The Plastic Classic Forum, your free and in-depth resource for information on re/building classic sailboats. ... Be sure to visit / join our sister site at sailFar.net! ... And don't forget to check out Atom's Virtual Home Port! ...
I am going to use laymans terms here because I don't want to get the wrong answer because I used the wrong terminology in terms of primary or secondary, or coarser versus finer.
It has always been my understanding that the fuel needs to go through 2 filters on the engine. The external filter that it goes through first should catch the big particles and the filter on the engine should catch the finer (smaller) particles. (laymans terms)
Is the above assumption correct ?
I have a Westerbeke and an email from Westerbeke todays tells me that the second filter (the one on the engine, part # 30200) is 25 micron.
HELLO MR. WILME,
THE MICRON RATING OF THE #30200 FUEL FILTER ON THE ENGINE IS 25 MICRON.
WESTERBEKE CORPORATION DOES NOT RECOMMEND USING AS A PRIMARY FILTER ANY ELEMENT LOWER THAN 10 MICRONS.
USE A 10 MICRON FILTER ELEMENT IN YOUR RACOR.
BEST REGARDS,
JOE JOYCE
My problem is I don't know which way the numbers go, up is finer or down is finer ....
They tell me (above) to use a 10 micron on my external Racor. A 10 micron would be filter # R12T (see below).
Do I assume and am I correct in doing so therefore that a 10 micron filter is coarser than a 25 micron filter, ie: it will catch the bigger particles but more importantly it wont get gummed up with all the goo and negate the use of the one on the engine ?
I ask because the filter that is in there now (previous owner) is the ubiquitous R12S ( 2 micron). If my thinking is correct this R12S is too coarse and is letting more particles through (in theory) to the Westerbeke filter than is desirable ?
Appreciate clarification on this, I am sure accurate clarification would be an asset to future readers too.
2 micron stops particles larger than 2 microns in size, which are very very small particles. This is likely the same size as the filter on your engine.
A micron is a millionth of a meter. A 2 micron particle (two millionths of a meter) is smaller than a 10 micron particle (10 millionths of a meter), which in turn is smaller than a 25 micron particle (25 millionths of a meter). A 2 micron filter is finer than a 10 micron, which is finer than a 25 or 30 micron.
Put another way, a 25 micron filter allows passage of any particle smaller than 25 microns (meaning that 10 micron particles and 2 micron particles will pass right through). Likewise, a 10 micron filter allows passage of any particle smaller than 10 microns, but catches anything larger. So the 10 micron filter will also catch 25 micron particles, but will let the 2 micron particles pass through.
If this is confusing at all, replace "micron" with "inch", and it will be clear how the filter sizes work. A 10" piece of material would easily pass through a screen with a 25" size, but would be stopped by a screen with only a 2" size. Somehow this makes it easier to comprehend for me. You don't want any 10" or 25" pieces of junk in your engine's fuel supply.
I am intrigued by the email from Westerbeke. 25 microns seems incredibly coarse for a secondary (final) fuel filter, and I am very surprised by this. While I agree with Westerbeke's recommendation that you use nothing finer than 10 microns in your primary filter, I feel that the secondary filter ought to be finer than the primary. I think the secondary (engine) filter ought to be 2 microns. 10 microns is a decent all-around size for your primary.
If your secondary filter is finer than the primary, the fuel that passes through the primary filter will not be filtered any further as it passes through the secondary. This is OK as far as that goes, assuming the primary is filtering out the smallest particles, but the point of the secondary filter is to catch any particles that made it through the primary filter.
If your primary filter is as fine as 2 or even 10 microns, then it is catching effectively every particle from your fuel supply. The secondary filter beyond it will remain pristene if it is more coarse (like 25 micron), and will not provide any further filtering. From a practical standpoint, it doesn't matter where the particles are caught, as long as they are caught. But with a fine primary filter, you'll find that you tend to use up the cartridges more quickly, and the secondary filter will last for a long time--theoretically forever, since it wouldn't be catching any particles at all.
