Stroker project

I don't think I can move the check valve if I use the Mocal sandwich and keep my Accusump connected to the filter mount.

Late to the party with what might be a dumb question. What are the implications of running an additional oil cooler but not adding a full flow system as well? I realize they are separate systems but it seems from what I am reading that the two usually go together. 

 

I read in some of Gene Bergs musings that he sees little if any advantage in adding an oil cooler in engines that have the stock oil cooler from 1971 or newer. I think the caveat is that he is speaking of stock or nearly stock engines, not strokers.

Bob:

 

I'm running a stout 2,110 (therefore, a stroker) and have a complete, 1971 Fan shroud with the bigger fan, all of the necessary cooling tinwork including the air vanes and thermostat.  I also have the 8" hole in the firewall in front of the fan inlet.

 

With all that, the engine tended to get pretty hot (220+F) on highways in Summer.  Enough that it bothered me and I went to the trouble of modifying the case for true full flow and adding an external filter and fan-assisted cooler (in the left rear wheel well).  After the mods, it runs about 200F when I'm moving and will go up to about 205F when immediately stopping from a highway (like at a light).

 

My answer to Gene Berg that the additional cooling should be unnecessary if the stock 1971-or-newer cooling system is used would be:  The stock VW sedan seems to have a LOT more air inlet capability to the engine compartment than our typical Speedster bodies have, that we're starved for inlet air and the external cooler makes up for punching a bunch of holes into a classic body that never had them.  It's a giant Band-Aid, but it works.

 

"Full Flow" implies that ALL of the oil flow exists from the pump externally to the engine, gets routed through a filter and cooler and then flows back into the engine, preferably directly into the oil gallery where nice, cooled oil flows directly to the bearings.

 

Some so-called 'full flow' systems simply replace the cover of the oil pump with an adapter that flows some of the oil (the amount varies by adapter design, but is usually less than 100%) out of the engine to a filter and maybe also has provisions for an external cooler.  The problem with this design is whatever percentage of oil NOT going out to the filter/cooler (and it may be a significant amount) is not getting cooled or filtered and is going right back into the engine.  This engine will run hotter than one with a true, "Full Flow" system that can cool all of the oil system flow.

 

This help?

 

EDIT-   Just found this on the Berg site:  "One interesting note was that when I installed the 1971 system in my 1967 VW, I had to add more air intake. The convertible louvered trunk lid was required to get full cooling benefit and take advantage of the higher CFM fan."

 

Wow......Imagine that!

Gene Berg was an advocate of lower compression ratios.

Thanks Gordon. As always, concise and clear.

Berg was an advocate of lower compression ratios (something like 6.9 or 6.9:1 (!)) because of the God-Awful quality of gasoline available.  (This should give the SoCal guys a chuckle, especially if they're driven to Mexico and fueled up there with their 38 Octane (I'm kidding) PEMEX swill.)  These ratios work well with the 87 and 91 Octane gas available today, given the internal dimensions of stock VW heads.  LOTS of us run higher C/R's and seem to be doing OK, given that we probably generate more heat in our Strokers than stock.

 

However!  Mostly what you'll see (and have to manage) with higher C/R's is pre-ignition detonation (knocking) which, in a VW engine, sounds like you're grinding up Walnuts in the engine under power.  Believe it or not, THAT's a big reason the 009 distributor, with it's overly conservative spark advance curve, came along - it doesn't give you a hell of a lot of advance below about 2,400 rpm so you're well up within the power curve before the advance comes on and the engine tolerates detonation better (actually, what it does is mask the knocking at low rpm's where it is more noticeable).

 

Berg was not wrong (about a LOT of stuff), but we have a few different things to consider with our cars and that's why we sometimes differ from his views.

 

BUT!  This was Mike's thread about getting his oil cooling/filtering system spec'd out and installed, so let's get back to that...  

 

Sorry for the drift, Mike.  The fingers took off and the next thing you know.......

Ol' Gene was a pretty smart guy, but people have more than proven that higher cr's  can work with today's gas, when matched to the camshaft duration and the rest of the combo. I'm as big a Berg fan as anybody, but he got this one wrong.

