Cooler line pressure drop
- Thread starter Killerbees
- Start date
- Status
I read this thread with great interest not completely understanding some of the more technical stuff, because it seems to hold some relevance to a planned change/upgrade for my wife's car.
It is a Chrysler Sebring 2.7 which presently has a cooler and Motoguard bypass plumbed off a sandwich adapter. There are two niggling issues with the current setup. The orientation of the sandwich requires a too-close-for-comfort routing of the lines just beneath the passenger driveshaft. It is safely installed, but I don't like it. Also, the oil filter now protrudes a bit lower from the underside than I am comfortable with. Again not too bad, just don't like it.
So my planned upgrade was to replace the sandwich adapter with a remote filter take-off and run lines back to a filter mount in the trunk. Then install a reduction orifice on the tee adapter leading from one line to the motoguard.
Based on what I'm reading in this thread it seems like this could be a recipe for disaster. Might the long runs back and forth from the trunk lead to a dangerous pressure drop? The trunk is the only other available place to mount a filter on the vehicle, believe me. I planned on using 1/2" i.d. aluminum tubing for the portions running along the frame rail to the trunk, serving as a sort of "pseudo cooler."
Any thoughts?
It is a Chrysler Sebring 2.7 which presently has a cooler and Motoguard bypass plumbed off a sandwich adapter. There are two niggling issues with the current setup. The orientation of the sandwich requires a too-close-for-comfort routing of the lines just beneath the passenger driveshaft. It is safely installed, but I don't like it. Also, the oil filter now protrudes a bit lower from the underside than I am comfortable with. Again not too bad, just don't like it.
So my planned upgrade was to replace the sandwich adapter with a remote filter take-off and run lines back to a filter mount in the trunk. Then install a reduction orifice on the tee adapter leading from one line to the motoguard.
Based on what I'm reading in this thread it seems like this could be a recipe for disaster. Might the long runs back and forth from the trunk lead to a dangerous pressure drop? The trunk is the only other available place to mount a filter on the vehicle, believe me. I planned on using 1/2" i.d. aluminum tubing for the portions running along the frame rail to the trunk, serving as a sort of "pseudo cooler."
Any thoughts?
Care must be taken with all the plumbing, if flow loss is to be avoided. 3/4" id lines are a waste of money if there are 3/8" npt connections on the cooler and adapter for example.
But so long as you can run larger dia lines, you can run any length you want. I can not imagine that a sebrings oil pump flows terribly high, so -10 lines maybe? Up to 15 feet? minor losses, IMO.
But so long as you can run larger dia lines, you can run any length you want. I can not imagine that a sebrings oil pump flows terribly high, so -10 lines maybe? Up to 15 feet? minor losses, IMO.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
You've got a couple of things on your linked post that I have some problems with here.
You sorta (directly actually) stated that you're bypassing your oil filter 80% of the time ..or rather that 80% of your oil flow is bypassing the filter. This is not the case unless the filter is very very overdue for changing. Even if a filter is in bypass ..there's nothing to assume that any major % of flow is bypassing. Only what is necessary to maintain the prescribed differential.
..but it does appear that you've managed to reach the minimal pressure disturbances that you ciphered as unattainable ..albeit at a high price.
Congrats
You sorta (directly actually) stated that you're bypassing your oil filter 80% of the time ..or rather that 80% of your oil flow is bypassing the filter. This is not the case unless the filter is very very overdue for changing. Even if a filter is in bypass ..there's nothing to assume that any major % of flow is bypassing. Only what is necessary to maintain the prescribed differential.
..but it does appear that you've managed to reach the minimal pressure disturbances that you ciphered as unattainable ..albeit at a high price.
Congrats
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
I'm bumping this due to the misapplication of information that you're giving here. For the average automobile owner ..the Permacool sandwich is more than adaquate. Dead heading the main ports to the bypass filter and relying ONLY on the small poppet relief is all the vast majority of engine require. It typically produces a 2PSID. Those who don't believe this ..and preemptively drill holes (even very small holes) are usually tapping and plugging them. There are exceptions ..they are very few in number however.
That poppet you see at 3 o'clock is all most engines ever need for 100% off their oil flow. Note the plug at 12 o'clock high ..there's a mirror one at 6 o'clock. I had to drill them out to find plugs small enough to tap them to. This is partially why I had such disbelief in your situation ..even with 20 gpm of flow.
I don't see how it is bypassing the filter 80%, much less your assertion that I directly stated it. How is that possible if only two PSI is going across the sandwich?
And to what misapplication of information are you referring? is 3/8 too small? 3/4 too big? Is there someting unclear about the description of what I am doing?
"but it does appear that you've managed to reach the minimal pressure disturbances that you ciphered as unattainable ..albeit at a high price." - Does this comment refer to the existing installation or the proposed change?
Sorry, but I can't make heads or tails of any of it..
And to what misapplication of information are you referring? is 3/8 too small? 3/4 too big? Is there someting unclear about the description of what I am doing?
"but it does appear that you've managed to reach the minimal pressure disturbances that you ciphered as unattainable ..albeit at a high price." - Does this comment refer to the existing installation or the proposed change?
Sorry, but I can't make heads or tails of any of it..
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Are you killerbees under another user name? Did you check his link? Did you read him saying, more or less, that 3/8" ports were a mistake and that you would have your arms and legs fall off it you're foolish enough to use them???
Follow the progression of the thread. You came in "midstream" and just figured that I was referring to your situation.
But if you want my opinion...you can index my observations (and the decades of observations by Ralph), and not worry about the issues that killergbees is dealing with in a 20-30 gpm oiling system.
Follow the progression of the thread. You came in "midstream" and just figured that I was referring to your situation.
