Deleting Oil Cooler

#41

I run the remote filter and the oil flow is as follows: plate, filter, cooler, back to plate and to the main oil gallery where the pressure port is located and the PRV. The major restriction is the oil filter, period. That is why I run a Canton or Oberg because it impedes the oil flow the least. (Canton advertises oil flow equal to three Fram filters in parallel.) We want good oil pressure but we also want flow. So, the less restriction we can engineer into the oil path, the better. Jim’s idea is very good, except he does not use an external filter. Adding -10 lines and a remote filter and cooler will do next to nothing in regards to oil pressure/flow. It just makes good sense for the health of your motor.

A side note: the Cup guys have gone away from the Oberg to a Fram racing filter. They have determined that a 27 micron filter gives them the best flow through the motor, and anything smaller will not hurt the motor. Check under the hood next Cup race and see the orange Fram filter. CB

#42

Steve D wrote:

[quote]jlevie wrote:

If it is piped back in to the flow ahead of the bearings/head port, then there is no opportunity for that close loop to permit a pressure drop (aside from nominal flex in the hoses, I suppose).[/quote]
Any time there is flow in a pipe there are pressure losses because of friction with the pipe walls and flow turbulance.

The question is, does the OEM oil cooler provide enough cooling such that it outweighs the small disadvantages, pressure loss and oiling system complexity. And I think that if the OEM oil cooler is only good for a couple degrees of cooling, then the answer is probably “why bother with it?”. On the other hand, an aftermarket oil cooler that rides a little higher in the chassis, has -10 hoses for reduced flow losses, and provides 14deg of cooling, is probably worth doing.

Chuck’s issue about the oil filter is interesting. IIRC folks spend a lot of time worrying about 10micron particles. Interesting that the truth may now be changing. And if there’s several psi lost because of the filter, then experimenting with different oil filter solutions might be worth doing. The challenge is to get rigorous data so we don’t have to do so much guessing.

Chuck and Jim…Does the OEM oil filter adapter flow well enough that it’s worth keeping, or do you perceive it as restrictive?

#43

Ranger wrote:

[quote]Steve D wrote:

[quote]jlevie wrote:

If it is piped back in to the flow ahead of the bearings/head port, then there is no opportunity for that close loop to permit a pressure drop (aside from nominal flex in the hoses, I suppose).[/quote]
Any time there is flow in a pipe there are pressure losses because of friction with the pipe walls and flow turbulance.

The question is, does the OEM oil cooler provide enough cooling such that it outweighs the small disadvantages, pressure loss and oiling system complexity. And I think that if the OEM oil cooler is only good for a couple degrees of cooling, then the answer is probably “why bother with it?”. On the other hand, an aftermarket oil cooler that rides a little higher in the chassis, has -10 hoses for reduced flow losses, and provides 14deg of cooling, is probably worth doing.

Chuck’s issue about the oil filter is interesting. IIRC folks spend a lot of time worrying about 10micron particles. Interesting that the truth may now be changing. And if there’s several psi lost because of the filter, then experimenting with different oil filter solutions might be worth doing. The challenge is to get rigorous data so we don’t have to do so much guessing.

Chuck and Jim…Does the OEM oil filter adapter flow well enough that it’s worth keeping, or do you perceive it as restrictive?[/quote]

Interesting conversation. GRM had an artical about Free Horsepower and on of there tricks was to delete the oil cooler. They said hoter oil give them a 2-3 percent HP gain. I’m sure the idea of letting your (Ranger) oil run 10-15 degrees hotter will make you more nervious than a whore in church.

#44

Actually I look at the OEM oil filter adapter as a failure point…it has moving parts. That is why I use a simple block off plate and pipe everything outside the motor. I don’t consider air craft lines to a filter and oil cooler complicating the process, actually I look at it as simplifying.

Every racing car built in the last 30 years has an oil cooler, oil progress be dammed. 25 years ago, BMW and most other race cars used (still) the best lubricant known to man…Castor bean oil. I would think most of the oil research done in the past 25 years is to emulate the lubrication properties of Castor bean oil without the hygroscopic tendency. (and, of course, to make the oils of varying viscosity.)cb

#45

Steve D wrote:

[quote]Since everybody else is talking out their a$$, here’s my accountant-turned-real-estate-guy-turned-weekend-engineer take on it:
If a finned pan could do as good a job cooling the oil as a proper stock oil cooler, why didn’t BMW make finned engine blocks and ditch those pesky radiators? :laugh: [/quote]

Blah blah - radial engines blah blah Porsche blah blah I’m even annoying myself… :wink: :stuck_out_tongue:

#46

If you mod the adapter for full time operation of the cooler, I doubt that the adapter is a limiting factor w/respect to flow. That mod also eliminates the “moving parts”. The passages in the adapter are plenty large enough that they should not be a limiting factor. I’m more concerned about the OE filter as a limit.

Even thought it is a gray area in the rules, I’d rather run a humongous remote filter to eliminate any chance of the filter starving the engine for oil flow. I’ve see that happen in street cars and on the track. Kelly can attest to what a filter failure can do (hint: Barber a couple fo years ago).

