• Untitled Document

    Join us on March 29rd, 7pm EST

    for the CBEC Virtual Meeting

    All EYO members and followers are welcome to join the fun and get to know the guest speaker!

    See the link below for login credentials and join us!

    March Meeting Info

    (dismiss this notice by hitting 'X', upper right)

Racor Fuel Filter Plugs?

newgringo

Member III
Our E32 with an M25 Universal has a Racor Fuel Filter with a 2 micron R24S element. The top of the filter has 3 white plugs/knobs. I have never disturbed them and just changed the R24S element regularily. But these plugs/knobs must have a purpose. Can someone please educate me on the porpose of these plugs/knobs? I hope the picture helps. Yes, it looks kind of dirty, but, believe me much cleaner than when we got the boat in 2006. Thanks-Jerry
 

Attachments

  • RacorR24S01.jpg
    RacorR24S01.jpg
    88.9 KB · Views: 806

EGregerson

Member III
primary filter

Hi; this wasn't your question, but... is the racor the primary? and is there a secondary mounted on the universal? I think the universal secondaries are typically 2 micron; if the primary is 2 micron, then the secondary never does anything. a rep at WM recommended like 10 micron in the primary (gets the large chunks out) and 2 in the secondary. Seemed like good advice.
 

Frank Langer

1984 Ericson 30+, Nanaimo, BC
I have heard (maybe from a previous post on this site?) that the universal secondary filter on the engine is at best 10 micron, not 2 micron. Others may be able to verify.

Frank
 

mherrcat

Contributing Partner
I have also heard that the Universal filter is 10 to 20 micron but have never seen the definitive specification.

I believe the element in my Racor is 10 micron and I filter my fuel going into the tank so I'm not overly concerned.
 
Last edited:

newgringo

Member III
My Racor with R24S is the primary with either a NAPA 3390 WIX 33390 on the engine as secondary. Both of these are 10 micron. I have never seen a rating for the Universal 298854. I would like to know if there is a 2 micron engine filter available. Then I would change the Racor to a 10 micron.
 

Tom Metzger

Sustaining Partner
Universal fuel filters - THE WORD

I think I have posted this before, but here it is again. The answer first, and then the question I asked:

Hello Tom,

10 microns for the on engine spin on filter is fine. Do not go any smaller in micron rating. Our #298854 spin on is rated at 25 micron. Stay with 10 micron in the Racor as well. You want the Racor to be doing the majority of filtering.

Kind Regards,

Westerbeke Corp.

<hr tabindex="-1" width="100%" align="center" size="2">
From: trmetzger@earthlink.net [mailto:trmetzger@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:49 AM
To: help
Subject: Contact Request - M-25XP fuel filter



<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellpadding="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> Name:
</td> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> Tom Metzger
</td></tr> <tr> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> Email:
</td> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> trmetzger@earthlink.net
</td></tr> <tr> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> Phone:
</td> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;">

</td></tr> <tr> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> City:
</td> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> Clifton Park
</td></tr> <tr> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> State:
</td> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> New York (East of I-81)
</td></tr> <tr> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> Country:
</td> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> United States
</td></tr> <tr> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> Subject:
</td> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> M-25XP fuel filter
</td></tr> <tr> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> Message:
</td> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> I have been trying to find out the fuel filter rating for my M-25XP engine. I have contacted three master distributors; I was ignored by the local distributor, and got meaningless answers from the other two. My question: "I have a Universal M-25XP engine that uses a Universal 298854 fuel filter. I have been using a 10 micron Wix 33390 filter that Wix cross references to the Universal number. Is 10 microns the correct filter level for the engine filter? Should I be using a 30 micron element in my Racor primary filter/separator? Thank you for your attention." Tom Metzger Clifton Park, NY 12065
</td></tr></tbody></table>
 

EGregerson

Member III
filter

thanks Tom; it appears the factory unit is there in the event of a major primary failure; rather than an active part of a graduated filtration process .
 

cawinter

Member III
Vent screw sheared off...

After successfully (albeit late!) launching Dangriga this year I found that the head of the vent screw had simply sheared off. Long story! :0 I was sucking too much air every few minutes or so, and I finally traced it down to a 'loose' (oh, how I wished!) vent screw.

The screw is nylon (like in the picture before this post) and is basically a 'straw' that was sealed by the head, into which the threaded part was screwed. I never looked at a screw THAT hard before. The stem of the screw is like welded into the screw hole, and all attempts to back it out have failed so far.

Anyway. It seems that the RACOR 220 (along with the R24S) are discontinued models. They were rated at 30 GPH and 2mu. The replacement R230 (with R20S) is about 1" taller, and I'll struggle to get it in above the bilge pump. The smaller version R215 is rated at 15GPH, which would fit. Note: The new filters all seem to have METAL vent screws...

