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!

BMP Fuel Filter Conversion

IndyRamMega

IndyRamMega

Well-Known Member
Messages
596
Reaction score
932
Points
93
Anybody else gonna do the conversion to spin on Cat fuel filters? Got my kits with fuel heater months before the truck got here...I'll install them at the 10k mark....if you already have them are you glad you converted!
 
I personally would not. The new nanonet filters that they have on the 19+ trucks is one of, if not the, best filters you can get. The Cat filter is good, but it's not on the same level. While I understand how awesome it would be to have a quicker maintenance item, and cheaper filters, I don't know that I'd want to be doing it myself. I think def on the 3rd gen and earlier trucks it makes a difference, 4th gen probably as well, but with this nanonet I'd be wary. Perhaps if you use the dual filters in addition to keeping the nano net (so engine mount nanonet, 1 fuel filter in back, and WIF separator behind it) that would probably be a fine setup.

I've yet to see hard data on how the Cat filter compares to the nanonet, so if you, or anyone, has that data please share it. The most recent data I had seen was from years ago when they rated filters by "absolute" ratings when they really weren't.

I'm happy, even hopeful, someone can prove me wrong here. Data is king (although I suppose I'd need to prove nanonet is better than cat by the same token, but I don't have the cat data so it's hard to do)
 
UglyViking said:
I personally would not. The new nanonet filters that they have on the 19+ trucks is one of, if not the, best filters you can get. The Cat filter is good, but it's not on the same level. While I understand how awesome it would be to have a quicker maintenance item, and cheaper filters, I don't know that I'd want to be doing it myself. I think def on the 3rd gen and earlier trucks it makes a difference, 4th gen probably as well, but with this nanonet I'd be wary. Perhaps if you use the dual filters in addition to keeping the nano net (so engine mount nanonet, 1 fuel filter in back, and WIF separator behind it) that would probably be a fine setup.

I've yet to see hard data on how the Cat filter compares to the nanonet, so if you, or anyone, has that data please share it. The most recent data I had seen was from years ago when they rated filters by "absolute" ratings when they really weren't.

I'm happy, even hopeful, someone can prove me wrong here. Data is king (although I suppose I'd need to prove nanonet is better than cat by the same token, but I don't have the cat data so it's hard to do)
Click to expand...
This exactly. Different =/= improved.

Sent from my SM-N986U1 using Tapatalk
 
UglyViking said:
I personally would not. The new nanonet filters that they have on the 19+ trucks is one of, if not the, best filters you can get. The Cat filter is good, but it's not on the same level. While I understand how awesome it would be to have a quicker maintenance item, and cheaper filters, I don't know that I'd want to be doing it myself. I think def on the 3rd gen and earlier trucks it makes a difference, 4th gen probably as well, but with this nanonet I'd be wary. Perhaps if you use the dual filters in addition to keeping the nano net (so engine mount nanonet, 1 fuel filter in back, and WIF separator behind it) that would probably be a fine setup.

I've yet to see hard data on how the Cat filter compares to the nanonet, so if you, or anyone, has that data please share it. The most recent data I had seen was from years ago when they rated filters by "absolute" ratings when they really weren't.

I'm happy, even hopeful, someone can prove me wrong here. Data is king (although I suppose I'd need to prove nanonet is better than cat by the same token, but I don't have the cat data so it's hard to do)
Click to expand...
So I did the digging...not just speculation....the rear replacement conversion back by the tank has the same 10 micron rating as the Mopar filter....the cat conversion in the engine bay has a 2 micron rating where as the nanonet oem filter has a 2 layer filter system 5 microns then down to 3....so it would appear you're not going to be worse off switching....and the filters are easier to change and don't cost as much....
 
