Ford Powerstroke Diesel Forum banner

101 - 120 of 158 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,149 Posts
Discussion Starter #101
Hydraulically speaking, since the bypass filtration is on the outlet end of the oil cooler, then the same pressure drop that causes the oil to bypass the oil cooler would also govern the oil flow to the bypass filtration. So in effect, the T-junction already exists.
I think you are saying that the bypass would be flowing only a fraction of the flow going through the cooler? So in effect, the bypass would be flowing 10% of the flow through the cooler, which is 10% of all flow when the bypass is active, which would be 1%. It makes sense, but an unhappy accident I had awhile ago suggested the bypass filter flowed close to a half a gallon per minute even when the cold weather bypass was active. I think when the engine is operating under highway conditions, that the filter is flowing significantly more of the total flow.

If this is the case, I think it would have an impact on the temperature of the crank case. I'd also be concerned about if any damages could occur from the cold oil streaming into the hot valve cover could cause.

Regardless, the bypass filters are expensive, and so is the engine. I'd like to be sure the filter is flowing as much as it can all the time. If the pressure drop from oil routing around the cooler means the filter isn't flowing fully all the time, then I feel I'm not getting my monies worth out of the filter. I'd rather have the filter drawing as much warm oil as possible from the flow at all times. This is why I think having a T-junction after the t-stat would be better for those running the cold weather kit than the current bypass filter setup is that draws oil from the cooler.

I was hoping for a more direct application of the High Speed Fiber Based Structural Thermal Insulating Material (HSFBSTIM). If you could place the HSFBSTIM directly in front of the oil cooler, as in between the condenser and the oil cooler, it would give us more accurate cause and effect numbers.
I did something similar the night before I completely covered the grille. I only used a cereal box though. XD They had the same effects on the overall oil temp (had about a 7f increase over established EOT with a partially blocked cooler). If you'd like, I could redo the 50% block of just the cooler with cardboard wrapped in a plastic bag. Might be more airtight.

Just saying, adding and removing a cover from the oil cooler is a much more painstaking process than from the grille... Particularly if it's something I'm going to do and undo every time I tow a trailer or everything the temperature spikes above freezing for a few days.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,731 Posts
I'm not thinkin drain back or thermal contraction. I'll throw another detail in to the mix that I saw at one point on a cold start before the winter kit...The filter seal actually leaked on one cold start. You would immediately think then the restriction is in the filter when cold, but then take in to account, when the oil pressure would register on the dummy gauge before and after install of the winter kit... Taking that in to account, tells me the restriction becomes the cooler.
Been bust the last few days. Too busy. I also don't want to get in the way again of DF67 taking care of you guys. If he and I are debating, it's not so good for you.

When I first read your post, I was going to push back a bit. But, after reading it a few times over the last few days, I get the zen of your thinking.

The one thought that I had then - and still do now - is that it is hard to figure this stuff out with so few data points. Also, I have in my head what the layout of your cooler is. ...but I do need to be sure before I jump to a wrong conclusion based on a misunderstanding of topography. I should read over the installation manual.

My reason for suspecting the filter is that - with the rated GPM on the low side - I could see a pressure buildup occurring due to the cold oil being thick and not pushing through the filter media well.

That said, the rated bypass pressure of your filter appears to be on the low side too, so the filter should go into bypass quite readily if a pressure differential is set up by a cold flow condition. If so, The only way for a seal blowout would be for the filter bypass to not be able to deliver the flow. Possible, but I'm not sure if likely. So... I arrive back to your conclusion being the more plausible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Canadian Mind

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
871 Posts
I did something similar the night before I completely covered the grille. I only used a cereal box though. XD They had the same effects on the overall oil temp (had about a 7f increase over established EOT with a partially blocked cooler). If you'd like, I could redo the 50% block of just the cooler with cardboard wrapped in a plastic bag. Might be more airtight.

Just saying, adding and removing a cover from the oil cooler is a much more painstaking process than from the grille... Particularly if it's something I'm going to do and undo every time I tow a trailer or everything the temperature spikes above freezing for a few days.
By only blocking the oil cooler, we begin to separate the actual oil cooler from other sources of thermal loss. For example, you block 50% the front of the oil cooler with a HSFBSTIM, and we see a 7* increase in average temps. If you then were to block 75% and we still only saw a 7* increase, then we would know that the oil cooler itself probably isn't where the heat is being lost. We would then look at the oil filter, lines etc. BUT, if we saw an increase of say 10-15*, then we could probably assume that even with the thermostat bypassing, oil is still being cooled in the oil cooler. Once the dynamic is known, then we can look at solutions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,149 Posts
Discussion Starter #104
I see what you are getting at. Tomorrow it's supposed to be back around 0, but then it's above 40 for the rest of the week. How much would you like the cooler covered? 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 and completely covered? Because I really only have tomorrow to do this, would you be satisfied with a 50 mile circuit for each setup (all the same route)?
 

