What is this??

[Zed Head]

23 minutes ago, Chickenman said:

Not enough screen capacity and too small of filter media. It will cause a restriction at the pump inlet. Especially on high volume pumps. Personally, I recommend the Holley unit a lot. It has a decent size filter area, 100 microns and the 3/8" NPT fittings are nice. If you have AN fittings I really like the Aeromotive and Fuel Lab units. 

https://www.klmperformance.com/inline-fuel-line-strainer-prefilter.html

Dave, there's not really enough info to draw conclusions about that filter.  They say "high flow" but don't give any numbers.  So, nobody can say, with true authority, that it's right or wrong.  Plenty of opinions out there though.  The simple test would be to measure flow before and after installation.  Looks like it has potential.

The FASS fuel line filter/strainer element benefits:

• Are offered as a universal in-line fuel filter element. 
• This high flow inline pre-filter element is an inline fuel strainer for pre-pump installation.
• Are available in either 3/8" or 1/2" I.D. sizes for in-line fuel line installation.
• Both of these in line pre-filters from Fleetguard have a 24-micron stainless mesh inner cage.
• Can hold a 13-gram capacity which prevents large particles from entering the fuel pump.
• The Fleetguard replacement inline fuel filters are designed for inlet side filtration only!
• Fleetguard In-line Fuel Strainers are a high flow element that will not restrict fuel supply to your fuel pump.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Zed Head

[Dave WM]

well is simple enough to test, I can run a test, how does this sound

current G3 filter (that's been on for 2+ years, hard to say how many gallons though).

No filter

KLM filter (one in the link)

take the line that connects to the eng compartment fuel filter from the pump and put into a measuring vessel. make 3 timed runs and note the volume of fuel. will have to clamp off between each run to account for leakage out of the line if any.

Of course this would not take into account long term use (resulting in eventual plugging of the filter media and resulting restriction. but still should be a fun exp.

also will have documented for comparisons against future test (like the one CM recommends). if nothing else should be a fun video.

[Dave WM]

maybe I can get the camera up on the pump to see if I can "hear" any diff as well. A quiet pump is a happy pump.

thinking on it some more, maybe just check volume on siphon directly at the tank. that would show the effects of the restriction better than having the variable of the pump and associated lines.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Dave WM

[Zed Head]

Probably easier, and less fuel to mess with.  Plus you'll be under their anyway.  Probably do it all in one shot.  Don't forget to remove the gas cap so the vacuum relief valve isn't involved.

[siteunseen]

2 hours ago, Chickenman said:

Those aren't really designed for EFI pressure. They are usually meant for lower pressure Carbureted motors.  And they have a very small filtering area. Compare it to just a stock Nissan EFI Fuel filter in the engine bay. You would be much better off just using the Nissan Fuel filter..... IMHO 

I can't quite see if you have the stock Nissan fuel filter in place on the passenger side firewall. It looks like you may. If so, there is no reason for this additional glass filter. 

The other bad thing about glass fuel filters  is they can  shatter in an accident. Lovely way to start a fire . Really bad deal if you are knocked unconcious......

 

Heard it all already, thanks anyway though.

That glass filter was a way of mine to make sure no Red Kote tank liner was failing.

It's no longer there.

[Chickenman]

^ Ah... that was a smart idea. 

[Dave WM]

test results, no video, too messy with gas everywhere.

the test

3/8 hose hooked to a funnel about 2 ft above a catch basin

enough fuel to fill the small funnel (about 2/3 cup).

time to empty

no filter 2 seconds

Fram 3 seconds

filter per my attachment (designated hi flow before the pump filter) about 2.5 seconds.

I also did a blow thru test (just what it sounds like), the fram was noticeably more restrictive to air than the designated hi flow filter, which essentially was no restriction noticed.

So for now out with the fram in with the cheapo hi flow until a better hi flow (100 micron) is obtained.

only real down side is the hi flow filter is not clear like the fram.