More later (redoing my daughter's bedroom today)...Al

 

Michael- Tee in the Accusump down the return hose closer to the engine and plug the mount; that way you can run the check valve right behind.

 

Bob- Not setting up for a full flow filter when you have the opportunity is foolish; don't be so lazy. The benefits of f. f. filtering are too great to pass up!

Gordon, I am concerned about compression ratio too. With my current engine built with parts bought after a conversation with Gene I am now running 6.9:1.

OK, how about this plumbing arrangement:

 

 

... and Jake Raby is not. They are (or were, in the case of Gene) both very smart guys, but the laws of physics haven't changed. So somewhere in there is a difference of opinion worth considering. Gene Berg was willing to give up "a bit" (how much? Gene said 5%, but some guys think it's closer to 15%) of power to gain a measure of safety. Jake Raby squeezes every last bit of power out of whatever it is he's working on-- but guys with his engines don't seem to overheat and die a lingering death in the desert like a lot of engines from the SoCal go-fast drag-race shops.

 

Gordon's a smart guy too, but I'm not chugging the "better fuel" Kool-Aide to explain the difference in perspective between Gene and everybody else. Everybody has an opinion regarding modern fuels and here's mine:

 

I keep hearing online (again, and again, and again) how oxygenated fuel (E10) is the devil's own brew. And now it's better? How is that so? More on that in a bit...

 

Fuel in Gene Berg's day was leaded and had nice knock-resistance, so the octane ratings (for knock resistance) were nice and high. Still, he advocated CRs set for running on kerosene or something. A large part of why was the difference in combustion chamber technology. There just wasn't very much known in the '60s and '70s about what really worked well. The hot set-up was a hemispherical combustion chamber, which has since proven to be... well, not so good. Modern engines are running CRs unheard of back in the day. A good deal of that is EFI and crank-fired ignition with knock-sensors, but no small part of it is a wedge-shaped combustion chamber and a good understanding of "quench", etc. The new "big-boy head guys" all understand this, and have adjusted accordingly. People (me included) are running 9:1 all the time on W120 (or similar) cams, as long as you are committed to finding the best gas available.

 

What "the best fuel available" actually means has changed over the years. I used to go (way) out of my way to get 93 octane without ethanol. Ethanol is hygroscopic (it likes water), and it doesn't play nice with rubber and some metals. It's btu content is also quite a bit lower than a similar amount of gasoline. But the mass usage of it is not just the result of a strong farm lobby (although that has something to do with it as well)-- it actually has some very nice benefits. The ability to run a higher CR without detonation is one of them.

 

Straight ethanol has an octane rating of about 109. It also evaporates easily, cooling the intake charge to some degree. When my engine was in it's 2332 configuration with an FK44-ish cam and 10:1 CR, it actually ran better on E10 and a bit more timing advance than was possible on 93 octane with no Ethanol. It's counter intuitive (if you spend any time at all on the internet), but your car might actually run better on E10, if your CR is high enough to take advantage of it. Mine does. Since gas without ethanol is almost impossible to find, building a car specifically to run on it seems really stubborn.

 

Lots of smart VW drag racer types are running E85 on turbo cars with 9:1 or higher compression ratios (12-13:1 on NA cars). Regardless, E10 is what we've got. We may as well make use of the benefits, since we are living with the negatives.

 

In short-- times have changed since Gene was dispensing wisdom. Jake Raby runs some pretty high CRs. Gene advocated for some pretty crazy low ones (6.9:1 falls in that camp for me). Something in-between is probably a great idea for a daily driver.

 

 

To be honest, I understand this drawing even less than the one you posted up above.

 

I still stand by the drawing I provided as the circuit I would build in your case.

 

Oh!  And I'm running an 8.2:1 C/R on Pearl.

Gordon,

 

The top part of the drawing is a modification of my current setup.

 

I moved the check valve from the filter in side to the filter out side and I moved the Accusump connection so it would still be downstream from the check valve.

 

Below I show the Mocal sanddwich thing that goes between the filter mount and the filter.

 

These changes were in response to Stan's and Al's comments.

