Upgrading the Racor 500

[Barking Sands]

Yes, I was incorrect. I was thinking the 1,000 series and was off by $200. So, $1,400 per side. IMHO, the 500 series is inadequate unless one is happy to be changing filters twice as often.

No actually I was not following you. You are likely saying per side in relation to twin engine. I was thinking single engine and thought you were saying for each filter side. Yes..doing this twice on a twin set up is getting up there in cost for sure.

 

[chriscritchett]

Just to stir some fecal matter when no one asked me to, I have to make an observation: this thread clearly addresses a critical component in one of the most critical onboard systems, and everyone is appalled by the cost of some Racors? Yea, they’re a little pricey, but the premium product discussed here goes for less than a single cheap MFD that most of you / us have multiples of on board, probably at each of multiple helm stations, simply so we can see information presented in prettier pictures more conveniently. Has anyone priced the actual engines lately? This is not a cheap hobby.
OK, amusing observation over. Sorry!

 

[Barking Sands]

Agree.

 

[Alisske]

Just to stir some fecal matter when no one asked me to, I have to make an observation: this thread clearly addresses a critical component in one of the most critical onboard systems, and everyone is appalled by the cost of some Racors? Yea, they’re a little pricey, but the premium product discussed here goes for less than a single cheap MFD that most of you /QUOTE]

Give credit where credit is due. Good point.

 

[Sofa King Fishy]

Dual Racors

Shop on Craigslist & eBay- I was able to find a dual Racor 500 that was removed a few-commissioned ferry. I mounted it is Starboard and installed ball valves at the bottom drain- I believe it’s a very smart use of boat bucks- i had water in the fuel tank on a delivery last winter & it was a scary situation.

 

[Steve DAntonio]

Both of the tandem filters (with black label) in the video are not rated for marine use/lack ABYC compliance/flame resistance, they lack heat shields and metallic drains. The single filter with the red label is also not a marine-rated filter, its drain plug has been upgraded to metal (but not an ABYC approved drain) and it too lacks a heat shield.
UL Marine approved Racor filters have a blue label. Non-compliant filters can be upgraded by retrofitting a heat shield and UL drain valve. Black and red label Racor turbine series filters are industrial/automotive models.

Brown stripe elements are 2 micron, so not designed for primary filter use. It is what's shipped standard with all new Racor turbine series filters.

More on primary fuel filters here https://www.proboat.com/2016/08/selecting-primary-fuel-filters/

 

[timb7734]

Dual racors just make sense, have had them on last five boats.

 

[catalinajack]

Dual racors just make sense, have had them on last five boats.

Not to me. If a boat came to me with them already installed, I would likely remove them, sell them, and install a Tony Athens sequential system and bank the savings.

 

[Simi 60]

FWIW I have purchased several of the Griffin racor 500 clones and used them on other vessels we have owned

Before purchase the reseller and I stripped a Griffin and a racor and interchanged parts and all good

Back when I got them in Thailand, they were around 4:1 of the price of racor.

https://griffinfilter.com/

 

[Steve DAntonio]

I have the greatest respect for Tony Athens, and I mean that sincerely, he's an icon in the industry with a huge repository of accumulated and hard-won knowledge. However, he is a lone voice in the wilderness when it comes to his condemnation of Racor fuel filters. Among other things, I can't imagine relying on primary filters thorough which I could not see. I wholeheartedly agree with Tony's recommendation for multi-step filtration, however, that's easily achieved with Racor turbine filters by simply plumbing two in series with coarse and then fine filter elements. There's a lot to like about a Racor turbine filter, evidenced by the millions of them that are in use, and the number of engine manufacturers and boat builders that rely on them.

Because it's all metal, Tony's filter approach is fully UL Marine/ABYC flame resistance compliant. The plastic drain valves and metal T petcocks, on the other hand, are not compliant.

More here...

https://www.proboat.com/2016/08/selecting-primary-fuel-filters/

https://stevedmarineconsulting.com/fuel-filters-simplified-2/

 

[Steve DAntonio]

FWIW I have purchased several of the Griffin racor 500 clones and used them on other vessels we have owned

Before purchase the reseller and I stripped a Griffin and a racor and interchanged parts and all good

Back when I got them in Thailand, they were around 4:1 of the price of racor.

https://griffinfilter.com/

Griffin also makes a stainless version, which is nice in wet locations.

