Dustin1824

iTrader: (2)

Sandwich Oil Filter Adapters | susa

Part number 19-SP1FT has the correct thread count and size I believe. Maybe it will be awesome and your kit can be 100% Setrab

I can't find any specs on it, though. Since it's Setrab, I assume it doesn't suck. I wonder what temperature thermostat it uses...

Edit: Just looking at their catalog, their sandwich plate can be equipped with -12AN adapters. Would there be any benefit to going to an even larger size than -10AN?

midpack

iTrader: (3)

Oil always runs through the cooler even when below 180*, or so I've ready many times here and elsewhere. As posted above, the valve doesn't block the cooler path, it only blocks bypassing the cooler once oil gets to the set temperature. You want oil to continuously flow through the cooler to maintain oil pressure at all times, without it you would see pressure dips and spikes as the valve opens and closes.

Driving down the highway in 85-90* weather I saw oil temps peak around 160*. Beating on it on back roads temps would come up to 180* or there about, maybe 190* if I worked really hard at it. The TSE 25-row kit is amazingly awesome at shedding heat. It works really, really, really ******* well. This is not surprising because everything I've bought from TSE has been an excellent product, designed and built for a race car. He offers kits in different sizes so get one that fits your needs

All temps measured in the pan with a drain plug adapter.

So why did I buy an "overcooler"? Called Andrew up after one too many sessions that were cut short or pace reduced to Sunday driving because the FM cooler, which is a fine piece of gear for what it is, didn't cut it. I had one requirement: keep oil cool no matter what track temperatures were. We chatted for a bit, talked about my ducting, and he said this monster should do it. And it does.

Not once did I ever have any concern for street temps. If I decide to do a bunch a street driving for some reason, I'll stick a piece of ABS plastic to the oil cooler and that should fix things.

hornetball

iTrader: (4)

One more question, where did you mount the cooler? Sorry to be a pest.

My oil temperature nails 180 in street driving at OATs as low as high-60s (coolest its been since I installed). I'm mounted behind the radiator though, so the air is a bit "pre-heated." Also, I'm measuring at the sandwich plate itself. Perhaps this is another example of measuring from the oil pan giving a cooler reading?

Savington

iTrader: (31)

I err on the large side for oil coolers. It's very easy to size the cooler for the worst-case scenario (105*F track days) and then use the thermostat or even going as far as duct tape over the core for situations where the entire capacity may not be needed (or desired). It sounds hokey, but taping up the cooler on the road is preferred over having a cooler that's too small for track work.

Dustin1824

iTrader: (2)

To me this makes perfect sense. You can always bolt up a simple block off plate for the street and remove it at the track in ~30 seconds. Switching to a larger oil cooler is another story.

Did anyone find specs on the Setrab sandwich plates?

midpack

iTrader: (3)

And I thank you for that. Seriously.

Oil cooler mounting, before ducting the bottom section. Need to take some new pics next time the bumper is off. Top and bottom mounted with aluminum angle. Drilled holes in aluminum behind the oil cooler but didn't think to do it on the sections blocking the radiator.

hornetball

iTrader: (4)

Nice. BTW, I don't think you're overcooling yet. I suspect the 160 vs. 180 is just the difference from the sensing location.

JKav

iTrader: (1)

I would have no problem mounting a cooler ports-down on something that I knew would only be started stone cold (basically if the starting vis was always consistently high). But I have been leery of Think/Mocal's recommendation to orient them in any position when there's an alternative orientation(s) where you are guaranteed to never have any air entrapment (or the cooler emptying to sump upon shutdown) under any conditions, with no doubts at all about whether the oil indeed chased out all the air. Especially nowadays where zero weight oils are the rage...

JKav

iTrader: (1)

The Setrab sandwich plates are Mocal.

Savington

iTrader: (31)

No surprise. I couldn't actually find any reference to a Setrab-brand sandwich plate, and I buy my Mocal parts from Setrab's US importer.

emilio700

iTrader: (3)

You have to dig a bit but Setrab does have a part number.. for the Mocal adapter

Dustin1824

iTrader: (2)

Well, I suspected that may be the case, because the catalog was referring to using either the Setrab or Mocal sandwich plate, and most companies won't mention or suggest using another companies product.

So as far as line size goes, would it be worth it to try -12AN, or has this already been tested and no further improvements were made? Not that I'm in the market for an oil cooler right now, I'm just curious.

I know at some point there will be no more improvement, and as line size goes up things start getting expensive rather quickly.

williams805

iTrader: (2)

Anyone run one of these coolers longitudinally like the the engine, with a hole cut for it in the side of the ducting?

