X-Junk-Score: 0 [] X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 [] X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=HLeBLclv c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=HH0ipIJV0CKSdCtnAIgCMg==:117 a=x7bEGLp0ZPQA:10 a=A-0mRrAPPO4A:10 a=7mUfYlMuFuIA:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=eRLigfuSAAAA:8 a=3oc9M9_CAAAA:8 a=_6GpL_ENAAAA:8 a=XIiMx5raiCRrTQaI2cMA:9 a=4xWbRRmbxQQ9eI3I:21 a=k6gtXZCmH1iEEww-:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=R3SaN5xMZycSVwfMIFoA:9 a=DkFQa5rvqaK0mfN7:21 a=zCf8CeSktwu96FeO:21 a=GjZd1XcqRFBy8m8A:21 a=Urk15JJjZg1Xo0ryW_k8:22 a=BfhXYjFvZD4iae-mNffo:22 From: "Charlie England ceengland7@gmail.com" Received: from mail-pf0-f169.google.com ([209.85.192.169] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.2.5) with ESMTPS id 11297911 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 24 Jun 2018 16:19:25 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.192.169; envelope-from=ceengland7@gmail.com Received: by mail-pf0-f169.google.com with SMTP id y8-v6so5453591pfm.10 for ; Sun, 24 Jun 2018 13:19:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=LC/KFBjBk/TL22PaLMc/5XTUCJ+HfDu8++a60UN03qU=; b=RIWyM1qP/PbMhlh9pD/ynzDk73dSEchzEirmv4vymdSP0hHrD0W53xRwMLE8lj5amp m7vsn7kZyJBAG4GyDmwE5QnjzWPQlKhbvzRahQExa+aSqmJb//xYMI0yqh+hIjwJCufv nf2MN0wj/c/aJUEpd0IYbvTyvHzQezxZq0WJXAFRujK+wlpoO4fPezxt3C7XlTUWob7n ITNy4UtvMaoJjrEhEoX8UDd4QX9ocPfhjk0ApNnxAlSXZEWcQ2P8RLSKan2hNhv8pmIY tTXscJWLVDzntZGsAkkZm+KvaWH5QZvVoK98pfxmUIM000PayhaYAmKWE5r/XFgesdAg I4gQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=LC/KFBjBk/TL22PaLMc/5XTUCJ+HfDu8++a60UN03qU=; b=JT32JTmZQzHvFQ/tarZU9iTuvmh9XNmwRnv8Sf6hnXMi1NkrYlrhiLktqbghHaKCPe qyHDGpGVa6rF/+b1Oozw165iY4reMxvRUhw+LFirRL/KlS3QQJse9yztUZtB39NKY4Ix pTk0S7Y1G3Y6wEGMtHM8d22gssyOBiVubocR+YJrA2kJWxgoJ5XMkFAxVEyQp8t390Fe Gbxbbw3GGvYLN/YzZfVQ/GNneWx+iRs5u+iNhcMn+zgz/zINX23my5DQgPJLXvgqnjhG gfsKA4s8zOGsLubdeavFgpjqPbmDO1vT9dhxRhF/ExqHroHxLchykrficd1lFpgiP2wH DeAw== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E2QtYCLeiKDp6D1ZKFDhW80grQqNinylz93Vy7bagm3ghdJSV/p ETWBfTyGUvZeYUYaGmuqoeWzYGWz9MN4TtviJJ8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKLC7Mzx0KAMpfX9Gil3POhXY0bh1QU6VJ0zo0V/5AZHkG5Cn5PapF9G6ChAbyiXo9oaYdqFUPHqkeK0mKTgJgs= X-Received: by 2002:a63:7a43:: with SMTP id j3-v6mr8223351pgn.363.1529871548268; Sun, 24 Jun 2018 13:19:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a17:90a:858c:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Jun 2018 13:19:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2018 15:19:07 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Oil To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002fc62d056f68fa19" --0000000000002fc62d056f68fa19 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On cold weather overcooling: As I mentioned in an earlier post, if there's no (or a lot less) air flow through the exchanger, it won't cool the oil. :-) On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Todd Bartrim bartrim@gmail.com < flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote: > I've spent a lot of time thinking about this as well.The way I see it as > with everything else in life, there is no free lunch, rob Peter to pay > Paul, etc.... So if we slow the flow through any cooler then the medium > spends more time getting cooled and we get a bigger delta T, but the medi= um > also spends more time in the heater (engine) getting heated and we get a > bigger delta T there as well. So do these cancel each other out? Or are w= e > better off with high flows that produce more even temps with lower delta = T > on both ends? > I have considered this a lot with regards to the EWP flows of coolant > (but lets not go there right now), so with oil what are our biggest > concerns? Do we need flow or pressure? I usually try to remind myself tha= t > the engineers at Mazda (or every manufacture) are usually pretty smart > people, but then I remember that I'm not using there product for it's > intended purpose. > So the cooler is restrictive to flow, but it cools well. But this gives > me uncomfortable low oil pressures at idle. > Last night I did a little searching about aftermarket oil coolers and > found this on the Mazdatrix site... > The factory oil coolers are the best we have ever found for cooling > capacity. Virtually all of the aftermarket ones are not even remotely > usable. > No mention at all about flow rates or pressure drop, but again they are > talking to car guys. So at our higher duty cycle what is it that we are > looking for? Do we need high pressure to have adequate cooling oil flowin= g > though our rotors, or do we need high oil pressure in our rotor bearings = to > provide a thick oil film. The rotor bearing are large and I don't recall > rotor bearing failure as being a problem. > With my newly calibrated sensors I'm realizing that all is not as good > as I thought and oil pressure is a big concern. Bypassing the cooler prov= es > that this is the restriction. I