Oil cooler comparison and discussion
11-03-08, 08:24 PM
#1
Oil cooler comparison and discussion
There are several options for oil coolers on the market some known good options and some less looked at options. Im looking for discussions about them. The key players that i can think of are; Mocal, Earl's, B&M, Perma-cool, and fluidyne.
For comparison sake im trying to use coolers that are as close to 6" tall and 11" wide as possible.
Mocal and Earl's look like they may be the same or at least vert similar. best info i can find is a 19 row cooler will shed about 45000btu/hr @60mph
B&M is a basic bar and plate and very well priced, rated at 15,000btu/hr but no speed is given
Perma-Cools are a really nice tube and fin design and somewhat pricey, in the comparable size is rated at 300-450hp
Fluidine is very pricey, looks something like an intercooler, and holds the most oil, it is rated at 70000btu @ 60mph
Id like to get an idea of the B&M's btu's @ 60mph.
I would also like to get an idea of what the stock cooler's would be rated at.
For comparison sake im trying to use coolers that are as close to 6" tall and 11" wide as possible.
Mocal and Earl's look like they may be the same or at least vert similar. best info i can find is a 19 row cooler will shed about 45000btu/hr @60mph
B&M is a basic bar and plate and very well priced, rated at 15,000btu/hr but no speed is given
Perma-Cools are a really nice tube and fin design and somewhat pricey, in the comparable size is rated at 300-450hp
Fluidine is very pricey, looks something like an intercooler, and holds the most oil, it is rated at 70000btu @ 60mph
Id like to get an idea of the B&M's btu's @ 60mph.
I would also like to get an idea of what the stock cooler's would be rated at.
11-04-08, 03:13 PM
#2
A direct comparison is going to be difficult because of the number of variables involved. I suspect you reference the Fluidyne racing unit, which is twice as thick as the others. Modine makes some race units similar to the Fluidyne as well. The popularly priced Fluidyne street unit is going to be similar in capacity to stock due to its construction; it's a good cooler. (The stock unit is very good, and its designed for minimal restriction of airflow, a factor in the FD app.) Earls, Mocal, Setrab are all excellent coolers with less restriction to oil flow, but somewhat more restriction to airflow which requires more attention to ducting, etc., to get full benefit.
At the end of the day, I'm not sure that replacing the stock coolers with anything else of similar dimensions is going to buy you anything since they are a very good cooler to begin with.
At the end of the day, I'm not sure that replacing the stock coolers with anything else of similar dimensions is going to buy you anything since they are a very good cooler to begin with.
11-04-08, 03:33 PM
#3
I use Mocal cores in my oil cooler kit. I have both a 19 row and 25 row version. The main benefit to the larger version is to fill the openings of some of the larger bumpers. The stock bumper, 99 bumper, and many others just don't have big enough openings.
11-05-08, 09:38 PM
#4
never really looked at the cheaper fluidyne cooler. It does look similar to stock. would it be fair to say that Stock, mocal/earls, and this are all comprable?
Any thoughts on the B&M? Im really curious on how it ranks with the rest, i can assume its not as good but by how much?
Im running the stock cooler and a 6x11 B&M currently, i race at 2 tracks, one of them i have zero temperature control issues, the other one has one 1/4 mile and 5/8th mile straight and the car is at full throttle for a LONG time at that track and my oil temps like to sit around 240-250 depending on the outside temp. Im trying to get the temps to the 215-225 range. I only want replace the B&M because of how i have my lines made it will be an easy change. Im hoping I can find a single cooler thats effective enough to do this.
Any thoughts on the B&M? Im really curious on how it ranks with the rest, i can assume its not as good but by how much?
Im running the stock cooler and a 6x11 B&M currently, i race at 2 tracks, one of them i have zero temperature control issues, the other one has one 1/4 mile and 5/8th mile straight and the car is at full throttle for a LONG time at that track and my oil temps like to sit around 240-250 depending on the outside temp. Im trying to get the temps to the 215-225 range. I only want replace the B&M because of how i have my lines made it will be an easy change. Im hoping I can find a single cooler thats effective enough to do this.