A 2 micron element would be too fine for a primary filter. You will use these cartridges more rapidly, since they are catching everything--coarse and fine--in your fuel supply. These cartridges are not inexpensive, and while good filtration is worth any price, it makes more sense to arrange your system so that you catch first the coarser particles, and then use a second filter to do the final filtration of anything that remains. Still, a 2 micron will work; it will just tend to be used up and require changing more frequently.
I think an ideal fuel setup would be to have fuel first enter a "day tank" through a 25 micron (coarse) filter. From there, the fuel, already partly strained, would pass through a 10 micron (medium) primary filter, and then onto the engine-mounted 2 micron (fine) secondary filter. Obviously this is more complex and not practical for a small boat, but I think this would be an excellent way to handle fuel if space, inclination, and budget allowed.
---------------------------------------------------
Forum Founder--No Longer Participating
Tim wrote:I am intrigued by the email from Westerbeke. 25 microns seems incredibly coarse for a secondary (final) fuel filter...
I believe Westerbeke is assuming that there is a more aggressive filter system upstream in the fuel delivery system. That last small filter is the "last chance" filter and is there mostly to catch chunks of rubber/plastic/nuts, that may come off a failing aux. fuel pump or filter assembly. That final filter has a pretty small surface area and if that final filter was very fine it could clog up in a matter of minutes. It is easier to install a much larger and finer filter element just after the fuel tank.
A multi-element filtration system would work but then you would have more filters to service. An extra big, low micron filter element would catch everything and not clog up too quickly. Just my opinion of course.
I am intrigued by the email from Westerbeke. 25 microns seems incredibly coarse for a secondary (final) fuel filter, and I am very surprised by this. While I agree with Westerbeke's recommendation that you use nothing finer than 10 microns in your primary filter, I feel that the secondary filter ought to be finer than the primary. I think the secondary (engine) filter ought to be 2 microns. 10 microns is a decent all-around size for your primary.
If your secondary filter is finer than the primary, the fuel that passes through the primary filter will not be filtered any further as it passes through the secondary. This is OK as far as that goes, assuming the primary is filtering out the smallest particles, but the point of the secondary filter is to catch any particles that made it through the primary filter.
Is exactly what I thought.
However I do also agree that it makes sense that if that filter is finer (eg: 2 micron) it has a significantly smaller surface area and could clearly clog up.
I think I am going to replace with 10 microns and live with it. I think.
Mark.
S/V Calypso. 2001 Beneteau Oceanis 381 Not quite a plastic classic yet
Now here's a twist, I asked Torrensen marine basically the same question and here's their response :
Thanks for your interest in Westerbeke parts from Torresen Marine's
Marine Diesel Direct. The standard Westerbeke fuel filters are not
specified to the end user by micron rating. However, they would be
in the 2-5 micron range. I would expect that it is most likely that
they are either 2 or 3 micron. Westerbeke does not offer options
for different porosities on these filters.
I wonder if someone at Westerbeke misread the specs and typed "25" instead of "2 - 5". that's certainly plausible and would I think make some sense. It would also reinforce the 10 micron primary.
Mark.
S/V Calypso. 2001 Beneteau Oceanis 381 Not quite a plastic classic yet
I think that the chance of a typo is very high here, and that Torresen's response makes sense. It makes a lot more sense that the stock Westerbeke engine filter is 2 or 5 micron, not 25.
A 10 micron primary is a good all-around choice, too.
---------------------------------------------------
Forum Founder--No Longer Participating
On a few occasions, when discussing such things with people who get tripped up over the whole multistage filtration thing ("which filter are you talking about now?), I've found it useful to refer to the primary filter as "The Fuel Filter", and to the secondary as "The Fuel Polisher".
2 microns really is polishing the ol' apple, after all.
