FASS filtration deception.
11-03-2010, 12:52 PM
#62
Registered User
Baldwin, Donaldson, Fleetguard, Hastings, Luberfiner, Purolator all use J1488 and J1839. OE spec is J1488; we're telling you that you have the media backwords.
You also have the flow specs wrong on the OE filter. Not sure where you get your data, but its wrong.
11-03-2010, 04:18 PM
#63
Flow spec on the OEM filter is 59.97GPH, with a min rating of 29.46 psi burst
95%Emulsified water and 95% free water.
I stand corrected about the water absorbing filter. It is just a water striping filter.
Which still has issues when using different additives and such which can increase or decrease the effectivness of the filters abilites. Which is mentioned in those standards
Those SAE test standards are very loose in their actual test values. This is why we have so many discrepencies with meet or exceed OEM spec even when they are tested to the SAE standard. Most companies can and will use the varience with in these standards to fit their filter to what they want.
It is interesting when you read about European standards compared to NA ones. Very few NA companies will acknowledge their fitlers ability outside of their own testing.
Again I am wrong about the water absorbing properties of the OEM filter. I found my spec sheet and re read it. Not sure where I got that one from. There are filters out there that will absorb water, i can try and look up some model numbers.
Cheers
95%Emulsified water and 95% free water.
I stand corrected about the water absorbing filter. It is just a water striping filter.
Which still has issues when using different additives and such which can increase or decrease the effectivness of the filters abilites. Which is mentioned in those standards
Those SAE test standards are very loose in their actual test values. This is why we have so many discrepencies with meet or exceed OEM spec even when they are tested to the SAE standard. Most companies can and will use the varience with in these standards to fit their filter to what they want.
It is interesting when you read about European standards compared to NA ones. Very few NA companies will acknowledge their fitlers ability outside of their own testing.
Again I am wrong about the water absorbing properties of the OEM filter. I found my spec sheet and re read it. Not sure where I got that one from. There are filters out there that will absorb water, i can try and look up some model numbers.
Cheers
11-03-2010, 07:41 PM
#65
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Cummins Technical Center, IN
Posts: 6,564
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
5 Posts
The reason that additives reduce water removal is because they have a surfactant effect. Coolant in your fuel will reduce the IFT value low enough to where the filter won't strip much water at all.
The surfactant effect is due to water being highly polar. When a solute or miscible contaminant reduces the polarity of the water, the surface tension is also reduce.
No surface tension, no water stripping.
The surfactant effect is due to water being highly polar. When a solute or miscible contaminant reduces the polarity of the water, the surface tension is also reduce.
No surface tension, no water stripping.
11-08-2010, 07:41 PM
#66
Registered User
Thread Starter
Well guys.... I get the feeling I have more restriction than with the FASS screen can now. I seem to run out of fuel much easier now on hard accel. Anybody else notice this? Maybe they need to be changed more frequently.
11-11-2010, 03:45 AM
#68
Registered User
Thread Starter
I do have a gauge. I posted earlier that the pressure rose a pound or two after installing the filter. It was running around 15... it bumped up to 16-17 psi.
11-11-2010, 08:58 AM
#69
Registered User
Your gauge is probably post filter, as the 1212 is pre-pump and thus no pressure. If the pressure rose that means more flow and less restriction, so you wouldn't be running out of fuel.
11-11-2010, 11:51 AM
#70
DTR 1st Sergeant
This really didn't get answered satisfactorily above and if one of you guys with the info can address specifically, I am sure many here would be grateful.
What is/are the best available substitute filters for us poor saps with the series 95?
Also, if the answer to the above still leaves us "95" guys in a less than desireable position, is it "OK" to run another post-FASS filter setup as described a few posts before me?
TIA for info.
What is/are the best available substitute filters for us poor saps with the series 95?
Also, if the answer to the above still leaves us "95" guys in a less than desireable position, is it "OK" to run another post-FASS filter setup as described a few posts before me?
TIA for info.
11-11-2010, 11:56 AM
#71
DTR 1st Sergeant
BTW, the FASS numbers are often confused, misunderstood and even juxtaposed.
The first set of numbers -- either 150 or 95-- indicate the frame/filter size. The second set of numbers -- 95, 150, 200 and etc.-- indicate pump flow rate.
Example: I have a 95/200. So, 95 series frame (smaller filters) with 200 gph flow at 45 psi.
The first set of numbers -- either 150 or 95-- indicate the frame/filter size. The second set of numbers -- 95, 150, 200 and etc.-- indicate pump flow rate.
Example: I have a 95/200. So, 95 series frame (smaller filters) with 200 gph flow at 45 psi.
11-11-2010, 02:40 PM
#72
Registered User
11-12-2010, 11:41 AM
#75
DTR 1st Sergeant
However the the filter I am now using (don't know the number from here) is "supposed" to be rated at 3um.