But if you want my opinion...you can index my observations (and the decades of observations by Ralph), and not worry about the issues that killergbees is dealing with in a 20-30 gpm oiling system.
No, I read the whole thread and it seemed like you had pretty much discussed it to death, so I asked my related question. Guess I should have started a new thread (which I did, over in the bypass area).
But still no definitive answer or guidance.
But still no definitive answer or guidance.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Okay ..let's take a trip to BYPASS
I am back Gary. I will have to fix my notifications preferences. I don't know why I don't get email notifications.
I have become familiar with most sandwich adapters. "Adapter" in the sense that the filter location is about as good a place as any to source oil for cooling.
In my case, I had a hard time designing a plumbing system that sourced oil at high flow for cooling, that is, getting the oil thru the cooler. The adapter you show above is such a poor design for that, as to relegate it inneffective for high flow oil cooling. 2 psi is about 2 gpm through my "oversized" cooling apparatus. If I can't get oil flowing thru the cooler, I can't cool the oil.
I have been able to design 15-16 gpm through the cooler, which is now in production, but it wasn't easy. And doing it safely adds cost. The adapter above is an example of the generic aftermarket at work, with one eye carefully focused on liability. It will never starve the motor. But it will hardly feed a cooler what I needed.
Acewiza, you don't have anything to worry about. My challenge was creating abundant flow for a high flow system. Adapters normally err to caution, the mfrs realize they can't be seizing motors, so they design for low pressure bypass, as in the adapter above. No disasters that way, but cooling is minimal to nil.
I ran tests in the last few weeks, monster loads up monster Arizona grades, the proving grounds that Ford and GM use, and using 15 gpm through a cooler twice the size of the aforementioned fluidyne 30816. It still wasn't enough to quite contain ECT. Though oil temp was down 90 degrees. This was done by direct flowing with no bypass options.
http://members.cox.net/beekiller/GMC Light Duty/OIL COOLING.doc
[ April 29, 2006, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: Killerbees ]
I have become familiar with most sandwich adapters. "Adapter" in the sense that the filter location is about as good a place as any to source oil for cooling.
In my case, I had a hard time designing a plumbing system that sourced oil at high flow for cooling, that is, getting the oil thru the cooler. The adapter you show above is such a poor design for that, as to relegate it inneffective for high flow oil cooling. 2 psi is about 2 gpm through my "oversized" cooling apparatus. If I can't get oil flowing thru the cooler, I can't cool the oil.
I have been able to design 15-16 gpm through the cooler, which is now in production, but it wasn't easy. And doing it safely adds cost. The adapter above is an example of the generic aftermarket at work, with one eye carefully focused on liability. It will never starve the motor. But it will hardly feed a cooler what I needed.
Acewiza, you don't have anything to worry about. My challenge was creating abundant flow for a high flow system. Adapters normally err to caution, the mfrs realize they can't be seizing motors, so they design for low pressure bypass, as in the adapter above. No disasters that way, but cooling is minimal to nil.
I ran tests in the last few weeks, monster loads up monster Arizona grades, the proving grounds that Ford and GM use, and using 15 gpm through a cooler twice the size of the aforementioned fluidyne 30816. It still wasn't enough to quite contain ECT. Though oil temp was down 90 degrees. This was done by direct flowing with no bypass options.
http://members.cox.net/beekiller/GMC Light Duty/OIL COOLING.doc
[ April 29, 2006, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: Killerbees ]
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Well, it may be of poor design ..but it's the same basic design that Ford used in it's 80's 351 police interceptor package. They used 5/8" lines ..little spring relief bypassing the air
il rad. It simply fixed the pressure drop across the cooler circuit. It was set at a low setting ..but you can surely just dial in your MAX pressure drop in the same manner. Then it's just a matter of getting enough square footage and big enough lines (parallel coolers if necessary). Beyond that, it should be self regulating. Others use a bimetal spring that closes over the bypass port. I imagine that these too have a rating where they open the port in spite of prevailing temperatures.But congrats on your package.
Have you figured the buy back rate as opposed to just going slower up those grades? That is, how much more money can you make with the cooler time wise? I think that these rigs are paid by the mile ..so the cost:benefit analysis would be a fundamental of the sustainable mph with the cooler opposed to the sustainable mph without the cooler. Naturally that figure would be based on rigs perpetually running on those grades. One would assume that you would double that time (buy back) factor since what goes up, must come down ..and then that figure would only reflect perpetually going up and down mountains 100% of the time ..which is an unlikely service duty.
"Others use a bimetal spring that closes over the bypass port. I imagine that these too have a rating where they open the port in spite of prevailing temperatures."
Yes, well said. They are not very effective either.
As for the rest, no. The true benefit, albeit designed to aid in preventing coolant heatup, is in not having 300+ degree oil lubrication. I would think for some, the payback is in the first 10 minutes. The first tester said his truck stopped consuming oil. BTW, overheating is possible on a level road with some of these characters.
It may be premature to say, but that type of customer adds 50,000 miles to the motor. In my opinion.
Yes, well said. They are not very effective either.
As for the rest, no. The true benefit, albeit designed to aid in preventing coolant heatup, is in not having 300+ degree oil lubrication. I would think for some, the payback is in the first 10 minutes. The first tester said his truck stopped consuming oil. BTW, overheating is possible on a level road with some of these characters.
It may be premature to say, but that type of customer adds 50,000 miles to the motor. In my opinion.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Yes, you've got to take into account the behavior of the driver. You can't control that. If they can get 50k more out of an engine ..then it's worth a decent amount in the earnings between overhauls. Depending on the duty, it could add up to 4-6 months of work.
- Status
Similar threads