·
'consent of the governed'
Joined
·
5,687 Posts
I would cover the oil cooler 90 - 100% and adjust as needed. Hopefully you will find a sweet spot.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
871 Posts
I see what you are getting at. Tomorrow it's supposed to be back around 0, but then it's above 40 for the rest of the week. How much would you like the cooler covered? 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 and completely covered? Because I really only have tomorrow to do this, would you be satisfied with a 50 mile circuit for each setup (all the same route)?
I'd say 50% and then 75% should be enough, but 100% might give us an interesting data point. Since you are the one who has the experience with the data, then you should be the one to decide the route and calculate the results. Apples to apples.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,149 Posts
Discussion Starter #107 (Edited)
I would cover the oil cooler 90 - 100% and adjust as needed. Hopefully you will find a sweet spot.
I hope it becomes a solution. That said, if it does, it wouldn't be ideal; pulling the top cover off all the time to adjust the oil cooler coverage for ambient temp and towing/not towing would be an inconvenience. With time I'd hope to find a better solution.

I'd say 50% and then 75% should be enough, but 100% might give us an interesting data point. Since you are the one who has the experience with the data, then you should be the one to decide the route and calculate the results. Apples to apples.
I'll do a similar "L" pattern then, but it will have to be shorter in order for me to fit everything into the day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,149 Posts
Discussion Starter #109
Did you miss this post? :dunno:
No. I'm probably going to go that route (looks swanky, I like), but we're talking about covering the face of the oil cooler itself. I've already got the whole grille covered and only had a 5-10* improvement in oil and coolant temps depending on ambient conditions.
 

·
'consent of the governed'
Joined
·
5,687 Posts
No. I'm probably going to go that route (looks swanky, I like), but we're talking about covering the face of the oil cooler itself. I've already got the whole grille covered and only had a 5-10* improvement in oil and coolant temps depending on ambient conditions.
My bad, you did say you had a grill cover. What kind? I understood we were talking about only covering the cooler. Have you thought about insulating the filters and lines. It could be done in a nice looking way. I would hate to live with the freezing cold you've got up there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,149 Posts
Discussion Starter #111
My bad, you did say you had a grill cover. What kind? I understood we were talking about only covering the cooler. Have you thought about insulating the filters and lines. It could be done in a nice looking way. I would hate to live with the freezing cold you've got up there.
Very crude cardboard, on Fatbasterds advice. ;) Needless today, it isn't the ideal solution. I'm sure Mike's grille cover would do a better job.

This winter actually has been very mild for us. Only got down to -30f overnight once last week, but it warmed up quick. Last year we were south of -30 at least once every two weeks and below -40 once a month. That sucked.
 

·
Sinister Diesel Sucks!!!
Joined
·
2,498 Posts
Im sorry I havnt had much data to post yet. Still been pretty busy myself. I havnt even gotten a chance to install my 195* Stat yet. But before I do, I still want to get a recorded data run with the 180* stat as a baseline. Its supposed to be "warm" here as well for the next couple of days, so I wanna wait until it gets cold again as well
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,676 Posts
Im sorry I havnt had much data to post yet. Still been pretty busy myself. I havnt even gotten a chance to install my 195* Stat yet. But before I do, I still want to get a recorded data run with the 180* stat as a baseline. Its supposed to be "warm" here as well for the next couple of days, so I wanna wait until it gets cold again as well
Haven't had enough yet ha.:) but i would like the results though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: michaelaiman

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,149 Posts
Discussion Starter #114
DieselFab, will it cause any significant issues if I replace the plastic guard without using the tabs between runs? They get very brittle in the cold and I'd rather not go through 32+ tabs if I can avoid it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,149 Posts
Discussion Starter #116
OK, I will choose not to worry about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,149 Posts
Discussion Starter #118
Well I screwed up a little bit. When I was layering everything last night I was working from the outsides of the cooler in. Ended up having 3 pieces covering 20% of the cooler and one piece covered 40% of it. So the intervals of cooler exposure were 0% exposure (completely covered), 20% exposure, 40%, 80%, and the data point I took previously for 100%

For the most part I did a 45 mile north & south run. Winds were blowing from west to east at 30mph. Ambient temperature varied between 3f and 7f along the route. I did a shorter west then east run with the 0% exposure last night to make sure I wasn't going to burn anything, for 80 miles total with the cooler completely covered. Temperatures are the averages between the north leg and the south leg, variance was generally 5-6f.