11-06-08, 06:19 PM
#5
never really looked at the cheaper fluidyne cooler. It does look similar to stock. would it be fair to say that Stock, mocal/earls, and this are all comprable?
Any thoughts on the B&M? Im really curious on how it ranks with the rest, i can assume its not as good but by how much?
Im running the stock cooler and a 6x11 B&M currently, i race at 2 tracks, one of them i have zero temperature control issues, the other one has one 1/4 mile and 5/8th mile straight and the car is at full throttle for a LONG time at that track and my oil temps like to sit around 240-250 depending on the outside temp. Im trying to get the temps to the 215-225 range. I only want replace the B&M because of how i have my lines made it will be an easy change. Im hoping I can find a single cooler thats effective enough to do this.
Any thoughts on the B&M? Im really curious on how it ranks with the rest, i can assume its not as good but by how much?
Im running the stock cooler and a 6x11 B&M currently, i race at 2 tracks, one of them i have zero temperature control issues, the other one has one 1/4 mile and 5/8th mile straight and the car is at full throttle for a LONG time at that track and my oil temps like to sit around 240-250 depending on the outside temp. Im trying to get the temps to the 215-225 range. I only want replace the B&M because of how i have my lines made it will be an easy change. Im hoping I can find a single cooler thats effective enough to do this.
11-06-08, 06:44 PM
#6
We chose the Fluidyne oil coolers for our "parallel flow"systems for the FD RX7-our decision was based on performance,efficiency, and fitment. (we have installed other coolers)
Results were drastic reduction in both oil & water temps. Parallel oil flow to both coolers does make a significant diference in efficiency.
Details: http://rotorsportsracing.com/perform...oilcoolers.htm
Results were drastic reduction in both oil & water temps. Parallel oil flow to both coolers does make a significant diference in efficiency.
Details: http://rotorsportsracing.com/perform...oilcoolers.htm
11-06-08, 07:30 PM
#7
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: vancouver BC
Posts: 598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We chose the Fluidyne oil coolers for our "parallel flow"systems for the FD RX7-our decision was based on performance,efficiency, and fitment. (we have installed other coolers)
Results were drastic reduction in both oil & water temps. Parallel oil flow to both coolers does make a significant diference in efficiency.
Details: http://rotorsportsracing.com/perform...oilcoolers.htm
Results were drastic reduction in both oil & water temps. Parallel oil flow to both coolers does make a significant diference in efficiency.
Details: http://rotorsportsracing.com/perform...oilcoolers.htm
what are the dimensions for the oil cooler?
Trending Topics
11-06-08, 09:45 PM
#11
hmm, never considered the parallel setup, do you have any benchmarks to say how much better it cools? I didnt want to mess with my lines but I wouldnt mind trying something different.
Also the more i look at the "regular" fluidyne the more attractive it is. Overall how satisfied are you with them?
Also the more i look at the "regular" fluidyne the more attractive it is. Overall how satisfied are you with them?
11-07-08, 01:10 AM
#12
That speaks well for the cooling capacity of your coolers and/or ducting. Are you running an oil T-stat? 180 F is actually a little too cool for most efficient operation (re minimum friction from the lubricant). 220 deg F is about the right point for most oils and does a better job of flashing off contaminants such as fuel & condensate.
Last edited by Speed of light; 11-07-08 at 01:13 AM.
11-07-08, 01:50 AM
#13
hmm, never considered the parallel setup, do you have any benchmarks to say how much better it cools? I didnt want to mess with my lines but I wouldnt mind trying something different.
Also the more i look at the "regular" fluidyne the more attractive it is. Overall how satisfied are you with them?
Also the more i look at the "regular" fluidyne the more attractive it is. Overall how satisfied are you with them?
The most important thing here is ducting to get max air pressure drop across the coolers, and hence, max airflow through the coolers. They cannot reject heat without airflow. This is usually the limiting factor, not so much the cooler itself. That being said, stock coolers were sized for stock engines and their anticipated use. Increasing their size and/or efficiency proportionally to power output (i.e., relative to the increase in # of fuel per hour burned) is not a bad idea (hence the factory's addition of a second cooler for the R1's).
