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
#4 · (Edited)
Well, I dont guess I will be posting any information about the CAT filter. I received a response, but they wont give me the specs on the filter, unless I give them all my personal information, including phone number.... NOT happening! :buttkick: I refuse to give out personal information, just to get information on a product, that "should" be readily available to the public already, and shouldnt have to be asked for :doh: I will post a screenshot of their response up in the first post of this thread.... once Photobucket quits acting like a temperamental teenage girl. Ive tried uploading the screenshot 3 times, and it gets to 90%, and then it just hangs forever. It took 5 tries to get the Donaldson screenshot uploaded this morning :banghead:

EDIT: CAT screenshot posted :thumbsup:
 
#24 ·
Oh come on, just give them all your information already :hehe: Too funny man, what does your location have to do with filter efficiency?
 
#6 ·
That's what I expected from cat. They are not a filter manufacturer, they spec filters from there supplier , for their specific needs.

The other companies listed are manufacturers, so they are more inclined to give all the specs/compatibility because they are in the business of selling filters, not machines.

Oh well, it was worth a shot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SilverFox66
#7 ·
Yeah, I get that. Somebody even said they thought Donaldson made the filters for CAT :confused013: But still, its made to CAT specs, so who should know the specs better than CAT? Even if Donaldson did make the CAT filters, legally, I dooubt they could give out any specs on them due to a confidentiality clause that had to be signed when they signed the contract :confused013: It just aggravates me that companies pull this crap about personal information. Its enough to keep me from using their product, thats for sure. Im running a Fleetguard FF5320 now, that came with my GDP kit. But unless the data I get back from Fleetguard shows it to be as good or better than Donaldson.... I will be switching to Donaldson on the first filter change :thumbsup: 3 Micron at that high of a percentage, is going to be tough to beat! Oh well, Ill keep everyone updated if/when I hear from Fleetguard :thumbsup:
 
  • Like
Reactions: NeMachinist
#8 ·
You got man, if donaldson made them, they can't give specs on them for legal reasons. And cat don't care to tell you anything other than "yep, this is the one you'll need for x piece of equipment "

My cat mechanic buddy told me he doesn't know the specs on any of the filters, and isn't sure if he could get that information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SilverFox66
#9 ·
Thats just.... sad lol. Talk about blind faith
 
  • Like
Reactions: NeMachinist
#12 ·
Not trying to be ignorant, but it says at the bottom of that flier, that it was printed in 2001. Thats why Im trying to get "current" info from the manuf's... everything Ive seen is ancient :confused013:
 
#11 ·
I think that is the antiquated data that we had talked about on the other thread. That was from 2001.

silverfox66 is trying to get current data.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SilverFox66
#14 ·
no problem... thanks for the help :thumbsup:
 
#16 ·
At this point, i will be switching to Donaldson out of pure principle. They responded quickly, with both written proof and a piece of a flier..... showing the information I asked for.... no tricks, no BS. Not to mention, so far.... I have no reason to doubt that their P551313 is the best filter
 
  • Like
Reactions: MegaB
#19 ·
i run the Donaldson filter per AH64ID's recommendation.
I see on the oil filter thread you use the Baldwin oil filter, but..

I thought AH64ID also recomended the Donaldson efl/dbl 7349 as the best oil filter you could use in you ctd...

I'm just jackn around, I'm not a filter/brand snob, just sippn a ol'mill and felt like giving someone a hard time. ;):beer:

And I could be wrong about AH64ID's recommendation also, thought he said the elf7349 was the best you could get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SilverFox66
#18 ·
#20 ·
If Im not mistaken, the DBL7349 replaced the ELF7349 :thumbsup:
 
  • Like
Reactions: NeMachinist
#22 ·
Ok, original (first post) updated, as I received a response this morning from Fleetguard/Cummins. From what I have gathered, I will not only be switching to the Donaldson P551313 filter, but I will be doing so immediately! Everything I have read, refers tot he 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

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 :thumbsup:
 
#74 ·
The P553213 Filter is tested against ISO 16889 standards. "ISO 16889:2008 describes a multi-pass filtration performance test with continuous contaminant injection for hydraulic fluid power filter elements; a procedure for determining the contaminant capacity, particulate removal and differential pressure characteristics;"

In our application we using it as a single pass filter. Unfortunately we can't count on that filter as being truly a 3 micron filter.

ISO 16889:2008 - Hydraulic fluid power -- Filters -- Multi-pass method for evaluating filtration performance of a filter element
 
#32 ·
Yeah, imagine a world where people owned up to their mistakes and took responsibility for their own actions? You just blew my mind man....:shock:
 
#33 ·
scary, aint it
 
#37 ·
Editing original post to show information (and email response) on the new Fleetguard FF5814, which is their Nanonet upgrade to the FF5320 :thumbsup:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 240dan
#44 ·
i'm sorry your having issues with Linux. i love Linux Mint, i don't think i'v opened a term in 5 years. i think maybe ubuntu is your problem not linux. my suspend and sleep functions great.
one of the inherent design flaws in Windows is it'a always in administrator mode. thats why i's infected with virius so often. linux/mac you run in a normal user mode so you have to type in a password for superuser mode. more secure that way.
as for windows downloading software in the background with out ever asking me i think is just wrong. i't MY computer, my hard drive space, my internet bandwidth not microsofts. i'm in control of it not them. now you have windows 10 they can use your internet connection to share software (updates and the like) to people close to you in the background and NEVER pay you a dime for your bandwidth. let alone all the backdoors built in and the extra software needed to keep is "clean" LOL just crap to slow your computer down.
Linux is easy to use, secure, and stable for me. as stated in 5 years i haven't had extra virus software running, i haven't used the terminal. all the software i need is here.
and yes it FREE!!!
try a different flavor maybe.
 
#47 ·
That Linux penguin is a commie.

Real men don't use Linux, they use UNIX and UNIX like operating systems :party018:
 
#49 ·
This thread has blown off the tracks! I thought we were talking about boobies? Back on topic please...
 
#52 ·
Ummmm, boobies are the current topic!...and a few guys that are making us none computer guys feel sorta dumb. :( hehehe

But as for your question. Would this be the first time a manufacturer, of anything, claimed something false/too good to be true?

They have to be using multi pass results...or pulling it outa there ...
They almost have no choice but to claim 2 micron because of how much that phrase gets tossed around in diesel pickup circles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 240dan
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