actually had pretty good pressure at > start-up but after warm-up my pressure would suddenly drop. I was thinkin= g > that the oil thermostat looked pretty restrictive but when it was cold an= d > in bypass mode my pressure was ok, but when it would close the bypass my > pressure would drop. Examination of the thermostat plug through the port > holes while heating housing with a torch, it appeared that as it closed t= he > bypass it seemed to not fully open enough to cooler flow. This is why I > removed it and plugged the bypass hole. Now I have the same low oil > pressure as after warm-up, so it would appear that the thermostat was not > as restrictive as the rest of the cooler. Air blows easily through it, bu= t > air flows pretty easily, so this doesn't prove anything other than it's n= ot > plugged completely. > I found some mention on a forum that suggests that the stock cooler has > turbolator strip inside the cooling tubes and they could move and bunch u= p > in the tubes, thereby restricting flow. This certainly sounds plausible a= nd > would explain why some have issues with stock coolers while other do not. > I really don't want to change to some other form/shape of cooler as that > would involve fiberglass, painting, etc. of the cowl. I don't mind doing > that work, but it is time consuming, and I don't have nearly enough of th= at > resource at this time (I'm actually supposed to be fencing right now, but > taking an extended beer break while I ponder this problem). > So I'm considering removing the cooler tonight and sawing off the end > caps to examine the tubes. If I find that there are turbolator strips in > the tubes, is it worth removing them. It would surely improve flow, but a= t > the expense of cooling efficiency. > If I do this then before I weld them back up, I would like to weld up > the bypass hole as well as weld a plate over the thermostat cap hole so I > can eliminate that heavy brass plug. But that would mean that I can never > reinstall that thermostat if required which would mean that if I find in > cold weather if I found I needed it, I'd have to use an external thermost= at > at even more of a weight penalty. I realize this is an issue that most of > you southern guys can't even imagine. But with synthetic multi-weight oil= s > (I'm using synthetic 5W40), this might not be an issue at all. > > Todd.... I wish I had as much oil pressure, as the pressure I've got > to go build fences today. > > > Todd Bartrim > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 11:08 AM, Charlie England ceengland7@gmail.com < > flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote: > >> First, let me say that I'm far from being an authority on this subject. >> >> The idea of coolant (oil, water, air, etc) moving too quickly through a >> heat exchanger comes up often. People who's opinion I trust (trained >> engineers) say that slowing flow does not improve efficiency. What I've >> been told is that yes, you may see higher delta T across the cooler with >> lower flow, but that's not a true and complete picture of what's happeni= ng. >> My understanding, based on what I've read & been told, is that the best >> heat exchange occurs with the max temperature difference between the med= ia >> (oil>air, water>air, etc). If you slow the flow through the exchanger, t= hen >> yes, you will see a bigger delta T across the exchanger, but that means >> that a lot of the oil (in this case) in the exchanger has already been >> cooled 'early' in the flow, so effectively, part of the exchanger is >> operating at a much lower temperature difference with the air, and >> therefore, its efficiency is reduced. So it follows that higher flow, >> keeping the entire exchanger hotter (lower delta T) actually improves >> efficiency. Yes, it's counter-intuitive (at least for me). But supposedl= y, >> the most BTUs get removed from the system when the entire exchanger is k= ept >> at close to the same temp across its face. >> >> There's obviously a point of diminishing returns, where you're actually >> adding heat by overpressurizing the flow path trying to speed up flow, b= ut >> I doubt we're there yet. :-) >> >> Perhaps a real engineer could step in and clarify. >> >> >> On 6/23/2018 9:35 PM, Andrew Martin andrew@martinag.com.au wrote: >> >> Lynn, my setup is pretty much stock where most oil should pass through >> cooler direct to rear iron ocv, only oil that enters oil gallery is >> filtered, pressure, temp & redrive oil taken from a block after filter, >> But the cooler issue is a bit more incidious in that without a pressure >> gauge at pump outlet there is no indication of the restriction. I have n= o >> problem with having =E2=80=9Csome=E2=80=9D restriction in the cooler but= as it builds >> markedly with increased flow at rpm, Oil delta t drops as oil flow is to= o >> fast through the core to cool the oil, and when front cover relief opens= at >> high rpm due to the restriction, only part of pump output is getting coo= led >> and