 

[Barking Sands]

Steve...thanks for the additions to the discussion and the links to further reading. As for the filters in the video not being compliant without the metal valves and heat shield, its in the plans to be modified accordingly in the near future.

 

[Simi 60]

.

Because it's all metal, Tony's filter approach is fully UL Marine/ABYC flame resistance compliant. The plastic drain valves and metal T petcocks, on the other hand, are not compliant.

]

On our NTA855 Cummins we have a dual racor setup
And an on engine dual FS1212

The FS1212 has a plastic drain valve

Seems a bit silly having these as the racor is a 10mic and the FS1212 is a 20mic so in theory, will never see crud

 

[Steve DAntonio]

On our NTA855 Cummins we have a dual racor setup
And an on engine dual FS1212

The FS1212 has a plastic drain valve

Seems a bit silly having these as the racor is a 10mic and the FS1212 is a 20mic so in theory, will never see crud

It will if you use a 30 micron element in the Racors. Doing so will give you exactly the sequential filtration that's been discussed.

 

[Steve DAntonio]

Steve...thanks for the additions to the discussion and the links to further reading. As for the filters in the video not being compliant without the metal valves and heat shield, its in the plans to be modified accordingly in the near future.

Sounds good, it's a pretty easy upgrade.

 

[catalinajack]

I have the greatest respect for Tony Athens, and I mean that sincerely, he's an icon in the industry with a huge repository of accumulated and hard-won knowledge. However, he is a lone voice in the wilderness when it comes to his condemnation of Racor fuel filters. Among other things, I can't imagine relying on primary filters thorough which I could not see. I wholeheartedly agree with Tony's recommendation for multi-step filtration, however, that's easily achieved with Racor turbine filters by simply plumbing two in series with coarse and then fine filter elements. There's a lot to like about a Racor turbine filter, evidenced by the millions of them that are in use, and the number of engine manufacturers and boat builders that rely on them.

Because it's all metal, Tony's filter approach is fully UL Marine/ABYC flame resistance compliant. The plastic drain valves and metal T petcocks, on the other hand, are not compliant.

More here...

https://www.proboat.com/2016/08/selecting-primary-fuel-filters/

https://stevedmarineconsulting.com/fuel-filters-simplified-2/

Steve, I am the guy who is not a fan of Racors, more so of the necessity of dual Racors. The only feature that Racors add is being able to see inside the bowl. But, wouldn't merely opening the drain valve(s) give one the same info? And do not those Racor bowls, at some point, sometimes quickly, become very difficult to see through thus obviating their utility? And when they do become opaque, one must actually drain from the bottom anyway. One boater here has even added an LED light behind his bowls to solve this problem. Sure, in large, well-lit ERs with filter housings easily-seen, this is probably not a problem. In my case, I do have a smaller, downstream Racor (on-engine) with a sight bowl. It is not ABYC compliant, no heat shield, but I am not concerned. A fire hot enough to melt through that plastic bowl will already likely have doomed the boat. Plus, I have a Halon fire suppression system in the ER.

If I wanted a sight bowl set-up, I would choose the Tony Athens set-up you see in the picture and add a Racor next downstream with filters that go from 30 or 20, then ten, then two microns, all with vacuum gauges. On my boat, that could be easily done. If I did so, the Racor would be a Series 500 model as a larger capacity would not be needed. It would be there just for the sight bowl. The engines are Lehman 120s. The other option, and perhaps better option, might be a Racor 1000 first with a 30-micron filter. In any case, it is tough to argue against sequential filtering. So, which is better for an engine, a dual Racor with a single filter on-line or a Tony Athens sequential set-up that requires draining a bit of fuel from the bottoms of the filters each use? One guy here even admitted that he doesn't worry about his filters. He waits until the engine starts to stumble and then simply switches the valves on his dual Racor filter head. No need for vacuum gauges! Remind me never to go to sea with that guy.

