hi everyone putting a tranny cooler on a 63 val. which line is in and out.both lines are on bottom of rad.

The line that connects to the front area of the trans is the pressure. The line that connects to the rear section of the trans is the return.

_________________
Charrlie_S
65 Valiant 100 2dr post 170 turbo
66 Valiant Signet 170 nitrous
64 Valiant Signet
64 Valiant 4dr 170
64 Valiant 4dr 225

I've always run the pressure line to the cooler in the radiator first, the line out to the aux cooler and back to the return line in the tranny. Seems to work fine that way.

The way I like to do it, is to run the fluid to the aux cooler first, then to the radiator cooler, and back to the trans. This is my thinking:
If it is hot outside, and the trans fluid is hot, the heat is given off to the air, and takes some heat load off the radiator.
If the trans fluid is cool (relitivly) and it is cold outside, the fluid going thru the radiator last, will help to warm the trans fluid back up a little.

_________________
Charrlie_S
65 Valiant 100 2dr post 170 turbo
66 Valiant Signet 170 nitrous
64 Valiant Signet
64 Valiant 4dr 170
64 Valiant 4dr 225

But the aux cooler is in front of the radiator, so hotter air hits the radiator............... Think it's a wash that way........

Although I do like the idea of not getting the transmission fluid too cool.

Another way is to the radiator first, then have a oil cooler thermostat, then the aux cooler. Fluid won't go thru the aux cooler unless it's above 180 or so.

_________________
Ed
64 Valiant 225 / 904 / 42:1 manual steering / 9" drum brakes

A water - fluid transition is more effective than an air - fluid transition. It is typically a better idea for optimum cooling to first deliver the transmission fluid through the radiator first through the stock cooling system for this reason. If the transmission is running hot then the radiator can more effectively cool it and then the auxillery radiator will cool it even further.

But you will get more heat transfer, with a greater delta "T". Trans fluid at 200 degrees, and air thru the aux cooler at 90 degrees, as compared to fluid at 200 and radiator water temp, at the bottom of the radiator, at 150 degrees. There are many factors, to consider, such as the size of the aux cooler, the size of the cooling system, the size of the cooler in the radiator, the heat load the engine puts on the cooling system, and the heat load generated by the trans. You would, pretty much, have to be an engineer, to figure it all out. I did not say my way was right, or some else was wrong. Just stated my thinking. In short, If you are putting extra load on your trans, any cooler hookup is better then none.

PS: I agree about the thermostatic valve being a nice way to do it.

_________________
Charrlie_S
65 Valiant 100 2dr post 170 turbo
66 Valiant Signet 170 nitrous
64 Valiant Signet
64 Valiant 4dr 170
64 Valiant 4dr 225

I'm not saying mine is the only way to do it, there are certainly a lot of factors . However, if you look at the math the fluid-fluid transition is more reliable than strictly fluid-air transition. Obviously using both the bottom of the radiator and the auxillery cooler provides more mass with obvious results. Using the radiator could be considered the "pre-cool" stage if you will, when the fluid then goes to the auxillery cooler for further fluid-air cooling.

Many times this is overkill, but it's also the "most efficient" way to cool a transmission.

If you really want to see it I'll be happy to show you the calculus behind it, but I don't think anyone wants to sleep through that post :p. Like everyone has stated...there are a hundred to do it, mine is but one. All are correct for their application. As always in an online forum, each person needs to read and evaluate all options and chose the best option for them.

My way is definately not the only way .

I for one, would like to see some real world numbers. I don't know if I would understand the math involved, but would be interested in learning. Thats what I was getting at in my post, that there is some complex engineering involved, and a lot of variables. Maybe you could send me a PM, if no else is that interested, in seeing it posted here.

"A day without learning something new, is a day wasted".

_________________
Charrlie_S
65 Valiant 100 2dr post 170 turbo
66 Valiant Signet 170 nitrous
64 Valiant Signet
64 Valiant 4dr 170
64 Valiant 4dr 225

Ok, so i'm not going to looking for Thermodynamic equations right now. It's before 10am, and that's the earliest I allow myself to do anything requiring more than Trig.

I asked him in a pm yesterday, he's a busy man, but he did give me a better explanation of it. Basically, the fluid (in this case water) has a greater ability to absorb heat per unit surface area versus air, which is notoriously bad at transferring heat. (I'm thinking Calories per square inch here, could be wrong.)

Assuming there are constants between the two systems being compared, fluid-fluid vs fluid- air, such as transfer material and surface area, then the only difference comes down to the number of calories of heat that the fluid or the air can absorb. Water or Coolant is much better than air. They use air as an insulative material. Big Puffy coat is a better insulator than a dense one.

I think that's how it goes. Hmmm, don't know if i explained that any better.

Think of it this way, there a difference in the amount of heat each can absorb, it actually takes a bit more to heat, say, a cubic inch of water, than it does a cubic inch of air. Or do i have that backwards.

Or, which is better, an air cooled engine, VW Bug, or Water cooled, our beloved /6.

