quote Originally posted by 86fierofun: That right now is your biggest obstacle. The simplest heat transfer equation is Q=m*c*delta T. In other words, the amount of heat transfer depends on the difference in temperature between the system you're cooling and the surrounding temperatures. While you have good cooling to start, at the end your heat transfer greatly reduces. If you could get the air to somehow hit it crosswise, you might get some good cooling, but then you again have to deal with the fact that the tube is stainless and that you have a massive cross section of flow, vs that of what is seen in the radiator. I wouldn't say scrap the idea, I just think that you are going to have come up with some more ideas. See if you can find a heat transfer textbook or handbook. It will help you to come up with ideas that will work have greater probability for success. Good luck.

I've actually scrapped the idea of using the stock stainless tubing, and I'm working with a salesman to see what I can get some longitudinally finned pipes for.
On the side that the coolant flows forward from the engine, the air gets hotter as it moves aft, but so does the fluid. However, at the aft end of the tube the air will still be cooler than the fluid leaving the engine. On the other side, It's just the opposite; the air heats up as it moves aft, but the fluid gets cooler as it returns (aft) to the engine, so the air temp will reach an equilibrium with the fluid temp (maybe like halfway down the pipe), but that equilibrium temperature should still be much cooler than the fluid that originally left the engine. The only question is, will it maintain a cool enough temperature to operate? We can speculate all day long, but I won't know for sure until I can get my hands on some finned tubing and test it out.

As far as losing an engine, this won't be installed for normal usage until I am 100% convinced through testing that it's efficient enough, and even then I'll have allowances for additional temp guages for verification.
In short, I am by no means giving up, I'm just trying to find a good dealer for finned tubing, and when I do, this will be the first place I post.

------------------
Journal of a concept: http://southeastfieros.com

May it reach equilibrium? Yes, but that is an inefficient way to design. That's a lot of wasted space, potentially, and it may be so designed that the air actually reheats the fluid. For best use of space, which is what you are going for, you want the air to hit the cooling fins at an angle, preferably 90 degrees, but less than that will still work better than 0 degrees. Your concept has potential. I'll be interested to see what you do.

quote Originally posted by 86fierofun: May it reach equilibrium? Yes, but that is an inefficient way to design. That's a lot of wasted space, potentially, and it may be so designed that the air actually reheats the fluid. For best use of space, which is what you are going for, you want the air to hit the cooling fins at an angle, preferably 90 degrees, but less than that will still work better than 0 degrees. Your concept has potential. I'll be interested to see what you do.

Well, from an engineering standpoint, I agree, it wouldn't be as efficient as a 90 degree airflow, like current radiators are designed. However, from a DIY standpoint regarding ease of installation, I would be of the opinion that if it actually works, then it's efficient enough, because adding "good" airflow from the sides adds more cost and more headache. Internal combustion engines have been around for years, and they are still only about 20% efficient on average. Does this mean that we scrap it completely, and only use engines that are more efficient? No.
I am by no means disagreeing with you, in fact, I agree 100%, but the idea must have an even trade-off of efficiency, simplicity, and ease of installation.

However, in keeping with what you are saying, I have kinda scrapped the idea of blowing air from the front with the fans, and turned to pulling air through, thanks to Blacktree's suggestion. This design would allow for simple holes to be cut along the length, and would allow more fresh air to enter such as you suggest. Starting with a relatively small hole in the rear, and increasing the size of the hole as you move to the forward would help to more evenly distribute the suction along the length. However, ram-air generated from forward motion of the vehicle would still flow along the length of the tube for the most part, and at even 40mph, the air moving along isn't going to have time to become completely saturated with the fluid's heat to the point that it reaches a full equilibrium (at least I don't think...).

Probably not.

Though space is a big concern for you. Maybe adding a second port to bring in more fresh cold air halfway down the system?

Anyways, the discussion is mute unless we were to do some actual calculations.

quote Originally posted by 86fierofun: Probably not. Though space is a big concern for you. Maybe adding a second port to bring in more fresh cold air halfway down the system? Anyways, the discussion is mute unless we were to do some actual calculations.

