I'm using the fore stainless filter but injector dynamics won't warranty the injectors unless you use a 6 micron filter. I'm going to switch to the fuel lab 6 micron fiberglass filter. This is on a return system 754hp
What filter are people using for e85?
- Thread starter kzman
- Start date
I have used regular cellulose/paper, stainless and microglass all in 10 micron. Which all exceed bosch motorsports capture efficiency rating. I have been running the stainless the longest, I just clean it in the ultrasonic sink and reuse it. No issues so far.
Last edited:
I run the stainless filter.
Is there a stainless filter that works in the aeromotove housing? Last time I looked they didn't have a stainless filter in 10 micron
K&N paper fuel filter here. No issues so far. I think I'll pull it out after a year, cut it open and see how its holding up.
So I started monitoring filter life a little over 2 years ago and compiled some data on my setup. I do so by monitoring pressure loss through the filter. I have a Fore F10 88mm filter and I installed a pressure gauge pre filter to compare to my other 2 fuel pressure gauges after the filter (I have a mechanical and electrical autometer up at the rails). Here you can see how I installed it and me talking about e85 and return setups so I would check this video out.
Like I mentioned I have run the 3 common filter types all in 1o micron. The paper/cellulose filter works fine but does indeed clog the quickest even though it has the same capture efficiency of the stainless and ssd microglass elements. The paper filter is also the cheapest though. From my observations it just due to the filter design. The fibers in the filter seem to expand out over time, as it captures particles and they embed in the material. So you have the debris that the filter catches blocking flow and then the surrounding areas in the weave of fibers is getting compressed/denser which make its harder to get fuel through as well. I believe this why it starts restricting flow and causes a higher pressure loss faster than the others. The stainless filter fares the best as far as this concept goes which makes sense since the steel fibers are stronger and don't seem to get compressed as it captures debris its also the only filter that is reusable. And then the microglass seems to be a middle ground and is technically 12 micron which is a nominal difference but also offers anti static properties as it captures free ions charged by static from fuel flow and temperature change. I won't dive into static charge in the fuel too much but I do know its something that can affect atomization which affects power in a purpose built race car. It seems to be something that was tested and known by engineers is the in race world and these kind of static dissipating filters have trickled out to the common aftermarket. It turns out that the old myth about putting magnets on the fuel line to affect the charged particles in the fuel to improve performance or fuel economy may have some truth behind it after all. Although your average oem vehicle or even boosted setup isn't going to need something like this or get any benefit. Anyway enough about that here is more info and then my data from my testing.
So there are a few things to consider when it comes to choosing your filter. Cost, lifespan, capture efficiency and how this applies to your fuel system design/flow/pressure/capability. For that last one there are a lot of factors so I will leave that for you to decide or you can monitor your pressure loss to keep an eye on your filter. A return setup vice a returnless setup is the biggest factor. In returnless your pcm only moves the exact volume of fuel the engine needs at the pressure the injectors need to deliver the correct amount of fuel. In a return system fuel volume is set and your mechanically regulating pressure and bypassing the rest of the fuel not used back to the tank. By nature the return setup is pushing a significantly larger volume of fuel through the filter than the returnless setup. Even if both setups were run the same amount of time or miles. Also the returned fuel is more likely to stir up debris that would normally just settle in the tank. This would be more pronounced the lower you allow your fuel tank level to get. Return will also put more heat into the fuel over time. And in tank pumps are cooled by the fuel. So looks like it is important to maintain this thermal reservoir and not run your fuel tank as low when you have a built car with a modified fuel system. The short story on fuel temps is fuel is a fluid just like air the cooler it is the denser it is just like the air charge, hotter fuel and hotter pumps flow less plain and simple and takes more mass/volume to maintain set pressure.