 

I think it functions the same as yours but you are using a different oil switch.

Yup, you're right - I see it now, and that set-up should work just fine, Mike.

 

Sorry I didn't see it before...

 

gn

No problem Gordon, I appreciate your contribution to the discussion.

I now am starting to wonder about mounting location.

 

The newest Setrab coolers have a more compact fan which might open up more possible locations.

 

Some people advocate putting it over the transmission. Wouldn't that generate hot air that could go through the opening in the "firewall" in front of the engine fan?

Yes

Mine, space permitting, will go in the left rear fender well.  I'm not sure it will fit with the filter and the bypass valve. There is only so much to mount in that space all that equipment, I'm afraid it won't fit. I've just been putting it off.

 

Ted

I am not sure what Stan was saying yes to. I think it was hot air would go
into the engine fan.

Other than that the above the trans location would keep the cooler away
from road debris and spray.

If I mount the cooler against a flat surface I wonder how much clearance it
would need.

Mine is horizontally mounted behind the rear torsion bar tube and between the transaxle and the spring plate.  I'll see if I can find a picture.

I think this would work with swing axle cars but not with IRS.

True.  I forgot you had IRS.

I used this DeRale cooler:

 

 

 

 

And put it here:

 

 

 

And it looks like this, with the fan switch at the top left of the cooler body:

 

 

 

Since I installed it, I have re-arranged the return hose so that it's dressed away from the valve cover and runs along the body frame allowing full access for valve clearance checks (all it took was a big, double clamp for electrical conduit with some insulating shrink tube on it to protect the hoses and to hold them in place and out of the way.

 

It's been in there since 2004 I think, always had the protective screen on it and I have had zero problems with it in that location.  The only time you know it's there is when you shut the engine off after a hard run and hear the fan winding down.

 

I wouldn't mount it over or near the transaxle because I have a big hole in the firewall pushing air from the void behind the seat into the fan inlet.  Putting the cooler in the wheel well effectively isolates it into a robust air flow that seems to work well.

Found one more shot:

 

 

Ted-

 

It'll fit. I've got a 96 plate cooler with a fan. It fits.

That's what I was saying.

 

In my opinion, the best place to mount a cooler (on a normal wet-sump system) is where there is the most isolation from the rest of the cooling system, with the shortest possible lines. Above the transaxle has neither. In the LR fenderwell has both.

 

I was nervous about road debris as well, but if something is big enough to damage the oil cooler, it's going to be big enough to damage the rest of the oil lines, filter, etc.-- to say nothing of the fiberglass itself. I've driven over garbage I was sure must've been a chunk of a booster rocket from the space shuttle it was so big. So far, so good.

 

Dry sump engines (like mine) can get away with really long lines if they are on the first stage (suction) circuit. That's why Porsche put coolers in the front of the car on air-cooled 911s. Up front, the cooler(s) get enormous amounts of free air, but that's a long, long way to expect an oil pump on a "normal" (wet sump) engine to push oil before it sees the bearings. If you put the cooler very far away, please make sure you have a working Accusump, and that it's piped in properly. It'll be 15 seconds after start-up for the bearings to see any oil pressure without.

 

(I'm talking to you, Ron O'Black) 

I have been wondering if oil drains out of the cooler resulting in air in the system.

 

Also, do you know if the Setrab brackets space it the proper amount from a flat surface?

My cooler is (unfortunately it seems from this conversation) mounted above the transaxle and is wired to run whenever the engine is operating. I do not have a full flow system on my 2110 but it looks like that is going on the list of stuff I should do.

 

Given that, I suppose moving the cooler into the wheel well at the same time is the thing to do.

 

I gotta stop looking at these threads, it's killing me.

"I have been wondering if oil drains out of the cooler resulting in air in the system."

 

Nope - haven't seen that.

 

The DeRale is spaced away from the surface it mounts to by about 3/4" - that's it - and it seems to work fine.

What size lines should I be running to the cooler, assuming it is close to the filter, -8?

-8 for your oil lines. Your cooler will be fine unless there is a leak somewhere. As Gordon said, 3/4" will work.