Exactly. But on a positive note, I finally got an email from ALCO Fin Heat Exchanger manufacturing, and I'll be writing them back tomorrow for specifics on prices.

Wetted area inside the tubes is smaller than inside the radiator. Less area= less heat transfer= fieroBOOM!

or maybe a bang or a clunk.

What actually happens to an overheated engine?

[This message has been edited by 30+mpg (edited 11-30-2008).]

-One of the secret of the effectivenes of air cooling in a computer is the relatively small gap and very clean surfaces of the top housing of the processor core itself and the bottom of the heatsink. To maximize the cooling, the heat transfer from the tube to the fin is to make them as close as possible...and computer freak lap their processor housing surfaces and heatsink surfaces, the two surface that need to be in contact. Sometime they look like mirror.

So for your concept to work, you will need the fin to be as close as a contact can be to the tube. Almost like they are one. Just a small air gap from welding heat deformation and youre screwed. You absolutly need the fin to be like it was made with the tube material ,not added part. So the only welding method tht will work will be soldering, brazing with brass or something heat conductive like that.

-Two, the choice of material. Youre better going with cooper or aluminium for your heatsink and your tubing to maximize the heat transfer.

-Third...one of the succes of the radiator is the small capillary like tubing. Since the volume of liquid in each of the little flat tube in a radiator is small the effectiveness of heat transfert from the liquid to the tubing material to the air is maximized and faster. With a full diameter tubing like the coolant tubing on the Fiero, you will need a very long tube, much more longer than the car to succesfully reduce the heat of the liquid at its exit. To much volume, only the exterior volume of the liquid flow will transmit heat to the tubing body. The center of the liquid mass will stay to much hot.

-Fourth...same principle for the radiator fin...the "mass" and surface of the fin are optimized for maximum heat transfer. Fin are very thin, because you dont want the fin to take to much time to become hot...and you dont want them to take much time to transfer this same heat to the air.

The magic word here is "max speed of heat tranfer" atteined with very close gap and very thin part and "maximum surface area"

Added the fact or the air flow consideration already discussed, heat need to be pushed away from the fin as fast as possible and not reachiong other fins or part of the tube.

IMO because of all this, your system , like you itend to make it will fail.. Sorry.

[This message has been edited by perry rhodan (edited 11-30-2008).]

One consideration would be to have adjacent air chambers to create air flow over the fins and tubes. Say a tunnel under the tube that would cause air to flow over the tube and a chamber above to vent the exhaust air away from the tube. If not, the rear of the tube is going to be a lot hotter than the rest and you will have trouble with heat growth from the Temperature Coefficient of Expansion of the tube. All metal has a TCOE and you will end up with the fins being broken off due to expansion. Look at a typical radiator and you will see the fins are not attached to the coolant tubes but are allowed to move a little. If the fins were securely attached, the TCOE would cause joint failure.
If you created an air chamber under the tube that had compartments with air scoops to pull air in and over the cooling tubes, you would have better heat transfer. You would have to experiment in a wind tunnel to find the optimum placement of the air scoops for most efficient transfer.
Theoretically this could work but would take some engineering and mainly a lot of wind tunnel testing.

Perry, I don't think you've read the entire thread... then again, I doubt I would have either...
Anyway, in case you missed it, I'm talking with ALCO, which is a manufacturer of longitudinally finned heat exchange tubes. These tubes have a wide range of sizes, and they can be custom made, or can be bought in pre-made forms. They are formed as a single piece, and I can get them in Aluminum, so no worries about air gaps between the tubes & fins, and the fins will run the entire length of the tubes. I've already done some rough calculations on fin surface area on the tubes vs fin surface area on the radiator (yes, I counted them all), and the tubes will have substantially more surface area.
The only issue I see that could arise is the wetted surface area as you described (and it was mentioned earlier as well). But still, on paper, it appears the tubes will actually work better... Knowing how things look on paper vs in the real world, I'm hoping for at least a dead-even match between them, and if it turns out better, well then, I'm a genius, and I'll start making kits to sell heh heh heh...