The on-engine filters you see are a large 3-micron Donaldson, then the 2-micron Racor. By the way, I have about one thousand hours of operation since I acquired the boat. I have not seen one drop of water and just a few flecks of crud. I occasionaly open the sump drain just to make sure. Nope, nothing. Lucky, I guess but my fuel manifold is supplied from the tank bottoms and is mounted below the bottoms of the tanks so I have gravity pushing fuel all the way to the lift pumps.

As you have for Tony Athens, I have the utmost respect for your advice. It was your observations on the efficay of DriveSaver drive couplers that prompted me to eliminate them. Two, one on each side, fractured during the course of doing the Great Loop. With the Spurs spacer in place and a good (.003) in-the-water engine alignment, vibrations gone. Thanks for that!

 

[O C Diver]

Steve, I am the guy who is not a fan of Racors, more so of the necessity of dual Racors. The only feature that Racors add is being able to see inside the bowl. But, wouldn't merely opening the drain valve(s) give one the same info? And do not those Racor bowls, at some point, sometimes quickly, become very difficult to see through thus obviating their utility? And when they do become opaque, one must actually drain from the bottom anyway. One boater here has even added an LED light behind his bowls to solve this problem. Sure, in large, well-lit ERs with filter housings easily-seen, this is probably not a problem. In my case, I do have a smaller, downstream Racor (on-engine) with a sight bowl. It is not ABYC compliant, no heat shield, but I am not concerned. A fire hot enough to melt through that plastic bowl will already likely have doomed the boat. Plus, I have a Halon fire suppression system in the ER.

If I wanted a sight bowl set-up, I would choose the Tony Athens set-up you see in the picture and add a Racor next downstream with filters that go from 30 or 20, then ten, then two microns, all with vacuum gauges. On my boat, that could be easily done. If I did so, the Racor would be a Series 500 model as a larger capacity would not be needed. It would be there just for the sight bowl. The engines are Lehman 120s. The other option, and perhaps better option, might be a Racor 1000 first with a 30-micron filter. In any case, it is tough to argue against sequential filtering. So, which is better for an engine, a dual Racor with a single filter on-line or a Tony Athens sequential set-up that requires draining a bit of fuel from the bottoms of the filters each use? One guy here even admitted that he doesn't worry about his filters. He waits until the engine starts to stumble and then simply switches the valves on his dual Racor filter head. No need for vacuum gauges! Remind me never to go to sea with that guy.

The on-engine filters you see are a large 3-micron Donaldson, then the 2-micron Racor. By the way, I have about one thousand hours of operation since I acquired the boat. I have not seen one drop of water and just a few flecks of crud. I occasionaly open the sump drain just to make sure. Nope, nothing. Lucky, I guess but my fuel manifold is supplied from the tank bottoms and is mounted below the bottoms of the tanks so I have gravity pushing fuel all the way to the lift pumps.

As you have for Tony Athens, I have the utmost respect for your advice. It was your observations on the efficay of DriveSaver drive couplers that prompted me to eliminate them. Two, one on each side, fractured during the course of doing the Great Loop. With the Spurs spacer in place and a good (.003) in-the-water engine alignment, vibrations gone. Thanks for that!View attachment 121735View attachment 121736

To each his own.

I have sequential filtering on my John Deere. There is a 2 micron after the lift pump, a 10 micron before the lift pump, and the 30 micron Racor before that.

If you're going to have a viewable bowl, it should be the first filter. No sense filling up 2 other filters with water before it reaches the viewable bowl.

Ted

 

[Simi 60]

It will if you use a 30 micron element in the Racors. Doing so will give you exactly the sequential filtration that's been discussed.

For sure, but we've never had the slightest hint of a dirty filter in our 5 years of operation with a 10 mic so felt no need to go backwards

 

[Steve DAntonio]

For sure, but we've never had the slightest hint of a dirty filter in our 5 years of operation with a 10 mic so felt no need to go backwards

This is a little like saying I've been driving for 5 years and have never had an accident, therefore I removed the seat belts. Fuel contamination is something that simply can't be predicted and past performance is no guarantee of future performance.

 

[Steve DAntonio]

SDA: My responses below.

