>From herbie ford-trucks.com Wed Oct 7 06:11:49 1998
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 06:11:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: owner-perf-list-digest ford-trucks.com (perf-list-digest)
To: perf-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Subject: perf-list-digest V1 #111
Reply-To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Sender: owner-perf-list-digest ford-trucks.com


perf-list-digest Wednesday, October 7 1998 Volume 01 : Number 111



=======================================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts - Performance
Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe, send email to:
majordomo ford-trucks.com
with the words "unsubscribe perf-list-digest" in the body of the
message.
=======================================================================
In this issue:

RE: FTE Perf - Re: Long cooling ramble
FTE Perf - RE: long cooling ramble
RE: FTE Perf - RE: long cooling ramble
FTE Perf - 300 I6 HELP NEEDED
FTE Perf - Engine & transmission identifacation
FTE Perf - Re: heat transfer equation
FTE Perf - Help????
RE: FTE Perf - Re: heat transfer equation
FTE Perf - RE: long cooling ramble
FTE Perf - Re: Long cooling ramble

=======================================================================

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 08:01:06 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Re: Long cooling ramble

From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Re: Long cooling ramble
Date sent: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 16:41:42 -0400

> so it would appear that there is a balance between the heat into the water
> from the engine and the heat out thru the radiater that must be kept. too
> much or too little heat added/subtracted on either side (engine/radiater)
> will imbalance the whole system and either the engine will run hot, or run
> cold.

Trial and error engineering, I rest my case :-)

> it would appear from this eqution that increasing water speed increases
> the cooling capacity until the system becomes time dependant, instead of
> heat tranfer rate dependant.

Isn't this exactly what we've been trying to say? The bottom line is that with
a thermostat and an over kill radiator you can control the temp of the engine
and keep it cool enough to do what ever you want to do. You can't have too
large a radiator IMNSHO but you can run the wrong thermostat, fan or water
pump for an application.

Get the biggest radiator you can fit with as many rows as possible and then
fine tune the rest of the system but get the radiator first........:-) Most of us
had to buy a new radiator when we got our old trucks anyway right? Why
not get a good one to start and build your system around it? This is my
whole truck building phelosophy, start with essentials to keep it running but
only buy stuff that will fit your "Plan" for the truck and buy good stuff. As
you add to it you never have to throw anything away and it's cost effective :-)

A son-in-law only takes part of a daughter away,
Dad keeps the best part :-)

- -- Gary --


== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 08:15:51 -0500
From: lordjanusz juno.com (Paul M Radecki)
Subject: FTE Perf - RE: long cooling ramble

What an interesting thread. Makes me wish I'd finished that
Thermodynamics class at Purdue... Does anyone have any experience with
powerboats? I don't know any details concerning flow and heat transfer
through a water-to-water radiator as opposed to a water-to-air system,
but I imagine such a comparison might be enlightening. A lake is a VERY
efficient heat sink! Just an idea...

lordjanusz juno.com

"Unbreakable toys are good for breaking other toys"

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.juno.com
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 11:49:50 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - RE: long cooling ramble

water to water is a better heat exchanger than water to air, based on thermodynamic principles.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Paul M Radecki[SMTP:lordjanusz juno.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 1998 9:15 AM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE Perf - RE: long cooling ramble

What an interesting thread. Makes me wish I'd finished that
Thermodynamics class at Purdue... Does anyone have any experience with
powerboats? I don't know any details concerning flow and heat transfer
through a water-to-water radiator as opposed to a water-to-air system,
but I imagine such a comparison might be enlightening. A lake is a VERY
efficient heat sink! Just an idea...

lordjanusz juno.com

"Unbreakable toys are good for breaking other toys"

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.juno.com
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html



== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 14:07:45 -0500
From: frenz.6 osu.edu (Dale Frenz)
Subject: FTE Perf - 300 I6 HELP NEEDED

Alright help me with this 300 stuff.

On the 300 I-6, anybody know what these can be bored out to? I was
thinking about building up a nice inline torque motor for the hell of it
for my '79 150 4x4. Curious to know max power I can obtain from one of
these jewels. Also, what are the valve sizes??? Stock hp and torque
ratings?? Also, what kinda fuel injection are the late models? Speed
Density?

Ideas?


== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 13:14:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Oldtrukman webtv.net (R. Pietsch)
Subject: FTE Perf - Engine & transmission identifacation

Identifying the transmission is the easy part. The engine might be
a little harder. The C6 tranny has a one piece case in that the bell
housing is an integral unit w/the main body. The FMX tranny has a
seperate bell housing that can be removed from the main body and
replaced with a different one to fit other engines. The C6 trans for the
351C is the small block type and will fit the late 289, 302, 351W, 351C,
and the also the 300 cu. in. inline 6 cyl. engines. It will also have a
number "23" cast into the top of the bell housing between the top two
mounting bolt holes. At least mine does.
The engine sould have an I/D tag mounted on it up near the front
near the coil or dipstick mounting bolts if it was manufactured before
1973. after that they went to a decal sticker usualy found on the right
valve cover.
Tom Monroe's book, 'How to rebuild Ford V8 Engines" can tell you
how to read these tags or decals, and where to look for the correct
casting numbers if the tag or decal has been removed.
IMHO this book is a godsend of info if you are rebuilding or doing
much work on your engine. It can guide even a novice like me through a
complete rebuild with confidence.

Good luck on your project.



Rix56 'The Rat'

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: 06 Oct 1998 17:27:47 -0400
From: John L Johnson
Subject: FTE Perf - Re: heat transfer equation

I have a few problems with the equation. For starters, there are 6 opening
'parens' and 7 closing 'parens'--opening 'parens' must equal closing 'parens'.
Believe "Ta" should be defined as the mean temp across the surface of
the leading edge of the radiator (probably just ambient air temp); to
define it as the mean temp front-to-back implies a heat transfer component
for "Ta", but that's what you're trying to calculate. Also, air flow
is best represented by a vector, i.e., direction and velocity. For a
stationary radiator, with no obstructions to air flow, defining "V" as
air velocity
would be okay, though. I also have a problem with the definition for
"A". What's important here is "contact area" and that's really just the
surface area of the piping through which the cooling medium flows, "enhanced"
by quantity and profile/configuration of fins (not fin spacing), fin and
piping material (covered in "K" ?), and even color (black surfaces will
radiate more heat than white/polished surfaces, assuming the coloring
medium does not restrict airflow or provide insulation). Bottom line,
I'm not sure I would trust the formula; it clearly over simplifies the
heat transfer process. There are other variables to be considered, too;
e.g., relative humidity, air density, pressure of the coolant, cooling
medium, radiatior inlet/outlet locations/configuration, coolant flow velocity
(we all seem to be struggling with that one), etc.

I'm not trying to be a wise ass, I just don't except the formula. Cooling
an internal combustion engine is not all science. IMHO, there a little
black magic, a lot of trial and error (shortened by the knowledge of lessons
learned by pros like sled dog, Richard Childress, the engineers at Ford,
etc.) and some compromising. I'll leave it at that.

John in Northern VA
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 03:37:01 -0400
From: "David M. Ackerschott"
Subject: FTE Perf - Help????

Wow what an incredible response, I can't believe how wonderful this
list has become, anytime anyone needs help with there Ford Everyone
gladly helps, A Huge Thanks!!!!!!! now for the new problem, i did
get the new Code off the engine,
DOAE-L off the block, by where the starter mounts
so from what i have learned i have a 351 Cleveland Right?????
also the tranny is in two peices or should i say seperate bellhousing
so looks like a FMX so has anybody ever ran a Fmx????? Pros and Cons
welcome, i will be use the motor and trans together in my 53' which
is coming along great just about ready to bolt in the mustang II
cross member, so i hope to post pictures soon on my webpage.

again thanks for all the info
Fords Forever DDdavid
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 18:45:13 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Re: heat transfer equation

ok, i missed a paranthesis. sorry.

