67mustang302

lol

You're posting things as fact, that are fact because why...you say they are? Anything to back it up other than your word?

I linked 2 books, "Taylor" as they're commonly referred to in the combustion engine world. Written by the professor Emeritus of MIT's Automotive Technology Department and the head of their Sloan Research Laboratories for decades. It is the de facto standard textbook for combustion engine performance in universities throughout the world.

Taylor directly contradicts many things you say, and it's backed up by huge amounts of test data, including the methodology and equipment used for the test, as well as numerous real world examples. And it's proofed out mathematically and explained through physics.

As for your little example, what about the Space Shuttle? Made in America and 2 of them have blown up. Does that mean anything made in America blows up?

Anyone can provide any kind of anecdotal evidence to try to back their claim up, but it means nothing because it's anecdotal. You think everything in China is crap, what about Norinco? Their weapons, when they were available in the US, were better clones than the original US weapons they cloned (their M14 knockoff was made using higher quality materials).

Also, the OP's question was about his temperature at idle and in light traffic, he didn't bring up Champion at all. You just couldn't help mentioning them, like you do in every thread about cooling, regardless of whether it's germane or not.

barnett468

Partially



Yup, and I have already posted some of the sources but I guess you must have missed that part.



That's nice for you.



If this is true, then sorry, but it's not my fault he's wrong.



Well, if you go back and read a bit, you will see that in one case the the seals were not the best, but they knew this BEFORE they launched. Using these seals was a calculated risk especially at the low temps they were subjected to in staging in this particular, unfortunate case.

In another case, a big piece of ice fell off and knocked a piece of the heat resistant material off on take off, so to say or imply that was the fault of the rocket, is quite a stretch, don't ya think?

The Chinese simply made bad rockets for one reason or another, lol.

Do you know what the most valuable vintage toy in the world is? It's a Chinese made toy. This is because they simply don't exist because nearly all of them break soon after use, lol.

Oh, and how do the Chinese reduce the amount of lead in their country. They put it in paint then paint their toys with it and then ship them to other countries.

Excerpt from the New York Times.

“WASHINGTON, June 18 — China manufactured every one of the 24 kinds of toys recalled for safety reasons in the United States so far this year… Last week 1.5 million trains and components were recalled because they were coated with lead paint… The toys were coated at a factory in China with lead paint, which can damage brain cells, especially in children.

Just in the last month, a ghoulish fake eyeball toy made in China was recalled after it was found to be filled with kerosene. China today is responsible for about 60 percent of all product recalls…”



lol, facts are not anecdotal, and neither is my 40 years worth of personal experience.



No I don't and I never said that either and for you to try and twist what i saw in an attempt to make others think nits true is inexcusible imo.

I actually recommended Champion Chinese made rads to people when I knew from my 40 years of experience cooling engines so they would basically run at thermostat rating with the ac on in 100 degree heat, that a Champion would suffice for their particular issue. I'm always happy to also suggest items that are lower cost than others when I think it will suit ones needs.



Well, ya got me there since I neither follow the mfg of assault rifles and heavy weapons etc., however since you seem to be so high on non US made items, and so down on US made ones, I suggest you simply keep buying them and maybe even move out of here to China or Korea. I'm sure they would love to have a US expatriot there, plus I hear it's nice there in the summer.

In addition, you could sell your poorly, US made Mustang that is still around after FIFTY YEARS and buy a nice, brand new, super reliable, Chinese made car with the cash and still have a few yen left over.



What you are saying is an opinion and NOT a FACT, therefore, it is wrong. Radiators ARE "germane" to most cooling issues imo based on my experience, and unlike some others, I happen to know that it's beneficial to let people know something that might be relevant to their situation that they may be unaware of. Also imo, the more informed with FACTS that a person is, the better decision they can make.


Below are the numbers for Joe Sherman Racing and US Radiator. feel free to call them and get my FACTS confirmed from people that have actually done this testing in real world applications on not just in Stephen Hawkings theoretical world.

