What's new
By:
Ram Heavy Duty Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

2019 Ram 2500 w/ Cat Fuel Filter?

M

Mindblock

New Member
Messages
3
Reaction score
3
Points
3
Hi all,

I purchased my first new-to-me cummins 2019 Ram 2500 Megacab. This is my first diesel and I got a display to change my fuel filter. I looked up my VIN and ordered what I thought was the correct filters. I went underneath it today and found this CAT conversion. Does anyone know if this is common? I've always thought factory was best. I ordered the correct part to replace this filter, but curious if this is ok.

I assume the bottom is a drain, but I don't see how to attach any sort of hose to not allow diesel to spill all over the drive shaft. I also read that you should periodically drain the separator especially in cold climates to prevent freezing of water in the separator? Any input would be appreciated!
 

Attachments

  • PXL_20230609_204518536.jpg
    PXL_20230609_204518536.jpg
    491.6 KB · Views: 37
  • PXL_20230609_204529757.jpg
    PXL_20230609_204529757.jpg
    676.1 KB · Views: 36
That looks like a black market performance conversion. Its not uncommon and probably good enough but I think a good majority would argue that OEM filtration is probably best. These are just easier to maintain.

I cant speak to drain hose as my truck is stock.
 
bmp swap. here are a few filter options... it's not a full list...

20230120_130336.jpg
 
tchur1 said:
That looks like a black market performance conversion. Its not uncommon and probably good enough but I think a good majority would argue that OEM filtration is probably best. These are just easier to maintain.

I cant speak to drain hose as my truck is stock.
Click to expand...
Its the same filtration for the water separator if it was the block side then it would 100% be less filtration
 
I’ve spent a lot of time researching filters, and I’d swap it back to stock.

Sure it’s easier to change, probably a little cheaper too, but how often to you log 15K miles?

It’s likely not too big of an issue with the OEM block filter still in place, but you did essentially lose the 2nd WIF sensor.

If you do decide to keep it, I would see if you can get the FS19596 to work. It’s the proper thread pitch, but I don’t know about vertical clearance or WIF sensor compatibility.

Just my 0.02.
 
Last edited:
Run it, it's got a WIF sensor, the filters are easy to come by and even easier to install. I've got one on my truck, very happy with it. Many argue the cat water separator filter is a superior filter to the oem cartridge water separator.

The front engine filter though, that one you definitely want to keep the OEM. There's a lot more going on in that one than a standard water separator and the consensus seems to be that OEM filter is the best for that one.
 
g00fy said:
Run it, it's got a WIF sensor, the filters are easy to come by and even easier to install. I've got one on my truck, very happy with it. Many argue the cat water separator filter is a superior filter to the oem cartridge water separator.

The front engine filter though, that one you definitely want to keep the OEM. There's a lot more going on in that one than a standard water separator and the consensus seems to be that OEM filter is the best for that one.
Click to expand...

The wif sensor is in the wrong spot to be useful, it’s only there to keep the truck happy. You may as well ignore it’s existence.

The published f/w separation ratings on the Cat filter are inferior to OEM. The people that argue they are better don’t know the specs, and are the same people telling you the 1R-0750 is a 2um filter. The cat filter has a lower emulsified water separation rating, which is the important rating since the filter is after the lift pump. The OEM cartridge filter is superior.

If you are shopping aftermarket fuel filters/mounts and the company still claims the 1R-0750 is the best filter available then that company hasn’t done any research in 10-15 years, or more. Don’t trust them, it’s that simple.
 
Keep the bmp setup ....if you end up swapping the front setup then run these fleetguard filters....they compare directly to what the stock filters are capable of.... obviously the one with the drain is the rear filter ....
 

Attachments

  • 49213.jpeg
    49213.jpeg
    366.4 KB · Views: 23
  • 49212.jpeg
    49212.jpeg
    343.1 KB · Views: 21
IndyRamMega said:
Keep the bmp setup ....if you end up swapping the front setup then run these fleetguard filters....they compare directly to what the stock filters are capable of.... obviously the one with the drain is the rear filter ....
Click to expand...
While the FF5814 does use the same media as the inner layer of the OEM filter, it lacks the F/W separation abilities of the OEM filter and therefore is not directly comparable to the OEM front filter. The OEM front filter is essentially 2 filters in one, so the OEM setup acts like 3 fuel filters.

Running both of those filters you showed in like of the OEM setup would render the WIF indications completely useless.
 
AH64ID said:
I’ve spent a lot of time researching filters, and I’d swap it back to stock.

Sure it’s easier to change, probably a little cheaper too, but how often to you log 15K miles?

It’s likely not too big of an issue with the OEM block filter still in place, but you did essentially lose the 2nd WIF sensor.

If you do decide to keep it, I would see if you can get the FS19596 to work. It’s the proper thread pitch, but I don’t know about vertical clearance or WIF sensor compatibility.

Just my 0.02.
Click to expand...
Unlike you Ive already done the leg work....it fits vertically but doesn't leave very much room for the DS to flex....only a couple inches so imo it's too long.....
 
IndyRamMega said:
Unlike you Ive already done the leg work....it fits vertically but doesn't leave very much room for the DS to flex....only a couple inches so imo it's too long.....
Click to expand...

That’s too bad. Thanks for that info.
 
IndyRamMega said:
So 0 filtration? Gotta bring that exaggeration down a few notches helz ....
Click to expand...
No sir you should re read that i said it would 100% be less filtration not… it would be 100% less filtration… is english your second language?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top