I love all the suggestions and comments, but it's been at the point for a while now where it's "It might work, but I don't think so..." and the only way to know is to try it. Unfortunately I can't try it until these darn ALCO people pick up their pace a little and get me some tubes!!
Honestly, I can't believe this thread was brought back, because the project is waiting on me to try it... But I'm kinda glad it's not gonna get archived, because hopefully I'll have testing materials soon.
Maybe we can just keep bumping it till I get my tests done....

Sorry...I missed the "ALCO" tube.

But I'm sure the problem of the liquid mass will still be the culprit if you still use the same diameter tubing as the Fiero. If you use like 5 or 10 much smaller internal section tubes running in parallel it will be much more effective.

Keep us informed of your result and good luck.

[This message has been edited by perry rhodan (edited 11-30-2008).]

quote Originally posted by perry rhodan: Sorry...I missed the "ALCO" tube. But I'm sure the problem of the liquid mass will still be the culprit if you still use the same diameter tubing as the Fiero. If you use like 5 or 10 much smaller internal section tubes running in parallel it will be much more effective. Keep us informed of your result and good luck.

I'm all about crazy, and since this has become a no-holds-barred discussion with a bunch a crazy ideas (mostly mine), I'll go ahead and share another thought I had. This idea basically nullifies the "no-radiator" concept, because it's still a radiator... only it would be several of them...

exhibit A:


With a parallel liquid flow between the radiators (instead of series, from on to the other), the inlets & outlets would be sufficient size, and with the right fresh-air ducting like with dual air chambers as mentioned, you could essentially "chop up" your radiator into these little guys, and have a nice fat trunk up front. But, the price for the project goes up with these little guys... They have them in 40mm, 80mm, and 92mm.

So let's take a poll... New Fiero stock radiators cost about $141.00 at Advance Auto Parts according to their website. If I came up with a working design, and was able to make a sellable kit, what kind of consumer budget should I expect? In other words, what would you pay for this, assuming it was working perfectly?

------------------
Journal of a concept: http://southeastfieros.com

Knowing me, I'd just build my own to save the money, unless you had a really awesome design at a really good price. But I also will tend to want to build what I want unless I really can't build it.

About the small radiators. Does the coolant enter and exit from the same side of the radiator? It seems it does from the pic. If this is the case, there's lots of energy loss w/ fluid constantly changing direction. The good thing about traditional radiators is that they sections of fluid travel are significatly long between turns, so the fluid isn't contantly curling and curling, causing more drag. It does change direction some, which isn't ideal, but it's OK. Your original straight tube radiator design improved this even more because your fluid changes direction barely at all. This all refers to Newton's 1st Law of Motion. Less drag on your water pump --> less drag on your engine.
My idea, that I intended to convey at some point or another, was for you to design a radiator system like your original idea, and if you still need a little more cooling capacity, using a very mini radiator, like a small intercooler or heater core, to finish the job. This could even be accomplished with the original heater core, routing in a vent to blow your heat outside should it be summer time. For that matter, don't forget to include the heater core in this concept. I'd hate to lose my heat! Extending even further from that... if more cooling capacity is needed, you could route in a big heater core that would pump more heat than stock into the cabin, when wanted, that way you'd both improve trunk capacity and heating capacity.

-Michael

------------------
"A guy know's he's in love when he loses interest in his car for a few days." -Tim Allen

He who dies with the most toys... still dies.


Check out my restoration!

If you really want to be innovative then design an adiabatic engine that has very little heat to reject in the first place. Instead of only 20% of the heat going into forward motion make it over 90% and then this idea would be extremely practical.

Realistically, you would probably use aluminum. This is because you can extrude a profile very easily with aluminum (mass production scale). Look at windows, chalk boards, etc. All kinds of shapes can be extruded with aluminum. Plus, aluminum is a pretty good conductor of heat. I'd imagine that the tubes would look like this if they were manufactured:



It is three enclosed tubes. The top tube is for the coolant. The bottom two are for air. The bottom two tubes are only split because of the vertical support, designed to prevent the tubes from crushing. The elliptical shape helps provide ground clearance. The internal fins increase surface area. I could have illustrated some better fins, but this is what 20 seconds in MSPaint gets you.

[This message has been edited by Rolling Thunder (edited 12-01-2008).]