Check out the latest issue of Good Old Boat (Jan/Feb 2007) for a relevant article on fuel and filters. It's called "Motoring in Heavy Weather" by Jerry Powlas, on page 16.
He mentions a "Baja Filter" for straining fuel to remove water and solids. Going to 'Google that one!
He also recommends 10 micron primary and 2 micron secondary filters.
I am resurfacing this thread to get answers to my original question and a subsequent one after reading this...
1. I have a racor as my 'primary' (initial filter) with a 2 micron filter, my secondary, mounted on engine is also a 2 micron. This is what a Volvo mechanic had recommended to me last year when I installed the Racor (in July). Worked fine the rest of the summer and this summer until I took a trip for 2 weeks where I noticed the bowl of the primary had some stuff in it. I bled the bowl, emptied out the stuff - did not change the filter - and carried on.
From what I've read here, it's deemed silly to have a 2 micron in the primary. It seems you all are in favor of a 10 in the primary and a 2 on the secondary. Isn't there also a 5 micron? I'm wondering though, if there is a 5 or a 10 on the primary, doesn't that make it possible for the secondary to get mucked up before there is any visible sign of a problem? Wouldn't that make it possible to actually have engine failure from a clogged secondary when the primary is not showing any visible stuff in the bowl? My logic (?) us that with two 2 microns, you get an early warning visual and then only one filer to deal with wheras if you have a 5 or a 10 in the primary you would always have to change both filters just to be sure...
2. The west marine filter says it's 100 (one hundred) microns. Sounds awfully yielding to me, no?
I'm far from an expert on this subject, but from what I do know it's one of those things that has proponents on both sides. If I had my own filters, I would fall in the 10 or 30 micron primary/2 micron secondary camp.
One argument I've heard against the 2 micron primary is that because of properties of the filter medium, larger particles can "ram" their way through, and in the process leave large "holes" in the filter medium. So your 2 micron primary turns into a 60 micron primary (just to pick a number out of a hat to give you the idea) and lots more stuff subsequently gets past it to the secondary filter. The idea is that the filter medium in the "larger" (10 or 30 micron) filters is less vulnerable to the attempts of the larger particles to get through.
I'll be interested to hear others' thoughts on the issue.
Rachel
PS: The drop-in Racor filter elements (if that's the type you have) that I'm familiar with come in 2m (brown), 10m (blue), and 30m (red).
We run a 10 micron filter as our primary, a 2 micron as the secondary, and the engine-mounted Fram CP1911L(?), which I believe is a 30 micron, as our tertiary filter. Our thinking was to progressively filter the fuel and provide a quick, efficient way to inspect and replace filters before we had problems. After years of using the system, it is only the 10 micron primary that really needs changing. I have changed the 2 micron as cheap insurance, but it has not been dirty (at least visibly). The engine-mounted filter isn't doing much work, and that was the idea since changing it is more complicated than changing the Racor 500FGs and involves bleeding the engine.
I incorporated a polishing circuit into the system that uses a Walbro pump to filter the fuel while Ariel is dockside. The pump turns over a tank of fuel every hour and primes the system following filter changes.
Here's a diagram of the setup and a couple pictures:
This picture shows the two 500FGs and the R24s, visible at the lower right.
David that's a beautiful set up. I'm green. I do have a dual racor but I have not installed it yet. This is what my situation looked like on the last filter change. My engine died while under way in 20 knots and 4 foot seas, on the nose of course. I could not deal with it then but later took these pictures. Thankfully, I have sails and therefore made it back home but it was a long day.
Tell me if these pictures are horrifying or normal to any of you.
Other than some water in the bottom of the bowl the filter looks quite usable and relatively clean. Perhaps your secondary was the one causing the issue?
Believe it or not these filters came out of an engine still running, though only at idle speed, on a commercial fishing boat..
Another good reason to not use a 2 micron element as a primary filter..