Steve, I am the guy who is not a fan of Racors, more so of the necessity of dual Racors. The only feature that Racors add is being able to see inside the bowl.

SDA: The only feature? It's a very valuable feature, however, they also include the coalescing cone, water sensor, and centrifuge.

But, wouldn't merely opening the drain valve(s) give one the same info?

SDA: As opposed simply looking at the bowl? One is passive the other active, one requires nothing more than a glance, the other draining fuel into a container. Pretty easy to predict what most users will do. You can also have a water in fuel alarm on the Racor, which makes it automatic.

And do not those Racor bowls, at some point, sometimes quickly, become very difficult to see through thus obviating their utility?

SDA: If the filter is that dirty, it's time to disassemble and clean. In practice that usually isn't required for years.

And when they do become opaque, one must actually drain from the bottom anyway. One boater here has even added an LED light behind his bowls to solve this problem.

SDA: Actually the LED isn't used to overcome a dirty bowl, it just makes it easier to see water if the surface behind the bowl isn't a light colored bulkhead. I think it's a great idea.

Sure, in large, well-lit ERs with filter housings easily-seen, this is probably not a problem. In my case, I do have a smaller, downstream Racor (on-engine) with a sight bowl.

SDA: You have the Racor on the engine? They aren't designed for pressure applications...

It is not ABYC compliant, no heat shield, but I am not concerned. A fire hot enough to melt through that plastic bowl will already likely have doomed the boat. Plus, I have a Halon fire suppression system in the ER.

SDA: The idea behind the heat shield is to simply buy enough time, 2.5 min, for the fire extinguisher to deploy.

If I wanted a sight bowl set-up, I would choose the Tony Athens set-up you see in the picture and add a Racor next downstream with filters that go from 30 or 20, then ten, then two microns, all with vacuum gauges. On my boat, that could be easily done. If I did so, the Racor would be a Series 500 model as a larger capacity would not be needed. It would be there just for the sight bowl. The engines are Lehman 120s. The other option, and perhaps better option, might be a Racor 1000 first with a 30-micron filter. In any case, it is tough to argue against sequential filtering.

SDA: I agree, sequential filtration is preferred.

So, which is better for an engine, a dual Racor with a single filter on-line or a Tony Athens sequential set-up that requires draining a bit of fuel from the bottoms of the filters each use?

SDA: My point is, you can use Racor turbines for sequential filtration.

One guy here even admitted that he doesn't worry about his filters. He waits until the engine starts to stumble and then simply switches the valves on his dual Racor filter head. No need for vacuum gauges! Remind me never to go to sea with that guy.

The on-engine filters you see are a large 3-micron Donaldson, then the 2-micron Racor. By the way, I have about one thousand hours of operation since I acquired the boat. I have not seen one drop of water and just a few flecks of crud. I occasionaly open the sump drain just to make sure. Nope, nothing. Lucky, I guess but my fuel manifold is supplied from the tank bottoms and is mounted below the bottoms of the tanks so I have gravity pushing fuel all the way to the lift pumps.

As you have for Tony Athens, I have the utmost respect for your advice. It was your observations on the efficay of DriveSaver drive couplers that prompted me to eliminate them. Two, one on each side, fractured during the course of doing the Great Loop. With the Spurs spacer in place and a good (.003) in-the-water engine alignment, vibrations gone. Thanks for that!

SDA: Smiling.

 

[Comodave]

I am the one who added the LED light behind my Racors. The purpose was NOT because the bowls were dirty or obscured since the Racors were brand new. The purpose was that I didn’t have to get down on my knees and hold a flashlight to see inside the bowls due to the low mounting of the Racors. Nothing to do with not being able to see through the bowls just a more convenient system than a flashlight and knee pads. With the backlight I could bend over quickly and see exactly what, if anything, was in the Racors. Never had anything but it sure is nice to know.

 

[Comodave]

Backlit Racor.

 

[catalinajack]

SDA: My responses below.

Steve, I am the guy who is not a fan of Racors, more so of the necessity of dual Racors. The only feature that Racors add is being able to see inside the bowl.

