Rebuild all the salvage Miatas! ASS!
#2662
SADFab Destructive Testing Engineer
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Beaverton, USA
Posts: 18,642
Total Cats: 1,866
I think both of you are right. It is not the most efficient location for oil cooling. But it also is easy to mount there and seems to work well. If it isn't enough cooling for your oil. Move it in front of the rad
#2663
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 3,468
Total Cats: 365
Have you posted details on this? I am planning to do the same thing. If you have, link please, if not, mebbe you could throw some details into the oil cooler tech thread so we don't clog up Ed's thread?
#2664
SADFab Destructive Testing Engineer
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Beaverton, USA
Posts: 18,642
Total Cats: 1,866
I think it's an OK setup for a street car/drag car, but I have a feeling you will be really taxing your cooling system with 20-30 minute track sessions. Only one way to find out though. Your radiator will be doing a lot of extra work though.
I'll have before and after oil temp data for behind the radiator mounting sometime in the next few months. I have the sensor installed, just need to wire it into the megasquirt.
#2669
Pat's car is a daily driver that sees the drag strip every weekend. I don't do 30 minute track sessions, most here know that.
#2670
Supporting Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lake Forest, CA
Posts: 7,956
Total Cats: 1,008
If you're going to tell me that an oil cooler placed nearly an inch behind the radiator core blocks just as much flow (or even close to as much) as one placed in front of the radiator, I'm gonna have to start paying even less attention to your theories.
Anyway, seems like yours is a great solution for what you're doing, though I'm not quite sure why you need an oil cooler at all given your use case. Extra insurance? I expect you were monitoring oil temps prior to cooler installation considering your propensity for logging (and MANY gauges).
Anyway, seems like yours is a great solution for what you're doing, though I'm not quite sure why you need an oil cooler at all given your use case. Extra insurance? I expect you were monitoring oil temps prior to cooler installation considering your propensity for logging (and MANY gauges).
#2671
If you're going to tell me that an oil cooler placed nearly an inch behind the radiator core blocks just as much flow (or even close to as much) as one placed in front of the radiator, I'm gonna have to start paying even less attention to your theories.
Anyway, seems like yours is a great solution for what you're doing, though I'm not quite sure why you need an oil cooler at all given your use case. Extra insurance? I expect you were monitoring oil temps prior to cooler installation considering your propensity for logging (and MANY gauges).
Anyway, seems like yours is a great solution for what you're doing, though I'm not quite sure why you need an oil cooler at all given your use case. Extra insurance? I expect you were monitoring oil temps prior to cooler installation considering your propensity for logging (and MANY gauges).
You are stating I'm wrong, and thus saying that the mass flow of air through the heat exchangers will be different depending on the order.
Have you measured airflow for each configuration? Or calculated the pressure drop for each configuration? Or measured the pressure drop across each heat exchanger? Or temp of the air after before/after each heat exchanger? Did you account for the temp/air density change for each exchanger in each configuration to see what affect that has?
My guess is you have done no calculations, no measuring, no testing, but you're telling me I'm wrong without anything to back it up. I've done all of this.
I installed a very large oil cooler to keep the oil temperatures in check. I have this "theory" that keeping the oil temps at 210-220*F under all operating conditions will extend engine life. I also have this theory called "I measured the oil temps and they were too hot on the track before installing an oil cooler", another theory called "viscosity drops with temp", and another theory called "I measured oil temps after installing a cooler and verified they are at target under worst case loading".
#2672
Pressures measured: Fuel/oil/coolant/intake manifold/pre-intercooler/post-intercooler/post big turbo/post air filter.
Temps: thermcouples for water exiting engine, water temp in/out of radiator, air temps ambient, air before radiator, air after radiator, before condenser/after condenser, oil pre and post cooler, oil sump temp, Air temps at every stage of the system (air filter, turbo in/out, intercooler in/out, etc.
So yeah I do know what the temps look like on my car. When you measure temps before/after and then change something (like heat exchanger placement, or shrouding, or fan on/off/low etc) you can actually measure the affect, and quantify it. I highly recommend it if you want to actually find out what works best. Or pick up a book on heat transfer and start reading. Or both.
#2673
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 3,468
Total Cats: 365
a) first, I'd like everyone to note that I asked for continuation of this oil cooler discussion to happen in the oil cooler thread
b)the question isn't how much airflow is blocked by an oil cooler either in front of or behind the radiator.
The question is whether, for track use, a system that dumps oil heat > thermostat heat into the radiator, which has airflow not blocked by an oil cooler either in front or behind it, is effective in track situations which have been proven to work with an oil cooler situated behind the radiator, which both receives air heated by the radiator (and the intercooler) and poses a flow restriction to the cooling air moving through the intercooler/radiator/oil cooler stack.
