor with a 30 micron "mud" (great marketing term) filter element in it with a water probe/alarm, a clear bowl, the magic "closed loop priming bulb system" as the first filter in line from your tank and have it all.

There really is no single world greatest filter system for small boats. One pretty much ends up filtering the fuel as well as the others.

And to tout spin ons as vastly superior to Racors, or vice versa, is silly.

As to the mess, sure you can drain down a spin on just enough to spin it off. But then you have to deal with a filter element full of fuel. Or you drain all the fuel out of it, which kind of negates the highly touted faster element change advantage, and deal with disposing of a quart or more of dirty fuel. Perhaps no big deal at the dock but a potential PITA while under way in a hot engine room. So no advantage to the spin ons there.

At least with the Racors you can drain out the small amount of fuel needed to pull out the element without having any excess fuel spill over the sides of the filter body. In fact you can pull the element up and let it drain down into the body before pulling it all the way out. There by keeping any fuel you have to deal with after an element change to a bare minimum if need be.

Like I said, there are pros and cons to all the systems. Just choose what works for you, maintain it properly, then your fuel should stay nice and clean and your engine/s will be happy.

Brian:

Just so you know there are other points of view:
My log book shows when I change everything. I do oil changes along with everyone lese, annually, or if I have a busy year, more often. Fuel filters, I used to do more often than annually, as the Racor bowl would start to look bad in less than a year, but the on-engine I would do every second time I did the Racors. That was more than 20 years ago, before the fuel got clean. Now, with Low Sulpher diesel, the Racors don't look bad so quickly, so the filters don't need to be changed so often.
I usually put 10 micron filters in the Racors and 2 micron in the on-engine filters. My logbook shows the most recent change was 4 years in the Racors and 10 years for the on-engine filters.

For those that may be interested, the following Racor information states the filters for common rail engines have tighter specs than the older design Racors may provide.


View attachment Mobile_The_Micron_Rating.pdf

sunchaser said:

For those that may be interested, the following Racor information states the filters for common rail engines have tighter specs than the older design Racors may provide.


View attachment 37092

Click to expand...

Appreciate you posting this link. It confirms what I have long assumed that there was no problem using a 2 micron filter element as a primary as long as there was substantial reserve capacity in the flow rate. My JD lift pump has a maximum flow rate of 32 gph and should work very well with the Racor 1000 capacity of 180 gph. The pdf also confirmed that the 2 micron has a "high-efficiency water separation" which should compliment the flow separation of the filter housing. As mentioned earlier, any impurities making it past the 2 micron Racor will be picked up by the final filter on the engine making the argument of whether the Racor meets the standards of common rail diesels a moot point.

Ted

Many of my customers run 2mic primaries as their personal choice. I've heard no complaints of clogging or high restriction, but these boats have known clean fuel.

Many others, including my boat, run 10mic.

Boats with Detroits get 30's, also boats where filter is on the small size for the flow rate.

I have not seen much difference in clogging amongst the different rated elements. If tanks are clean, none clog. If tanks are dirty, they all clog.

I'm not sure there is much of a difference at all between the elements, but they say there is...

Baker said:

Get a shitload of water in your fuel and you will get very good at it!!! It took about 150 hours before my Racor bowl stopped getting water in it. The fuel polisher service(for lack of a better term) can only get so much water out. There is significant residual. I would have to stop in the middle of a passage just to empty the bowl and change the filter....less than 5 minutes.

I will repeat....put yourself in my situation and then tell me how NOT having sight bowls is an advantage???????????? I very likely would have messed some things up AGAIN had I not had a "continuous pulse" on what was going on with my fuel.

Click to expand...

Same here
I saw the water. I knew I had a problem.
I changed it while underway.
the rest of the shenangians are a totally different story

Xsbank said:

Condensation, no.

One pound of dry air = 13.15 cu feet. At 90% humidity and 22 degrees, there is about 0.4 cu inch water. Therefore an empty 400 gallon fuel tank, 64 cu feet, has about 12 cu inches of water in the air in there, or .3 Imperial pint. In a half full fuel tank, 200 gallons of air, there is about 0.15 Imperial pints of water in the air in that tank.

Ergo bingo, condensation not a problem. My head hurts now so I am going to take a nap.

Click to expand...

Before we go off on another wild tangent, the water condensate, what little there is, is NOT a function of the amount of water in the air.

O C Diver said:

It confirms what I have long assumed that there was no problem using a 2 micron filter element as a primary as long as there was substantial reserve capacity in the flow rate.
Ted

Click to expand...

Not all 2 micron filters are created equally. The old style Racors are called nominal by Parker in their ratings. Spy pointed this out several pages ago. Nominal is in the 50 to 90% efficiency range. JD, Cat Cummins etc really like (demand) 2 micron fuel filter beta ratios of 200 for their newer high pressure fuel engines.