I'm assuming the longitudinally finned tubes are extrusions, they basically have to be, milling would be exquisitely expensive.
As such, and since custom is on the menu, have fins on the inside too. Increase wetted area. you've calculated a general
requirement for the exposed surface, but I don't recall the wetted surface. Time to break out the ol' slide-rule again.
I'm pullin' for ya!

Norm

The wetted surface area of those tubes is very small. This design seems flawed from the start.

quote Originally posted by jscott1: "If you really want to be innovative then design an adiabatic engine that has very little heat to reject in the first place."

There you go. My initial thought exactly.

[This message has been edited by StuGood (edited 12-02-2008).]

Most of my thoughts have already been posted by others. But I’ll second some of them and add few new ones.
1. This is does not eliminate a radiator. It is a radiator. Well not really. The term radiator is a misnomer. It is a heat exchanger. It transfers heat from the coolant to the outside air. The international space station has radiators. They radiate heat into space.
2. The venturi concept won’t work. I have experimented with that notion to improve ventilation in a wood burning cooker using a leaf blower to create venturi and it failed miserably. I had a similar device that sucked the air out of inner tubes for storage using a compressor and a venturi. It was very effective but worked on a very small scale with very high velocities.
3. Putting the blower on the backside, as someone suggested, is the ticket. That is how it’s done already on all every radiator I’ve seen.
4. The water should flow in the opposite direction from the air. Heat transfer is greatest when the temperature between the two mediums is greatest.
5. You don’t want to move the CG of the car back. The Ferrari Testarossa had the radiators on the sides and the weight distribution suffered as a consequence. Not that I wouldn’t love to have one.
6. What about your air conditioning condensing coils? The Testarossa had them up front I believe.
Asides:
1. The original Lotus Europa had a single radiator on the front of the right front wheel well, exhausting its heated air into the wheel well (and onto the right front brake). I didn’t care for that solution but it seemed to work ok and did improve the trunk space.
2. The latest 911s exhaust the heated air from the radiator immediately above and behind the radiator onto the front deck lid. This seems like the tidiest solution. To implement this properly on a Fiero, the open area below and behind the radiator would need to be closed in to force the air out onto the front deck lid. Also, some measure must be taken to prevent the headlight doors from lifting. Separating the high pressure air behind the radiator from the headlights is probably best solution for that.
3. I have long thought that the inlet in the nose is unnecessary. More than enough air flows under the nose to do the job. In fact, too much air flows under it. Let’s get as much of that air on top of the front deck as possible I say.

quote Originally posted by gem1138: 5. You don’t want to move the CG of the car back. The Ferrari Testarossa had the radiators on the sides and the weight distribution suffered as a consequence. Not that I wouldn’t love to have one.

To compensate, the spare can be moved as far forward as possible. The battery could also be put there.

Do you know how the Lotus Europa protected it's radiator from flying road debris from the wheel well? It seems to me it'd be difficult to get a good flow as well as protected radiator.

-Michael

quote Originally posted by jscott1: If you really want to be innovative then design an adiabatic engine that has very little heat to reject in the first place. Instead of only 20% of the heat going into forward motion make it over 90% and then this idea would be extremely practical.

The only problem is that adiabatic engines themselves haven't advanced to the point they're even somewhat practical in the automotive industry, due to the size vs power ratio. Personally, I believe this is due to the lack of R&D on the subject because "The Big Three" are making so much on petroleum... but that's another soapbox for another time.
The simplest, most well-known adiabatic engine is the Stirling engine. GM actually did some research and adapted the Stirling engine to a 1985 Chevy Celebrity, but it failed as a whole, and they discontinued the project. Ford and AMC also dabbled in Stirling engines, but they too set it aside.
Here is an image of a home built 5hp Stirling engine.

