cooling alternative

[sdjr]

So here's a thought, I was watching an old guy working on a 60's mustang 302. He was doing a valve job, reassembly. He had head gaskets with water passage holes in BOTH ends of the head gasket, showed me a modern 5.0L headgasket with one end's passages not cut out. He tells me that in the 60's, they used to design the engines to run colder, until smog laws made them find shortcuts to raise engine temps.

Now I'm thinking, instead of chopping up my radiator support, why not let coolant circulate through the head, instead of just filling it? That will allow me to keep the HD radiator that came with my 94 3.0L 4x4 w/tow package.

He said he just lays one gasket over the other, one reversed, and colors the cutout area with a sharpie to dremel out.

anyone thought about this? The 94 heads on this 5.0L still have the water galley openings, it's just the head gasket preventing circulation.

Thanks for your input,
JR

[usmcrp1044]

I'm pretty sure that water is going both in and out on any head. That's why there are water passages in the intake, that go into the cylinder head. If water is only going in, your going to have some serious over heating problems. It needs to flow.

The drilling the head gasket just sounds like an old timers fix that doesnt actually get anything done.

[matt167]

what he said, sorta true, sorta not..I do belive that opening was for cold weather operation and nothing more.. kept the cyl head temps even, just like exhaust crossovers heating intakes... raising the engine temp does not help emmissions belive it or not,it helps engine efficiency ( in turn more power )... when the cyl heads get to a certin temp ( 2,500 *F IIRC ) the engine will produce NOX gasses and to control those, you use an EGR and really the whole raising the temps was where this all started... AIR pumps, and catalitic converters ect..... in turn, a hotter engine also runs cleaner

[sdjr]

2 thousand 5 hundred degrees?? surely the oil would fail, and the block would melt, for sure the coolant would boil off!!! Anyway, does it make a difference if we're trying to cool via a bigger radiator, or better coolant circulation? I'm no engineer, and it's been 20+ years since I took heat and mass transfer based on early 80's college text books.

Any thoughts on restrictor plate vice a thermostat?

JR

[D.Hearne]

So here's a thought, I was watching an old guy working on a 60's mustang 302. He was doing a valve job, reassembly. He had head gaskets with water passage holes in BOTH ends of the head gasket, showed me a modern 5.0L headgasket with one end's passages not cut out. He tells me that in the 60's, they used to design the engines to run colder, until smog laws made them find shortcuts to raise engine temps.

Now I'm thinking, instead of chopping up my radiator support, why not let coolant circulate through the head, instead of just filling it? That will allow me to keep the HD radiator that came with my 94 3.0L 4x4 w/tow package.

He said he just lays one gasket over the other, one reversed, and colors the cutout area with a sharpie to dremel out.

anyone thought about this? The 94 heads on this 5.0L still have the water galley openings, it's just the head gasket preventing circulation.

Thanks for your input,
JR

Your oldtimer's got it backwards. If you do it the way he did, it'll run hotter. The reason for that coolant port being blocked off is to force the coolant toward the rear of the block before working it's way up into the head, then back to the intake and T-stat. If you remove this obstruction, the coolant shortcuts its way back the the intake, letting the rear portion of the block build up more heat, thus making the engine run hotter, to the point of overheating. Back in the 60's, engine's tended to overheat frequently due to poorly designed cooling systems. Radiators were'nt big enough, waterpumps had poor flow ratings, and the cooling fans just plain sucked. Go look thru George Reid's Ford High Performance interchange book and look at the engine fan pics he's got listed there.

[mxracer652]

Yes on the restrictor.
I do not run a thermostat on anything high performance.

[matt167]

2 thousand 5 hundred degrees?? surely the oil would fail, and the block would melt, for sure the coolant would boil off!!! Anyway, does it make a difference if we're trying to cool via a bigger radiator, or better coolant circulation? I'm no engineer, and it's been 20+ years since I took heat and mass transfer based on early 80's college text books.

Any thoughts on restrictor plate vice a thermostat?