This is why you should care about pressure loss through the filter. As the filter restricts flow it creates heat and works the pump(s) harder to maintain pressure at the rails/regulator. This causes a loss of fuel pump flow and deterioration of the capability of your fuel system, and increases pump wear. Fuel pumps are wear items they do eventually need replaced and will fail. We all know this can be catastrophic if it catches us by surprise or we neglect it and we significantly wear out our pumps quicker . Doing the proper maintenance, monitoring system pressure and simply keeping a cheap filter healthy can protect our expensive investments on wheels. As system pressure goes up pump flow goes down. To use a standard walbro pump as an example that flows 255lph at 40psi, If the pump has to actually put out 50psi to get that 40psi of fuel to the rails due to filter losses, the pump actually only has a max flow capability 240lph. That's not taking into account boost. Fuel pressure has to go up so the injectors can still deliver the correct amount of fuel. So now boost that setup to say 15psi, the pump is now having to put out 65psi to get 40psi to the injectors. So that 255 pump is now only capable of flowing 200lph. That's a loss of around 20% from the get go on a rather mild setup. Did you build your setup large enough to account for that?
Paper filter. $14 from Fore. At 6 months just over 5k miles I had a 6psi loss through the filter. I threw out the filter here and set 6psi as my threshold. This filter by my standards on my setup would need replaced twice a year. At $14 a pop plus shipping.
Stainless filter. $46 from Fore. I tried this filter next. I ran it about a year 10k miles before I was at a 6psi loss. I removed it and cleaned it in industrial strength degreaser in my ultrasonic sink. Threw it back in and I dropped back down to 1psi loss which seems to be the norm for a new filter. This is the only filter that is reusable but is also the most expensive. You also have to invest in an ultrasonic sink and the cleaning solution to clean it properly. By my standards this filter needs cleaned once a year. After I put it back in I bought the microglass to test and threw that in as soon as it showed up.
Microglass ssd filter. $33 from Fore. Put it in and had a 2psi loss new. I got 8500 miles before 6psi. Which was much better than the paper filter life wise. I would be replacing this once a year it seems. At over double the cost of the paper, paper wins for better value though. I put my used/cleaned stainless filter back in and continue to use it.
For me if I just wanted a disposable filter I would stick to paper and just replace it more often. If I wanted disposable with a less often change interval I would go microglass. In end I will keep the stainless filter and continue to clean and reuse it and monitor pressure loss. It has the best value for me. If it seems to wear out eventually I will look at how long it lasts me and evaluate picking up a new stainless one if need be.
Like I mentioned I have run the 3 common filter types all in 1o micron. The paper/cellulose filter works fine but does indeed clog the quickest even though it has the same capture efficiency of the stainless and ssd microglass elements. The paper filter is also the cheapest though. From my observations it just due to the filter design. The fibers in the filter seem to expand out over time, as it captures particles and they embed in the material. So you have the debris that the filter catches blocking flow and then the surrounding areas in the weave of fibers is getting compressed/denser which make its harder to get fuel through as well. I believe this why it starts restricting flow and causes a higher pressure loss faster than the others. The stainless filter fares the best as far as this concept goes which makes sense since the steel fibers are stronger and don't seem to get compressed as it captures debris its also the only filter that is reusable. And then the microglass seems to be a middle ground and is technically 12 micron which is a nominal difference but also offers anti static properties as it captures free ions charged by static from fuel flow and temperature change. I won't dive into static charge in the fuel too much but I do know its something that can affect atomization which affects power in a purpose built race car. It seems to be something that was tested and known by engineers is the in race world and these kind of static dissipating filters have trickled out to the common aftermarket. It turns out that the old myth about putting magnets on the fuel line to affect the charged particles in the fuel to improve performance or fuel economy may have some truth behind it after all. Although your average oem vehicle or even boosted setup isn't going to need something like this or get any benefit. Anyway enough about that here is more info and then my data from my testing.
So there are a few things to consider when it comes to choosing your filter. Cost, lifespan, capture efficiency and how this applies to your fuel system design/flow/pressure/capability. For that last one there are a lot of factors so I will leave that for you to decide or you can monitor your pressure loss to keep an eye on your filter. A return setup vice a returnless setup is the biggest factor. In returnless your pcm only moves the exact volume of fuel the engine needs at the pressure the injectors need to deliver the correct amount of fuel. In a return system fuel volume is set and your mechanically regulating pressure and bypassing the rest of the fuel not used back to the tank. By nature the return setup is pushing a significantly larger volume of fuel through the filter than the returnless setup. Even if both setups were run the same amount of time or miles. Also the returned fuel is more likely to stir up debris that would normally just settle in the tank. This would be more pronounced the lower you allow your fuel tank level to get. Return will also put more heat into the fuel over time. And in tank pumps are cooled by the fuel. So looks like it is important to maintain this thermal reservoir and not run your fuel tank as low when you have a built car with a modified fuel system. The short story on fuel temps is fuel is a fluid just like air the cooler it is the denser it is just like the air charge, hotter fuel and hotter pumps flow less plain and simple and takes more mass/volume to maintain set pressure.
