"Rice Over Greyforest" bumper mod for cooling...and great results!

[alex99gst]

Yeah, but that doesn't really offer any protection.

I don't want to get far off topic, but I was going to cut off the middle part of the bumper and bolt up the two side pieces, but still leave a little of the bumper there in case of an accident. If you think about it, there is no logical way another car could hit the front of your car and not also hit one of the bumpers still attached unless they hit it at some crazy angle. That's what I plan to do to shed some weight, but still retain some sort of protection.

 

[JrCRXHF]

I really think that a couple good puller fans will work find they will find the air on the front end of the car and move it where it needs to be.

I also have a 10 spal fan on my intercooler that i have on a switch to cool the hot side that is covered up my the bumper.

 

[Rice Over Wheat]

I really think that a couple good puller fans will work find they will find the air on the front end of the car and move it where it needs to be.

I also have a 10 spal fan on my intercooler that i have on a switch to cool the hot side that is covered up my the bumper.

I guess you haven't seen this thread: http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=258913&highlight=spal

Yes they help but they are only as good as their efficiency. With hood and radiator vents and the fmic fully exposed, the fans can displace hotter air faster and therefore become more effective.

Well, the "correct" way to do it would be to take one of the thermostats you have lying around, and literally block it open. Force it to be in an always full open mode using some metal clips. This is the preferred method for a couple reasons, one, it provides back pressure in the engine that the water pump pushes against and two, it restricts flow through the rad a little bit. The longer water sits in the rad, the cooler it gets. I'm not saying your way doesn't work, but when we are testing cooling systems on transit buses (probably one of the highest heat rejection applications) we use blocked open thermostats. I think an aluminum plate would work as well, but some trial and error would be needed to find how much suface area to drill.

A seized open 180 degree thermostat is where I started. While warm ups were faster, I didn't like how it still increased my engine temps.

Aside from my results where I am able to run very cool with the fans on (160s), I don't believe restricting flow increases cooling but I do think it is better for the water pump. Yes the radiator is responsible for cooling and theoretically the longer fluid stays there the more it cools, but the cooling system is a closed one where the fluid is constantly in motion. Imagine if you put a tiny device in the stream that you could track through all the pathways of flow...a faster stream would simply increase the frequency that the device enters the radiator and reduce the duration is does so. A slower stream would slow how many times the device enters the radiator but it would do so for a longer duration. Since the system is closed, there is fixed volume of fluid to carry heat, and the motion of fluid will be uniform for the volume of fluid in the system, I believe the "time" any fluid remains in the radiator will be the same irrespective of speed of the fluid through the system.

Back to real world results, slowing the flow with a stuck open thermostat does increase my heat significantly but I think this is due to less coolant travel, not speed. I'm trying to find a happy medium here where I can run exactly 180 to 190 and not have 10 min warm ups. My fan controller goes in today...I think this will do it and I'll post results and pics.

 

[95blackGsTurbo]

A for effort but not big on the design and no matter what you say running no thermostat is idiodic. You want your temps. to be around 200ish because the better those temps are the better gas milage you will get and the better atomization of fuel you get. Hence why cars run really rich when you start them and there is no temp. in the engine yet.

 

[Rice Over Wheat]

If you can show me any factual case where someone running 160 temps on a dd experienced any significant downsides such as damage, wear and tear, or...anyone running no thermostat in a hot climate experienced such things, then no matter what you say it's just hearsay and speculation. Some substantiation and/or logs would be nice.

My fuel trims are tuned within 3% in dsmlink. Care to explain why my gas mileage has not changed in 3 years when tuned and is within factory specs for a 96 turbo eclipse? I keep a log of it on every gas tank I fill.

 

[VanIsleDSM]

You're saying that your gas milage stayed exactly the same going from running ~200F to 160F?

I'm gonna have to call the BS card on that one.. there's no way.

A cooler running engine will also make less power.. moderation is key.. you shouldn't have it too cold or too hot.. either is bad.. stick to what it should run at.. stick to what it's designed for.. and I'd also add a tick to the put the thermo back in side.. that's not smart.. you need the right flow and backpressure.. you're not supposed to just have unregulated flow of the cooling system all the time..

It's like running an oil cooler with no t-stat.. you don't want it that cold.

If you want more accurate control of the temperature of your engine with less hysteresis (the lag of the t-stat opening) then you could just a digital temperature switch co control an electronic valve for coolent flow... but even so.. I think the t-stat opening slowely is how it's supposed to go.. as the engine warms gradually more coolant flows...

