Racor filter shelf life

Do Racor Aquablock filters have a storage shelf life? Does the filter media or the Aquablock treatment deteriorate aver time?

That's a good question. As far as I can tell there are no date codes on them and I went to their website and read all the literature and there's no mention of it either way. Absent any documented info, the only way to be sure would be to ask them directly.

Ken

I have heard/read one year...

Whether that's a guide or hard number, not sure.

psneeld said:

I have heard/read one year...

Whether that's a guide or hard number, not sure.

Click to expand...

Is that a shelf life in it's wrapping or life in the filter housing with diesel fuel?

Ted

I understood it to be 1 year after put in service.

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

kchace said:

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

Click to expand...

Sounds reasonable.

Next visit to the boat includes replacement of a Racor filter. Last time out, fuel-flow was insufficient to exceed cruise speed.

I am going to change mine at the beginning of next season, been 4 years so I should probably change them...

O C Diver said:

Is that a shelf life in it's wrapping or life in the filter housing with diesel fuel?

Ted

Click to expand...

In use.....but because of aquabloc, sitting around for too long probably isn't advisable though the packaging is supposed to help. I think in the past, one year shelf life was the guide because of the uncertainty of how long aquabloc would be OK.

I would think storage for several years would be no big deal.....factory says so too.

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

Pete Meisinger said:

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

Click to expand...

That is good practice and conforms to most conservative recommendations. I used to replace both my Racors yearly as well. My engine calls for 10 micron primaries instead of 30 however.

Having said that, I have been changing one Racor each year. My experience, like yours, has been that I never have gotten a vacuum rise and since I run on one of the dual filters, the unused filter was always spotless. Now I replace the in use filter and then change to the filter that has not been in use for the past year. The only negative is that I’m not sure how long the aquablock is effective while sitting in diesel fuel for a year.

I just received an email update from the local (to me) Racor rep.

"The Racor Self life for Aquabloc depends on how it’s in storage, if the paper wrapping (I'm assuming this is a typo and they mean plastic wrapper) on the element was removed or damaged they say one year.
In Testing its unofficially said the self-life is two years if wrapping in its original package, but the warrantee remains one year from the manufactured date.
Don’t exposed elements to high heat and direct sunlight they recommend storage in a cool atmosphere.
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."

BTW - I originally said they didn't have a date code on them but I'm pretty sure they do. I definitely have some that are older than 2 years. I'm going to have to start marking them and practicing stock rotation.

Ken

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".

firehoser75 said:

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".

Click to expand...

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

O C Diver said:

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

Click to expand...

" 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?

O C Diver said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

catalinajack said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 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.

O C Diver said:

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

Click to expand...

catalinajack said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

bayview said:

" 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?

Click to expand...

That's how I read it. I'll have to give them a sniff next time.

O C Diver said:

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

Click to expand...

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



Now to set the record straight, I have off engine (primary) twin Racors (as I like to see what's in my bowl), and I change the on engine and the active Racor annually. The "spare" Racor gets switched to become the active after one year of being the backup. In that way, the filter is 2 years old when changed (Racor), but it is only used one season, and the Fleetguard on engine is changed annually. According to Tony, and my very limited experience, sitting full of clean diesel for one year prior to being put in service does not negatively affect the Racor filter (at least as far as I can tell from engine performance, vacuum guage, etc.). Besides, there is still the brand new on engine Fleetguard filter before the fuel reaches my mechanical engine (not common rail).



Now, I feel each boater must decide for themselves what they are comfortable with as far as filter change frequency, how often they check their engines, etc. There is no "one size fits all" as everyone will have many factors that could influence these types of decisions.

firehoser75 said:

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

Click to expand...

With all do respect, the media or at least the coating on the outside changed about 3 years ago to among other things, be more water repellent. Not sure if Tony's comments relative to the in fuel life expectancy were before or after that point. While I respect Tony, his opinions on the filter media if they were for the previous material, aren't relevant anymore. If the comments are attributed to the new media, it would seem a rather short evaluation period for non scientific testing.

There may still be old filter stock being sold. They may still use the old media in some production. My comments are and were based on the relatively new AquaBloc media.

https://ph.parker.com/us/en/replacement-cartridge-filter-element-for-turbine-series-filters/

Ted

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.

Ted[/QUOTE]

I am adding some LED lights to my engine room to augment the ones already there. I am going to put one of the smaller ones right behind the Racor bowls so I don’t have to grab a flashlight to see what is or isn’t in the bowls.

