sounds like a good plan to me.

 

To your original question, no idea... I do admit it's a good question.

Understand your point of view completely... You have to do what you feel comfortable with. But water control is one function of an additive. I also use mine for extra lubricity, anti-gel in cold weather, adds a very modest level of cetane 1.5 to 2 points (that's why I started using Pittsburgh Power's Flashpoint for more cetane and it's very similar in function to K100), puts back alphaltenes back into solution which prevents plugging up of filters -- it would turn a filter very dark brown to black looking and fuel stabilizer (will freshen up fuel if it's old. Truth be told though, control the water and you will prevent any microbes from growing inside fuel, especially on trucks that sit a lot.

Being in a cold winter weather area, when I come home from work or being out, the fuel returned is warm and my tank is not always full. I do not think that there has never been zero moisture in my fuel due to the fuel tank walls and fuel being warm, with the cold air contacting the tank, once I park and shut the truck off. But I get that folks have different opinions and I respect it. All I do is share information for folks to look at to either disregard or look into... that is all.

But that will be the next subject I look into... additive effects on the Coalescing media.

 

The 256-8753 has a a drain on the bottom of the filter:



Outside of FASS and their swelling media, most have a drain of some flavor. SPE then puts the port for the WIF post water separator. Fleece and Fass do a better job with the pigtail to have the WIF at the bottom of the water separator.

 

IIRC that truck was running a Fass fuel system (external pump and filter set up), not exactly a resounding endorsement of Fass' filters. Bypassing the WIF is just asking for trouble IMHO.

Billions of miles and millions of engine hours are put on metal can filters every year, even the most knuckle dragging of maintenance on them your fine. If anyone is going to have issues with rust in the fuel system, the Company I work for should. We have a dozens of loaders, dozers and a few excavators at our terminals that live next to the ocean and on top of a salt pile. When a vessel is in port we have to put them in the holds to scrap it empty.




Pretty much all of them are spin on metal can filters, rarely have fuel system issues. It is a mostly cat fleet, handful of Komatsu here and there but mostly Cat. Rusting out body panels, dime a dozen but the fuel systems hold up well generally speaking.

 

Drained of fuel the OEM filter still weighs about 2 pounds more than in the package, so its trapping something in it.

 

deleted. didn't post where wished

 

do you have a pic of your install. sounds interesting

 

I was hoping I was done and had my mind made up. I'm trying to verify the filter efficacy between the donaldson and the OEM.
Donaldson P551000 reads FUEL FILTER, WATER SEPARATOR SPIN-ON -
Efficiency 99% 10 micron
Efficiency Test Std SAE J1488, J1985
Emulsified H2O Efficiency 96 Percent

Donaldson P551311 reads FUEL FILTER, SPIN-ON SECONDARY
Efficiency 99.9% 5 micron
Efficiency Test Std ISO 19438

OEM reads (please double check my part numbers because my VIN isn't in the system yet so I can't do a specific search yet)
Fuel Filter Element FD4647 (PC3Z9N184C)

I CAN'T FIND SPECIFICATIONS ON THE OEM PARTS?!? What gives?!

 

https://parts.ford.com/content/dam/f...el_Filters.pdf

 

Ford, as most OEMs are fairly opaque with specs, there was a flyer for the 11-16 filter kit that the upper filter was 5.1 micron at 98% and the lower filter was 95% at stripping water but doesn't specify it is emulisifed or free. Donaldson is probably the most transparent filter manufacturer.

 

that makes me feel a little better because I’m usually pretty good at finding this info.

what I’m hearing is Donaldson is at least as good, plus it’s easier to drain, and you can set it up to see how much water is there.

sounds like if water is a worry this is at least as good as factory if not significantly better.

 

Funny you mentioned Donaldson because I was looking at using their version of MC FD4615 fuel filter set and when i emailed them, they stated their lower (DFCM) filter did not have the water separator media in their filter.

I don't look at their filters any different though but do use their P502503 oil filter. I'm sure their can filters are very good.

 

The 17+ fuel water separator is far better working than the 11-16 one. I wish Ford would release a PDF on how it works as a unit and what its specs actually are. I know Ford doesn't want aftermarket to replace their designs, and it probably why it is held back, but knowing if its as goo if not better than anything you can spin on would be good to know since the potential damage that can happen if what replaces it is not as good. I question the water bowl on the SPE as to where does it come into play compared to the stock system? We know the stock system collects ware in the bottom of the chamber, but, how? Prefilter? From the filter? Is emulsified water demulsified by the filter and thats what collects? I know the white screen in the pickup side does not allow water to pass through unless its actually laying IN water to where fuel cannot pass without sucking in water, and if thats the case, having a half gallon of water in that mean you have several gallons in you tank, nothing will stop water from getting through at that point.

The water bowl on the SPE looks to be between filters, or is that leading into the water filter, so seeing how the chambers pass fuel would be quite helpful. So the big question remains for me, is it any better at trapping water than the stock system, and most importantly, why? Before plopping $800 down, what does it do better and can you prove it?

 

The fs1000 cross references where bench marked on Cummins OTR 10L+ engines and need to be at least 95% efficient at emulisifed water to meet the factory spec. They are very good, I ran a fleetguard FS1000 on my old CR Cummins with great luck.


It's good they told you, less than ideal they lack it.

Based on what I have read the 256-xxxx Cat water seperator is pre-WIF sensor basin or at least I think that is what that little chamber is supposed to be. Fleece and Fass have a better set up using a Donaldson passive WIF on a pigtail than SPEs design IMHO.

 

There had to be a reason they went to a bigger primary filter and I'm thinking for more water separating media, because of the larger panel filter (more area) for more media and for more water storage at the bottom of the filter -- bigger housing...

Don't know how the new primary panel fuel filter works but has to be similar I would think, but I'm thinking the fuel in my DFCM filter comes through the center, hits the water separating media in the inside there in the center so water can drop out and go down in the bottom where the WIF sensor is, then go through the filter media to the outside and then out of the primary pump housing (DFCM).

But I'm just surmising here and could be wrong... those panel filters are nice as they have a whole lot more media than my primary filter does... hence why one day, after retiring from the job, my truck will have my AirDog pump in the mix. I'll it feed my DFCM from a Titan 50 gal tank with a Fleece Performance fuel pickup... but I digress.