AH64ID

I got all of my data from calling or emailing the filter mfgrs. You can call Donaldson as ask the ratings on the P550550. What you want to know is rated flow and emulisifed water and free water separation rates. Those numbers will tell you if you want to run that cross or not. I don't have immediate access to the BF1275 specs, but I am 99% sure its 96.5% emulsified water and 99% free water sep up to 120 GPH.

Bosch wants a 5um filter on the truck (This is data I personally received from Bosch, the maker of the CP3 and injectors), Dodge started at 10um in 03 and that was changed to 7um after a few years. Now the 6.7 uses a 5um setup. Neither FASS nor AD sell a filter that is 2um. The best FASS you can get is 4um, and the best AD is 3um. Personally I run 3 filters on my truck (25/5/2), and have 3 years of extensive filter research for the HPCR behind me. Trust me when I tell you that my fuel is cleaner than just about every other HPCR on the road. But if you break it down as simple and official as it gets then 7um absolute is required by Dodge (The only company we can deal with for warranty issues). The TSB I linked earler show's this. Wix publishes data that their XE (best available) filter does not meet OE spec. It's not just Wix, there are other companies that make filters that don't meet OE spec. The only filters that should be ran in the OE canister are the OEM (Fleetguard/Cummins/Mopar), Donaldson P550800 or Baldwin PF7977 (also labled as a Hastings FF1260). The OEM and Donladson are 7um absolute, and the PF7977 is 5um absolute and the best available. Here is some of the filter data I have collected.... http://forum.mopar1973man.com/threads/1994-Common-Fuel-Filter-Data?highlight= What I find funny about Wix engineers is they beleive that nominal is just as good as absolute. I have been told by more than one Wix rep is that the 8um is "good enough" for the Dodge, a micron is small and nominal will be just fine, despite what OE spec is. Thats absolutly wrong, and I will never run another Wix filter based on that philosophy.

Directly from the NAPA website.. this is a 8um absolute filter, 7um nominal. The OE spec is 7um absolute, this the 33585XE does not meet OE spec and should never be used. If you read the spec sheet it says 7um nominal. And if you read the beta ratio of 20/75 = 6/8, the means that the filter is 6um at 95% and 8um at 98.7%, thus a 8um absolute filter and short of OEM requirements for the 5.9L HPCR. Most 5.9 HPCR's are out of warranty by now, but using a Wix filter and having a filtration related failure can be denied under warranty since it doesn't meet OE spec.

Per the spec's on the wix website the 33585XE is an 8um absolute filter. The OE requires 7um at 98.7%. There is a big difference in nominal and absolute. Wix Data http://www.wixfilters.com/filterlookup/PartDetail.asp?Part=33585XE OE TSB http://dodgeram.info/tsb/2006/14-007-06.htm Bio does gel a lot easier. I had fully treated B20 that gelled on me twice, and the 2nd time it had a full dose of Amsoil Diesel Recovery in it. The reason bio cloggs filters is it acts as a solvent and will clean out your tank.

Wix made fuel filters are not that great. They don't even offer a filter for the 5.9 commonrail that meets OE specs. Any diesel owner should carry a spare filter, you can get bad fuel in any year vehicle. The only real way to extend filter life is with a fuel psi gauge. With good fuel they can go a long time, but one bad tank and they are done.

The P550550 is a cross for the BF1275 and may work, but I haven't seen the specs on it.

The BF1275 is the f/w sep, as is the BF1212 or FS1000. The P553203 is the final and f/w sep for the platinum.

AD is BF1275/Donaldson P551315 or Baldwin BF7634FASS Platinum: P553203FASS 95 (Titanium) BF1275/P553203 You will need the adapter from FASS if you don't have itFASS 150 (HD) BF1212 or FS1000/HF6604

Well as some of you know I sold the VNT turbo. I wasn't happy with some of the programming restrictions of the controller. The biggest issue, the deal-breaker, was that the exhaust brake couldn't be left turned on while cruise was being used. The EB doesn't use the EB lead from the ECM, but TPS and in cruise the TPS is at 0, so the EB would be on while trying to maintain speed... So.. it looks like I am going to $$ up and run a Garrett Ball-Bearing 3788 in their Stage 3 powermax kit!A little more cash, but a LOT more turbo!

I agree with Mike, stock is what I would get.

The 5.9 HPCR is capable of just over 23K, and the 6.7 runs about 26K max. IIRC the 11 dmax runs around 30K.

High Pressure Common Rail.

The air is used only for evacuation and the pressure needs to be 30 psi below 60 psi of oil and 50 psi above 60 psi of oil. I can't find the CFM requirement.

Which will be perfect. Oil psi at cruise is normally 50-60.

I was elk hunting the last 3 days and the temps were about 0 every morning and I did this just to give it a shot. And it does help the trans shift easier sooner. I don't think it added much load to the motor but even just 1 minute in 5th gear made a difference.

Yeah its a bummer they have so many errors. My 05 SM shows my truck as making 600 ft/lbs at 1400 rpms, when really its 610 @ 1600.

Yeah, mileage gains are a bonus, if they occur. Personally I don't see how they can't. If you do the maintenance you should get longer bearing life, and if they fail they are much cheaper bearing. Big benefits are also 2wd low range, and reduced front drivetrain wear.

I just noticed a typo in what I wrote. I have HO 98.5-02 at 17.0:1. The HPCR and 98.5-02 numbers came right out of the OE service manual. I don't recall where I got the others, but I try to remember.

Something else to consider is putting manual hubs with greasable bearings on. Not a cheap route, but you get longer bearing life, and increased mileage.

Interesting read. The couple thoughts I have are the reason for the boost difference is timing. Advanced timing makes less boost that retarded timing for the same fuel. But the interesting thing on that is advanced timing makes more power, and thus better mileage. So I wonder if your going past the most advantageous timing with the quad box and the fooler? These are the numbers I have found. 89-93: 17.1:1 94-98: 17.5:1 98.5-02 SO: 16.3:1 98.5-02 HO: 17.0:1 03-07: 17.2:1 07.5-curr: 17.3:1

Like mike said TQ management limits the power the enigne can make below a certain speed. Like my 05 is rated for 610 ft/lbs of tq, but below that magic number (I think its in the 30+ range on HPCR's) the tq is only 440 or less. But you really aren't missing it as the gearing of lower gears more than makes up for it. But by reducing tq management you get more bottom end power and the truck drives better, but yes its hard on the drive train, as the trans will multiply the tq. The two main reasons for it are drivetrain stress and driveability. Granny couldn't control 610 ft/lbs being multiplied thru a 1st gear and a tq converter, she would be sideways at every stoplight.

Its funny I have been driving 4wd trucks since I was 12 and had never even thought of it until I read about it a few days ago. I don't for one minute buy that it will do anything to increase the coolant temp any faster (at least at a worth while rate), but I do beleive it will help warm the trans and may get better shifting on a manual. I don't think I would try this on an auto thou. Have you ever put a auto in D with the xcase in N, then tried to get the xcase back in gear without shutting the motor off? I have done it, and have never had it work. I am going on a hunting trip next month and it will probably be COLD, I may give this a shot.

If your a bad guy and you hear that sound your probably dead!

Your "snubbing" the supply line to the psi sender or gauge, which is T'd off the main line, so flow to the pump is not effected.