Joe Sherman Racing, ask for...Joe.
1-714-542-0515
http://www.joeshermanracing.com/


US Radiator
1-323-836-0965
http://www.usradiator.com/


PS - Now, in case you try and twist my words around and suggest that I don't like Chinese products, because I don't like Chinese people, you would be very wrong. In fact, I may even be Chinese myself.
.

67mustang302

So, you think Taylor is wrong.

A guy on the internet, vs an MIT published textbook that is on the shelf of nearly every NASCAR, INDY and F1 engine designer. An MIT published textbook that is a global automotive engineering standard on piston engines. With decades of test data to back it up.

Since you want to play those games....

Feel free to call, and tell them they're wrong:

http://web.mit.edu/sloan-auto-lab/contact.html

http://meche.mit.edu/academic/

barnett468

That is not what i said.


Well Stephen Hawking recently said one of his theories is wrong. I guess nobody's perfect, lol.


Why are they makin radiators now?

Why don't YOU call Joe Sherman and one of the biggest aftermarket rad mfgs in the world as I suggested earlier instead?
.

69mach1377

As Hawking nears death he'll probably hope another of his theories is wrong...
Maybe the 2 of you should take chill pills or resort to PMs?

67mustang302

Well, like I said, reading: it makes you know stuff.

There's a reason modern cars run higher coolant temperatures and plastic (insulating) intake manifolds. Older engines with aluminum intakes that make more power with lower coolant temps, do so because the intake (which is a conductor if it's aluminum) transfers less heat to the intake charge. This causes greater charge density, which is what results in more power. More air, burns more fuel, and releases more power.

That's why taking an engine with an aluminum intake and lowering coolant temperature and seeing more power on a dyno, will also see an increase in fuel consumption for the same fuel ratio, and an increase in BSFC. If the engine makes more power, it's because it's burning more fuel, but the increase in BSFC shows a decrease in efficiency; you have to burn more fuel per hp than with a higher coolant temperature.

Whether an engine makes more or less power as you change coolant temperature, depends on a whole slew of other variables; that engine shops neither check, nor are equipped to check (much of it requires a laboratory setting). How much did charge density change? What is the temperature of the air being ingested, what's ∆T? What's the difference in temp between the incoming charge and the manifold? Is the engine carb'd or TBI; if so how much does the Joule-Thompson effect change charge density? How much was fuel vaporization effected? What is the specific heat of the fuel used? How much heat energy transfer occurred between the engine and charge prior to combustion?

Different engines in different circumstances result in different outcomes. If the only variable changed is coolant temperature, and everything else remains the same; the engine will produce more power, less emissions, and get better mileage when hotter. Unfortunately, in the typical engine it's nearly impossible to keep other variables constant when you change 1 thing, because any 1 variable impacts many others. It's the same reason that higher compression tends to produce more power, more compression = more heat = more power. You need heat retention in the fuel-air charge before and during combustion to release the energy in the form of a pressure increase from additional heat in the same mass within a given volume. It's how combustion engines work.

Keep in mind that Formula 1 engines are the most efficient, and highest specific power output naturally aspirated gasoline engines on Earth, and their cooling system runs at around 260*F.

barnett468

Yes, and reading the wrong stuff makes you know the wrong stuff. Also, not fully understanding what you are reading does not make you know the right stuff even if the stuff you are reading is the right stuff to read.

Actually DOING stuff for 40 years makes you know how stuff works in REAL WORLD applications.

There are plenty of things that look good on paper but do not work so well in real world application . I know this for a fact, because I have not only done these things for 40 years but I also ran the R and D department for a big vehicle mfg. for several years and this mfg. won over 100 national titles and numerous world championship titles and made the fastest production vehicle in the world its class for many, many years.


Yes, and I told you what a few of those reasons are.



Not a single one of my “newer” cars has a plastic intake, they are all aluminum.



Yup, the hotter an engine is the leaner it can be jetted. This is one of the reasons the mfgs. run them hot.

1. it improves mileage which enhances sales.

2. it improves mileage which helps it MEET EPA MILEAGE REQUIREMENTS.

2. it reduces the EMISSIONS output per mile which helps it PASS EPA REQUIREMENTS. Like I said, part of the reason to run them hot is due to EPA requirements because it helps them meet those requirements.

3. it reduces engine wear.