JR

cylinder head temp does not reflect coolant temp... engines run best at around 2000* cylinder head temp.. I'm not lying

[Swapper]

Combustion temp might hit 1500-1800 deg F but that's only for an instant.

Author(s):
T. K. Hayes - University of Illinois
R. A. White - University of Illinois
J. E. Peters - University of Illinois

Abstract:
Cylinder head combustion chamber and piston temperatures and heat fluxes were measured in a 2.2 L 4 cylinder spark ignition engine. Measurements for the combustion chamber were made at wide open throttle conditions, 1400 rpm to 5000 rpm at 600 rpm increments, additional measurements were made on the combustion chamber at part throttle conditions at 3200 rpm. Piston temperature and heat flux measurements were made at WOT conditions from 1400 to 3200 rpm in 600 rpm increments. Average combustion chamber surface temperatures ranged from 130 degrees C to 248 degrees C, while peak combustion chamber surface temperatures ranged from 142 degrees C to 258 degrees C for WOT conditions. Peak heat flux at the surface for WOT conditions in the combustion chamber ranged from 1.2 MW/m\u2 to 5.0 MW/m\u2. Central region heat fluxes were 2.3 to 2.8 times greater than those in the end gas regions of the combustion chamber. Piston temperatures were 10 to 25 degrees centigrade hotter than corresponding combustion chamber surfaces at WOT conditions. Peak heat flux values in the end gas region of the piston were 2 to 4 times greater than corresponding locations on the combustion chamber at WOT conditions. The Woschni heat transfer model correlated well with the experimental instantaneous local heat flux data. Long term heat flux data indicates that deposit formation greatly modifies surface heat transfer.

[mxracer652]

Swapper is correct.
Head & piston dome temperature is slightly warmer than the water temp.

[sdjr]

Very cool, thanks for your help everyone.

[D.Hearne]

A diesel equipped with a pyrometer downstream from the turbo will register about 900-1200* F on a long uphill grade. Anything more than that will melt stuff. I've seen cast iron that melted to the point where it was pulled from the exhaust manifold into the turbo inlet port. The pyro was registering 1500-1600* F

[fastranger347]

swapper is right,2,500 degrees woulde melt the heads and the rest of the engine. and run a thermostat, i run a large orfice brass unit the b$m, be cool and several others offer, ive never had issues with one and im sure im making a sufficient amount of power/heat that if a thermostat wasnt effective i would know.

[sdjr]

So I went with restrictor plate, how do you get one? Well, I bought a thermostat, doesn't matter what temp, I used the sheetmetal shears to nip out the bridge over the guts, let them pop out, did the same on the reverse side, then made 8 equal cuts down to the outer most shoulder, and then set the piece on the anvil portion of the bench vise and wailed on the "tabs" with the BFH until all was flat. A little smoothing of the inside ring with the dremel, and all was done. we'll see what happens.

JR

[GofastJnkie]

I don't understand what is the big deal with running with out a thermostat? I am in the ideal that the millions of dollars that ford put into engeniering the motor and cooling systems are better than any $.20 part that jo blow sells you. The thermostat is there to control the flow and keep the engine at a steady temp. I run a standard 195* fail-safe. Today was 102* and I was beating on my turboed nonintercooled 5.0L ranger, the thermostat was still cycling open and closed, so still not any cooling problems. What are you doing that your having such cooling problems?

Just my $.02

[sdjr]

My idea is to get away with a radiator that does not require cutting up/modifying or jerking around. If I don't have to do anything but go to O'reilly's and ask for a 3.0/4.0 heavy duty tow package type radiator that is drop in, I'll be a happy man. No cooling problems yet, because I'm still building the engine, doing the install, etc.

Thanks,
JR

[matt167]

when you remove the thermostat, your making the radiator less efficent.. coolant flows thru it too quickly, and the radiator cannot do it's job..restrictor plate is only slightly better.. the radiator you'v got should be up to the task as is

[mxracer652]

coolant flows thru it too quickly, and the radiator cannot do it's job..restrictor plate is only slightly better..

