Bridgeported

RX-7's have the common style of oil coolers, similar to an 'air-to-air' intercooler.

Some cars use the other style of coil coolers, which are more like an 'air-to-water' intercooler. Basically they are just a pipe with a jacket around them. Coolant flows down the middle, and oil passes around it inside the jacket, getting cooled by the coolant.

Both designs are just as simple as each other, but the 2nd style (non rX-7 style) doesn't require being mounted in a position which gets airflow.

Is there an advantage to either kind, in terms of which is more efficient? If the 2nd is better, or equally as good, that could be a nice upgrade to save space up front and allow more air flow to IC and Radiator.

CrackHeadMel

iTrader: (2)

having a air to water oil cooler would be more efficeint in cooling the oil, just becuase of waters characterisitics, but then you would need to cool this additional water, maby you could have it run injunction with an upgraded radaitor...

personlly i think ill stick with the air to air idea only because i see no reason to change it, on my car atleast

-Jacob

in2twins

The oil/water set up would be used if one of the two was hotter in a running condition. In my case my system is balanced, the oil and water temps are the same in race conditions(190+/-) thus no need. They are often called heat exchangers, and they are sold by mazda motorsports as a way of balancing(maximizing) your cooling system. Regards, Carl Byck