Coolers such as the Earls, Setrab, Mocal and Fluidyne are similar in performance for any given size and any should work fine, properly sized. In situations where low or marginal air pressure differentials exist, I would suggest the Fluidyne as it has somewhat less resistance to airflow than the others due to wider fins (and a few less rows). I had a 20 row, and it's pently of cooler if you can get it to fit--IIRC it's slightly larger than the Earls, Mocal, Setrab 25 row units.
I currently use a 25 row Setrab with a pair of thermostatically controlled fans behind it. It works fine for general purpose use; if I were to track the car hard, I would probably add a second 19-->25 row unit in series.
Hope this helps.
11-07-08, 04:26 AM
#14
That speaks well for the cooling capacity of your coolers and/or ducting. Are you running an oil T-stat? 180 F is actually a little too cool for most efficient operation (re minimum friction from the lubricant). 220 deg F is about the right point for most oils and does a better job of flashing off contaminants such as fuel & condensate.
I do run a pretty high oil pressure in the winter time because the oil coolers a working to well, If i know that i am going to be driving at night for a long haul, I will use some cardboard behind the first oil cooler to decrease the cooling capability of the system.
11-07-08, 05:24 PM
#15
I think this is a fair question. From an engineering perspective, there should be little or no difference in performance between the series vs. parallel setups, all else being equal, and provided that the oil flow rate is not excessive. In fact, the series setup should be a bit better at getting the temperature closer to ambient by a very small margin. The parallel arrangement will provide good performance at very high oil flow rates (which I don't think you can achieve with a 13B).
The most important thing here is ducting to get max air pressure drop across the coolers, and hence, max airflow through the coolers. They cannot reject heat without airflow. This is usually the limiting factor, not so much the cooler itself. That being said, stock coolers were sized for stock engines and their anticipated use. Increasing their size and/or efficiency proportionally to power output (i.e., relative to the increase in # of fuel per hour burned) is not a bad idea (hence the factory's addition of a second cooler for the R1's).
Coolers such as the Earls, Setrab, Mocal and Fluidyne are similar in performance for any given size and any should work fine, properly sized. In situations where low or marginal air pressure differentials exist, I would suggest the Fluidyne as it has somewhat less resistance to airflow than the others due to wider fins (and a few less rows). I had a 20 row, and it's pently of cooler if you can get it to fit--IIRC it's slightly larger than the Earls, Mocal, Setrab 25 row units.
I currently use a 25 row Setrab with a pair of thermostatically controlled fans behind it. It works fine for general purpose use; if I were to track the car hard, I would probably add a second 19-->25 row unit in series.
Hope this helps.
The most important thing here is ducting to get max air pressure drop across the coolers, and hence, max airflow through the coolers. They cannot reject heat without airflow. This is usually the limiting factor, not so much the cooler itself. That being said, stock coolers were sized for stock engines and their anticipated use. Increasing their size and/or efficiency proportionally to power output (i.e., relative to the increase in # of fuel per hour burned) is not a bad idea (hence the factory's addition of a second cooler for the R1's).
Coolers such as the Earls, Setrab, Mocal and Fluidyne are similar in performance for any given size and any should work fine, properly sized. In situations where low or marginal air pressure differentials exist, I would suggest the Fluidyne as it has somewhat less resistance to airflow than the others due to wider fins (and a few less rows). I had a 20 row, and it's pently of cooler if you can get it to fit--IIRC it's slightly larger than the Earls, Mocal, Setrab 25 row units.
I currently use a 25 row Setrab with a pair of thermostatically controlled fans behind it. It works fine for general purpose use; if I were to track the car hard, I would probably add a second 19-->25 row unit in series.
Hope this helps.