-8AN is perfect. -6AN can be restrictive depending on your engine size and -10AN is sort of over kill unless you're running some high pressure in that badboy, plus -10AN can be tough to bend and route in the restricted engine bay size/placement of the cooler.

 

Personally, I like to use push-lock -8 hose and not braided line... just a personal preference.

I am not familiar with push-loc. I will check it out.

 

My full flow kit I got from Gene Berg uses -6 lines between the engine and filter, I am pretty sure.

They also make -6 to -8 conversion fittings. Push-lock/aka Jiffy hose, you can get it from Parker Store, Summit Racing, Jegs, etc.

I'm running 8AN hoses, although as my car has evolved over the years I now have a mix of $tainle$$ Braided hoses and heat-resistant rubber hoses.  No big reason for the differences, other than availability, and they all work fine.  I believe that 8AN hose has an ID close to 1/2" but on the small side.

 

When I originally did the conversion I lived in Rhode Island and had a local guy who makes marine and construction hoses do them.  Hoses and fittings for the filter and cooler cost about $150, all done.  For stainless braided hose, plan on $10 per foot of hose length and $10 per end fitting and you should come in pretty close.

I picked up a bunch of push lock fittings and some 1/2 ID push lock compatible hose. While laying everything out this weekend, I found that I'm two connectors short. Back to the store for those. Once I have them, I just need to 'man up' and dive into this project.

 

I have been putting it off while I tracked down a few oil leaks. I also was hoping to time this in conjunction with an oil change so I could swap out and tap a new stud into the sump.

 

 

 

Ted

 

Michael- If you got your full flow kit from Berg I'm betting it's -8 hose.

I'm just about certain it is -6.

 

I will measure it to check.

 

My Accusump has a matching size so I think it is -6 too.

 

In the past I have thought about me having -6 when other people have -8.

 

I am a little nervous about trying to change the fittings in the case. I don't know if a bigger one would fit behind the crank pulley.

 

I've been watching pretty closely as this thread unravels, as my next project, too, is moving my oil cooler from over the tranny to the wheel well. I've got the standard cooler VS installed and will probably upgrade to a Setrab for the relocation.

 

I think I can corroborate that the compartment over the tranny is a bad place to mount an oil cooler. As I've posted here before, I tried adding a fan over the 8-inch hole in the firewall to blow air from that compartment into the engine compartment. I went out for a test run on a 90-degree day, climbed a steep, mile-long hill on the freeway, turned the fan on, and saw higher engine temps than I'd ever seen before. With that fan OFF, the engine runs cooler.

 

Again, I'm not talking about the fan attached to the oil cooler, which I turn on manually whenever the oil temp on the gauge reaches half-way.

 

The compartment over the tranny gets very hot if that's where the oil cooler is mounted. If I turn on my bulkhead fan after everything's warmed up, the air coming through the firewall hole is hotter than the air in the engine compartment.

 

So, I'm moving the oil cooler to the wheel well to shorten the oil lines, yes, and to get it closer to the oil filter that's already there, but mainly so the cooler will be surrounded by a better flow of cooler air and do its job better.

 

And who knows, maybe with the cooler out of the tranny compartment, my bulkhead fan will actually help engine cooling, but I'm having my doubts, as both Stan and Terry Nuckels have had little success with similar efforts.

 

Maybe there's a reason engineers use complicated computer models, wind tunnels, and real science to figure this stuff out.

 

And oh, talking about Setrab coolers, I think most Speedster folks use this one, mainly due to its small size. Am I right?

 

http://www.setrabusa.com/produ...cks/fp920/index.html

 

 

 

 

 

If not, can someone point me in the right direction?

 

 

I have been laboring under the assumption that people are using the single fan model.

 

I found it interesting to learn that these are made in Sweden.

 

I see that we are up to page 2.  Watch out Lane!

 

 

This is the cooler that both Teby and I run (er... will run):

http://www.setrabusa.com/produ...cks/fp119/index.html

 

It's (as Michael said) a single fan unit. Really compact.  Something like 9" x 9" X 4.5".  I ordered mine (complete with fittings, the fan thermostat switch, etc.) directly from the good folks at Beck.

 

Ted