As you can see, it's quite large. There are many alternatives to internal combustion engines, but the only truly free energy comes from the Sun. That leaves us with photo voltaic cells (solar cells) and thermal engines (like the Stirling). Alone, each of these has a size issue. Solar cells producing enough amperage to power an electric car on a perfect bright sunshiney day would consume more square footage than our Fieros have to offer. With Stirling engines, well the image above speaks for itself and how you might cram that into a Fiero... for 5hp.
I have done a ton of research on alternative energy sources, and I even have my house planned out with it's own eco system, and 100% waste reusage. But then again, that's an entirely different thread...
Even an electric Fiero that's battery powered and recharged from huge solar cells on your 100 acre farm still weighs more than a stock Fiero.
So what's the point? The point is that as sad as it is to say, the internal combustion engine, even at 20% efficiency, is still the most efficient overall, considering power-to-size and power-to-weight ratios.

This point brings us back to earth with a new radiator design, because even if there was an all-around better engine solution, few of us would readily implement it. However, we all currently have internal combustion engines, and we all (for the most part) would love some front trunk space, which lead me to this idea, as well as my other idea.

There is a way to re-use the engine's heat to play on the properties of gasoline, turning it into a vapor, which would make the internal combustion gasoline engine much more efficient. Part of the problem with our engines is that a fuel injector in incapable of atomizing fuel 100%, and thus the fuel remains in a liquid state. So we install catalytic converters to burn the unburnt fuel (among the other task that it does).
However, if we completely vaporize the liquid into a gas, there is no liquid to leave the engine unburned. This is why Propane converted engines have extremely low emissions. I would recommend checking out Alan Francoeur's "Alf Vaporizer".
I am a member of his group, and it is extremely interesting, to say the least. Predet can be an issue, but it can be solved with tweaks.

Anyway, this radiator design is more about taking what we have, and getting more out it, a little at a time. Because a little at a time is what sells.
Wow, I just got on like 3 different soapboxes!

Have you looked at smokey yunik's (sp?) engine? Did exactly what you were talking about.

quote Originally posted by 86fierofun: Have you looked at smokey yunik's (sp?) engine? Did exactly what you were talking about.

Yes I have, and from the 14 or so hours of research I've read, it appears that it was pretty much a hoax... However, if you can find some some factual data on the engine, instead of just forums and articles without even images, then I'd love to find out more about it...

On the other hand, I have actually seen the alfavaporizer in action, I have diagrams, images, layouts, etc, and it's a real concept that's easily achievable, and I'm actually working on one now. But, let's get back to radiator ideas....
Anyone else have anymore ideas or suggestions they'd like to share?

------------------
Journal of a concept: http://southeastfieros.com

quote Originally posted by fieroboom: Norm, when you first responded to my thread, I thought you were going to be a straight up a-hole. But as it turns out, you keep on inspiring me. It's people like you that keep me going; Thanks!

Thank-You!

Funny, I could've said that to my dad once, he wasn't an @$$-hole always, but he was always an anal-retentive perfectionist,
who played the devils advocate, even when he agreed with me. He really taught me to think things through. Seldom gave simple answers, and ALWAYS made me do my own research. Pissed me off a lot then, but now I love his memory. Taught me to think;
the best gift ever!

Norm

[This message has been edited by gt88norm (edited 12-05-2008).]

In case you haven't considered it yet, don't forget to factor in the winter time. You may want heat in the winter, in which case you need to be able to somehow pump heat into the cabin on demand. Fortunately our Fiero's don't have much cabin space to be warmed.

Eureka: you could eliminate the heater core and just have a sleeve system around part of the exhaust system, similar to the intake heater, and a blower to bring the heat through the firewall. Of course this will only work if you're not also capturing the exhaust heat.

-Michael

------------------
"A guy know's he's in love when he loses interest in his car for a few days." -Tim Allen

He who dies with the most toys... still dies.