(Ta) is the temp mean, from front to back, as the air increases in temp,
from front to back of the radiater. the cooler air in front, hotter in
back. think of a 4 core radiater. each core gets slightly hotter air to
work with. so if the ambiant air is 70 deg F, then the first core gets
that air, and the last core is eqaul to the air exiting, which is alot
hotter, maybe about 150 deg F. so, Ta is about 110 deg. F

air is assumed to have a direction from front to back. therefore the
vecter is meaningless, only the magnatude (speed in this case)

the cooling area is the total surface area. not the length times width of
the radiater. good you understand that.

the fin spacing is important. smaller spacing is more efficient. material
properties are covered in (K) apparently.

you said:
There are other variables to be considered, too;
e.g., relative humidity, air density, pressure of the coolant, cooling
medium, radiatior inlet/outlet locations/configuration, coolant flow
velocity
(we all seem to be struggling with that one), etc.

ok, it simplifies it, but humidity is assumed constant. yes, it changes
the equation but to a small degree and it is not something that WE can
change! we are designing and modifying, and understanding, not changing
the weather like god. same for density. trhe equation assumes water as
the coolant. the pressure of the coolant is only important as it raises
the boiling poiint, and therefore the possible limits on the temp into the
radiater.

the flow velocity, guess i wasn't clear on that. you see, as the flow
increases (coolant), the temperature in, and out, come closer together.
heat transfer is time based. the longer the water is in radiater the more
heat will be tranfered to the air. if it moves thru signigantly fast
enough, the inlet and outlet temps converge. and if you notice, as the
temps converge, the actual heat potential difference between the air and
radiater increases. but as the speed of the coolant increases beyond a
certain point we can see that if the inlet and outlet temps are the same no
cooling has actually taken place (sure, they'll never be exactly the same,
but they converge to a limit of temp in = temp out)

the actual amount of heat released to the air becomes too small to keep an
engine cool.

as for your last paragraph, i don't think you are being a smart ass at all.
but i do completely disagree with it being a black magic thing at all! it
is all science. we just may not have learned all the science yet. edison
learned to use electricity, but doesn't mean he understood the science of
it as well as we do now at even a highschool level. the formula is
simplified no doubt, but looking at more complex ones we couldn't really
see what is happening. this simpler one gives us something to study and to
see what effects what when any variable is changed.

the formula is for the heat transfer rate from the radiater. and as i said
before the temp in and temp out variables is what we would change to see
the effects of increased or decreased flow. OTOH, if flow is reduced, we
know that the temp in, and temp out will diverge to the limit of inlet temp
- - ambiant temp. at this point we see a drop in heat transfer rate, but the
time spent in radiater is longer, effectively increasing the actual heat
exchanged. (another advantage to larger radiaters i might add!) but we
know that too slow a flow hurts too. interesting balance...

one other thing, yes, black gives off more heat. this is radiation (infra
red) not conduction. radiation heat is very small compared to cunduction
and paining the thing black helps such a small amount. but nevertheless,
my whole 521 cid engine is painted black basically. the block, intake, oil
pan, etc.

sleddog


- ----------
From: John L Johnson[SMTP:John.L.Johnson trw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 1998 5:27 PM
To: Reply requested
Subject: FTE Perf - Re: heat transfer equation

I have a few problems with the equation. For starters, there are 6 opening
'parens' and 7 closing 'parens'--opening 'parens' must equal closing
'parens'.
Believe "Ta" should be defined as the mean temp across the surface of
the leading edge of the radiator (probably just ambient air temp); to
define it as the mean temp front-to-back implies a heat transfer component
for "Ta", but that's what you're trying to calculate. Also, air flow
is best represented by a vector, i.e., direction and velocity. For a
stationary radiator, with no obstructions to air flow, defining "V" as
air velocity
would be okay, though. I also have a problem with the definition for
"A". What's important here is "contact area" and that's really just the
surface area of the piping through which the cooling medium flows,
"enhanced"
by quantity and profile/configuration of fins (not fin spacing), fin and
piping material (covered in "K" ?), and even color (black surfaces will
radiate more heat than white/polished surfaces, assuming the coloring
medium does not restrict airflow or provide insulation). Bottom line,
I'm not sure I would trust the formula; it clearly over simplifies the
heat transfer process. There are other variables to be considered, too;
e.g., relative humidity, air density, pressure of the coolant, cooling
medium, radiatior inlet/outlet locations/configuration, coolant flow
velocity
(we all seem to be struggling with that one), etc.

I'm not trying to be a wise ass, I just don't except the formula. Cooling
an internal combustion engine is not all science. IMHO, there a little
black magic, a lot of trial and error (shortened by the knowledge of
lessons
learned by pros like sled dog, Richard Childress, the engineers at Ford,
etc.) and some compromising. I'll leave it at that.