This is a long standing urban legend, and chances are you're just repeating what you've heard elsewhere, but either way, it is wrong.

The heat the water picks up is proportional to the temperature difference between the water/heads, and the mass flow rate through the system.

Yes, the water is in the radiator a shorter time period since it is moving faster, but it is also picking up less temperature b/c it is in the engine a shorter time as well. So it doesn't need as much time in the radiator anyway.

What you gain when removing the thermostat is a larger orifice to increase the volumetric flow rate. This increases your cooling system capacity the exact same way a larger radiator would.

Seriously.

[D.Hearne]

This is a long standing urban legend, and chances are you're just repeating what you've heard elsewhere, but either way, it is wrong.

The heat the water picks up is proportional to the temperature difference between the water/heads, and the mass flow rate through the system.

Yes, the water is in the radiator a shorter time period since it is moving faster, but it is also picking up less temperature b/c it is in the engine a shorter time as well. So it doesn't need as much time in the radiator anyway.

What you gain when removing the thermostat is a larger orifice to increase the volumetric flow rate. This increases your cooling system capacity the exact same way a larger radiator would.

Seriously.

You're forgeting that just as the coolant doesn't shed as much heat in the radiator without a T-stat, so goes it in cycling thru the engine too fast. There will come a point where the pent up heat in the engine will cause the coolant to flash to steam. Heat is constantly being generated in the engine, and isn't a static factor.

[matt167]

I'll stick to what I said.. if the coolant isn't getting as much heat absorbed. the cooling system is running innefficently... it does not increase cooling capacity... you increase cooling capacity with a properly sized cooling system

[mxracer652]

You're forgeting that just as the coolant doesn't shed as much heat in the radiator without a T-stat, so goes it in cycling thru the engine too fast. There will come a point where the pent up heat in the engine will cause the coolant to flash to steam. Heat is constantly being generated in the engine, and isn't a static factor.

Negative. The coolant sheds the same amount of heat per unit time. While it is picking up less heat per unit volume, the volumetric flow rate has increased to overcome the difference.

This is the exact same thing as a 55gpm electric pump versus a 35gpm pump.

The coolant will not vaporize to steam unless you manage to drain the engine, get it hot, then flood it with coolant again.

[mxracer652]

I'll stick to what I said.. if the coolant isn't getting as much heat absorbed. the cooling system is running innefficently... it does not increase cooling capacity... you increase cooling capacity with a properly sized cooling system

You are misunderstanding thermodynamics.
The amount of heat absorbed per unit volume of the coolant will decrease.

But you are increasing the volumetric flow rate of the coolant.

The total amount of heat absorbed (and rejected to the environment) will increase b/c the latter offsets the former.

Try it for yourself. Remove your thermostat completely, go drive around and let me know if it runs warmer or cooler.

I'm a licensed Professional Engineer (mechanical), and I do this every day at work.

[gt40]

What you gain when removing the thermostat is a larger orifice to increase the volumetric flow rate. This increases your cooling system capacity the exact same way a larger radiator would.

You are also removing the device that controls your engine temp, so it most certainly will run cooler.

[Wade]

At least the coolant will run cooler.

[D.Hearne]

You are misunderstanding thermodynamics.
The amount of heat absorbed per unit volume of the coolant will decrease.

But you are increasing the volumetric flow rate of the coolant.

The total amount of heat absorbed (and rejected to the environment) will increase b/c the latter offsets the former.

Try it for yourself. Remove your thermostat completely, go drive around and let me know if it runs warmer or cooler.

I'm a licensed Professional Engineer (mechanical), and I do this every day at work.

Where'd you get your degree? Walmart? If what you said was true, then why have the factorys equipped all vehicles with thermostats all these years? I can guarantee you that If I remove the T-Stat from any of my vehicles, two things will happen. They'll run hotter once the coolant reaches operating temps but take a lot longer to reach that point. You cannot design a system to run a constant temperature in a variable rpm and load range vehicle without something to regulate the coolant flow. That's the Thermostat's job. And if what you say is true, why aren't you working for the automakers in designing all their cooling systems?