I have been struggling on where to mount it. I am toying with that^ and then running a fan on the back with a thermo switch, like linked below, pulling air from in front of rad/behind intercooler into wheel well area.

Fan
Setrab ProLine Fanpacks | susa

Switch
Thermal Switches | susa

Dustin1824

iTrader: (2)

I see your reasoning, but that fan better be one nasty machine to pull air from one high pressure zone to another. You don't have much pressure differential to help you out. This may work if you have some sort of provision for evacuating the air from your wheel well area, such as what Keith Tanner was experimenting with. What your talking about seems like it would cost quite a bit and may not be so effective, especially if you have brake ducts which further pressurize the wheel well area.

I think if you poked around some more you would find some more effective ideas from the knowledgeable members that cost less $$$. Just my

Mobius

iTrader: (2)

You will be pulling air from an area that is already hot due to having already passed through multiple heat exchangers, and trying to push it into a high pressure area of the car. Good luck with that. I don't see how that's going to work well. Not meaning to be an *** here, just making observations.

Rather than going into the wheel well, having the exit evacuate out a vent in the hood IMO would be much more likely to be successful, with/without fan assist.

Savington

iTrader: (31)

That's a Mocal adapter

Dustin1824

iTrader: (2)

Yeah, I saw that yesterday. Oh well, good to know that Setrab has given it their blessing though!

What are your thoughts on using -12AN hose and adapters instead of -10AN? Has this been tried and no further benefit was found?

JKav

iTrader: (1)

FWIW I pinged Setrab for their input on oil cooler orientation. They didn't really resolve the question of air entrapment but rather brought up what can happen during low oil flow conditions.

Here's what they said:

"The problem is when there is not enough flow to completely fill the oil cooler before the oil begins to exit. As you would imagine, if a cooler is too large (considering the system flow) and is mounted in an orientation where the oil could begin to exit the oil cooler before completely filling the oil cooler you would not achieve optimal heat exchange because the oil is not being exposed to the entirety of the heat exchanger. Optimally, port location would be on top or if on sides entering from bottom exiting from top in all cases but in instances where you are certain you have enough flow to fill the cooler before exit the port orientation is of less concern."

ThePass

iTrader: (3)

I have been thinking about doing a longitudinally mounted oil cooler as a solution on a friend's car to fit his specific situation and needs.. But you would never want it behind the other heat exhchangers. My thought is to put the oil cooler perpendicular to the radiator and ahead of it, off to the side basically replacing one of your vertical walls of ducting to the radiator with the heat exchanger (still ducting all of the gaps around it though). Still uses the high pressure/low temp air ahead coming in through the main bumper opening but separates the airflow for the two heat exchangers. Then there are several options for ducting your exit, but I wouldn't try to just dump it into the wheel well. McLaren actually re-designed their oil cooler setup on the P1 because during testing the original config, which dumped into the wheel well, was not efficient enough.

The redesign, which made its way to the production car, evacuates the air forwards of the front wheel well via a tall opening which has the secondary effect of acting aerodynamically much the same as a gurney flap, creating lower pressure outwards of the wheel well and preventing air from sucking in as it goes around the front bumper.

There are several options available though for getting rid of the air, some a bit simpler to implement than the above. Ducting straight up and out of the hood would work, or even ducting the back of the oil cooler back to the engine bay post-radiator - that would make it essentially no less efficient, would reap the benefits of hood vents same as the radiator would, all while no longer sandwiching the two heat exchangers together.

My oil cooler is not longitudinal, but I went with a solution similar to the P1 for my oil cooler exit:

hornetball

iTrader: (4)

Here I go again.

Warning, this could fall into the TLDR category. So I put a TLDR synopsis at the end.

All other things being equal, I agree. But things aren't equal. Engineering is compromise. The compromise I made in post #81 yields the following objective, tangible benefits:

1. Easy mounting location -- the radiator already provides the mounting points. I make up for the decrease in oil cooler efficiency due to post-radiator air flow by using an oversized cooler, which, BTW, isn't much more expensive and fits better. In my flogging, it provides ample cooling at 40C shade temperatures, which was my goal.

2. The hoses are extremely short (less than 24 inches) and straight with mild, large-radius bends. It may be the lowest pressure-loss hose configuration possible for an air-oil cooler in a Miata.

3. The hoses are well protected by car structure and the undertray/ducting. They are never exposed to pebbles, rocks or other debris.

