When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
There's no curly-Q coiled wire reinforcement required for this particular silicone pipe? I'm reading the instructions right now and the 1-2" of hose growth makes me wonder about the hose reinforcement. Seems like it would be possible for the hose to expand and kink.
The kit looks amazing. You'll very likely be getting more of my money.
We haven't experienced any issues with the slinky omitted. Slinky rusts, disintegrates and clogs the radiator. SS slinky would last longer but add quite a bit of cost while still not really being needed. Sorta like hub centering rings. It's more an anxiety thing than any actual need.
There's no curly-Q coiled wire reinforcement required for this particular silicone pipe?
Not at all.
We stopped using the spring ourselves after the second M-Tuned install several years ago.
We stopped including the spring in the other kits a couple years or so ago due to rust issues.
First you come up with the Xida GS's that I have to buy. Now you have a reroute kit that does not suck and I need. What else you got waiting around to release to take my money? Are Techna's coming in the fall?
Nice to see the thermostat moved back into the head, rather than hanging out there in an inline threaded half-pickle.
As a personal anecdote, I'd suggest using the standard Stant thermostat, rather than the "Superstat." Several years ago, I did a direct comparison between the two and made a silly video in which I found that the Superstat, while definitely built of thicker, heavier materials, started opening much later than the regular thermostat and achieved a noticeably smaller maximum open area (eg: the plunger did not depress as far when fully open.) Based on this sample size = 1 investigation, I see no reason whatsoever to run the Superstat unless you're deliberately trying to restrict coolant flow.
Question for the group:
It's been several years now since we first looked at how the design of the head gasket changed over the years, with some of the coolant passages being deliberately closed up in order to re-direct coolant through the head in an effort to compensate for the basic inadequacies of the front-thermostat design.
Any real-world experience from the late-NB crowd running rear-therm, front-blockoff setups? Years ago, I postulated (with no evidence, merely speculation) that doing a rear-them reroute on a late NB engine with stock head gasket would likely cause more harm than good, as it would result in a totally stagnant area surrounding the #1 combustion chamber. I'm assuming that I've been proven wrong, as we're not hearing horror stories, but absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
I'm actually wondering two things, both of which I've speculated about over the years, and neither of which I've seen hard data on.
1: Does performing a rear-therm reroute on a late NB engine with stock head gasket cause harm (eg: by increasing the temperature differentials across the head)?
2: Does performing a rear-them reroute on a late NB engine with stock head gasket offer a significant improvement in total cooling performance, as is well documented with the earlier gasket design?
I know this much,
I was on track with a friend with a 94-00 gasket and I am on the standard. He overheated earlier than me. Me with a 949 rad, him with a hyper-v and spal. My point being I think the gasket will not make the difference between the point of overheating and not. Though that's based on the temp sensor on cyl #4 and not actual Delta of all four.
Been discussed and confirmed relatively recently by both Emilio and Andrew that "94-00 HG ideal, 01-04 HG still ok".
But I'll let the experts chime in
This.
Any opinions on the matter are hypothesis and conjecture without data. Every bit of real world data shows it doesn't matter. We have literally thousands of w2w race hours with NB2 gaskets with reroutes, no issues. When we build an engine from scratch, we run 94-00 HG's. We see no difference either way.
So I offer our real world experience against the hypothesis. It's an intelligent question and good subject for another thread.
I'm really liking the rear outlet and T-stat housing being integrated together. I never had long warm up issues as others did with the remote T-stat housing, but it's because I tried it with a T-stat before the rear housing--less than ideal yes, but it warms up and opens within 2-3 minutes). I later added the remote housing due to no HVAC heat.
Would that rear housing be available for purchase individually later on?
Originally Posted by revlimiter
... literally bought the M-tooned one a few weeks ago and haven't yet installed.
dammit.
I got it 1-2 years ago and still feel similar lol.
Originally Posted by Savington
The silicone hose in this kit is much nicer than the hacked-up Escalade hose that most DIYers use. Higher quality, more robust. If given the choice, I'll take the silicone every time.
I'm using the GM hose with the M-Tuned, it's slightly a bigger OD than the M-Tuned remote housing. Just had to tighten it up today.
Short of tapping a head for four temp sensors, the best we can offer is an absence of evidence.
We aren't alone in beating the snot out of BP6D head gaskets + reroutes, but we've probably done more han anybody else. We've never encountered a problem, only increased cooling efficiency. All the theoretical deficiencies are just conjecture, take it elsewhere please.
This reroute looks light years better than the trainwreck M-tooned one, which was apparently designed by apes. **** that thing.
I do wonder about the placement of the OEM temp sensor though. The sensor tip looks to be parked in a little remote pocket of stagnant (ok, leisurely-circulating) water. Maybe it gets plenty of flow past it in reality; fluids don't always behave the way your mind expects they would.
Would that rear housing be available for purchase individually later on?
Nope. We made the decision to only offer it as a kit. It's inexpensive as is, considering the quality of the components we include. The two Qmax service/spares kits will be:
1. All the hardware excluding the hose and CNC bits, for about $28
2. The 44" hose, also for about $28
For a direct customer that damages a housing, they can send the old housing in and we'll replace it for the appropriate charge. We are not interested in supplying the CNC bits for DIY kits. sorry,
Any opinions on the matter are hypothesis and conjecture without data. Every bit of real world data shows it doesn't matter. We have literally thousands of w2w race hours with NB2 gaskets with reroutes, no issues. When we build an engine from scratch, we run 94-00 HG's. We see no difference either way.
So I offer our real world experience against the hypothesis. It's an intelligent question and good subject for another thread.
Short of tapping a head for four temp sensors, the best we can offer is an absence of evidence.
And that's pretty much what I'm trying to find.
There's really no reason to suspect any downside when doing a rear-therm reroute on an engine with a '90-'00 style gasket, and the benefits are both well-proven and also consistent with good OEM-design practice. You're restoring the configuration of the cooling system to that which the original designers intended.
It's when we get into the VVT-style gasket design that things get interesting. This gasket is unique to the '01-'05 Miata, unlike those used all the rest of the B6/BP engines which are identical to those installed in all of the many FWD implementations of these engines. There is no OEM application in which a BP engine with an '01-'05 style gasket is equipped with a flywheel-side thermostat.
But as has been said, different thread, linked to above...
On a more constructive note, I will offer the following advice for anyone planning to install this reroute kit onto an engine while it's still in the car, which I came up with when doing a similar reroute using a combination of junkyard and fabricated parts on my '92 many years ago: To gain a little bit of additional working space around the back of the head, place a jack under the tailshaft of the transmission, disconnect the PPF from the transmission, and raise the jack as much as possible. This causes the engine to tilt forwards on the engine mounts, moving the area of interest away from the firewall.
I do wonder about the placement of the OEM temp sensor though. The sensor tip looks to be parked in a little remote pocket of stagnant (ok, leisurely-circulating) water. Maybe it gets plenty of flow past it in reality; fluids don't always behave the way your mind expects they would.
Bleeder screw should help alleviate that.
BTW, bleeder screw is AWESOME. I hate trying to work the air out of the rear thermo housing.
Cooling systems are sealed. Once bled, they stay that way unless you let the overflow run dry or spring a big leak.
Of course. What I'm getting at is that the bleeder screw as it pertains to the CLT sensor only allows it to sit in water instead of air. It doesn't promote flow circulation around the sensor during operation, which appears to be limited based on its location up in a pocket in the back forty, away from the flow stream.
08-03-2017, 04:50 PM
0