 

[Rice Over Wheat]

You "think" or you know? Some of you guys are speculating without backing up anything with any data or facts. I'm experimenting here with certain objectives as stated in this thread and have accomplished most of them. Basically, I'm creating the observations and data for my own project which I base my conclusions on. "Because mitsubishi says so" isn't an argument. Kind of like they really intended for me to be running 400 hp on a daily driver? I was wondering why my car was less reliable. Perhaps I should put my EGR and emissions back in? Nah.

Yes my mileage has stayed the same over 3 years. 18 mpg city, the low end of factory specs for this car. But you're right, I'm here to deceive you because I work for big oil and really want you to perform all these mods so you spend more at the pump. You got me. If you don't want to run cold, don't. The purpose of this thread is to show how low temps can be accomplished on a car that runs hot.

I'd still like to see any examples of anyone who had problems running 160F daily driver over the last 17 years of DSM history. I can show you plenty of overheating catastrophes while you're diligently searching.

 

[VanIsleDSM]

There's probably no info on that because nobody has done it.. in a DSM anyway..

I don't "think" that a colder running engine burns more gas, makes less power, and wears out faster.. I know it does...


Each time ignition occurs in a cooler engine more heat is transfered into the cylinders walls and head than would be used in a hotter engine to push the piston down..

These Engines run best around 180deg, that's what you want.. when it's colder than this tollerances aren't as tight and there's more wear in the engine, everyone knows cold starts are the worste for wear and tear.. this is why.

But if you want to experiment go right ahead.. but waiting until Christmas and deciding that it's all good isn't exactly a valid conclusion.. the bad side of this might not show up for years..

I'm not speculating here.. this is just the way it is, you can search around and try and find more info on it, but I'm certain you'll reach the same conclusions.. I don't have any graphs comparing engine wear and output between different engine temps unfortunately.

 

[Rice Over Wheat]

I don't know if you've read every post in this thread, but a lot of what you've written above agrees with me.

I already acknowledged running cold can increase wear on an engine. Engines run best at operating temps, hence why they should be warmed up in cold weather. However, like some people who have upgraded to larger turbo setups, my engine temps increased significantly over that of an internally gated T28 setup. By 20F in fact (225F+), which is why I started this project because I was losing performance to timing pulls. My goal once again: To run 180 to 190 engine temps and less than 115 intake temps in Florida summer heat with ambient temps as high as 100F!

I know exactly what temps the ecu pulls timing and sets fuel trims as I have pasted the code's numbers from Thomas of dsmlink in several threads. In a 2G fuel trims are set at 180F which is where you need to operate over in order to maintain your best fuel economy. I have already stated that my LTFT Lo and LTFT Mid fuel trims have been set within 3% in dsmlink. This is done with the airflow sliders and correctly setting injector base correction and deadtime. Also, I stated that my desire is to run at 180 to 190F which will be accomplished with my dual fan controller -- I was installing this yesterday until I blew a fuse and needed to wait until today so I can get some more relays.

I can tell you for a fact that I am not making less power. In fact, I am making far MORE power through no pulling of timing. The ecu pulls timing over 100F intake temps and over 206F engine temps. Considering I used to have as much as 4 degrees of timing pulled thanks to hot temps and now have none, you do the math.

Yes you are right that additional engine wear may take years to show up if it happens. I'm willing to take that risk since I am in FL where it never truly gets cold, I have a low miles car, and I never go to the track or abuse the car since it is a dd. I take the necessary precautions such as allowing my car to fully warm up to 160 before giving any real throttle and I'm adding safeguards to monitor and control my exact cooling temperatures. Where I do believe my setup can cause a problem is water pump wear from unrestrained flow...something I plan to address.

Lastly gas mileage...as I said my mileage has remained consistent when tuned for a few years now, however remember that I just completed most of this mod last week and have only filled up a new tank once since then. After a month I shall know how fuel economy has been affected. But again, rolling like a Prius is not the objective of this thread.

 

[VanIsleDSM]

Faster now than when you were running at 225F and getting timing pulled yeah... but not faster than if you were running 180-200F.. it's good to get your temps down to where they should be, but not lower.

 

[Rice Over Wheat]

Do you actually know what you are talking about or are you just speculating again? Because you sound like you're confusing fuel economy with power output. Better yet, explain in detail regarding why you think I would lose power at 160 vs 180 vs 200. Be sure to address how the timing curve changes below 180 since there is no provision for that in the ecu code.

I'm waiting for some substantiation to your arguments.

 

[VanIsleDSM]

I already explained how you lose more power in post #58, read back..

I don't need to substantiate my arguments more than I already have, I put in plain english what happens when you run too cold..


This whole thread you've just been totally ignorant to what people have had to say about your extra cold running engine with no t-stat.. I'm not gonna bother any more

 

[Rice Over Wheat]

Just as I thought, you don't know what you're talking about. Here's a tip: no one is going to take you seriously if you can't back up your theories with sound logic based on something factual. You should update your profile because no offense but you sound like you have a near stock car which would explain why you couldn't substantiate your "theory". Now if you have nothing of substance (on topic) to add to this thread feel free to move along.