I’ll gladly take a 2-3% loss in power if that means the engine will last significantly longer. You get more point for finishing than from running up front and retiring during the race with a blown motor.

Oil and filters are cheap. I don’t run oil long enough for buildup of fine particles to be an issue. At least I don’t think I do.

#47

Old oils have some charms because many of them had good anti-wear products in their additive packages. Most modern oils have removed them. But modern high quality oils are more stable at high temperature.

As long as we can keep the engine cool with the coolant system, oil a bit on the hot side, say 225deg isn’t automatically bad. One just needs to keep an eye on viscosity. Oils are all different. One guy may still have his OEM oil cooler and get 3deg of cooling and lose a couple psi. If your oil is a little hotter but you use a better oil, you win. An aftermarket oil cooler that gets 5X the cooling will make more difference.

The bottom line is that we control the variables. Folks just have to make educated decisions.

I can see the charm of a big high-flow oil cooler. But I’m kinda gun-shy now re. non-OEM oiling system mods so I’m going to go slow.

#48

Ranger wrote:

And you have plenty of reasons to be a little gun shy. I don’t fault you for wanting go slow on any changes to an engine that finally behaves.

The PP pan is now installed so I can hook up the sensor and get both pressure and temp data while the weather is still hot. If you are logging temp and pressure data we should be able to make some meaningful comparisons.

#49

Steve, re. “If it is piped back in to the flow ahead of the bearings/head port, then there is no opportunity for that close loop to permit a pressure drop (aside from nominal flex in the hoses, I suppose).”

An example to visualize this just occured to me. Consider the coolant system. Closed loop from pump back to pump. The coolant leaves the pump at 20-30psi, but is around 5psi when it gets back to the pump. This loss of pressure is due to energy losses associated with fluid flow.

If there was no pressure loss in this closed system, the coolant would return to the pump at the same pressure that it left at. The pump would then add 20psi or whatever. Essentially the pump would be adding energy to a system that didn’t lose energy. The result would spiral to infinity.

Jim, re. measuring oil temp in the pan. Cool. It will be good to have someone else’s data to compare to. In a couple events of trial and error I’ll have pressure and temp getting logged.

I took my skid plate to an aluminum welder. I’m getting it reinforced a bit so I can cut some big air holes in it. We’ll have to see how that turns out.

#50

Ranger wrote:

That makes sense.

That makes sense, too. But unless it remains 1/16" thick, that’s not a legal mod. I wouldn’t argue strongly against a rule change though.

#51

Steve D wrote:

[quote]Ranger wrote:

That makes sense, too. But unless it remains 1/16" thick, that’s not a legal mod. I wouldn’t argue strongly against a rule change though.[/quote]

Re. rules. Probably not legal. Or at least probably not what was envisioned. Rules say a single AL sheet “nominally” 1/16th" thick. Mine isn’t “entirely” 1/16th" thick. If figure that if they meant “entirely”, they’d a said so. “Nominally” is one of those words that you hear a lot because it’s sounds cool, but it’s often used incorrectly. At least IMO. “Nominal” is supposed to mean something like “per plan”.

So I took a Factory3 skid plate that was “per plan” 1/16th" thick, and then made a couple parts thicker so I could cut holes in it for air flow.

#52

Nominally is used in the rules in the sense - it was designed to be 1/16th thick but there may be small variations in the thickness over the full extent of the part

#53

leggwork wrote:

Yup…“small variations”. I had some of those put on.

#54

:slight_smile:

#55

I just put in an oil filter sandwich adapter to host a temp sensor right in the flow. And the sensor really is right in the flow. A person couldn’t ask for a better placement of the temp probe. So now we’ll be able to compare oil temp in the flow vs. oil temp in the pan.

Both sensor are wired to the same gauge via a 2 pole switch. So I can switch the gauge from one sensor to the other on the fly. This is the same setup I had when I had temp sensors just before and after the big aftermarket oil cooler.

#56

So I just got to reading my latest GRM, and what do I find in the how to get free horsepower article but the recommendation to remove your OEM oil cooler to raise oil temps to make a few more ponies. I had a little chuckle when I read that and thought about this thread. Of course they were talking about going from 195 to 210 oil temp. Anyways, I have my pipe joint, and I am still planning on removing the oil cooler as I believe I currently have a leak from the filter mount anyways currently.

#57

Will you share your “pipe joint” at the next race?

#58

I will gladly share the pipe joint if you provide the rest.

#59

King Tut wrote:

195deg is pretty cool for oil in the Summer. Instead of removing the oil cooler it might have been easier to just run a thinner oil.

#60

Something kept bothering me about that “make more horsepower with hotter oil” statement.

First…where is the dyno data? Naturally everything we read is correct, right???

Second, what weight oil, multi viscosity or single? Single I may see, but multi I have a problem with as it is designed to increase viscosity with temperature.

Third, 10-15 degrees hotter will give you 2-3 percent increase in horsepower…I call bullshit. 2 percent of 160hp is about 3hp. That is totally in the range of dyno scatter and can be done at any time with consecutive runs.

Don’t believe everything you read. CB