Maine Sail's picture reminded me that some of our early fuel issues were due to a screen on the pick-up tube in the tank. During engine operation, the pick-up tube would become increasingly occluded as crud built up on the screen. The engine would then begin hunting, running up a 100 or so RPM then coming back down to speed. We would stop the engine, which allowed all the crud to fall back down into the tank, change the filters (this was before the current setup), start the engine, and things would work fine for a bit - at least until agitation caused the crud to block the pick-up tube screen again. Once we discovered the screen and what was happening, we removed it, allowing the filters to do what they're designed to do. It always struck me as foolish that someone, somewhere thought it wise to install a screen in the tank could render the engine (and the filters) ineffective. I don't know whether other boats are similarly equipped, but I thought I'd share my experience for reference.
Similar to the above post I had some crud in a tank that would get sucked into the pickup and kill everything. Filters all looked fine. I found it by blowing into the tank through the fuel line.... blocked at first..., then bubbles and viola no more problem.
I can't pull the dip tube (stupid TEMPO tanks!) so I "vacuumed" the tank bottom through the fuel gauge port with an oil boy suction unit. Got some chunks of what was likely long dead pond scum. Probably from the deck fill with the hole in it created by the key.
Good thing it is a small tank.
No problems since then.
Winter project is to pull the tank, clean properly and replace.
Well life got in the way yesterday and I never made it to the boat so today is now the big day.
Overnight, it occured to me that I should 'simply' completely disconnect the fuel line between the tank and the Racor - not just the racor side and blow whatever, if anything that's in there into some receptacle in lieu of the tank?
Ric or Dave....is there a reason you did not do this? At the very least you get to see what was there and it's also not back in the tank only to show itself again one day...
I have a 40 gallon custom aluminum tank, it's about 1/2 full right now, that's a lot of pressure on the other end of that high powered exhale. I have no idea what the configuration is like inside the tank (is there a screen or a raised tube to keep the crud at bay?), all I know is the fuel exits at the bottom.
Again, I raise the question about the filter Practical Sailor did a piece on. 100 microns......doesn't that sound like it would let in way too much stuff?
BALANCE wrote:Dave....is there a reason you did not do this? At the very least you get to see what was there and it's also not back in the tank only to show itself again one day...
I've only given part of the story. The rest of the story involves our first summer cruise aboard Ariel, troubles away from home (water pump included), and some serious tank cleaning once we returned back to St. Joseph. At the point when I blew through the hose, we were trouble shooting. When the crud dislodged from the hose and fell back into the tank, the next step was to pump all of the fuel out of the tank and through a Baja filter into a 30 gal trash can in the cockpit. The tank received a good scrubbing and several rinses before the diesel was pumped back through the Baja filter and into the tank.
The tank in question is a little 11 ? gallon Tempo tank.
The fuel pickup in the tank is molded in and cannot be removed, otherwise I would have pulled the pickup and cleaned out the plug.
There is also no access ports in the tank either. So I used a Tempo Oil Boy to carefully suction the bottom of the tanks through the fuel sender opening, while still in the boat....fun!! Still not sure I got it all.
I actually bought a spare new tank and will likely pull, scrub, and store the old tank and install the new tank.
I think I found the source of the water when I found the pinhole in the fuel cap. Now I filter all the fuel as it goes in and usually fill from a 5 gallon tank than is translucent.
BALANCE wrote:Again, I raise the question about the filter Practical Sailor did a piece on. 100 microns......doesn't that sound like it would let in way too much stuff?
I believe that the filter Practical Sailor reviewed (the West Marine one) was what is being referred to as a Baja filter here - it's a funnel with a filter and a sump built in. It removes the worst of the crud from the incoming fuel, and provides a sump for some water and other junk to fall into, should it be present. It's just a way to improve the quality of the fuel as it enters the tank, and not a substitute for good filtration between the tank and the engine.
Another comment related to a much earlier post regarding the names of the various filter elements - the 30 micron Racors are suffixed with a 'P', for primary, the 2 microns with a 'S', for secondary. I'm not sure what the 'T' is for the 10 micron elements - perhaps 'tween?