Now back on topic...

Installed my Dakota Digital 0-300F sender right above the thermostat housing. I tried to locate it close to the stock sender location in order to get a similar read, as well as in a location where it would be in the flow of coolant.

I installed my Dakota Digital guages today as well: a water temp and boost/vac gauge. Both are programmable. For example, the water temp gauge can be set at a user defined temperature where you want to be alerted to high temps. Mine is set at 202F after which it will blink. The boost/vac gauge can do the same for a user defined psi limit, plus it has peak hold...it uses an electronic sender for higher accuracy compared to a regular analog boost gauge. By far, these gauges are the highest quality I've seen, especially for the price. The water temp gauge tracks very closely to what the ecu reads off the stock sender. By 200F+ there is about a 3 degree difference between the two senders probably due to the slightly different locations they are tapped. Also, the digital temp sender/gauge detects every degree whereas the ecu reads only every 3 degrees off the stock sender.

You can see I mounted my Dakota Digital dual fan controller. It is highly programmable and will give me complete control over what temp range I want my car to operate. I didn't get a chance to wire it up yet but will do so tomorrow.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

 

[thegchild04]

How does that fan controller work? Do you need a gauge to control it? Dakota Digital is a great company but there gauge wouldn't match my new gauges, so I wouldn't run them. I am definitely interested in the controller though.

 

[Rice Over Wheat]

It just takes away fan control from the inflexible and fashionably late ecu settings. Just connect the fans through a relay to the controller instead of allowing the ecu to handle it. The fan controller lets you customize all kinds of ways your fans operate. In my opinion it's a better solution than just running fans all the time through a mod, chip, or dsmlink. If you can run cold enough, this will allow you to actually automate what temp range your car operates in. It's like climate control for your engine.

You don't need a gauge. You can even use the stock sender. The controller actually works off the sender since that is what outputs the temp. There's all kinds of configurations to use...check it out here:

http://www.dakotadigital.com/pdf/pac-2000b.pdf

 

[staticbrainwash]

Is there an rpm or speed sensor in it as well? Because at a certain speed the fans stop cooling and start actually blocking incoming air.

 

[Rice Over Wheat]

No, no rpm or speed sensor.

I've heard this from other people but in practice I don't see it being true. It's very easy to test that by driving at cruising speeds (60-80 mph) and measuring your temps with the fans running and with them off. Even with my system as it is currently, the difference between the two is literally 25 degrees...in favor of running the fans while at speed. Maybe you need to go very fast, like 100+. What certain speed are you talking about? I understand the theory behind this where fans might act as obstructions to air flowing at a certain rate, but that would require the incoming air flowing at a faster rate than the fans, and incoming air is slowed by the fmic, a/c condensor, and radiator before it reaches the fans. Again, in practice, I get far faster cooling from hot temps with fans on than fans off, and this is while cruising.

Btw...I found my first "downside" to radiator vents: road debris. I have been getting all kinds of crap stuck in my a/c condensor. For some reason, it seems much worse than what the fmic gets. Pebbles from the road get kicked up from other cars a lot higher than I ever knew.

 

[VanIsleDSM]

Ok pal.. usually I don't get involved this much with folk like you who think they know it all... and that because my DSM that I've only owned for less than a year isn't heavily modded yet so I must know nothing about automobiles right? good call there buddy, that's not ignorant at all... which doesn't flow with your trend either.. ha

Since I guess you didn't look back and re-read the post I politely directed you to, I'll restate what I said..

When your engine is colder more of the power generated by ignition goes into heating up the walls of the cylinders (closer to 180, the min prefered operationg temp that you seam to want to reinvent) than goes into pushing the piston down and creating power.. that's only part of the equation.. This isn't my theory, it's a fact, you're totally oblivious here.. you obviously won't take me seriously because I don't have a lot of posts and a super fast DSM, oh well.

I think you're getting overly hostile towards me for no reason here, maybe you should hook one of you're fans up in front of your computer there to cool down a little..

 

[tkelly27]

While true the higher temperature difference will lead to greater heat transfer between the walls of the cylinder and the burning gas, it's not the massive power robbing event you're making it out to be.

Considering the amount of time the charge spends in the combustion chamber, and the fact that it's burning at 1600* and the difference between 200* and 180* is only 20*.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_conduction
If we consider it stuck there and not moving, check out the second equation. The dT is the temperature difference. It's 1400 vs. 1420. That's 7/10th's of a %. First one to find out what the K and A values are and figure out the amount of energy lost over .006 seconds (that's how long the charge is burning in the cylinder @ 5k before the exhaust valve opens) get's a cookie!