As a primary filter a Racor serves water sensing/seeing needs as pointed out. But a Racor sends a lot of crap downstream where best one has secondaries or on engines that do the job. With common rail's tight 2 micron specs, best to have 3 steps and fuel polishing if you're using your boat much

See chart for beta ratio comparisons.

View attachment Fuel_Filters__Micron_Ratings.pdf

Wxx3 said:

Before we go off on another wild tangent, the water condensate, what little there is, is NOT a function of the amount of water in the air.

Click to expand...

What data is required and how does one do the calculation for what really is the amount of water going from air to a fuel tank?

Another fuel filter or best type of oil thread

I have Dual Racor set up feeding my single Ford Lehman. The Lehman have a pair of Napa gold 3166 on the engine. I change the fuel filters and oil filter once a year, regardless of need or use and every thing has worked fined for 7 years.
I am thinking of replacing my 3166 on the engine CAV type filters with spin on Racors. There is an adapter. I believe there is a thread on here somewhere that speaks of this.

But going on about condensation rates and the calculations thereof is a little crazy. Not as crazy as spending $800,000 on a 46' Marine trader and then selling it for $299,000. Boaters sometimes loose perspective on their boats.

sunchaser said:

Not all 2 micron filters are created equally. The old style Racors are called nominal by Parker in their ratings. Spy pointed this out several pages ago. Nominal is in the 50 to 90% efficiency range. JD, Cat Cummins etc really like (demand) 2 micron fuel filter beta ratios of 200 for their newer high pressure fuel engines.

As a primary filter a Racor serves water sensing/seeing needs as pointed out. But a Racor sends a lot of crap downstream where best one has secondaries or on engines that do the job. With common rail's tight 2 micron specs, best to have 3 steps and fuel polishing if you're using your boat much

See chart for beta ratio comparisons.

View attachment 37104

Click to expand...

Per the document linked in post #185, and confirmed by Parker (Racor) who makes the filters for JD that are on my engine, the Racor 1000 2 micron Turbine filter / seperator removes 98% of particulate 2 microns and larger.

The fuel in my boat will be polished with at least a 10 micron turbine Racor filter as it's being transferred to the tank that the engine draws from. The fuel then is drawn through the 2 micron Racor turbine filter and then passes through the 2 filters on the engine. The linked document in post #185 references the industry standard for common rail diesel fuel as 95% for 3 microns. Think I'm well beyond that requirement with a series of 4 seperate filtrations.

Ted

sunchaser said:

What data is required and how does one do the calculation for what really is the amount of water going from air to a fuel tank?

Click to expand...

It is not a simple analysis. The field is "hygrometrics" and involves the water content of air. This can be expressed as relative humidity, dewpoint, water content by weight and by volume, etc. There are charts that show water content given initial conditions. Then as tank cools, it's final conditions can be read off the chart. The difference is the water that condensed out. Need to know what the atmospheric conditions were as tank was drawn down, temp of tank after it cooled, and volume.

Since most tanks are under deck or in engine rooms, they are somewhat protected from night time cooling. So unless they drop in temp below that of the dewpoint of air entering while running, condensation won't occur.

And even if it does occur, we're talking about a small amount of water.

I've tested water drained from a couple tanks, it was high in salt content. That did not come from condensation. Most likely vents or deck fills. Or fuel coolers!!

It looks like changing these will be a "snap".



SNAPP Fuel Filter Water Separator

O C Diver said:

Think I'm well beyond that requirement with a series of 4 seperate filtrations. Ted

Click to expand...

Sounds like you are ready to run and have it well thought out. Has the boat and new engine been splashed yet? What happened to the Cummins you removed?

dhmeissner said:

It looks like changing these will be a "snap".



SNAPP Fuel Filter Water Separator

Click to expand...

Sadly, for engines up to 26HP. Guess that limits it to sailboats.

sunchaser said:

Sounds like you are ready to run and have it well thought out. Has the boat and new engine been splashed yet? What happened to the Cummins you removed?

Click to expand...

He starts paint priming on Monday. Probably a month or two for 3 coats of primer, sanding, several coats of ultra build depending on the area, sanding, 1 or 2 coates of primer, and finally 3 coats of Awlgrip. Sold the C 450 for $15k and bought the JD 4cyl for $17.8k. This is the beginning of the 8th month.

Ted

O C Diver said:

He starts paint priming on Monday. Probably a month or two for 3 coats of primer, sanding, several coats of ultra build depending on the area, sanding, 1 or 2 coates of primer, and finally 3 coats of Awlgrip. Sold the C 450 for $15k and bought the JD 4cyl for $17.8k. This is the beginning of the 8th month.

Ted

Click to expand...

Very impressive Ted. The upgrading of this vessel and that done on Insequent seems the zenith of TFites rebuilding efforts. Who am I missing?