Oil cooled VS. Oil & Water Cooled
07-02-2008, 03:58 PM
#21
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,593
Oh, great- you just gave away or big power secret. Give it six months, and the folks over at CR will be proclaiming how they picked up 45 HP just by welding their turbo to the manifold...
Reply
0
0
07-02-2008, 06:32 PM
#27
!!! NOT CONFIRMED !!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Auburn, CA
Posts: 18
Total Cats: 0
Mopar designed the SRT-4 to not have water lines so I'm sure its fine, plus Im pretty sure they have an oil cooler. Mazda on the other hand did not design the Miata for a turbo.
Reply
0
0
07-02-2008, 07:28 PM
#30
!!! NOT CONFIRMED !!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Auburn, CA
Posts: 18
Total Cats: 0
I would love to hear about the history of the Miata engine, but that is neither here nor there. The engine in my car was not factory turbocharged. Are you talking about the BPT? Anyone have any info of the BPD? I haven't been able to find anything on either ones. Ive never taken one apart so I may be wrong, but I'm willing to bet its quite a bit different then the one in my car. Can anyone tell me for sure? Sorry for any nubness. I'm learning as fast as I can!
Last edited by David_LB; 07-02-2008 at 07:49 PM.
Reply
0
0
07-02-2008, 08:41 PM
#33
Why all the commotion? Its pretty simple: if you're willing to change your oil regularly and idle the engine for atleast 30 secs before shutting down the vehicle, a coolant feed might not be required.
But I would think that a CHRA designed for oil/coolant feed should not be run without coolant, one because the oil supply is restricted (typically with a hole as small as 0.065") on such CHRA's, two because the cooling passages are designed with a view towards running coolant through them. Oil-only turbos have more of the CHRA surface area exposed to the air, unlike the ones with coolant passages.
Further, vehicles used on the track may not require the use of a water-cooled CHRA, because the latter's primary function is in the post-shutdown "heatsoak" phase, where danger of coking is the highest. Since racing vehicles are not subjected to frequent stop-go cycles and are allowed the luxury of proper warm-up/cool-down time, a water-cooled CHRA becomes more of a necessity on street-driven vehicles, which is what most of us have.
Hence, the verdict is clear, if your turbo has provisions for coolant in/out, use them! Its simple enough on the miata engine, how much lazier can one get?
Oh, and I got most of this information from my room-mate who was an application engineer for Cummins Turbo Technologies (Holset).
But I would think that a CHRA designed for oil/coolant feed should not be run without coolant, one because the oil supply is restricted (typically with a hole as small as 0.065") on such CHRA's, two because the cooling passages are designed with a view towards running coolant through them. Oil-only turbos have more of the CHRA surface area exposed to the air, unlike the ones with coolant passages.
Further, vehicles used on the track may not require the use of a water-cooled CHRA, because the latter's primary function is in the post-shutdown "heatsoak" phase, where danger of coking is the highest. Since racing vehicles are not subjected to frequent stop-go cycles and are allowed the luxury of proper warm-up/cool-down time, a water-cooled CHRA becomes more of a necessity on street-driven vehicles, which is what most of us have.
Hence, the verdict is clear, if your turbo has provisions for coolant in/out, use them! Its simple enough on the miata engine, how much lazier can one get?
Oh, and I got most of this information from my room-mate who was an application engineer for Cummins Turbo Technologies (Holset).
Last edited by The_Pipefather; 07-02-2008 at 08:53 PM.
Reply
0
0
07-02-2008, 09:01 PM
#34
!!! NOT CONFIRMED !!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Auburn, CA
Posts: 18
Total Cats: 0
Why all the commotion? Its pretty simple: if you're willing to change your oil regularly and idle the engine for atleast 30 secs before shutting down the vehicle, a coolant feed might not be required.
But I would think that a CHRA designed for oil/coolant feed should not be run without coolant, one because the oil supply is restricted (typically with a hole as small as 0.065") on such CHRA's, two because the cooling passages are designed with a view towards running coolant through them. Oil-only turbos have more of the CHRA surface area exposed to the air, unlike the ones with coolant passages.
Further, vehicles used on the track may not require the use of a water-cooled CHRA, because the latter's primary function is in the post-shutdown "heatsoak" phase, where danger of coking is the highest. Since racing vehicles are not subjected to frequent stop-go cycles and are allowed the luxury of proper warm-up/cool-down time, a water-cooled CHRA becomes more of a necessity on street-driven vehicles, which is what most of us have.
Hence, the verdict is clear, if your turbo has provisions for coolant in/out, use them! Its simple enough on the miata engine, how much lazier can one get?
Oh, and I got most of this information from my room-mate who was an application engineer for Cummins Turbo Technologies (Holset).
But I would think that a CHRA designed for oil/coolant feed should not be run without coolant, one because the oil supply is restricted (typically with a hole as small as 0.065") on such CHRA's, two because the cooling passages are designed with a view towards running coolant through them. Oil-only turbos have more of the CHRA surface area exposed to the air, unlike the ones with coolant passages.
Further, vehicles used on the track may not require the use of a water-cooled CHRA, because the latter's primary function is in the post-shutdown "heatsoak" phase, where danger of coking is the highest. Since racing vehicles are not subjected to frequent stop-go cycles and are allowed the luxury of proper warm-up/cool-down time, a water-cooled CHRA becomes more of a necessity on street-driven vehicles, which is what most of us have.
Hence, the verdict is clear, if your turbo has provisions for coolant in/out, use them! Its simple enough on the miata engine, how much lazier can one get?
Oh, and I got most of this information from my room-mate who was an application engineer for Cummins Turbo Technologies (Holset).
Reply
0
0
07-06-2008, 10:23 PM
#35
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Winona, MN
Posts: 198
Total Cats: 0
This is kinda on topic. But im running water and oil cooling my turbo. And on a cold start up if you hit boost at all, it heats to coolant on the block so fast that the thermostat wont open and it gets to 3/4 to the hot side before opens. Replaced the thermo and no help. Might just remove it so it wont spike.
Reply
0
0
07-06-2008, 10:57 PM
#37
are you seriously not seeing the failed logic here? If a turbo is made to be cooled with water as well as oil, dont you think it was designed that way? if it was just made to be cooled with oil then it wont even have the water line hook ups. plain and simple....just cause many are not water cooling theirs and drive around fine doesnt mean that its the way the turbo was made to operate.
ps: me not owning a miata at the moment has nothing to do with it. kthnxbye
Reply
0
0
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
stoves
Suspension, Brakes, Drivetrain
5
04-21-2016 03:00 PM