Looking at YANMAR engine literature for the small engines, I saw that the return flow is about 60% of total flow going through the filter. E.g., at fuel consumption of .5GPH the total flow through the filter is about 1.25GPH (assuming I did this right).

Now comes the question: Isn't it possible to use the R215 (which is still about 12x oversized for the flow)? I understand that if you start loeading the filter these flow rating will probably go down significantly, but it takes GRAMS to do that, and our tanks are all clean, right? :)

Rather than cramming the R230 is I am tempted to go with the R215. Thoughts, ideas, comments?
 

Tom Metzger

Sustaining Partner
Chris - I would assume (and you know what that's worth) that the 15 gal/hr rating is based on maximum rated pressure differential across the filter, not a clean filter. Perhaps worth a call to the company.

I'd go for the smaller unit.
 

Tom Metzger

Sustaining Partner
Stu - According to Westerbeke the standard secondary filter is 25 microns. See reply #9 above. Obviously not a meaningful difference behind a 2 micron Racor filter.
 

Stu Jackson

C34IA Secretary
Tom, that may be true, except our experience (C34s) is that the Universal filter is:

Fuel Filter, Engine Universal # 298854 NAPA 3390 or WIX 33390
10 Micron
 

Tom Metzger

Sustaining Partner
Stu - No question about Wix/NAPA, but I suspect Westerbeke knows what they spec. I do use the same 10u filters you use.
 

cawinter

Member III
Great C34 discussion

Stu, great link.

As I understand it, the 220 body is no longer sold. It is superseded by the 230 with the same 30GPH rating but 1" more height.

The R24 filter cartartriges are orphaned in the sense that the bodies in that size don't use them anymore (even if they are still on shelves).

I have emails out to both Westerbeke and Hansen Marine to inquire about the adequacy of the 215 RACOR (which is about the same height as the old 220, maybe a bit shorter, I don't have the numbers right here). Using the 60% rule from the Yanmar 1GM/2GM/3GM engines for the return flow, the 15GPH rating should be sufficient, but I'll wait for the engine guys to weigh in.

I will definitely stick with the 2mu primary (S). My German background forces me to believe that cleaner is better :) , and I'll leave the secondary filter issue to a catastrophic FACET failure...:0 The only argument I have heard against the 2mu pre-filtration is that you don't want to 'take away total fuel flow' i.e., take out volume that might otherwise be returned and which would have served as lubricant... Not sure we are anywhere close to that with any of the filters.

Will keep you posted.
 

cawinter

Member III
Final word on Primary Fule Filter Size (?)

I received somewhat conflicting responses from various authoritative sources, including two distributors and one reputable marine engine repair place. The one from Westerbeke is below

Although the total fuel consumption of the engine is low the fuel flow through the filtration system will be more because the system returns fuel to the tank, it will be as much as the fuel pump is able to flow based on the amount of restriction there is in the system.

With no backpressure the standard Universal Engines lift pump is capable of pushing approximately 30 GPH, this is the reason a 30 GPH filter is typically used. Considering the back pressure in a typical system is somewhere between 2.5 to 3.5 PSI, if not a bit more, a 15 GPH filter may possibly not be able to handle the flow resulting in it being a restriction. In an effort to reduce as much restriction before the engine’s fuel system as possible it is probably best to find a way to use the 30 GPH filter.


I think the key is the statement in bold. The pump NEVER runs unimpeded, not even with the bypass valve open. OTOH, as we suspected, they are uncomfortable retricting fuel flow (lubrication), and the 30GPH was probably their most conservative solution without being accused of paranoia or worse.

I can move my bilge pump down and forward a bit, and I'll follow the paranoid on this one. 230R2 with R20S filter! Case closed for me.

Personally, I don't think anyone really knows this stuff well enough, especially as it comes to the effect of filter degradation with sludge, intake screens in the tank, different hose or tubing runs depending on installation, etc. Not saying that this could not be better approximated (remember basic laminar flow through long pipes? :nerd:), just thinking that nobody really did that. No different from so many other things 'marine'... Just my 2c.
 

mherrcat

Contributing Partner
If the only fuel not being burned is being returned to the tank, why couldn't you take the fuel return line off the tank, put it into a container of some kind, run the engine for say 5 minutes (or 10 or 15, etc.) measure the fuel collected and multiply by the appropriate factor to equal an hour? Wouldn't that give you a very close indication of how much fuel is flowing through the system in an hour? The amount of fuel burned in 5 minutes would seem to be negligible.
 
Top