[D.Hearne]

This is the exact same thing as a 55gpm electric pump versus a 35gpm pump.

Moot point, how many of us here are running electric waterpumps ? And those that are, at some point in the rpm range, chances are the electric pump's flow rating will be overcome by the amount of heat generated in an engine. I drive for a living and can tell you from experience, that heat can be generated faster in any engine in the right conditions, than most cooling systems can shed. There are exceptions but those are not the norm. And those exceptions have really large radiators,(Kenworth W900 & Pete 379's) larger than you can fit in 100% of the vehicles on the road today. And even those two can be overwelmed by higher horsepower engines if so spec'd.

[fastranger347]

try this, take out your thermostat from your house in the winter and your house will never get warm, see it works, thats amazing, really........ this is pointless, there is now substitution for an inadequate radiator, only bandaids, and all your doing with the restrictor setup is not running the engine at proper oil/ring/cylinder temps wich will increase ring wear........ im sure some shmuck will argue that too.

[Wade]

When you remove the T-stat, coolant is flowing more quickly through the system. So quickly that it doesn't have as much time for heat transfer. It flows past the temp sensor - the gage indicates its a little cooler than what you're usually accustom to seeing (Go ahead, put your confidence in that gage!). So --- where did that heat go? Its still in the block, the oil pan, and/or the exhaust. The coolant may be running cooler, but other engine components are NOT! That heat is somewhere looking for a "cold spot" to transfer to, and the coolant is now flowing too quickly for heat to transfer to it, efficiently. After the engine runs for long enough, the coolant temp will eventually rise to a more normal level. But, its flowing too quickly for it to efficiently shed that heat in the radiator. Over long periods of operation overheating may occur.

Install an oil temp gage, record your average oil temp after running down the highway for 1/2 hr, at "full temp - full load". Then, remove the T-stat. Repeat highway time and record your oil temp. I'd be interested to know your results.

"Its a free country!" You wanna' pull your T-stat out, do it. But, don't ask for sympathy, later.

[sdjr]

1. So then how about an oil cooler added in line with the remote filter?
2. Remember, it's a carb setup, so it doesn't need to run within 5 degrees of the coolant's boiling point.
3. If it all cracks and sh-its the bed, it's just a hobby, my daily driver is still the harley, can't beat 50mpg, just go back to the drawing board, and the pick a part, maybe do a 460 mounted in the bed.

[mxracer652]

Where'd you get your degree? Walmart? If what you said was true, then why have the factorys equipped all vehicles with thermostats all these years?

Factory equipped vehicles have T-stats to run hot for two reasons:
It lowers NOx emissions, and it keeps all the PCV EGR emissions crap clean. If you were a mechanical engineer and not a truck driver, you'd know that already. See? I can make unwarranted passive aggressive insults too. This is what happens when someone doesn't have any evidence to back up their claim. Nowhere did I attack you in this thread, but when shown & proven something that goes against Pastor Hearne's sermon, here come the insults.

I can guarantee you that If I remove the T-Stat from any of my vehicles, two things will happen. They'll run hotter once the coolant reaches operating temps but take a lot longer to reach that point. You cannot design a system to run a constant temperature in a variable rpm and load range vehicle without something to regulate the coolant flow. That's the Thermostat's job. And if what you say is true, why aren't you working for the automakers in designing all their cooling systems?

So in other words, you've never done it, or else you would say "I did remove the T-stat and they got hotter", rather than speculating.

Who says a constant temperature is the best solution? Thousands of vehicles from at least 5 major manufacturers come unrestricted from the factory.

How about keeping this on track with hands on experience, rather than playground tactics?

[mxracer652]

all your doing with the restrictor setup is not running the engine at proper oil/ring/cylinder temps wich will increase ring wear........ im sure some shmuck will argue that too.

Exactly what temperature is "proper" for oil/ring/cylinder?
And how much "extra" ring wear are we talking?

Serious question, not being a D-bag.