Check out my restoration!

wow, i just read through the whole thread, and it was one interesting read! but there was one thing that was only lightly touched on that needs to be addressed, and that is the exposure of the volume of water to the fins on the outside of the tube. you would need to build in a set of "turbulators" to stir the water, or get the tubes with fins extruded on the inside AND the outside of the tubes to expose the heat in the water to the air out side of the tube.

also regarding the issue of the heated air getting saturated with heat, you could use louvers pressed into the full length of one or more sides of the air boxes surrounding the tubes. this would scoop fresh cool air in all down the length of the lubes.

also the heater system is actually a functionally separate circuit and should not be affected by this modification. unless that is you plan to eliminate the heater core, which is basically a small radiator mounted under the dash.

am i making any sense? i can try to make drawings if needed.

all in all i see this as a feasible design, flawed, yes, but with some minor tweaks to the basic design i do see this working. and as an aside, the cute little inlet in the bumper is not really what supplies the radiator with most of its air supply, in fact some cars (corvette comes to mind) don't even have air inlets in the bumper. the majority of the air is drawn in from under the car, hence the reason for that sometimes ugly air dam protruding from under the bumper in a lot of cars.

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

Wyotech Sacramento Alumni. ASE A6, A8, L1 and Certified. CA SMOG License.
1987 Pontiac Fiero GT 5-speed
1987 Pontiac Fiero GT, 151,000 miles! decklid window, More pics of my 87 GT can be found here <-SOLD
1985 Pontiac Fiero 2m4 auto, 222K miles and counting <-recently lost to arson (6yo bro playing with fire) RIP!
2005 Jeep Grand Cherokee 3.7L 4x4, 72K <-Daily driver
A 4 year olds knowledge of science: No matter how much jello you put into a swimming pool you still can't walk on water.

In a Fiero, I would NEVER give up the buffer I have with the conventional cooling system. Not even for the weight advantge (negated by this new system's cost). If the car pukes coolant at speed, I know I have to come in. *BUT* I also know I still have a viable engine to work with when I come to a stop.
This idea scares me.

[This message has been edited by 85GT3.4Track4spdCar (edited 12-06-2008).]

BRAINSTORMING:
The point of this thread, as I see it, along w/ discussing the tube radiator idea, is to remove the front radiator to make more storage/trunk space. If we're keeping the radiator as a part of the car, we could rig it into a totally new intake system. Call it outlandish, but entertain the idea.

Look at the rear Countach images:






I'm espcially thinking of the big scoops that stick up as possible radiator scoops. This would result in heat not being blown over the engine. It could also be in the center, as the intake of a McLaren F1. This would cut down on tubing weight, and a spare tire and relocated battery could compensate for the change in weight ratio.


(separate

quote Originally posted by 85GT3.4Track4spdCar: If the car pukes coolant at speed, I know I have to come in. *BUT* I also know I still have a viable engine to work with when I come to a stop.

What do you mean? I don't understand.

-Michael


EDIT: pic fix

[This message has been edited by Fierology (edited 12-06-2008).]

fierology, are you talking about eliminating the radiator and just using air to cool the engine? o ar you talking of using mini rad's like the lambo assumingly uses?

Not sure what this is intended to accomplish. Even if you could manage to mount sufficient finned tubing to cool the car, we are talking about saving the weight of a radiator.

If you want to save weight with the radiator, just but an alloy radiator - the one I use weighs 7 bs.......

Ok, let's have a peek at square 1, and prioritize the goals/advantages:
1. Full trunk up front. This can be accomplished in other ways though.
2. Get the coolant tubes out of an unseen area by placing them in an area that will be very obvious if they were to get crushed somehow.
3. Keep cooling air from jamming under the front of the car without cutting a hood vent. 99% of you may really like the hood vents, but I don't, and I'm sharing my idea. I like certain nostalgic characteristics that define a Fiero, and the hood is one of them.
4. Do something cool & different.
5. Save a little weight.

I personally would delete the heater core and the lines that run up to it, and use something like this guy did in his electric Fiero.

If nothing else, use aluminum. The stock car boys use it for a reason. Also, you will need turbulence in the coolant to move heat to the surfaces for exchange.

[This message has been edited by weaselbeak (edited 12-08-2008).]

quote fieroboom:.. Keep cooling air from jamming under the front of the car without cutting a hood vent..

Vent to the front wheel wells like GM did on the Geo Storm.

quote Originally posted by weaselbeak: If nothing else, use aluminum. The stock car boys use it for a reason. Also, you will need turbulence in the coolant to move heat to the surfaces for exchange.

Most of the places I've found use either alum tubing with alum fins, or copper tubing with alum fins machine-brazed on the copper. There are some other ways they attach too. Energy Transfer MDE has a really nice variety of the types of tubing they can provide, as well as their temp ratings.