4. The hoses have good clearance to other structures and mechanisms in the car. Because the routing is so short and direct, flex and vibration doesn't overcome those clearances. Bottom line, no chance for sawzall action and no requirement for elaborate securing.

5. The short, direct hose routing and accessibility of the oil cooler makes maintenance/servicing a breeze.

6. Short hoses are lighter. Every little bit helps, right?

The trade-off?

Objectively, based upon oil cooler manufacturer recommendations (backed up by testing I presume) and my own personal experience and IR probe measurements after 3 months of tracking . . . absolutely nothing.

Subjectively, I have to fight off all those little, nagging doubts in my mind. These doubts are summarized below:

1. Air entrapment. Sixshooter made the point well. We know that air entrapment can happen when low-viscosity (approaching "Newtonian") liquids are pushed through low-resistance closed passages with complex shapes that contain air. Many of us have experienced this first hand with air entrapment in cylinder cooling jackets or heads. I've also seen recommendations from manufacturers of transmission fluid coolers to avoid bottom entry/exit and Sixshooter has personally observed air entrapment in a transmission fluid cooler.

Apparently, though, this is rare or doesn't happen with high-quality engine oil coolers. The difference lies in:
-the oil's viscosity (compared to water/coolant/tranny fluid -- 0W"EPA" oils being a possible exception);
-the relatively high flow rate of an engine oil system as compared to transmission fluid; and
-the small passage size in the cooling matrix of high-quality oil coolers which means that almost all the pressure drop in the oil cooler will happen in the matrix rather than the plenum chambers leading into/out of the matrix.

Engine oil cooler manufacturers are so certain of this self-purging capability that they actually make affirmative statements that mounting orientation doesn't matter. Affirmative statements (as opposed to silence) means they are really darn sure. In addition to the quote I gave earlier from Mocal, here's another example from B&M: "[t]he cooler can be mounted with the fittings facing up, down or to either side as is convenient" (see http://www.bmracing.com/bmnew/pdf/9500358.pdf page 2).

My install, with an 11x11 cooler, is on the extreme side of things size-wise. Nonetheless, I've seen absolutely no evidence of air entrapment -- and I've been looking because I've been concerned about it. My conclusion is that there will be no air entrapment in an installation similar to mine that is using 10W30 through 5W40 engine oils, which is what I've used so far.

The only place I have ever seen assertions that mounting orientation of automotive engine oil coolers causes air entrapment is by individuals on internet forums. And I see it a lot. But I never see it accompanied by personal observations or cites to technical/manufacturer publications. Therefore, I think this falls within the realm of "internet lore/myth" and should be treated with skepticism. Anybody installing a quality oil cooler into an NA/NB Miata using oils similar to what I've used should confidently use the oil cooler orientation that works best for their particular installation location.

2. Dry starting. In the GRM forums, I saw a post by Keith Tanner describing drainback from the oil cooler causing false high dipstick readings. Because of that, I put a caution about it in Post #81. Some have inferred that this could lead to dry starting, which is logical.

For the past week and a half I've been looking for this phenomena on my Red car and haven't seen it, including one engine-off period that spanned 3 days. I'm using high-quality Wix filters. These filters have a good anti-drainback valve. My theory is that the oil filter valve, acting as a one-way check-valve, is providing drainback resistance for the oil cooler as well as the filter.

Related to not personally seeing drainback, I also haven't experienced anything but instant oil pressure indications on my starts. The only exception is after an oil change where I see about 2-3 seconds of idling before a pressure indication. This time period is similar to the pre-oil cooler behavior.

The low-flow condition is interesting but not germane.

Where we need oil cooling is in the high-flow, high-RPM condition. I know that in my installation under normal oil pressure conditions the flow is high enough that the theorized under-utilization issue is not happening. I know this because I've hit the top and bottom of the cooler with an IR probe after coming off track and seen even temperatures.

Were I to encounter such a low-flow condition at high-RPM, it should be obvious on my oil pressure gauge. If this happened, I would either bring it in or immediately shut it down depending upon how low the oil pressure reading is.

I don't really care about oil cooling in the low-flow, low RPM condition. Oil temperature isn't an issue there.

TLDR:
The installation described in Post #81 has been working great so far. I have not detected any evidence of air entrapment or dry starting and I'm not aware of any other downsides. This is all based upon direct, personal experience and measurements. YMMV (but I doubt it will). I recommend you use the oil cooler orientation that gives the shortest, safest and most convenient hose routing for your particular install and don't worry about avoiding any particular orientation.