0% exposure: ECT 185f - EOT 174f
20% exposure: ECT 185f - EOT 168f
40% exposure: ECT 185f - EOT 165f
80% exposure: ECT 184f - EOT 161f

Original testing with 100% exposure had the ECT at 183f and EOT at 161f


Couple things I noted:

- When I did the 50% coverage over a week ago, EOT went up 7 degrees to 169f. With 100% exposure I had an EOT of 162f. However, ambient temperature was higher that evening (15f), and it was during a blizzard. Climatic conditions and the different route should be considered when comparing that to todays testing. I had expected 40% exposure would have yielded a slightly higher EOT than 50% exposure.

- 80% exposure was no different from 100% exposure. I'm wondering if that means the oil going through the cooler is as cold as it's going to get at that point.

I didn't have your fancy high speed insulating material available; my apologies. I used a wax covered cardboard to act as a windbreak, and layered them in such a fashion as to form a seal. This is what inadvertently lead to the above exposure ratios rather than the 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100% ratios I was aiming for.

If required, I am prepared to do another run with the cooler completely covered by the wax cardboard, with an insulating layer of standard household fiberglass insulation between the cardboard & the cooler. As well, an insulating layer between the oil cooler and the intercooler in order to completely isolate the cooler from the ambient air temperature. It's up to you if you'd like me to do that, Dieselfab.
 
  • Like
Reactions: djmaguire

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,731 Posts
It might be time to start heating the cooler.

Oh, c'mon! That's kinda funny, right?



Very good experiment and data, @CM. I'm thinking that you are right about the 80%/100% wall. It would seem to be hitting some saturation limit.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
871 Posts
Well I screwed up a little bit. When I was layering everything last night I was working from the outsides of the cooler in. Ended up having 3 pieces covering 20% of the cooler and one piece covered 40% of it. So the intervals of cooler exposure were 0% exposure (completely covered), 20% exposure, 40%, 80%, and the data point I took previously for 100%

For the most part I did a 45 mile north & south run. Winds were blowing from west to east at 30mph. Ambient temperature varied between 3f and 7f along the route. I did a shorter west then east run with the 0% exposure last night to make sure I wasn't going to burn anything, for 80 miles total with the cooler completely covered. Temperatures are the averages between the north leg and the south leg, variance was generally 5-6f.

0% exposure: ECT 185f - EOT 174f
20% exposure: ECT 185f - EOT 168f
40% exposure: ECT 185f - EOT 165f
80% exposure: ECT 184f - EOT 161f

Original testing with 100% exposure had the ECT at 183f and EOT at 161f


Couple things I noted:

- When I did the 50% coverage over a week ago, EOT went up 7 degrees to 169f. With 100% exposure I had an EOT of 162f. However, ambient temperature was higher that evening (15f), and it was during a blizzard. Climatic conditions and the different route should be considered when comparing that to todays testing. I had expected 40% exposure would have yielded a slightly higher EOT than 50% exposure.

- 80% exposure was no different from 100% exposure. I'm wondering if that means the oil going through the cooler is as cold as it's going to get at that point.

I didn't have your fancy high speed insulating material available; my apologies. I used a wax covered cardboard to act as a windbreak, and layered them in such a fashion as to form a seal. This is what inadvertently lead to the above exposure ratios rather than the 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100% ratios I was aiming for.

If required, I am prepared to do another run with the cooler completely covered by the wax cardboard, with an insulating layer of standard household fiberglass insulation between the cardboard & the cooler. As well, an insulating layer between the oil cooler and the intercooler in order to completely isolate the cooler from the ambient air temperature. It's up to you if you'd like me to do that, Dieselfab.
Well, I'd hoped for a smoking gun. Could you try insulating the oil filter? Obviously, with the oil cooler blocked 100% and only a 13* increase in temperature means heat is most likely being lost in other places as well.
 
101 - 120 of 158 Posts
Top