temps rise more. >> Setrab, Fluidyne etc do claim low pressure drop but I have struggled to >> find at what flow rates, Adding smaller coolers in parallel is an option >> but the data is still needed to choose the correct sizes that allows all >> oil to pass through a cooler without pressure drop and have just enough >> surface area to transfer heat to air. >> My test showed 140psi pump output 80psi at back iron, I still dont know >> what my front cover relief is set at, as 140 was max pressure of gauge I >> had. But front cover relief valve should never operate in normal operati= on >> as it is a safety valve for the pump,front cover & cooler only. >> Only engine that is diferent is 2009+ renesis as that has only one valve >> in the system & diferent oil flow design to the rest of the mazda rotari= es. >> >> Andrew >> >> On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 at 7:51 am, Accountlehanover lehanover@aol.com < >> flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote: >> >>> A restrictive cooler would (might) show a higher oil pressure than th= e >>> control valve will allow if measured before the cooler. Because the sto= ck >>> relief valve is at the end of the system. So the stock valve might all= ow >>> for 80 PSI, but never open if the full 80 PSI never gets to it so as to >>> activate. Racers measure oil pressure where the oil enters the engine. >>> Usually in an aluminum block that replaces the stock oil filter stand. >>> What do the bearings see, is the information you want. We raced for >>> years with 80 PSI entering the engine. >>> And that was turning the engine to 9,000 RPM on each shift. Oil coolers >>> are constructed of many sharp edged tubes . Pushing oil or any liquid o= r >>> gas into the end of a sharp edged tube is nearly impossible. So many mo= re >>> tubes than you would calculate necessary are used in order to overcome = the >>> sharp tube flow problem. So, if the stock relief were set at 79 PSI >>> (stock on early engines) you would want to see 79 PSI on you oil pressu= re >>> Gage as taken out of that aluminum block. Mistral calculated the cooler >>> size required on the test Piper. The plane would overheat the oil while >>> still within sight of the airport. >>> The were also using aircraft oil in the engine. 20-50 if I remember >>> correctly. So, flow got worse as the oil heated up. >>> >>> The racer had an external oil pump with one pressure section (adjustabl= e >>> up to any pressure you might want) and two scavenge sections. The scave= nge >>> sections returned oil and air to a storage tank through a set of bug sc= reen >>> filters and two Setrab 44 row coolers in series. The pressure section >>> pulled from the tank and pressurized oil went through two K&N oil filte= rs >>> in parallel and then through a single 44 row Setrab cooler. So, we ran = 100 >>> PSI at the engine. Shifting at 9,700 RPM. 250 HP. Oil is Red Line 20-5= 0 >>> racing synthetic. A common choice for rotary racing. Not a single oil >>> related failure in 30 years. Oil coolers (and filters) in parallel redu= ce >>> flow resistance. Coolers and filters in series increase flow resistance= . >>> Racing oils collect heat and give it up more quickly than do convention= al >>> oils.So any cooler performs a bit better with a synthetic. >>> >>> Lynn E. Hanover >>> lehanover@aol.com >>> Any question, any time. >>> >>> >>> In a message dated 6/23/2018 4:59:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, >>> flyrotary@lancaironline.net writes: >>> >>> Just got around to plumbing in mechanical gauge before cooler to see >>> whats really happening with my oil flows, wish I=E2=80=99d done it year= s ago! >>> Learnt so much in a couple of minutes on things that I have wasted so m= uch >>> time second guessing. my second attempt oil cooler did work better than= the >>> original mazda cooler, but was atrocious overall, Pressure drop was abo= ut >>> 60psi at 1400 prop rpm. No wonder I cant cool the oil, bugger all is go= ing >>> through it, just enough to give me about 80psi oil pressure. >>> Ended up bypassing cooler all together to confirm it is the cooler that >>> is problem not lines or anything else, well what a diference pressures >>> constant at 78psi at all rpm=E2=80=99s >>> >>> Trouble is no cooler manufacturer here seems to have charts of flow & >>> pressure drop on their coolers, very frustrating especially as prices s= eem >>> to range between $100-900 for similar sizes, so makes it very hard to >>> select correct one. >>> Andrew >>> -- >>> Regards Andrew Martin Martin Ag >>> >>> -- >> Regards Andrew Martin Martin Ag >> >> >> >> >> Virus-fre= e. >> www.avast.com >> >> <#m_1342940451346979312_m_7854209837271058561_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E= 2AA1F9FDF2> >> > > --0000000000002fc62d056f68fa19 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On cold weather overcooling: As I mentioned in an earlier = post, if there's no (or a lot less) air flow through the exchanger, it = won't cool the oil. :-)