I'm planning to replace my old rusty racor with a new one as part of my repower project this fall. I was planning a 500ma. Those dual units are priced through the moon here. Are they that much better than a single? What is the big advantage? Also has anyone created there own dual from two singles? The upcharge for the factory job appears excessive.
Thanks,
David
7 1/2' Nutshell Pram
Spindrift 11N
Perry designed CheoyLee35
One potential advantage to a dual is - if you run them in parallel - that you can quickly switch over to the other filter if you have a filter-related problem and you're in a pinchy navigational spot. Then you can change the first one at your leisure.
I think by the time you realize that you have a filtration issue then it is too late for that second filter. The main advantage I can see for dual filter setups is filter changes with the engine running. On commercial boats where the engine does not shut off for a week or three this is critical.
-Britton
Work is overrated.
Most everything you read on the Internet is wrong.
I'm not sure if this would be considered "in time" (or whether this type of scenario is appropo to the queryer), but I've used the switchover and had it be handy.
This was not in a "heart in your throat" reef pass, granted, but we were motoring along (in a dead calm) off the coast of Guatemala at night when the engine did a few slow RPM fades/surges. Eventually, it completely began to lose the ability to throttle up to operating RPMs (although it would idle or run at low RPMs). Once we did think of the filter (Hey, duh!*), we were able to switch over and carry on, and the engine was back to normal. Although it wasn't an imminent emergency, we also weren't in a spot where we really wanted to just sit and float.
We changed the filter the next day in an anchorage.
What I don't know is if we had been in a critical spot when we first experienced the "fading," and had been smart enough to change the filter over (to the second filter in the Racor 500) if we could have saved things at that critical moment. My guess would have been yes, but from what you're saying, Britton, maybe not?
Rachel
*We hadn't had filter issues before, so we were a bit slow to have it dawn on us what was happening.
The fuel line between the tank and the Racor turned out to be clear and blowing against 25 gallons of diesel turned out to be quite easy (once I disconected to top of the sight tube and put my thumb on it). Out came some black crud. I suppose there is more where that came from so will follow up with having the fuel polished. The engine still didn't start though, I had to bleed the injectors after that. Then bingo!
I know a few people that have the dual Racor and have successfully switched while motoring once the engine started to act funky. It's definitely not too late.
Rachel, if that was the Westsail you were on when that happened, I'd love to know where it was mounted and whether it wast a good spot for making the switch while underway (motoring). Remember, pictures parlay it better!
Shoalcove, I picked up a dual Racor 500 MAX (or is it a 550 MAX?) recently - second hand for $350.00. I forget where I saw the ad but I would imagine they are not too hard to come across. $750.00 was the best price I found new. My seller was installing larger ones - big boat - big fuel tanks. I can't wait to avail myself of that luxury.
One of the better sites to read about fuel filtration is Ton Athen's site at www.sbmar.com - Granted his stuff is for boats that use lots of fuel, but he is also protecting engines that are probably worth more than the cost of many of our "classic plastic" boats. Take a spin thru his section on filtration - it's excellent. The Filterguard filters used in this application are a real value.
I found this site 3 years ago as I looked at filtration alterntives - I had picked up some water in the fuel on "IRIS" due to a leaking o ring on the deck fill. Boy I sure found out I had water in the fuel that October as I motored into a 3 1/2 foot sea on my way north to the Cape Cod Canal - the engine sputtered & started to miss - Fuel problems!!!.....So I had to change the filter & there was 1/2 inch of water in the bottom of the Racor 500. Turned around ( did not trust the fuel to head all the way to New Hampshire) and headed back the 10 miles to Westport Ma. . Not 200 yards from the mooring the enginge just quit - no warning, no sputter, nothing. Grabbed a mooring as we floated by, then checked the fuel filter again - 1/2 full of water! Oh DRAT!!.