Finally got a real person over at ALCO. They are the longitudinally finned people. At first, he said minimum order is $2,500, but I kept bugging him, and he kinda gave in and sent me a for real work order, and hopefully I can get just like 4 pieces to start out with.
I'm also in contact with a few other places that provide axially extruded fin tubing... waiting to hear back from them for pricing.

Due to the comments and ideas, I began considering a dual-duct design with scoops and axially finned tubing so that the air flow is perpendicular to the pipe. In addition, the fans I have shown in the initial image would be placed at the rear in order to pull air instead of push. This allows the forced air and the fanned air to follow the same path and achieve the same cross-flow of air perpendicular to the pipe. I've got the fiberglass materials to get started on the rocker, but I can't start until I have some confirmed dimensions from the manufacturer; pipes in hand would be better.

Due to the size needed, this design will most likely need to be integrated into something similar to Archie's widebody rockers. The stock rocker panels themselves have quite a bit of room in them when they're off the car, but the bottom lip of the frame protrudes into them, taking up at least half the space. I might be able to skim enough space if I made a rocker that came out an inch and down an inch, but I'm just not sure if it'll work on the stock rockers, and the out-n-down increase might look funny...
More to come when they contact me back.

------------------
Journal of a concept: http://southeastfieros.com >>> Build Thread >>> Parts thread (for project funding)

quote Originally posted by tednelson83: fierology, are you talking about eliminating the radiator and just using air to cool the engine? o ar you talking of using mini rad's like the lambo assumingly uses?

This idea would still be using radiators. But, now that u mention it, an aircooled engine is not an absurd propsition.

quote Originally posted by fieroboom: Due to the size needed, this design will most likely need to be integrated into something similar to Archie's widebody rockers. The stock rocker panels themselves have quite a bit of room in them when they're off the car, but the bottom lip of the frame protrudes into them, taking up at least half the space. I might be able to skim enough space if I made a rocker that came out an inch and down an inch, but I'm just not sure if it'll work on the stock rockers, and the out-n-down increase might look funny...

Fieroboom, nmy rockers were quite rusted, and some of my ideas for replacing the structure in this area included replacing it w/ an m-shaped piece made from sheet steel, a fix which would have added space under the rockers. As extra sapce was not a goal of mine, it wasn't an arguming point for me. But you could reengineer your rocker panels to result in more space beneath the plastic.