SDA: The only feature? It's a very valuable feature, however, they also include the coalescing cone, water sensor, and centrifuge.

But, wouldn't merely opening the drain valve(s) give one the same info?

SDA: As opposed simply looking at the bowl? One is passive the other active, one requires nothing more than a glance, the other draining fuel into a container. Pretty easy to predict what most users will do. You can also have a water in fuel alarm on the Racor, which makes it automatic.

And do not those Racor bowls, at some point, sometimes quickly, become very difficult to see through thus obviating their utility?

SDA: If the filter is that dirty, it's time to disassemble and clean. In practice that usually isn't required for years.

And when they do become opaque, one must actually drain from the bottom anyway. One boater here has even added an LED light behind his bowls to solve this problem.

SDA: Actually the LED isn't used to overcome a dirty bowl, it just makes it easier to see water if the surface behind the bowl isn't a light colored bulkhead. I think it's a great idea.

Sure, in large, well-lit ERs with filter housings easily-seen, this is probably not a problem. In my case, I do have a smaller, downstream Racor (on-engine) with a sight bowl.

SDA: You have the Racor on the engine? They aren't designed for pressure applications...

It is not ABYC compliant, no heat shield, but I am not concerned. A fire hot enough to melt through that plastic bowl will already likely have doomed the boat. Plus, I have a Halon fire suppression system in the ER.

SDA: The idea behind the heat shield is to simply buy enough time, 2.5 min, for the fire extinguisher to deploy.

If I wanted a sight bowl set-up, I would choose the Tony Athens set-up you see in the picture and add a Racor next downstream with filters that go from 30 or 20, then ten, then two microns, all with vacuum gauges. On my boat, that could be easily done. If I did so, the Racor would be a Series 500 model as a larger capacity would not be needed. It would be there just for the sight bowl. The engines are Lehman 120s. The other option, and perhaps better option, might be a Racor 1000 first with a 30-micron filter. In any case, it is tough to argue against sequential filtering.

SDA: I agree, sequential filtration is preferred.

So, which is better for an engine, a dual Racor with a single filter on-line or a Tony Athens sequential set-up that requires draining a bit of fuel from the bottoms of the filters each use?

SDA: My point is, you can use Racor turbines for sequential filtration.

One guy here even admitted that he doesn't worry about his filters. He waits until the engine starts to stumble and then simply switches the valves on his dual Racor filter head. No need for vacuum gauges! Remind me never to go to sea with that guy.

The on-engine filters you see are a large 3-micron Donaldson, then the 2-micron Racor. By the way, I have about one thousand hours of operation since I acquired the boat. I have not seen one drop of water and just a few flecks of crud. I occasionaly open the sump drain just to make sure. Nope, nothing. Lucky, I guess but my fuel manifold is supplied from the tank bottoms and is mounted below the bottoms of the tanks so I have gravity pushing fuel all the way to the lift pumps.

As you have for Tony Athens, I have the utmost respect for your advice. It was your observations on the efficay of DriveSaver drive couplers that prompted me to eliminate them. Two, one on each side, fractured during the course of doing the Great Loop. With the Spurs spacer in place and a good (.003) in-the-water engine alignment, vibrations gone. Thanks for that!

SDA: Smiling.

Steve, thanks for taking the time answering.

The heat shield - what I don't get is that more than 50% of the plastic bowl is exposed. Enlighten me, wouldn't that heat shield only be of some value if the source of the heat was pretty much from directly under the filter housing? Wouldn't a general conflagration melt the plastic bowl just as quickly with or without a heat shield? Just take a look at the picture in Post #52. There is a whole lot of exposed plastic as opposed to that chintzy metal bowl below but I guess it doesn't hurt to have it there. On survey, would this be a "must correct" item on a boat that met the ABYC standard at the time it was built, that is, before heat shields were recommended?

Turbine effect - my engines are Lehman 120s. At most, they flow 2 GPH and return ounces. I don't think the turbine effect would be much. Perhaps I have this wrong also. As for the coalescing effect, don't the Fleetguard filters do much the same, that is, remove water?