IndyRamDRW said:
So I did the digging...not just speculation....the rear replacement conversion back by the tank has the same 10 micron rating as the Mopar filter....the cat conversion in the engine bay has a 2 micron rating where as the nanonet oem filter has a 2 layer filter system 5 microns then down to 3....so it would appear you're not going to be worse off switching....and the filters are easier to change and don't cost as much....
Click to expand...
The cat system is far superior, CAT has always been great they also build and design all their own parts for the diesel engines including the fuel systems…. I will be doing the swap when i delete the truck (after the CP4 recall)
 
IndyRamDRW said:
So I did the digging...not just speculation....the rear replacement conversion back by the tank has the same 10 micron rating as the Mopar filter....the cat conversion in the engine bay has a 2 micron rating where as the nanonet oem filter has a 2 layer filter system 5 microns then down to 3....so it would appear you're not going to be worse off switching....and the filters are easier to change and don't cost as much....
Click to expand...
Care to share the data? My understanding was that the 2 micron rating isn't accurate, as no filters currently filter down to 2 micron.

There is a difference between absolute filtering and nominal filtering. If the CAT data you're referencing is what I think it is, that is for the nominal and it's data from a few years ago, before they changed how filtering is graded. What used to be called absolute is not the same.

I'm happy to be proven wrong here, as I said, but so far there is no data. (Again, it's hard for me to disprove this as I've not found any up to date data on what the CAT filter is good down to)
 
UglyViking said:
Care to share the data? My understanding was that the 2 micron rating isn't accurate, as no filters currently filter down to 2 micron.

There is a difference between absolute filtering and nominal filtering. If the CAT data you're referencing is what I think it is, that is for the nominal and it's data from a few years ago, before they changed how filtering is graded. What used to be called absolute is not the same.

I'm happy to be proven wrong here, as I said, but so far there is no data. (Again, it's hard for me to disprove this as I've not found any up to date data on what the CAT filter is good down to)
Click to expand...
I'm going to try and say this so as not to come across wrong.....

Are you saying the Mopar filters are using a different rating system than the Cat filters? If so what's makes the way the Mopar filters are rated different or better than the Cat filters? If you watch the comparison videos on the internal structuring of the filters you'll see in that alone the Cat is built better...I have no doubt that the Mopar filters of today are better than those of a decade ago however I'm not the one claiming the Mopar filters are "the best if not one of the best" filters out there today....that would be you...even if they are the same then the conversion still is appealing due to the ease of the change and the cost of the filters....do you have the data on how the Cat filter is rated vs how the Mopar filter was rated and or tested? I'm also open to having a legit filter micron rating and or test comparison debate I'm am not however open to having to supply all of the data to someone who just "doubts" it's not...just like the Banks ram air horn thread....if you don't want to believe in it you'll make all kinds of excuses or reasons as to why it's not better or equal...(not you specifically) I'll post up the filter specs and links and you post up how those filters aren't what they are rated for...not years ago data but legit data test results from say 2018 or sooner....let me go get my info and I'll wait for yours....
 
The Mopar fuel/water separator looks like it also has a 2 micron rating....however according to you those don't exist...I'm curious to see your filter testing data to say one way or the other...
 
I should probably clarify, no filter goes down to 2 micron absolute.

Here is the cat filter, direct from the cat website. (https://shop.cat.com/en/usa-parts/1R-0750)

Notice under specifications it says it's efficiency rating "Advanced efficiency" (but doesn't go so far as to state an actual rating).

Well, if we can go to the direct data from cat (https://caterpillar.scene7.com/is/content/Caterpillar/C10467200, pages 8 - 11) you'll notice that under advanced efficiency (table 4, page 11), it shows 5-10 micron absolute.

So, again, the data that says 2 micron absolute is outdated. There isn't, to my knowledge, a single 2 micron absolute filter available today.
 
UglyViking said:
I should probably clarify, no filter goes down to 2 micron absolute.

Here is the cat filter, direct from the cat website. (https://shop.cat.com/en/usa-parts/1R-0750)

Notice under specifications it says it's efficiency rating "Advanced efficiency" (but doesn't go so far as to state an actual rating).

