DAFO vs Ansul Comparison

DAFO FORREX vs. ANSUL A-101 – Why DAFO Leads in Modern Fire Suppression

When it comes to protecting heavy machinery and vehicles in mining, construction, and other high-risk industries, choosing the right fire suppression system can mean the difference between a quick recovery and catastrophic loss. Two widely recognized systems are DAFO FORREX and ANSUL A-101—but their performance, reliability, and long-term value differ significantly.

1. Suppression Agent Performance

The heart of any fire suppression system lies in its extinguishing agent.

• DAFO FORREX uses a unique Forrex Liquid that cools surfaces, chemically reacts with the fire, and creates an impregnated protective layer to prevent reignition. It continues working even when the engine is running and at high wind speeds, making it highly effective in real-world conditions.

• ANSUL A-101, with its Foray Dry Chemical, is effective at interrupting the chemical reaction of fire but lacks cooling capabilities. The engine must be stopped before activation, and all openings must be sealed for it to work properly.

Winner: DAFO FORREX — superior fire suppression under active operating conditions.

2. Storage & Reliability

Both systems use non-pressurised containers, but DAFO’s design offers distinct operational advantages:

• DAFO FORREX can discharge its entire agent in any orientation without performance loss.

• ANSUL A-101 may have discharge issues if the container is not correctly oriented.

Winner: DAFO FORREX — ensures full performance regardless of positioning.

3. Detection

Both systems use Linear Heat Detection Cabling with electrical, non-pressurised activation. They both require electrical power but come with battery backups.

Winner: Tie — similar technology and performance in detection.

4. Distribution Efficiency

DAFO FORREX’s stainless-steel tubing and low operating pressure allow more distribution nozzles (up to 16 per container), ensuring better coverage of complex engine compartments. ANSUL’s distribution works well but is prone to separation of expellant gas and dry chemical when the direction changes in piping.

Winner: DAFO FORREX — better nozzle coverage and no separation issues.

5. Control & Activation

Both systems provide continuous monitoring, fault alarms, and both electronic and pneumatic manual activation. The difference lies in system stability under all operational conditions, where DAFO FORREX maintains integrity with minimal limitations.

Winner: Slight edge to DAFO FORREX — consistent performance in active conditions.

6. Maintenance

Maintenance schedules are crucial for cost of ownership:

• DAFO FORREX requires annual inspections and minimal part replacements over a 10–12-year cycle.

• ANSUL A-101 needs semi-annual maintenance and more frequent replacements of powder, caps, and cartridges. The powder can also compact over time, requiring additional inspections.

Winner: DAFO FORREX — less frequent, lower-maintenance requirements, reducing downtime and costs.

Summary Table

Final Verdict:
DAFO FORREX clearly outperforms ANSUL A-101 in most critical areas—especially in operational effectiveness, maintenance cost, and reliability under harsh working conditions. While the initial investment in DAFO may be higher, the long-term savings, reduced downtime, and enhanced safety make it a superior choice for industries that can’t afford compromises in fire safety.