I just got this back from Racor Technical Service.
"There is no maximum shelf life as long as the filter is still in the original packaging. Filters out of their packaging should be used as soon as possible."
Racor Products Technical Service
Is that a shelf life in it's wrapping or life in the filter housing with diesel fuel?
Ted
I run 30 micron Raycors and change them at the end of every season. There is sometimes a bit of sediment in the bowl but the filters always look clean, never a elevated suction issue.
pete
2 points:I found the following on Tony Athen's website and it is a quote from him regarding fuel filter life:
"For all intents and purposes, they DO NOT degrade with time (10+ years with clean #2 in them?) . If “stuff is growing inside the bowl, then that is a different story. Definitely a clear bowl can speed that up, as “light” is an ingredient for some types of this growth. With a RACOR, a visual can give you a a decent indication, but only a vac gauge will tell you for sure. 8-10″ Hg is a good number to change at."
He seems to think that they have a great life and basically (within reason) do not degrade much over time.
As many of you know, he is a very highly regarded marine engine expert, with over 35 years of experience!
Just additional info from what I consider to be a "trusted source".
2 points:
Tony markets his own system, so he has some bias.
The bowl's advantage is to see water and crud accumulating before it becomes a problem. Without the bowl you have no way of knowing until it becomes bad enough to register on the vacuum gauge. If I were to have significant water in my fuel, I would want to know when it started collecting in the first filter (bowl).
While Tony is very well regarded, Racor is part of Parker Hannaifin, one of the acknowledged world leaders in the science of fuel filtration. For Tony to imply that he has a better understanding of Racor's filter media than the scientists who invented it, is laughable. Maybe Tony could post a picture of his science lab where he evaluates the life expectancy of filter media.
In the relative scheme of boating costs, a Racor filter element costs absolutely nothing. For the catastrophic cost a plugged fuel filter could lead to (power limited or disabled engine at the worst possible time), why would you risk it.
Ted
Ted: with respect, as far as Racor stating that their filters have a shelf life, well, Racor markets filters. Meanwhile, Tony Athens does not market a product he makes. The filters are Fleetguards. The vacuum gauges are off the shelf as are the filter heads he sells, all of which can be had from other suppliers. I do agree that a sight bowl is handy but a simple opening of the bottom drain valve on a Fleetguard filter will give the same info re water and/or debris.2 points:
Tony markets his own system, so he has some bias.
The bowl's advantage is to see water and crud accumulating before it becomes a problem. Without the bowl you have no way of knowing until it becomes bad enough to register on the vacuum gauge. If I were to have significant water in my fuel, I would want to know when it started collecting in the first filter (bowl).
While Tony is very well regarded, Racor is part of Parker Hannaifin, one of the acknowledged world leaders in the science of fuel filtration. For Tony to imply that he has a better understanding of Racor's filter media than the scientists who invented it, is laughable. Maybe Tony could post a picture of his science lab where he evaluates the life expectancy of filter media.
In the relative scheme of boating costs, a Racor filter element costs absolutely nothing. For the catastrophic cost a plugged fuel filter could lead to (power limited or disabled engine at the worst possible time), why would you risk it.
Ted
With regard to Tony, my point was that he had no scientific basis to comment on Racor's "in use time life expectancy".Ted: with respect, as far as Racor stating that their filters have a shelf life, well, Racor markets filters. Meanwhile, Tony Athens does not market a product he makes. The filters are Fleetguards. The vacuum gauges are off the shelf as are the filter heads he sells, all of which can be had from other suppliers. I do agree that a sight bowl is handy but a simple opening of the bottom drain valve on a Fleetguard filter will give the same info re water and/or debris.
I have Lehman 120s which flow two gallons per hour and return almost nothing at a fuel pressure of around 7psi. I question whether Racor's vaunted whirlpool effect has anything but a marginal effect.
Bottom line is I don't like Racors but I don't have an Athens setup either. I have Davco heads which are used extensively in the trucking industry, much easier to change filters and the user may visually determine when changing a filter is required.
With regard to Tony, my point was that he had no scientific basis to comment on Racor's "in use time life expectancy".
Maybe you could explain your technique for an underway sampling for water in fuel. On long days (>6 hours) I do an engine room inspection every 4 hours which includes shining a light in the Racor bowl. A number of forum members do it more frequently.
With a fuel flow of 2 to 6 GPH with your Lehman in either the Racor 900 or 1000 series filters, I would imagine the whirlpool would have no effect. With my 135 HP JD, it probably has some effect as the underway flow rate is 10 to 32 GPH. In my Racor 1000 fuel polisher with a 150 GPH flow rate, the whirlpool effect is undeniable. Clearly the whirlpool requires a minimum flow rate to be effective.
Ted
I dont check underway as a normal routine but after having a large amount of water in the tank it was very handy to monitor the clear bowl and drain when necessary including underway. Mate manned the helm, idled down and I could drain bowls very quickly while underway.I do not check for water while underway. Why would I not know before I got underway that there was water in the tank? Or debris. As for Tone Athens' opinion on Racor housings, educated or not, it matters not to me. I still like all metal filters with a bottom drain. In my opinion his sequential filtering regimen with vacuum gauges makes eminent sense to me.
" There isn’t a good way to test the elements just don’t use them if they look old, damaged and they should smell a little like fish.""
To be clear are you saying that they should smell like fish?
Ted,2 points:
Tony markets his own system, so he has some bias.
The bowl's advantage is to see water and crud accumulating before it becomes a problem. Without the bowl you have no way of knowing until it becomes bad enough to register on the vacuum gauge. If I were to have significant water in my fuel, I would want to know when it started collecting in the first filter (bowl).
While Tony is very well regarded, Racor is part of Parker Hannaifin, one of the acknowledged world leaders in the science of fuel filtration. For Tony to imply that he has a better understanding of Racor's filter media than the scientists who invented it, is laughable. Maybe Tony could post a picture of his science lab where he evaluates the life expectancy of filter media.
In the relative scheme of boating costs, a Racor filter element costs absolutely nothing. For the catastrophic cost a plugged fuel filter could lead to (power limited or disabled engine at the worst possible time), why would you risk it.
Ted
Ted,
It was not my intent to try to state that ANY of the opinions given so far in this post were invalid, or that Racor's scientists and/or engineers did not know what they were talking about!!
All I wanted to do, was to give an additional opinion from a "solid" source, one that is extremely well respected, who has a wealth of experience and knowledge on many subjects related to marine diesel engines. Yes, he does sell products, but as has been pointed out in another post, he does not manufacture filters or their assorted equipment, and compared to Parker (Racor), his "bias" would be miniscule in comparison! Also, if his opinion is as biased as you seem to infer, why would he advise NOT to replace?? Would he not be saying you should spend more money by replacing when not really needed?? Parker advises a more frequent filter change and shorter filter shelf life and to me, appears to have more to gain from their advise than does Tony.
Just trying to get you to see some of the holes, in your statement and maybe your opinion of Tony's expertise and motives. By the way, he did not ever state that he knows more about Racor's products than they do (certainly not in that quote), he has never stated that he ran "scientific tests" (which by the way can be "slanted" or even falsified). He is giving free advise based on his accumulated knowledge (from many sources including his over 35 years of experience), and what I also consider "just common sense". For you to "make light of him" and ask for photos of his scientific testing lab, is, in my humble opinion, a bit disrespectful