Cummins Diesel Forum banner

Current Fuel Filter Data

26K views 74 replies 21 participants last post by  utahtrapper 
#1 · (Edited)
After a discussion in another thread about how the data we have for the most popular fuel filters used, is several years old..... I decided to email 3 companies and ask for current specs on certain filters. I have received my first response. I emailed all 3 at the same time yesterday afternoon, and Donaldson was the first to respond, this morning. (I actually emailed Fleetguard again at a later date, about the FF5814)

I will attach screenshots (with personal information blocked out) so there is no "he said/she said" doubt. I will come back and edit this post, if/when CAT and or Fleetguard respond.... so the responses all stay in this first post, and not scattered throughout the thread making them difficult to find.

The filters I requested information on, were the:

Donaldson - about the P551313
CAT - about the 1R-0750
Fleetguard - about the FF5320
Fleetguard - about the FF5814 (NOT available. Fleetguard has been publishing information on the filter for over a year, but it is still not available)

Below is the response from Donaldson, stating that the P551313 is indeed a 3 Micron filter, and does so at 99% on the first pass:





and the response from CAT on the 1R-0750:





and last and looking like "least".... the response from Fleetguard/Cummins about the FF5320:





and the newest response from Fleetguard on the new FF5814:





Everything I have read, refers to the Fleetguard FF5320 as a 2 micron filter. While I think we all agree that due to test/standard changes.... there are no more "2 Micron Absolute filters".... I had no idea the Fleetguard was rated so poor. Its rated at 5 Micron absolute (98.7% is absolute just so you know) on first pass. Thats pretty poor, and in fact, no better than the Baldwin PF7977 I use in the stock filter housing. So, according to information from the manuf's themselves:

Donaldson P551313: 3 Micron Absolute

Fleetguard FF5814: 3 Micron Absolute (NOT available. Fleetguard has been publishing information on the filter for over a year, but it is still not available)

CAT 1R-0750: Form letter response, no info offered. I have "heard" this filter is 4 Micron Absolute

Fleetguard FF5320: 5 Micron Absolute

So, there you have the ratings, from the manuf's themselves, on the 3 most popular filters used by Cummins owners in after-market filter setups. It looks like we have 2 filters tied for the top spot of lowest Micron particle efficiency :thumbsup:

Edit: Changed to show information (and screenshot of email response) on the new Fleetguard FF5814, which is their Nanonet upgrade to the FF5320 :thumbsup:
 
See less See more
4
#55 ·
Got the P551313 delivered yesterday, and swapped it out for the FF5320 today. On a side note... Ive been running an additive every since Ive had my truck. Ive mainly run gray Power Service mixed 50/50 with Super Tech TCW-3. It has paid off. I changed the stock filter right after I bought my truck.... dark looking nasty fuel.... no gunk, but dark and nasty. After about a year or so of additive run through everything... it cleaned everything up. Now when I change either filter.... its clean fuel you can see through, with a green tint. So yeah, Im sold on running something, and will stick with the simple PS/TCW-3 mixture :thumbsup:
 
#56 ·
and that is the same as P553203 but w/o the water sep, right? (you guys are making my head hurt...)
Every time I read what the IN filter is I order a hand full...

Oh, and boobies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NeMachinist
#57 ·
That brother..... I could not tell you as I honestly dont "know". I "think" the P553203 is a 3 micron fuel filter/water separator combo, but not positive though, so dont want to say for sure.

"In" or not, I just wanted the best by the current specs :thumbsup: I went to the trouble/expense of adding more filtration.... and I didnt see the point in leaving the Fleetguard FF5320 on the truck, when it isnt rated any better than the 5 micron Baldwin PF7977 I have in the factory bowl :thumbsup:
 
#58 ·
Just so you guys can count. "boobies" has been on this thread 15 times. in quotes and posts. now 16 times, because who doesn't like 'em.

That being said, if nobody had done so, i'll try and shoot Fass and airdog an email tomorrow and see what their published tests are on their filters. Because i think this would be a great thread to include the link, unless someone else gets the urge to do so tonight. Because now you have me really curious but i don't have time to investigate...

okay i had a minute but this looks like old data...I'll try and get some direct fresh data in the morning

http://www.fassride.com/tinymce/filemanager/files/Titanium Filter Sheet (1).pdf
 
#59 ·
#61 ·
i listed 4 filters in the original post of this thread. I then listed the information I received from the manuf about 3 of the 4 filters. If its not one of the 3 filters covered, I dont know, nor am I going to get into a long discussion about a bunch of other filters. If it is one of those filters, then read the thread before you ask... and you will find your answer :thumbsup: I finished what I set out to do, which was get the current data on the top 3 filters used in after-market, secondary filter setups :thumbsup: Stop making it more difficult than it is :confused013:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 70 SS/L78
#63 ·
Nothing better than a PF7977 for stock replacement is there?? This thread is about the secondary ~3 micron filter.....and operating systems.....and boobies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SilverFox66
#64 ·
Yes - the Cat 1R-0750 is 98.7% efficient at removing 4 micron particles, or it removes 74 out of every 75 four micron particles that pass through it, also known as a Beta 75 capable for 4 micron particles.

Cat comments on why it doesn't publish micron ratings here:

http://www.ransome.com/content/uploads/2016/01/Ransome-Wntr-Specials15-16.pdf

There's a lot more to scrutinizing just micron size. How well the filter is built, how it handles vibration, cellulose vs synthetic, pressure, etc., are all part of it. One micron is a millionth of a meter or 0.0000393 inch, and the smallest size test dust now used as an acceptable standard is 4 micron (since about 2000). There's a lot of marketing going on regarding micron capability and not sure how any mfg claims anything under 4 or what they are using to do so. Cat used to rate the 1R-0750 at 2 micron Beta 75 but it all changed when the test dust changed. Micron ratings mean nothing unless there is an efficiency with them and ISO 19438 is the standard used for fuel filter multipass ratings. SAE J1985 is the single pass test.
http://www.cumminsforum.com//www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/
 
#65 · (Edited)
Yet the other companies have no problem using the same standards to rate their filters. CAT seems to be the only company saying these standards are no good. Maybe its because their filters dont rate well with these standards? :confused013: I read the PDF you linked... thank you. But it sounds like a line out of Smarty's advertising play book...... "we wont show any actual facts/evidence/numbers to prove what we say about how good our product is.... just trust us" :doh: :hehe:

P.S. the "efficiency" is part of the absolute rating. A 3 micron absolute rating means it filters down to 3 micron @ 98.7% efficiency on the first pass. I see no problem with those standardized ratings. Evidently CAT is the only one (that Ive heard of anyway) who does :confused013: Then again, you already know all this lol
 
#68 ·
Good link for Filter info showing that Micron Rating Basically Don't mean squat.
Until there is a set testing procedure, It is a crap shoot.
 
#69 ·
????? :confused013: did i totally miss something in that link that basically says that?
 
#70 ·
A filter that is marked “10 microns” has some
capability in capturing particles as small as 10
microns. However, there is no one accepted
method to measure and describe the size of
particles that a filter can capture or the total
amount of particles that the filter can hold. When
you see the filter marked “10 microns”, you will
not know exactly what this means unless you also
have a description of the test and standards used
to determine the filter rating.
 
#73 · (Edited)

Attachments

#75 · (Edited)
adjustment
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top