This is what interests me, and makes me think it will work for my car on track. The coolant volume is quite a bit greater than the oil volume. The deltaT we are removing from the oil is only 60F at worst; if the system works as I expect it to, that 60F figure will never be seen, and will be on the order of 30F (as it will be continually pulling heat out of the oil once the oil hits thermostat temp, it shouldn't build to the highs I have previously seen). The radiator will see greater airflow and will therefore have higher heat rejection capabilities. The intercooler will also see higher airflow, as there is one less heat exchanger in the stack.
There is the added benefit of no negative side effects on streetability, and decreased time to oil warmup temp once the coolant warms up.
#2674
Supporting Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lake Forest, CA
Posts: 7,956
Total Cats: 1,008
Richard,
That all makes sense. It still seems that the best route is to use an air-to-air heat exchanger which is not in front of or behind the radiator. But I hope my current setup works fine.
#2675
Supporting Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lake Forest, CA
Posts: 7,956
Total Cats: 1,008
Will have to compile some pics and videos from the last track day, but for now, just a quick followup post on the oil cooler:
Previously I had oil pressures at 38-39 psi on track at 6000 rpm. Now at the same RPM nets me 57 ish psi on track. The only change being the cooler! Definitely a worthwhile change. That old RX7 core just doesn't flow enough for this particular setup.
I'll be posting the old stuff in the classifieds with a link here -- maybe someone wants it for another project. Sandwich plate, lines, and cooler (though I wouldn't recommend using the cooler itself).
Previously I had oil pressures at 38-39 psi on track at 6000 rpm. Now at the same RPM nets me 57 ish psi on track. The only change being the cooler! Definitely a worthwhile change. That old RX7 core just doesn't flow enough for this particular setup.
I'll be posting the old stuff in the classifieds with a link here -- maybe someone wants it for another project. Sandwich plate, lines, and cooler (though I wouldn't recommend using the cooler itself).
#2677
Supporting Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lake Forest, CA
Posts: 7,956
Total Cats: 1,008
Well, thanks. I thought so too, which is why I made the follow-up post.
If it's simply that the turbo is below its efficiency range, that doesn't make sense to me since it flows more air at the higher RPM and if anything should perform better at that RPM, no?
I just don't get it, so I'd love for the neg proppers to come out as to why my comment was stupid. Not whining about the props cuz props don't matter, but neg props are an indication that I'm not on the right track.
If it's simply that the turbo is below its efficiency range, that doesn't make sense to me since it flows more air at the higher RPM and if anything should perform better at that RPM, no?
I just don't get it, so I'd love for the neg proppers to come out as to why my comment was stupid. Not whining about the props cuz props don't matter, but neg props are an indication that I'm not on the right track.
#2678
I didn't neg prop you and don't even really care about that whole topic, but I'm fairly certain it's not running out of steam or choking up.
I'd be surprised if anyone could "choke up" that manifold or turbo on a BP. it'd take more than 400hp, that's for sure.
My guess is that the wg is just getting blown open, or the turbo is being run so much lower than it's efficiency range it's just simply falling asleep
I'd be surprised if anyone could "choke up" that manifold or turbo on a BP. it'd take more than 400hp, that's for sure.
My guess is that the wg is just getting blown open, or the turbo is being run so much lower than it's efficiency range it's just simply falling asleep
#2680
Well, thanks. I thought so too, which is why I made the follow-up post.
If it's simply that the turbo is below its efficiency range, that doesn't make sense to me since it flows more air at the higher RPM and if anything should perform better at that RPM, no?
I just don't get it, so I'd love for the neg proppers to come out as to why my comment was stupid. Not whining about the props cuz props don't matter, but neg props are an indication that I'm not on the right track.
If it's simply that the turbo is below its efficiency range, that doesn't make sense to me since it flows more air at the higher RPM and if anything should perform better at that RPM, no?
I just don't get it, so I'd love for the neg proppers to come out as to why my comment was stupid. Not whining about the props cuz props don't matter, but neg props are an indication that I'm not on the right track.
To answer this question:
Is there any reason that running 7 PSI should result in such a fall-off of torque on the top end? What else would cause that drop in torque above 5500 rpm?
My torque doesn't fall off nearly that much when on a GT2871R at 8 PSI (similar max power potential to the EFR, and supposedly not as efficient).
My torque doesn't fall off nearly that much when on a GT2871R at 8 PSI (similar max power potential to the EFR, and supposedly not as efficient).
Also just realized this is the thread where you talked about heat exchanger stuff, did you ever measure or calculate anything regarding heat transfer on your heat exchangers?