On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Todd Bartrim bartrim@gmail.com <flyrotary@lancair= online.net> wrote:
I've spent a lot of time thinking about this as well.The way I= see it as with everything else in life, there is no free lunch, rob Peter = to pay Paul, etc.... So if we slow the flow through any cooler then the med= ium spends more time getting cooled and we get a bigger delta T, but the me= dium also spends more time in the heater (engine) getting heated and we get= a bigger delta T there as well. So do these cancel each other out? Or are = we better off with high flows that produce more even temps with lower delta= T on both ends?
=C2=A0 I have considered this a lot with regards to th= e EWP flows of coolant (but lets not go there right now), so with oil what = are our biggest concerns? Do we need flow or pressure? I usually try to rem= ind myself that the engineers at Mazda (or every manufacture) are usually p= retty smart people, but then I remember that I'm not using there produc= t for it's intended purpose.
=C2=A0 So the cooler is restrict= ive to flow, but it cools well. But this gives me uncomfortable low oil pre= ssures at idle.
Last night I did a little searching about afterma= rket oil coolers and found this on the Mazdatrix site...
The factory= oil coolers are the best we have ever found for cooling capacity. Virtuall= y all of the aftermarket ones are not even remotely usable.
No mention at all about flow rates or pressure drop, but aga= in they are talking to car guys. So at our higher duty cycle what is it tha= t we are looking for? Do we need high pressure to have adequate cooling oil= flowing though our rotors, or do we need high oil pressure in our rotor be= arings to provide a thick oil film. The rotor bearing are large and I don&#= 39;t recall rotor bearing failure as being a problem.
=C2=A0 =C2= =A0With my newly calibrated sensors I'm realizing that all is not as go= od as I thought and oil pressure is a big concern. Bypassing the cooler pro= ves that this is the restriction. I actually had pretty good pressure at st= art-up but after warm-up my pressure would suddenly drop. I was thinking th= at the oil thermostat looked pretty restrictive but when it was cold and in= bypass mode my pressure was ok, but when it would close the bypass my pres= sure would drop. Examination of the thermostat plug through the port holes = while heating housing with a torch, it appeared that as it closed the bypas= s it seemed to not fully open enough to cooler flow. This is why I removed = it and plugged the bypass hole. Now I have the same low oil pressure as aft= er warm-up, so it would appear that the thermostat was not as restrictive a= s the rest of the cooler. Air blows easily through it, but air flows pretty= easily, so this doesn't prove anything other than it's not plugged= completely.
=C2=A0 I found some mention on a forum that suggests= that the stock cooler has turbolator strip inside the cooling tubes and th= ey could move and bunch up in the tubes, thereby restricting flow. This cer= tainly sounds plausible and would explain why some have issues with stock c= oolers while other do not.
I really don't want to change to s= ome other form/shape of cooler as that would involve fiberglass, painting, = etc. of the cowl. I don't mind doing that work, but it is time consumin= g, and I don't have nearly enough of that resource at this time (I'= m actually supposed to be fencing right now, but taking an extended beer br= eak while I ponder this problem).
=C2=A0 So I'm considering r= emoving the cooler tonight and sawing off the end caps to examine the tubes= . If I find that there are turbolator strips in the tubes, is it worth remo= ving them. It would surely improve flow, but at the expense of cooling effi= ciency.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 If I do this then before I weld them back u= p, I would like to weld up the bypass hole as well as weld a plate over the= thermostat cap hole so I can eliminate that heavy brass plug. But that wou= ld mean that I can never reinstall that thermostat if required which would = mean that if I find in cold weather if I found I needed it, I'd have to= use an external thermostat at even more of a weight penalty. I realize thi= s is an issue that most of you southern guys can't even imagine. But wi= th synthetic multi-weight oils (I'm using synthetic 5W40), this might n= ot be an issue at all.

