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 Huh

I wouldn't USE the clear tube longer than to determine the flow rate. Just as a test. An hour?

Quote:


Good question!  I think the answer is maybe for a little while on first start up.

But after first startup, you can keep the cooler filled.  After that I think you improve oil flow to the head all the time, including subsequent starts.  That, at least, is a theory that will be easy to prove once the project is complete.

barry68v10 wrote on 12/31/69 at 16:00:03:


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:


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:


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.

Yikes!  What happened to my last post?  I didn't look that way when I typed it...
Quote:


What it should have said was, "My assumption was..."

barry68v10 wrote on 12/31/69 at 16:00:03:

What's funny is that when I look your message "quoted" the word is correct.  A_S_S_umption!

Is the ID of your fittings, hose, and cooler larger than the stock oil passageways?  That is the only way the resistance through your add-on would be lower.

Rerouting the oil to the head doesn't sound doable to me.  I'm sure that long oil passage inside the case is designed to distribute the oil in particular ratios to the top, bottom, and tranny (especially with that little brass jet)

barry68v10 wrote on 12/31/69 at 16:00:03:



I just used that site as an example because it had a good selection and pictures, but if you want to contact them:

http://www.weissinstruments.com/contact.htm

I'm sure they'll be glad to set prices. They may be expensive, but I know there are lots of bi-metal gauges available in the $5-$10 range if you shop around.

They are used a lot in heating and air conditioning, and come in lots of temp ranges for anything from chilled water/refrigerent to boiler water/steam. Lots of other industrial and food processing uses where they can't be extremely expensive.

Put the phrase: bi-metal temperature gauge into Google and explore!

I agree justin, my point is Ed_L is getting some pretty good head off his which proves to me it is getting decent flow.

Greg, my tube/fittings are slightly larger than stock passage.  I expect under 50% flow from my setup.  Maybe 30-40%, I'm guessing.

Now, if that improves overall cooling by 10%, I'll consider that significant.  But, more importantly, I think it may improve head cooling by 50% or more, since the head isn't really air cooled very well anyway.

Obviously, these numbers are WAGs at this point.  Some testing once install is complete should give better approximations.