_________________

The old white brick

Be careful here. I like the slant six in my Valiant, and think it's the best engine for that car. However, for cars like the Type 1 Beetle, that flat four engine is pretty good. The VW aircooled boxer engine may not be our cup of tea, but it works well. It's been in production and development for over 70 years (and counting). It's light, simple, and effective. It also has certain advantages. You don't have to worry about water/coolant leaks. Oil cooling is an issue, but can be addressed by a number of means. Packaging is somewhat simplified without the big water radiator and associated hoses and pumps, although airflow is critical in both air- and water-cooled engines.
The VW factories and suppliers turned them out until fairly recently, and, yes, new engines are in production right now in the aftermarket - something we slanters can't say about our engines. Darn it.
It is also hard to argue with the performance of VW-derived Porsche air-cooled engines. So, aircooling is not so bad after all. It's just different.

_________________
"When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it." - Pointy-haired Boss

1964 Valiant V200, 225/Pushbutton 904
BBD, CAI, HEI, LBP, AC, AM/FM/USB, EIEIO

And i even have a VW, you'd think I'd know better by now. Just using as an example of an air cooled engine vs. a water cooled.

Ok, I know there are air cooled 4's and maybe 6's, but are there any air cooled 8's?

_________________

The old white brick

How about 28 cylinders and 3500HP?

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/engines/eng34a.htm

_________________
"When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it." - Pointy-haired Boss

1964 Valiant V200, 225/Pushbutton 904
BBD, CAI, HEI, LBP, AC, AM/FM/USB, EIEIO

A lot of this is the basic way to think about it, though let me expand on a couple of ideas. I'm not using exact numbers, just representative numbers to use as examples. That and I haven't used these numbers since my earlier Calc classes (I'm an electrical engineer, not mechanical).

Basically it was said earlier the water in the bottom of the radiator could be 150 degrees fahrenheit. Now assuming a constant temperature of 180 degree coming out of the transmission, then you can see the difference in temperature is 30 degrees.

Now say, during the summer, the outside air temperature is 100 degrees. The transmission fluid stays at the same constant 180 degrees. It is easy to see the change in temperature is 80 degrees.

Now, we are going to assume for the sake of simplicity that the cooling surface area of the radiator and the auxillery cooler is the same to eliminate that variable. And also assume that the flow rate will be identical for each (this is a forced convection system) meaning that the fluid will be in contact with the same amount of cooling surfaces for the same amount.

What we have now done is isolate the variable equation to just be the difference in temperature. Now we have 3 possibilities to quantify to find optimum cooling. First just using the radiator (fluid-fluid) cooling method. Second, just use the auxillery cooler (air-air) cooling method. Finally use them both in series (fluid-fluid followed by air-air). Obviously the greatest cooling will come from cooling in series, but is it enough to go through the trouble to set it up?

The thermal conductivity of air is .026 joules per second. The thermal conductivity for water is .60 joules per second. From these numbers we can deduce that pretty much right at 23 times more conducive to heat transfer than air. In other words, water will remove heat from the transmission fluid about 23 times faster than air will.

Now going back up a little bit, we have a change in temperate of the aux cooler of 180 - 100 = 80 degrees and for water 180 - 150 = 30 degrees. So now the problem becomes how cool will the water get through the radiator vs. through the auxillery cooler.

To calculate the heat exchange, you use the formula:

H = ( k A (T2 - T1) ) / L

Where H = heat, k = thermal conductivity, A = area of the water or air, T2 - T1 = length of time allowed to transfer, and L = length of the tubes in the cooler.


So for simplicity and to speed the process up a little bit, we will assume there are 10 feet of cooling lines "L" in each radiator and the the volume of the water will be based on a 1" coolant line diameter. This will yield (Area of cylinder = 2 * pi * radius * height) a coolant area A of 2 * pi * .5" * 120" or an area of 120 * pi" which is approximately 377" square inches of surface area.

Now we have to find an number for the time it takes to pump the fluid through this imaginary system. If the system is 120" long and the pump will move the fluid at, say, 10" per second, then it will take 12 seconds to pump the fluid through the system.

So now looking back at our equation, we can plug in some numbers and we will find that Water removes 22.65 joules per second of heat.

Now if we do the same calculation for air, we find it removes .9802 joules per second of heat.

With 1 Joule being equivalent to .7376 foot-pounds of work, we can calculate that water will actually do 16.71 foot-pounds of work on our transmission fluid, whereas air will only be able to accomplish .723 foot-pounds of work. Wow! Quite a difference!

This means that in our cooling system (where most everything is equivalent), water will do (!gasp!) 23 times more cooling than air will .

Now I'm going to go ahead and stop here b/c I'm out of time....if I get more time later I will come back and do some unit conversions and some more calculations to convert to the actual temperature drop. Hopefully this will be convincing enough to everyone that the radiator will actually remove more heat than an auxillery cooler. That is unless you use an auxillery cooler 23 times larger than the cooler in your radiator, then you will get the same cooling effect .

See, it all makes sense when the math is applied.

But that's till one sick engine. Btw, does the thermal conductivity of air change as the pressure changes? Cuz, I think 4000+CI would put out quite a bit of heat.

Also, does the same question apply to fluid under pressure?

But thanks for explaining that, it all makes a happy bit of sense now.

_________________

The old white brick