Well, if we can go to the direct data from cat (https://caterpillar.scene7.com/is/content/Caterpillar/C10467200, pages 8 - 11) you'll notice that under advanced efficiency (table 4, page 11), it shows 5-10 micron absolute.

So, again, the data that says 2 micron absolute is outdated. There isn't, to my knowledge, a single 2 micron absolute filter available today.
Click to expand...
I also was reading that under the new standard there isn't a filter that goes below 4 microns...
 
IndyRamDRW said:
I also was reading that under the new standard there isn't a filter that goes below 4 microns...
Click to expand...
I've heard conflicting things on that, Mopar claims 3 microns, and from what I read that nanonet filter is new tech and is by far the best out there, but I don't know if that is true.

The second filter you posted (must have come through while I was replying as I didn't see it) is definitely better, but still not up to the same spec as the nanonet, assuming you believe Mopar's 3 micron claim. Is a single micron going to make or break anything? I don't know, probably not but I'd still try and keep it.

I think if you're looking at doing anything to replace, you can either add via a fass pump or the like (another fuel and a WIF), or just leave the factory ones. I just don't understand swapping them out without any benefit except saving a little.
 
fass filters are junk and the old cp3 ran 5 micron filters problem free that is enough filtration as that is equvilent to .0001 of an inch not an issue for the pump or injectors
 
H3LZSN1P3R said:
fass filters are junk and the old cp3 ran 5 micron filters problem free that is enough filtration as that is equvilent to .0001 of an inch not an issue for the pump or injectors
Click to expand...
I've got no doubt the CP3 can handle it, I'm assuming the new filter was mostly to help save the CP4, and we see how that turned out.

That said, I thought the injectors were new as well? I don't know, I'm not gonna sit here and claim you need to have 3 micron, I just don't understand why you wouldn't want the best, especially when the cost difference isn't that extreme.

To each their own, I'm just presenting the data, do with it what you want.
 
H3LZSN1P3R said:
The cat system is far superior, CAT has always been great they also build and design all their own parts for the diesel engines including the fuel systems…. I will be doing the swap when i delete the truck (after the CP4 recall)
Click to expand...

Did you end up doing the swap yet? If so, was curious how it turned out and how well its been working? Just completed my first fuel filter change at the dealer and wow! $$$

Completed my CP4 recall already, this just seems to be the smarter option moving forward.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
C00P said:
Did you end up doing the swap yet? If so, was curious how it turned out and how well its been working? Just completed my first fuel filter change at the dealer and wow! $$$

Completed my CP4 recall already, this just seems to be the smarter option moving forward.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I have not bothered yet i will get around to buying and swapping the rear filter housing but as of late with the price of diesel at 9$ a gallon here i have not been driving the truck much. I believe @elephantrider did his already if you want some info
 
Older thread, but I'll add some info.

The 1R-0750 became popular 10-15 years ago for HPCR trucks. It's a great filter and was considered a 2µ until ~2004, when testing criteria improved and it was rated at 4µ. The f/w sep that Cat often paired with the 1R-0750 was not rated high enough to be used on our HPCR systems.

The P551313 from Donaldson was a better filter, and cheaper, than the 1R-0750.

Those filters were not designed around the HPCR systems thou, despite really good filtration.

NanoNet is likely the best filtration media available for HPCR's. The FF5814 is the replacement for the 1R-0750 application. Donaldson's DBF5814 is also at the top of the list.

One thing to note is that older filters were rated on a single pass efficiency standard, and all of the newer filters are rated on a multi-pass standard.

Bottom line, I wouldn't be adding either of the BMP kits to my truck,. The 1R-0750 is inferior to the OEM NanoNet media, and the 175-2949 has lower emulsified water separation ratings. Nothing is additional is needed on the trucks with 2 filters from the factory, nothing... run the OEM filters and don't think twice about it.

When I started researching filters 15 years ago it amazed me how little research companies did when making aftermarket filter setups for these trucks. AD/FASS had worse filtration than stock, people are stuck on the Cat filters, etc...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top