When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
In my quest for the right IC to install, I got some core measurements. There seems to be no comparison info on which cooler works best, which is understandable since how many have tried different ones while they had the same other mods. I figure if nothing else compare core measurements which should give some idea of capabilty. Not that a core measurement is the whole picture, since internal construction and tube sizes can also make a difference, but without much else to go by it's at least something. These measurements are a combination of specs I found while searching the forums and measurements I've taken myself.........I think they are right, but no guarantees.
Here are dimensions, core volume, and frontal area.
Stock SD 7.3......29.5x18x2......1062 cu in...531 sq in
Banks SD 7.3......29.5x18x2.25..1194 cu in...531 sq in
Hypermax 7.3.....29x13x3.120...1176 cu in...377 sq in
Stock 6.0L.........26.5x21x2.5...1391 cu in...556 sq in
Banks 6.0L.........26.5x21x2.75..1530 cu in...556 sq in
I'm not an engineer, but I would make a few assumptions which are easily open for debate. Volume is important for flow and for cooling. Frontal area should be as important as volume for cooling. However, I don't know the effect thickness has on overall surface area. It would seem that more frontal area would be better than more thickness because more air is used to cool, but the radiator is behind every other cooler and it still works fine, and our IC's are out front rather than behind the condensor and other coolers so we get fresh air.
I couldn't find dimensions on the Spearco's, if anyone has them.
Interesting info. With a thicker IC the flow rate would be less through the IC therefore allowing the air to move slower and cool better before it exits. Although the flow rate would be the same at entry and exit and thru the pipes.
I agree with you about more frontal area being better with more fresh air. Therefore it seems the Hypermax would not make the optimal cooler and less bang for the buck.
It seems that the 6.0 banks cooler would be the best since it has more sq. in. and more volume. Question is if we can put a stock 6.0 cooler in ours why couldn't banks make one that will fit ours that is as big as the 6.0? Unless the extra 1/4" is too much for our bodies.
The best bang for the buck seems to be the 6.0 factory cooler with modified pipes to hook up to ours. More mods but more gains. This would even be better than the Banks 7.3.
The one cooler that I wanted dimensions on but don't have yet is the Banks 7.3 OBS, which I think is slightly smaller than the 7.3 SD cooler. I was wondering why they wouldn't use the same core, but it appears they are different.
I don't see the depth being a problem since the Hypermax is 3 1/8" thick, and it fits fine in my '96. It's tight, the grill is right up against it. One good thing about the Hypermax is that the air flow through the cooler is very good, since it almost perfectly fits our OBS grill. I wonder how good the air flow is through the bottom few inches of a 6.0 cooler if you don't keep some type of rubber cladding around the bottom to direct flow through the cooler and the radiator, like the factory does.
Very good point. You may have the best flow since yours completely covers the grill area. The 6.0 may be good as well if you deflect some air thru it as you noted. As I said more mods...
I didn't take into account that they put 7.3's in both body styles. So the measurements you gave for the 7.3 is for the 99-03?