Ted,
Tony's quote that I previously used was from a post he made on his website on Dec. 9/19, so he is discussing recent technology. He was at first commenting on "Fleetguard" filter media, but he was asked about "Racor" filters immediately before his post that I quoted (just some background for context).
If the new filter media (which I was aware of) is an improvement over the older version (and I would safely assume so, otherwise why change - unless of course they could produce it for a significant cost reduction and therefore increase profit), then even if his comments for filter life were for the older product (and it seems he was discussing filter media of both companies), then we should actually expect an improvement over the older product.
Anyway, as far as what you are doing on your boat as far as what type of filtration you use, how often you change filters , how often you check them, etc., great. However, realize there are others here on the forum who do things differently and operate their boats equally as successfully. Some are more cautious than you and some are less cautious (meaning they don't check their filters every 4 hours, etc.). Different strokes for different folks. What you do may not be "right for someone else" and their specific circumstances, but that is their decision, and it is OK. By providing the forum with what "works for you" you are allowing others to evaluate whether or not they want to make changes to their "regime" based on your info. I was trying to allow our members to evaluate someone else's opinion (Tony's in this case), and I hope that does not in some way "threaten you" because the flavour of your posts suggest that it might? Hearing more ideas, especially from experts like Steve D. and Tony Athens, etc. and even from just regular members like me, might be useful for some of our members.
Respectfully,
Tom

Racor has their proprietary Aquabloc water shedding product while Donaldson brags about their functional identical Syntec media technology. Is one better than the other? Not likely in any measurable way. Fleetguard is likely just as good as Racor or Donaldson.

Racor, in their promtional materials claims "only the genuine article delivers the fit and performance specified by engine manufacturers, and guarantees that your Racor filter/water separator will deliver the protection you count on." Only Racor? I call bull crap. The others do the job just as well. The only difference is that a Racor filter assembly has a sight bowl which, to many boaters, is not a big deal.

A few here apparently check for water while under way, why, I don't understand. Where would that water come from that that water was not discovered before departure by a quick drain of the bowl? Plus, those Racor bowls become dirty making it difficult to discern anything untoward anyway. I am not one who worships at the altar of Racor.

catalinajack,

I'm with you, I won't worship at the alter of Racor. In my opinion, for what it's worth, a great deal of Racor's success is due to marketing. That said and not being a Racor fan boy I still use their products for two reasons.

1 - They do the job.

2 - I can get filter elements anywhere I go.

Your question re where would the water come from and not show up on a pre departure drain? It an be there in the tank on a boat that is has been on flat water for a long time. Head out into ocean swell and chop and the water + crud get stirred up.

If the Racor bowl is dirty I take it as a sign I'll likely have problems as soon as the ride gets bumpy.

In my charter boat, I have a Racor 1000. Every day I ran the boat, I filled the tank and then returned to my slip. The next running day, when I checked the engine oil, I checked the Racor to see if I had picked up anything in the bowl. In the course of a season, I could be buying fuel at 4 different locations. More than once I found water. Can't see what you get in your last fuel fill without a bowl.

I admit that my choice of filters, frequency of changing elements, and requirement of a transparent bowl are a hold over from my charter days. I would buy fuel 80 to 100 times per year. Several times per year we would hit bad weather on the way home. If there was anything in the tank, it would be in the Racor by the time I was back in my slip.

The bowls in my Racors are kept clean. Pretty simple to pull 4 bolts, drop the bowl, wipe it clean, replace the gasket, reinstall, and reprime the fuel system. Generally doesn't need to be done each year, but simple when changing filters.

My trawler has a dual Racor system plus progressively smaller micron filters on either side of the lift pump. I haven't heard anyone in this thread claim their filtration works better than mine and I'm not disparaging any other manufacturer's filter media, so I guess it comes down to some people not seeing the value of a fuel bowl. For people with the 2 engine philosophy, I guess it's not that important.

Ted

Hi


ignoring this topic, I asked Parker last year.


Type in your question here: Hey, I live here in Finland and diesel is very clean and I am now driven more than 600 hours 3 years Racor 75/900 10mic filter and the filter is still visually clean and vacuum gauge needle moves only just a little bit so I have not changed the filter and it all works very same fleet guard 2mic last filter for my Cummins QSB. Do you see a technical problem / risk of using your filter for several years if the filter remains clean?


Parker say:


No, there is no problem. I have a diesel pick up and I have been running the same filter for 3 years now. I am going to change this year just because.



Best regards,


Racor Products Technical Service

Engine Mobile Original Equipment Division
3400 Finch Road
Modesto, CA 95354
209-521-7860

Racor "where to buy", news, literature and information: www.racornews.com
Product part finders and support literature: www.racor.com


NBs