In some of our customer's trackcars (for simplicity they operate with the oil thermostat removed) reported oil temps have not exceeded 235 degrees- (20-30 min.hot lapping sessions)
Our Parallel Dual system has also been installed with very good results on 3- 20B FD's we've done. (plus one that KD Rotary built)
11-07-08, 06:25 PM
#17
Found a tech form on fluidyne's website. The reply I got was that the high end fluidyne will shed roughly twice the heat as the cheaper one. Im comparing the DB-30417 ~$300 vs. the DB-30120 ~$140. Im gonna take a guess that the DB-30120 will be very comparable to stock, and that one 30417 might be enough for our cars IF we can get the air through it.
11-08-08, 04:19 PM
#19
It all depends, i put my setup together myself because i can. It probably cost me $300 total, earls oil thermostat, B&M cooler, and JIC hydraulic lines and fittings. I would say its easily comparable to the R1 setup. but with a single turbo and the long straights at my local track it is falling a little short.
If you want twin mocal coolers, AN fittings, braided lines, etc i would probably go with an available kit because the PITA factor is gone.
11-08-08, 06:05 PM
#20
It all depends, i put my setup together myself because i can. It probably cost me $300 total, earls oil thermostat, B&M cooler, and JIC hydraulic lines and fittings. I would say its easily comparable to the R1 setup. but with a single turbo and the long straights at my local track it is falling a little short.
If you want twin mocal coolers, AN fittings, braided lines, etc i would probably go with an available kit because the PITA factor is gone.
If you want twin mocal coolers, AN fittings, braided lines, etc i would probably go with an available kit because the PITA factor is gone.
A Earl 19 Row cooler Kit without the T-stat will run you about $550 plus about $90 for a T-stat.
Then you have to build your own mounts and stuff, so $800 is a pretty good deal for a Plug and Play system
EDIT: I just did the price lookup
2 Earl 19 Row Oil coolers EAR-41910ERL 167.99 X 2 = 335.98
20Ft of SS 10AN line SUM-230020 - 114.95
Misc 10AN fitting Approx - 100.00
Oil T-Stat MOC-10AN - 109.99
Total = 660.92
Last edited by Rx7_Nut13B; 11-08-08 at 06:21 PM.
11-09-08, 12:23 AM
#21
$300 Umm that is really on the low side, what type of coolers are the B&M (Tube/Fin)?
A Earl 19 Row cooler Kit without the T-stat will run you about $550 plus about $90 for a T-stat.
Then you have to build your own mounts and stuff, so $800 is a pretty good deal for a Plug and Play system
EDIT: I just did the price lookup
2 Earl 19 Row Oil coolers EAR-41910ERL 167.99 X 2 = 335.98
20Ft of SS 10AN line SUM-230020 - 114.95
Misc 10AN fitting Approx - 100.00
Oil T-Stat MOC-10AN - 109.99
Total = 660.92
A Earl 19 Row cooler Kit without the T-stat will run you about $550 plus about $90 for a T-stat.
Then you have to build your own mounts and stuff, so $800 is a pretty good deal for a Plug and Play system
EDIT: I just did the price lookup
2 Earl 19 Row Oil coolers EAR-41910ERL 167.99 X 2 = 335.98
20Ft of SS 10AN line SUM-230020 - 114.95
Misc 10AN fitting Approx - 100.00
Oil T-Stat MOC-10AN - 109.99
Total = 660.92
I use the stock cooler and the B&M in series, with a thermostat regulating flow before both coolers. I feel my setup is about as effective as the R1/2 coolers.
As for costs
B&M cooler, 5.75x11x1.5: $65
Earls oil thermostat: 110
Hydraulic lines and fittings: ~$50-75
Mounts: Free <- built out of scrap aluminum i had
Ducting: Free <- again from scap that i had
So really it cost me more like $250, i know not everyone wants to **** around making ducting and mounts and that time is worth alot of money to many people. I use hydraulic lines because they are cheap and very capable to do the job.
11-09-08, 12:39 AM
#22
always modding
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: on a tiny island in the middle of a sea
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
How about the Knightsports Plug and Play setup?
they look quite nice and will obviously fit directly with no modifications..
but I don't know how much better than stock they are..
they look quite nice and will obviously fit directly with no modifications..
but I don't know how much better than stock they are..
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