The Racor passed water thru ( Racor will say they won't pass water - they will...) & Killed the injection pump. The pump was trash - so I used this as an opportunity (I guess "opportunity" is better than more work for the winter) to pull the 35 year old Westerbeke 4-107 & rebuild it. Lot's of new stuff in the engine & a new pump. Works great .
The filtration system I now have is one of Tony's Fuel Guard heads with a large "mud/crud" separator in front of my rebuilt Racor 500. I like the Racor 'cause I can see the fuel. I love the Fuel Guard filter 'cause it's got 10 times the capacity of my Racor. I use a Vacuum Gauge to provide status of filters - as they "clog" the Gauge registers higher Vacuum. Simple, easy, and works fine. The bowl on my Racor is crystal clear.
My brother has Tony's dual Filter Guard set up with Vacuum gauge on his Cal 39 - He installed this system when he re-powered with a new Yanmar 52 Hp when I was re-building my engine - 3 years ago. Loves it.
One other interesting issue - I called Tony after my first year in the water to "confirm" that i ought to change out my filters each year as a "commisioning" exercise - his comment was "Why??" Change the filters when they have done their job & clogged - unless you like to throw money away. This is my 3rd season after the re-build & new Filter setup - I've run the engine 155 hours ( Probably burned 70 gallons of fuel) & the filters are the same ones I put in 3 years ago. Might change the "mud" filter next year, but the Gauge has hardly moved a bit. Might also my time & $ and leave them alone.....
Oh, the double filter set-up with a gauge was something like $225 - the single set up was $145. A total value.
Mike
That link was very interesting, thank you. I think, though, I have to stick with what I've got so I'm back with more questions.
I've investigated fuel polishing and tank cleaning (two different procedures). Both are dubious for me because my deck fill is not a straigh shot down to the tank. It elbows over. To clean the tank, the professionals need an access at the top of the tank and I don't have this. The polishers use either hoses or copper tubing, neither will seem to work for me.
So, I was thinking, I could get a clear hose with the same ID as the fuel line and start emptying the tank into jerry jugs and watch what comes through rather than peering into various jugs after the fact, some of which are black. I have about 25 gallons, tops, in the tank right now. I guess I would need to 'rock the boat' and then start draining. Then add new fuel, rock it again and drain until whatever comes out of the tank is all clear?
This is an old picture of the then recently changed valve and fuel line. As you will see, the fuel exits at the very bottom. (the fuel leak was resolved).
Do you think my scenario would work and get rid of anything that may be lurking once and for all?
Also, I keep wondering what the logic is of my mechanic's advice of having a 2 micron in the racor which leads to a 2 engine filter...Is it possible that the 2 in the racor could have enhanced my problem with the tank itself getting clogged? I see that everyone here suggests at least a 10 if not a 30 in the racor, as do other articles I've read...
Last edited by BALANCE on Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The earlier Sabre vessels also had a filter screen on the fuel pickup tube. Sabre recommended removing the screen. I also found the pickup tube to be only about 3/32 of an inch off the bottom of the tank on my boat. I cut the pickup tube so that it is approximately 3/8 inch off the tank bottom.
Boy, this subject always gets a ton of responses, no matter what forum it is posted on. As a trawler guy, I put a lot more hours on my engines than most of you I suspect, and I like clean fuel. But I'm going to respectfully go against the common fund of knowledge here. I run 2 microns as my primarys, racor 500 ma.
Here is my reasoning: They are cheap, $12 if you buy them by the case. They are readily available. You can see when they are getting clogged (mine never have, even after we crossed back over from the Bahamas in pretty nasty gulf stream seas last year). They are easy to change. I've never seen any particle "blow through a filter" that would take a heck of a lift pump to create that much pressure. I change them every 100 hours when I change my oil, wether they need it or not, it gives me peace of mind for $24.