John in Northern VA
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html




== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: 6 Oct 1998 19:42:54 EDT
From: Hawk sktc.net
Subject: FTE Perf - RE: long cooling ramble

PE> What an interesting thread. Makes me wish I'd finished that
PE>Thermodynamics class at Purdue... Does anyone have any experience with
PE>powerboats? I don't know any details concerning flow and heat transfer
PE>through a water-to-water radiator as opposed to a water-to-air system,
PE>but I imagine such a comparison might be enlightening. A lake is a VERY
PE>efficient heat sink! Just an idea...

PE>lordjanusz juno.com

This reminds me of a situation that I encountered this summer. A farmer
irrigates his fields with water drawn from a small river. His pump is
powered by a IH 345 on LP. The 345 is cooled by a water to water cooler
from the river water that he is pumping. Due to the extremely hot
summer temps, the river water got warm enough to cause the engine to run
hot. In an attempt to keep it cool, he removed the thermostat. It then
heated, right now, big time! I guess you are right, a lake (or river)
is a very good heat sink,but only if the water is cool enough. My point
is that ambient temperature is very important to the efficiency of the
cooling system, and is the one aspect that we can control the least.
Buck Shoff


== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 23:21:13 -0700
From: Vogt Family
Subject: FTE Perf - Re: Long cooling ramble

On Mon, 5 Oct 1998, "Gary, 78 BBB" wrote:
> Total heat transfer is not
> "instantaneous", the rate of transfer is calsulated on an instantaneous transfer
> though or as scientists call it "absolute" and that formula does not include
> time. Total heat loss has a time element so slower moving water with
> sufficient volume or mass OR faster moving, lower mass will move the same
> heat, but the water has to stay in contact with the surface.

But this is an engine, and we are not talking about total heat
transfer. We need to get the rate as high as possible. If we were
cooling off a hot rock total heat transfer would be an issue. What we
are trying to do in this scenario is to keep the thing cool because the
darn thing just keeps creating more heat as fast as we remove it.

> Boundary layer is affected by several things including velocity, size of pipe
> or channel, material etc. but basically you have a gradual change in velocity
> from the core or center of the flow to the surface of the channel, there is not
> a well defined layer that doesn't move at all, it moves more slowly due to
> friction between it and the static surface as I understand it.

True, what I said before is that I don't see how the velocity of the
boundary layer can be slower as the outside layer goes faster.

> > But two bodies of different temperatures will
> > attempt to equalize their temperatures, the greater the differential, the
> > quicker they will do it.
>
> Exactly so the longer the same mass of water stays in contact with the metal
> the more heat will transfer or the more cooler water passes by the more heat
> will transfer but you have to keep them in contact in either case and once the
> mass of water reaches a point close to the surface of the metal the heat
> transfer drops off sharply so it turns out to be a balance beween sufficient
> mass flowing by and velocity to keep the coolant cooler at any given point
> and one reason coolant can't just flow from the front to the back is that the
> back will not transfer enough heat to keep it the same temp as the front. :-)

We are keeping them in contact. We are not applying water to the block
and then removing it. Instead, we are replacing it with more cool
water. The longer the existing water stays in contact with the block,
the hotter it gets, and the slower heat transfer becomes. By replacing
it with cool water as rapidly as possible, we should, in theory, be able
to keep it from climbing even a few degrees on its pass through the
block.

I am just wondering if we are mistaking the water pump's unrestricted
pressure blowing off the radiator cap on the top tank of a down flow
radiator due to the radiator's insufficient capacity for water flow,
ignoring water temperature altogether. If any water escapes from the
cap, it is going to be hot and steam anyway. The symptoms could mimic
boiling even more because the cap might need to be blown off by a
combination of static pressure of the heated water and dynamic pressure
of the water pump so that it takes a few minutes for it to build up to
that point, and then the water would be nice and warm. Lord knows I
have heard a lot of stories about how somebody removed the thermostat
and the thing instantly started spewing like it was overheating.

I just wondered if anybody has observed this phenomenon in a cross flow....


To access the rest of this feature you must be a logged in Registered User Of Ford Truck Enthusiasts

Registration is free, easy and gives you access to more features.
If you are not registered, click here to register.
If you are already registered, you can login here.

If you are already logged in and are seeing this message, your web browser is blocking session cookies. Change your browser cookie settings to allow session cookies.




Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Jobs

This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.