(top of rocker)
-------------------------------------------------------
```````````````````````/ l
/ l
/ l
/ l (side of rocker)
/ l
''''' --- __ ll
'''''' --- ll
''''l l
l l
l l___________________________________floor pan_______________________________________
l
l


Does that make sense? Use ur imagination a little. If you need, if your interested, I can make a better explanation later.

I ended up getting some 16awg 2x2" steel tube to replace the rotten rocker steel anyways. Otherwise I'd have pics.

Also be careful of galvanic action.

-Michael

------------------
"A guy know's he's in love when he loses interest in his car for a few days." -Tim Allen

He who dies with the most toys... still dies.


Check out my restoration!

quote Originally posted by Fierology: Fieroboom, nmy rockers were quite rusted, and some of my ideas for replacing the structure in this area included replacing it w/ an m-shaped piece made from sheet steel, a fix which would have added space under the rockers. As extra sapce was not a goal of mine, it wasn't an arguming point for me. But you could reengineer your rocker panels to result in more space beneath the plastic.

Yes, that makes sense; thanks for the input.

Got my first real price quote... and it ain't pretty!

ALCO, the longitudinal people, want $2,500 (the minimum order price) for 4 tubes, 6.5 ft in length. HA! yeah, that's scrapped. He told me there was a minumum order of $2,500, but I figured he'd give me a price per unit, and tell me a minimum number of units to order. Didn't realize he was just going to charge $2,500 for anything I ordered.... he was kind of an a-hole anyway.

Energy Transfer, a company that does axially finned tubes, wants either $286.33 per tube, or per order of 4 tubes... I'm not sure because their wording is a little obscure. I wrote him back for clarification.

I also have one more quote I'm waiting on from another company.
There is a website called alibaba.com that I've bought some stuff through before for very reasonable prices (it's overseas distributors), so I might get a quote from a company over there too.
More when I get more...

oohf, that's expensive.

The picture I tried to draw in my previous post didn't work because the spaces were deleted. If you want to understand my idea I can re-explain it.

I'll brainstorm a bit as I'm driving home and see if I can think of more options that are less expensive.

ciao
-Michael

quote Originally posted by Fierology: oohf, that's expensive. The picture I tried to draw in my previous post didn't work because the spaces were deleted. If you want to understand my idea I can re-explain it. I'll brainstorm a bit as I'm driving home and see if I can think of more options that are less expensive. ciao -Michael

Well, $286 isn't really *that* bad, considering I'm talking to a distributor about a measley four tubes... I'm sure the individual price would drop significantly *if* I can get a working design that people would want to buy, and therefore order them more in bulk. These are made to order tubes, so I expected a pretty penny, especially for only four of them.
I'm not out of options yet by far... My goal is to get production down to a system that I can make for $300 or less. Before you scream about it being more than a radiator, remember, it's replacing those coolant tubes too, which ring in @ $400/set at The Fiero Store...

Hey Boom,

Just an idea. I know others have suggested "louvers" along the length of the enclosure to "scoop" more air in along the length of the cooling tubes. Think about this. Use the same concept as a "scavenger" system. In other words, at a few locations along the enclosure you would place angled inlets - as the air moves through from front to rear, it creates a vacuum and pulls fresh cool air in along the length? If it were engineered correctly I would imagine that you could keep the air temperature all along the cooling tube at a constant temp and possibly improve the cooling efficiency!

The Radiator on my 70 Monte is a mile away from the motor/waterpump/fan thus the factory fan shroud is about 2 feet long. The problem is that the shroud itself does not cover the entire radiator. Better than 25% of the radiator does not have air pulled though it by the fan. Parked in the driveway idling, the temp runs around 230*. I pulled the shroud and the fan and installed 2 electric fans that cover the entire radiator surface. Now parked in the driveway at an idle the car runs around 185 - 190*. Point being - Same radiator - and cooling system but was able to increase the cooling surface simply by utilizing what was already there. Poor design made better with technology / parts available today.

I think you may be on to something and I believe that your cooling tube idea will increase the amount of cooling surface. Just need to tweak it and get enough cool air through it.

Keep after it.

quote Originally posted by katatak: Hey Boom, Just an idea. I know others have suggested "louvers" along the length of the enclosure to "scoop" more air in along the length of the cooling tubes. Think about this. Use the same concept as a "scavenger" system. In other words, at a few locations along the enclosure you would place angled inlets - as the air moves through from front to rear, it creates a vacuum and pulls fresh cool air in along the length? If it were engineered correctly I would imagine that you could keep the air temperature all along the cooling tube at a constant temp and possibly improve the cooling efficiency! The Radiator on my 70 Monte is a mile away from the motor/waterpump/fan thus the factory fan shroud is about 2 feet long. The problem is that the shroud itself does not cover the entire radiator. Better than 25% of the radiator does not have air pulled though it by the fan. Parked in the driveway idling, the temp runs around 230*. I pulled the shroud and the fan and installed 2 electric fans that cover the entire radiator surface. Now parked in the driveway at an idle the car runs around 185 - 190*. Point being - Same radiator - and cooling system but was able to increase the cooling surface simply by utilizing what was already there. Poor design made better with technology / parts available today. I think you may be on to something and I believe that your cooling tube idea will increase the amount of cooling surface. Just need to tweak it and get enough cool air through it. Keep after it.

Yeah, I was thinking that... Which is what I was trying to say with the venturi effect... but I must have been saying it incorrectly. What gave me the idea for that particular part of it is the low pressure zone behind the cabin, which actually sucks air up out of engine bay. I keep thinking there has to be a way to create low pressure zones that would vacuum in fresh air vs scooping it in. The reason is because I am 99.999999% sure that a scoop is going to murder the ducting with trash, whereas some natural suction might not be so bad.