Sighting - okay, yes, quick and easy and often ignored if not easy. Perhaps, I will add a Racor after my two all-metal filters. Then, I could have a 20-10-2 micron sequence before the lift pump with the ability to observe any water or crud that got past the earlier two filters. Then, the on-engine filters might last forever or could be removed completely. If I did add a Racor, would a Series 500 be adequate since I would also have two very large filters upstream? My thinking is the sight bowl is what I am looking for. As it happens, I have two 500 models in my spares inventory. I would just need to add vacuum gauges but they are not heat shield models so there is that with which to deal.

The Racor I have - yes, it is on the engine. I did not know that it is not designed for use on the pressure side but having that big Donaldson 3-micron in line before it kinda makes that not much of an issue but I can easily spin on a metal filter and will do so. Water wouldn't be getting to to the Racor anyway so the sight bowl does not add any value there.

DriveSaver - I attached a picture of one of my new couplings with spacer and of one of the fractured DriveSavers. Thanks again. So, so much better.

 

[twistedtree]

I don't think anyone is arguing the value in sequential filtering, and I think it's present in every installation between the primary off-engine filter, and the secondary on-engine filter.


In the Athens system, you get a second stage off-engine stage, which clearly has value. How much, and whether it's worth it will be an individual decision.


But the dual Racor's aren't about improved sequential filtering. They are about in-flight filter changes, and that's a completely different "feature" vs sequential filtering. Unless I'm missing something, the Athens setup does not allow for in-flight filter changes. Now with appropriate valving, I don't see any reason why you couldn't plumb up two of them, but so far nobody here has done that, and it would be a lot bulkier than the Racor duplex package.


In my case, I'm pretty comfortable with the multi-stage filtering that I have. It happens to be done by Racors, but could be done with canister filters just as well. But I absolutely want to be able to change my first stage filter on-the-fly without shutting down. That's a must-have for me, and a dual Racor is a convenient and tidy package for doing that.

 

[Iggy]

But don't you have to shut down the engine to change the filter? That's the point of a duplex system - you switch to the second filter, change the plugged one, all without shutting down. I think that's really important for a single engine boat.

Yep!

I have it and like it.

 

[jleonard]

Backlit Racor.

I think the backlighting is a great idea. I would have done that if I hadn't sold my boat.

 

[Steve DAntonio]

SDA: Responses follow.

The heat shield - what I don't get is that more than 50% of the plastic bowl is exposed. Enlighten me, wouldn't that heat shield only be of some value if the source of the heat was pretty much from directly under the filter housing?

SDA: Technically, yes. However, I've been to the factory in CA where these filers are made and have chatted with the engineers who design them (I wrote an article about that visit, I'll share it as soon as it's posted on my site). They told me that in fact the filter passes the 2.5 flame test without the heat shield, but they include the shield never the less as a belt and suspenders approach.

Wouldn't a general conflagration melt the plastic bowl just as quickly with or without a heat shield?

SDA: According to Racor, the plastic bowl alone will survive the fire test, however, the shield will buy more time. The testing protocol, which is detailed in ABYC H-33, does call for burning fuel to be placed under the test subject..

Just take a look at the picture in Post #52. There is a whole lot of exposed plastic as opposed to that chintzy metal bowl below but I guess it doesn't hurt to have it there. On survey, would this be a "must correct" item on a boat that met the ABYC standard at the time it was built, that is, before heat shields were recommended?

SDA: There is no grandfathering of standards, i.e. was it acceptable when the vessel was built? Leaking fuel, or LP gas, or an electrocution hazard doesn't care what was compliant 10, 20 or 30 years ago, fires, electrocutions and flooding prevention are the goals of current Standards. It would also be impractical for a surveyor or insurer to research every violation to determine f it was allowed when the vessel was built. A filter that does not have the heat shield and metallic drain that rotates through 90 degrees would be deemed non-compliant, and easily upgraded. Having said all that, I can't predict what an insurer would say, and in some cases, like LP lockers, bringing a vessel into compliance can be impractical.

Turbine effect - my engines are Lehman 120s. At most, they flow 2 GPH and return ounces. I don't think the turbine effect would be much. Perhaps I have this wrong also. As for the coalescing effect, don't the Fleetguard filters do much the same, that is, remove water?