This is why you should care about pressure loss through the filter. As the filter restricts flow it creates heat and works the pump(s) harder to maintain pressure at the rails/regulator. This causes a loss of fuel pump flow and deterioration of the capability of your fuel system, and increases pump wear. Fuel pumps are wear items they do eventually need replaced and will fail. We all know this can be catastrophic if it catches us by surprise or we neglect it and we significantly wear out our pumps quicker . Doing the proper maintenance, monitoring system pressure and simply keeping a cheap filter healthy can protect our expensive investments on wheels. As system pressure goes up pump flow goes down. To use a standard walbro pump as an example that flows 255lph at 40psi, If the pump has to actually put out 50psi to get that 40psi of fuel to the rails due to filter losses, the pump actually only has a max flow capability 240lph. That's not taking into account boost. Fuel pressure has to go up so the injectors can still deliver the correct amount of fuel. So now boost that setup to say 15psi, the pump is now having to put out 65psi to get 40psi to the injectors. So that 255 pump is now only capable of flowing 200lph. That's a loss of around 20% from the get go on a rather mild setup. Did you build your setup large enough to account for that?
Paper filter. $14 from Fore. At 6 months just over 5k miles I had a 6psi loss through the filter. I threw out the filter here and set 6psi as my threshold. This filter by my standards on my setup would need replaced twice a year. At $14 a pop plus shipping.
Stainless filter. $46 from Fore. I tried this filter next. I ran it about a year 10k miles before I was at a 6psi loss. I removed it and cleaned it in industrial strength degreaser in my ultrasonic sink. Threw it back in and I dropped back down to 1psi loss which seems to be the norm for a new filter. This is the only filter that is reusable but is also the most expensive. You also have to invest in an ultrasonic sink and the cleaning solution to clean it properly. By my standards this filter needs cleaned once a year. After I put it back in I bought the microglass to test and threw that in as soon as it showed up.
Microglass ssd filter. $33 from Fore. Put it in and had a 2psi loss new. I got 8500 miles before 6psi. Which was much better than the paper filter life wise. I would be replacing this once a year it seems. At over double the cost of the paper, paper wins for better value though. I put my used/cleaned stainless filter back in and continue to use it.
For me if I just wanted a disposable filter I would stick to paper and just replace it more often. If I wanted disposable with a less often change interval I would go microglass. In end I will keep the stainless filter and continue to clean and reuse it and monitor pressure loss. It has the best value for me. If it seems to wear out eventually I will look at how long it lasts me and evaluate picking up a new stainless one if need be.
Last edited:
Thanks for the write up, great information! I'm using the stainless filter too. Just so happens i have a ultra sonic clear too perfect.
No prob, nice yeah with how often the filter seems to need address being able to clean and reuse the stainless filter is nice.
Geez and I had a fore stainless filter, but sold it in favor for the microglass unit. Only because I'm using id1000 injectors, and injector dynamics recommends the microglass filter.
I have a fuel pressure gauge on the filter housing after filter, and one inside the fender where the regulator is. I've had a mechanical gauge go bad on me, heat kills them. So it's hard to trust them.
I only put on 800-1000 miles a year, but maybe I'll change them every 2-3 years.
I have a fuel pressure gauge on the filter housing after filter, and one inside the fender where the regulator is. I've had a mechanical gauge go bad on me, heat kills them. So it's hard to trust them.
I only put on 800-1000 miles a year, but maybe I'll change them every 2-3 years.
Stainless filter here. Just checked it this spring after forgetting it all of last year and it was close to new.
I should mention that microglass and stainless don't really look dirty at least not at the intervals I used them for. Next time the filter needs cleaned based on pressure difference I will try and get a pic.
Users who are viewing this thread