Todd....=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 I wish I had as much oil pressure, as the pressure I've got to go b= uild fences today.

Todd Bartrim

On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 11:08 AM, Charlie En= gland ceengland7@= gmail.com <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:=
=20 =20 =20
First, let me say that I'm far from being an authority on this subject.=C2=A0

The idea of coolant (oil, water, air, etc) moving too quickly through a heat exchanger comes up often. People who's opinion I trust (trained engineers) say that slowing flow does not improve efficiency. What I've been told is that yes, you may see higher delta T across the cooler with lower flow, but that's not a true and complete picture of what's happening. My understanding, based on what I've read & been told, is that the best heat exchange occurs with the max temperature difference between the media (oil>air, water>air, etc). If you slow the flow through the exchanger, then yes, you will see a bigger delta T across the exchanger, but that means that a lot of the oil (in this case) in the exchanger has already been cooled 'early' in the flow, so effectively, part of the exchanger is operating at a much lower temperature difference with the air, and therefore, its efficiency is reduced. So it follows that higher flow, keeping the entire exchanger hotter (lower delta T) actually improves efficiency. Yes, it's counter-intuitive (at least for me). But supposedly, th= e most BTUs get removed from the system when the entire exchanger is kept at close to the same temp across its face.

There's obviously a point of diminishing returns, where you'r= e actually adding heat by overpressurizing the flow path trying to speed up flow, but I doubt we're there yet. :-)

Perhaps a real engineer could step in and clarify.