SDA: Indeed, the turbine effect is affected by flow rate, the more fuel that flows, the better it separates water. Water removal is one of the primary goals of a primary filter, and the Fleetguard filters do that too, no argument, you just can't easily determine how much fuel they are removing without draining a sample.

Sighting - okay, yes, quick and easy and often ignored if not easy. Perhaps, I will add a Racor after my two all-metal filters. Then, I could have a 20-10-2 micron sequence before the lift pump with the ability to observe any water or crud that got past the earlier two filters. Then, the on-engine filters might last forever or could be removed completely. If I did add a Racor, would a Series 500 be adequate since I would also have two very large filters upstream? My thinking is the sight bowl is what I am looking for. As it happens, I have two 500 models in my spares inventory. I would just need to add vacuum gauges but they are not heat shield models so there is that with which to deal.

SDA: A Racor 50o series turbine has, or could have, all the features I discussed, so yes that could work in this case.

The Racor I have - yes, it is on the engine. I did not know that it is not designed for use on the pressure side but having that big Donaldson 3-micron in line before it kinda makes that not much of an issue but I can easily spin on a metal filter and will do so. Water wouldn't be getting to to the Racor anyway so the sight bowl does not add any value there.

SDA: Donaldson filters, are by the way, the gold standard for metal spin ons. THey are my filter of choice for this application, but to be clear, I would not substitute one for a Racor turbine.

DriveSaver - I attached a picture of one of my new couplings with spacer and of one of the fractured DriveSavers. Thanks again. So, so much better.

SDA: Love to see that.

 

[rgano]

These metal shields on the bottom of the Racor do not make sense when two conditions co-exist. Firstly, if the Racor is very low in the engine room where little if any opportunity exists for flame to get below it. If somebody asks me, well, what about flaming fuel in the bilge, my response is why are you still aboard because your boat is DONE? Otherwise, why would anybody install one above some place otr thing vulnerable to flaming up? Secondly, if the thing obscures the view of the bottom of the bowl where the water is first observed (not all of us have the cool LED light Comodave installed or the angle of view available) it needs to go away. Unless you are an inspected vessel or have some other spec the insurance company requires the boat meet, it seems unlikely that these shields will be installed. I have never seen a survey or insurance correction letter requiring them in a rec boat. I once found them installed with the plastic drain valves below, duh.

 

[O C Diver]

These metal shields on the bottom of the Racor do not make sense when two conditions co-exist. Firstly, if the Racor is very low in the engine room where little if any opportunity exists for flame to get below it. If somebody asks me, well, what about flaming fuel in the bilge, my response is why are you still aboard because your boat is DONE? Otherwise, why would anybody install one above some place otr thing vulnerable to flaming up? Secondly, if the thing obscures the view of the bottom of the bowl where the water is first observed (not all of us have the cool LED light Comodave installed or the angle of view available) it needs to go away. Unless you are an inspected vessel or have some other spec the insurance company requires the boat meet, it seems unlikely that these shields will be installed. I have never seen a survey or insurance correction letter requiring them in a rec boat. I once found them installed with the plastic drain valves below, duh.

Regarding the metal bowls:
I'm ok with requiring them regardless of filter location. There needs to be a standard. In the relative cost of buying a Racor and having it installed, the metal bowl adds almost nothing to the cost.

The visibility takes a very little practice with a light to see the bottom center of the bowl (I do like the LED light idea and may add it). If the "Angle View " prevents you from seeing the bottom of the bowl, that's an installation design failure. This is no different than installing an engine so close to the hull that you can't change the oil filter.

Have no issue with requiring a quarter turn valve. The plastic ones were a POS design, prone to clogging. With the metal quarter turn valve, you can open the valve and slide a wire tie through the valve into the bowl to clear a blockage.

Ted

 

[eddieclemons]

When using sequential filtering with a Racor to one engine primary filter, what is the recommended primary filter specs? I have a couple of Cat 3406e engines. When I bought her she had a 10 and a 30 installed. I currently have 30s in service. I ran the boat 1500 miles over 200 hours and have had no fuel issues. Thanks, Eddie