My on engine filters are not avialable in 2 micron. 15 is the smallest they make. They cost $35 each. They spill fuel in the engine room when I change them, no matter how careful I am. One of them is hard to reach and has a fiddily litte screw that is easy to drop into the bildge. They don't have a clear bowl so I can't see what is going on in them. Basically, I don't use them.
As far as the pic of the horribly clogged filter from the commercial boat, why is that a good example of why not to use them? It lloks to me like the filter did it's job, though obviously it should have been changed way earlier. What would have been the point of passing some of that gunk on to another filter? Then you would have had two filters clogged instead of one. How is that better?
I am resurfacing this thread again. My research has continued. I finally decided to just buy the West Marine filter (and by the way the price is much higher than discussed) only to find out from them that the filter is only good for a certain amount of uses. This stopped me in my tracks and also gave birth to the question of...when using these funnel type filters, at a fuel dock , for example, the only way you know you are capturing contaminants is when the fueling process slows down noticeable. At this point you have to stop and dispose of what is in your funnel - which means you need some sort of receptacle and then you need to be able to get rid of what you have collected. I know that the fuel dock nearest me does not facilitate this disposal need - plus - filling up your tank could turn into a rather long visit.
Then, I bought the Racor funnel filter. This one also blocks water - in addition to contaminants. I tested it, as they advise, and poured water in. Although I was standing at a sink, I was too trustworthy. Nothing happened at first, I raised it over my head to look at the spout on the bottom and guess what? You guessed it. I called the seller and he said you are not supposed to do that. I called Racor and they said yes you are supposed to do that, send it back and we will replace it. You have to be careful about handling the built in screen on these and I got one that was mishandled.
The problem with the Racor even when working properly is you still have the same issue as the WM filter, disposal (or storing it on your boat until you can dispose of it). With the Racor, it seems it is possible that over time one's filter could become compromised and no longer retard water and you would never know it.
So, I have decided to go the Baja filter route. It's the only filter that I can find first hand positive experiences in all parts of the world. It has 3 compartments, two that filter the fuel for contaminants, like a primary and a secondary and one that stops water. A positive experience translates into no engine failures when underway. This is the most commonly used filter for worldwide cruisers, it has replaceable filters, it's self contained (and virtually hermetic when not in use) so when it is not in use it is not rolling around in some compartment picking up contaminates. I also understand it is a true homespun business; none of the work is farmed out and none of the materials they use has changed over the years to save a buck. They are very proud of their craftsmanship and user friendliness. I'm about to pull the trigger and buy one but decided to put up this, what turned out to be a lengthly post (sorry!) to see if anyone here has had any direct experience. Most of us non world cruisers are more prone to have fuel issues due to condensation - water as opposed to contaminants. The WM filter does not address that. The Racor one does so long as your filter isn't compromised. The world cruiser types are more inclined to get bounced around 'out there' and loosen up contaminants as well as pump them into their tanks in various parts of the world. I'm guessing that is why they are using the Baja one.
I've attached the link that shows the comparison chart by Practical Sailor (not the article).
I said I was resurfacing this thread, when, in fact, you did. You also addressed my twice repeated question about the fact that my "primary" (not attached to the engine) filter is a 2 micron, as per the Volvo diesel mechanic's advice. Although I see both sides (using a higher number in the primary), I don't see the wisdom of allowing 'stuff' to bypass the primary and go through the engine either.
The only problem with this is the problem I had, which was engine failure after getting tossed around (literally standing at the helm and loosing contact with the cockpit floor). Of course, these are the times when you want your engine and I was unable to leave the helm to change the filter. This all happened in the first 1/2 hour of leaving the anchorage and out into open water where I would have turned off the engine. Neptune beat me to it.
I assume the mechanic's recommendation comes from the same practical sense gyration you have expressed. But I still wonder if that is what he suggests, wouldn't other mechanics be saying the same thing and therefore, most of the people out there doing just that? Is it about the $24.00?
Thanks for the response, still standing by for input on the Baja filter logic that I have come to...