Additionally, because it takes time to have heat transfer, and we're talking fractions of a second that the charge is burning, there is generally a boundry layer on the cylinder walls that never ever gets to the burning temperature. That's my understand of the theory behind "squish" (also called quench), also why you get unburnt fuel or air no matter what you do. That is to say, there is a lot more that goes into it than simple temperature difference.

Meanwhile... in a secret lab...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air#Effects_of_temperature_and_pressure
A 20* change in temperature of air can alter it's density 10% or more. This one is a simple temp. difference. That's 10% more air that's not based on the amount of time spent in the cylinder or on a constant (that is Uber low, did you look it up?). Additionally running cooler prevents detonation allowing for more advanced spark timing, also making much more useable pressure for pushing the pistons down.

Higher thermostat temps are used for economy and emissions, not to conserve energy in the cylinders. When you run to cold you can keep the fuel from atomizing properly (especially under boost) and affect oil pressures.

Anyone can feel free to correct any of that, I'm not perfect...

How could you argue the fact that he's getting less knock and making more power?

Anyways, you can go ahead and run your engine at the boiling limit of whatever cooling fluid you choose to run, I'm sure your oil will love you, and so will your knock sensor.

 

[VanIsleDSM]

I didn't think I was making it out to be a massive power robbing event.. because it's not.. I also exclaimed that the cylinder walls absorbing enegery was only a part of the equation..

http://www.answers.com/topic/###-lussac-s-law-1 edit: wow this censorship is anoying sometimes...
http://www.answers.com/topic/g*a*y-lussac-s-law-1 copy paste and delete the stars I guess.

Hotter burning engines make more power, there's no arguing that, obviously this is to a point.. too hot and timing is pulled.. obviously you don't want that.. and I definitly never said that I would run my car at the boiling limit of my fluid? ..or that he was making more power while knocking and getting timing pulled.

You're totally trying to blow what I'm saying out of proportion tkelly, trying to make it out like I'm saying you should run some super hot engine.. I don't know how you derived any of that out of my posts.. (although it would be great to run a super hot engine with no cooling system, you'd make huge power, this is why ceramic engines are in developement)

It's great to have to cooling capacity to be able to run at 160, however you should be running at 180... that's all I've been saying..

That and the cooling systeming wasn't designed to flow without a t-stat.. and the longer warm ups mean lots more wear and tear, blow by, cold oil.. blah blah..

But Rice already ackowledged that he's shortening the life of his motor by running cold.. hey.. whatever you're into.

 

[TwoLiterLaser]

My goal once again: To run 180 to 190 engine temps and less than 115 intake temps in Florida summer heat with ambient temps as high as 100F!

He is not attempting to operate at 160. He was testing his system and found that it could get his car to that point. Rice is merely showing us that he has devised a cooling system that can cool his car more than it needs to be.

Good job Rice Over Wheat, and I like the way your car looks.

 

[pboglio]

Right. The whole point is to provide enough BTU shedding capability into the cooling system, giving the thermostat the ability to control the coolant temps within its target range. I personally wouldn't run colder than stock. I myself like to run in the 196*F, gives me a 10*F cushion against timing retard and provides quicker warmup.

I have a stretch of road in front of my house that I do all my datalogging on, based on that my car logs the highest airflow, torque, in gear acceleration times, etc. when the motor is still warming up, say around 150*F. It is the same pattern every time I log, faster during warmup, slower every time after that. My car is always fastest with a cold motor.

 

[Rice Over Wheat]

Great discussion Tkelly, TwoLiterLaser, and Pboglio...good info and saved me a lot of time. Any search for "overheating" and you can see that there are constantly new threads turning up every week where people are having overheating problems and are looking for ways to bring their temps down. Hopefully this thread can be of some help to them.

I was hoping to get my fan controller wired up today but I was forced to delay this thanks to swapping my brake master cylinder...a royal pain in the ass to bleed solo. I'll post results on the fan controller as soon as I get it operational over the next couple days. I feel like DSM Goldie Locks having to choose to keep fans always on with dsmlink and run cold or let the ecu handle it and run hot. I need it just right.

 

[PowerEclipses]

Rice, I'm going to be driving my 99gsx down to florida from PA and I just wanted to say that it seems like a good idea as far as it only being 20 degrees different. The person argueing about this situation lives in canada. You don't realize how hot it is down here I had over heating problems in Pennsylvania. So as far as running an open thermostat is a good idea in the right conditions.

 

[Splitpi]

Just out of curiosity, but have you tried thermal wrapping the header, O2 housing and downpipe to the flexible section? That may me more helpful than all the hood cutting.