Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:15:49 -0800
Reply-To: Damon Campbell <damoncampbellvw@YAHOO.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Damon Campbell <damoncampbellvw@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: 2.1 to 1.9 oil cooler retrofit design Q (longish)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hello List,
My 2.3 engine uses the simpler 1.9 cooling system,
which i like for simplicity, but i dislike for the
lack of an oil cooler. So on to thinking about how to
use the 2.1 oil cooler that is already installed in
the engine (just not hooked up to any coolant).
Talking to my dad about this, we came up with 2
possible scenarios:
1) essentially go from the coolant crossover pipe to
the oil cooler, and then back up to the expansion
tank. Another way to go about this would be to go
directly from the return hose of the rear heater core
around the engine bay to the oil cooler, and then back
up to the expansion tank. This might effectively
eliminate the crossover pipe altogether.
2) install an auto tranny coolant bleeder H-pipe (the
one mounted to the fire wall that the radiator hoses
hook up to), and hook up to the oil cooler that way
(basically replacing what would have been a tranny
cooler with the oil cooler).
There are pros and cons to each.
Pro for #1 is that it runs off the engine coolant
loop, so it will help heat up the oil on cold
startups, much like the 2.1 system does.
Con for #1 is that there will be a noticeable change
in hose diameter between the crossover pipe and the
oil cooler, and another big change from the cooler to
the expansion tank. I'm concerned about flow
restrictions and the like. It would also likely be
quite a bit of fabrication.
Pro for #2 is that it is pretty close to a factory
design, and would be relatively easy to plumb in
(assuming hose diameters for oil and tranny coolers
are pretty compatible - are they?). This would also
replace one of the original (21 year old!) hard pieces
in the coolant system.
Con would be that it runs off the radiator loop.
Additionally, I don't even know if this setup would
provide enough flow to adequately cool the oil (would
it?).
I know this is a bit lengthy, but would either of
these ideas work, and if so, which would be better.
Is there something else that would be preferable
altogether? I am, however, leaning to design #2.
Thanks, and i appreciate any input you may have on the
subject.
-Damon
=====
'84 Westy (Sparky) w/2.3L WBX
Vancouver, BC
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com