On 6/23/2018 9:35 PM, Andrew Martin andrew@martinag.com.au wrote:
Lynn, my setup is pretty much stock where most oil should pass through cooler direct to rear iron ocv, only oil that enters oil gallery is filtered, pressure, temp & redrive oil taken from a block after filter,=C2=A0
But the cooler issue is a bit more incidious in that without a pressure gauge at pump outlet there is no indication of the restriction. I have no problem with having =E2=80=9Csome=E2=80=9D restriction in the cooler but as it builds= markedly with increased flow at rpm, Oil delta t drops as oil flow is too fast through the core to cool the oil, and when front cover relief opens at high rpm due to the restriction, only part of pump output is getting cooled and temps rise more.
Setrab, Fluidyne etc do claim low pressure drop but I have struggled to find at what flow rates, Adding smaller coolers in parallel is an option but the data is still needed to choose the correct sizes that allows all oil to pass through a cooler without pressure drop and have just enough surface area to transfer heat to air.
My test showed 140psi pump output 80psi at back iron, I still dont know what my front cover relief is set at, as 140 was max pressure of gauge I had. But front cover relief valve should never operate in normal operation as it is a safety valve for the pump,front cover & cooler only.
Only engine that is diferent is 2009+ renesis as that has only one valve in the system & diferent oil flow design to the rest of the mazda rotaries.

Andrew

On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 at 7:51 am, Accountlehanover lehanover@aol.com <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:
=C2=A0 A restrictive cooler would (might) show a higher oil pressure than the control valve will allow if measured before the cooler. Because the stock relief valve is at=C2=A0 the end of the system. So the stock valve might allow for 80 PSI, but never open if the full 80 PSI never gets to it so as to activate. Racers measure oil pressure where the oil enters the engine. Usually in an aluminum block that replaces the stock oil filter stand.
What do the bearings see, is the information you want. We raced for years with 80 PSI entering the engine.=
And that was turning the engine to 9,000 RPM on each shift. Oil coolers are constructed of many sharp edged tubes . Pushing oil or any liquid or gas into the end of a sharp edged tube is nearly impossible. So many more tubes than you would calculate necessary are used in order to overcome the sharp tube flow problem.=C2=A0 So, if the stock relief were set at=C2=A079 PSI (stock on early engines) you would want to see 79 PSI on you oil pressure Gage as taken out of that aluminum block. Mistral calculated the cooler size required on the test Piper. The plane would overheat the oil while still within sight of the airport.
The were also using aircraft oil in the engine. 20-50 if I remember correctly. So, flow got worse as the oil heated up.

The racer had an external oil pump with one pressure section (adjustable up to any pressure you might want) and two scavenge sections. The scavenge sections returned oil and air to a storage tank through a set of bug screen filters and two Setrab 44 row coolers in series. The pressure section pulled from the tank and pressurized oil went through two K&N oil filters in parallel and then through a single 44 row Setrab cooler. So, we ran 100 PSI at the engine. Shifting at 9,700 RPM. 250 HP.=C2=A0 Oil is Red Line 20-50 racing synthetic.=C2=A0= A common choice for rotary racing. Not a single oil related failure in 30 years. Oil coolers (and filters) in parallel reduce flow resistance. Coolers and filters in series increase flow resistance. Racing oils collect heat and give it up more quickly than do conventional oils.So any cooler performs a bit better with a synthetic.

Lynn E. Hanover
Any question, any time.=C2=A0


In a message dated 6/23/2018 4:59:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, flyrotary@lancaironline.net writes:

Just got around to plumbing in mechanical gauge before cooler to see whats really happening with my oil flows, wish I=E2=80=99d done it years ago! Learnt so much in a couple of minutes on things that I have wasted so much time second guessing. my second attempt oil cooler did work better than the original mazda cooler, but was atrocious overall, Pressure drop was about 60psi at 1400 prop rpm. No wonder I cant cool the oil, bugger all is going through it, just enough to give me about 80psi oil pressure.
Ended up bypassing cooler all together to confirm it is the cooler that is problem not lines or anything else, well what a diference pressures constant at 78psi at all rpm=E2= =80=99s

Trouble is no cooler manufacturer here seems to have charts of flow & pressure drop on their coolers, very frustrating especially as prices seem to range between $100-900 for similar sizes, so makes it very hard to select correct one.
Andrew
--
Regards Andrew Martin Ma= rtin Ag
--
Regards Andrew Martin Martin Ag

=

3D"" Virus-free. www.avast.com


--0000000000002fc62d056f68fa19--