Thermal coatings – These help reflect the heat from the engine back into the combustion chamber where it can be used as power. They also help other parts of the engine., ie cylinder head to run cool.
Guess this either wasn’t in his book or you missed that part.

67mustang302

Honestly, if you just read those books, you'd see what I was talking about. Or rather, what the author was talking about.

Mountains of real world application, mountains of lab test data, specific talk about EPA requirements. There's a reason the first volume has "thermodynamics and fluid flow" in the title. The primary author of that book and the people who helped him write it have vastly more experience than both of us combined x1,000. From people who developed WW2 fighter plane engines, to people who developed INDY engines, F1, manufacturers and so on.

Also, your 40 years of real world experience could arguably apply to your first statement. 40 years of the wrong experience, or 40 years of not understanding the reason for the outcomes in your experience etc. But all that is, is a personal attack, and doesn't prove or disprove anything. It's just an anecdotal deference to an individual's experience. Not that I'm discounting experience, because it's exceedingly valuable, but in essence what you're doing is saying: that because you have 40 years of experience from which you've drawn conclusions, the head of MIT's Auto/Sloan department's experience has resulted in the wrong conclusions. It's just a "my experience is better than your experience" argument. If that's the case, why should I trust your experience over his?

As for jetting down when hotter, that's not where mileage comes from, at least not directly. You jet down or the EFI system is programmed to lean down on a hotter engine in order to keep the fuel ratio consistent, because less air is getting into a hotter engine, right? The car needs a fixed amount of power to move at a fixed speed under given conditions. The mileage increase occurs because the hotter engine is more efficient, less energy is lost to the cooling system, so more energy is released by the fuel as usable power. So you gain mileage because you can release more energy to drive the pistons from the same amount of fuel; or put differently, you can release the same energy (and therefore produce the same fixed power needed for a given speed) from less fuel.

And yes, the book does talk about thermal coatings, it gets to exactly what I've been talking about. They keep heat inside the cylinder during the combustion process. It's the same reason that running hotter creates more efficiency. Heat energy moves from higher temperature regions to lower, and the rate of heat transfer is dependent upon the difference in temperature (as well as conductivity). Because the combustion temperatures are very high, heat is transferred from the combustion process and into the engine....so the hotter the engine runs the smaller the temperature difference between the 2, and the less heat energy is transferred into the cooling system. It's accomplishing the same thing as thermal coatings, trying to keep as much heat as possible inside the cylinder.

Again, if we want to talk specifically about power, current Formula 1 engines run at around 260*F, current NASCAR Cup engines run at around 220*F. NHRA Pro Stocks typically run very cold though, ~100*F. In terms of thermal efficiency the F1 is highest, the NASCAR Cup engine next, and Pro Stock last. In terms of cylinder pressures, the order is the same.

barnett468

Well, since I take cars that run hot and turn them into cars that will run at thermostat temp in 100 degree heat with the ac ON, my experience is well proven.

I also sincerely doubt that I would be running the R and D department for a big vehicle mfg if I wasn't highly qualified do you?

We also had a dyno [and an mts machine] that we ran prototype engines on and the racing engines on. these were just some of the ones that won all those championships, and attached to that dyno were several gauges, one of which was an AFR meter, just like the one that is attached to joe shermans dyno and the dynos they run the nascar engines on, so I am very familiar with afr meters and the affects of air density etc.. There were also atmospheric gauges etc..

Of course i know the people in the book are far from being morons and know they must know at least 10 physics equations to every 1 i know etc..

In addition, I built all my own vehicles and have won many pro races with them and a few championships, and never went to school or read a book on how to ride like a pro either.

I have dealt with many engineers, and as I said, what works on paper doesn't always work in the real world, plain and simple.
.


.

67mustang302

The author of that book is definitely not an engineer that comes up with things that "work on paper." And yes, I've worked with many engineers like that as well, so I know what you're talking about.

http://web.mit.edu/hmtl/www/taylor.pdf

He was one of the primary designers of the engine that powered Lindbergh's flight across the Atlantic, and was in charge of the Sloan Research Laboratory during WW2, when a tremendous amount of engine development was being done to power fighter aircraft.