barry68v10 wrote on 12/31/69 at 16:00:03:Greg, my motivation for installing the cooler the way I have it designed is two-fold:
1) You absolutely will have some flow thru the cooler regardless of tube size simply because of the pressure differential. Therefore, you will get some cooling benefit and that benefit will increase with increased oil temperature and therefore lower viscosity.
You'll get some. I may have been too negative in my initial post, but I was considering the cooler from a maximum flow view point.
Can you remove those brass fitting and drill them out as large as possible?
Quote:2) You SHOULD get more oil flow to the head because of less overall restriction of oil flow from the pump to the filter housing. This should improve lubrication to the top of the cylinder head which is the weak link from a lube standpoint.
Still have to question on this one. The reason being is that the pump (upstream) and the passageways (downstream) are not changed. The only way to know would be to put the gage on the filter housing, both with and without the use of the cooler. Can you do that? If you can confirm that pressure is increased in the housing, with the cooler installed, then it might increase flow. [/quote]
Quote:I thought about the clear tubing option, but not a big fan of that option due to limited tube strength. Like the temp gauge route but must be careful to test in same conditions. Another route is to measure actual heat carried from oil cooler with a given oil temp, which would be the best way to determine efficiency. Just not sure how I'd set up a test of the last case ???
Clear tubing wouldn't help much. You couldn't really see through a reinforced piece of clear tubing anyway.
How about testing it with a gage on the filter housing? Unfortunately it seems like you'd need another hole...or another side case...
Of course, as you stated early on, if you feel heat at the cooler, then logically heat is being carried away from the engine.