VERIFYING my THOUGHTS

first of all, this is how i proved this. `55, .060 over 327, stock radiator, in the v-8 position, flex-a-lite fan for all these tests. first with WEIAND "HIGH-FLO TWISTED SNOUT" pump. 195 stat, 180 stat, 165 stat, Stewart high flow 180 stat. would heat up very fast idling in the driveway with all of these. then driving, it would take forever to cool back down, and never below about 190. now granted, these cylinder walls are pretty thin. so, next, stock 350 rebuilt pump from car quest, off comes the "high-flo" pump. now, next test, stewart high-flow stat. the same results, HOWEVER took less time to heat up in the driveway, but once heated up, [all these "heated up" temps were within 5 degrees of 220], then a substantially shorter time to cool down when driving. next the 195, 180, 165 stat. with the stock radiator, stock pump, stock 180 stat, idled forever at 175/180 IN MY GARAGE. so, a few years later, exact same set-up in my `57, however, it`s a 350, .030 over, and an aluminum, direct replacement radiator, and the same thing, however, it does hit about 195 in the heat of the summer. i was berated big time, over this on the other forum. i took it, however 1 or 2 guys agreed. so, what do you think of "SMOKEY YUNICK"? IMO, the best damn mechanic in "the best damn garage in town"! recognize that line? anyway, stumbled on smokey yunick`s "power secrets" magazine. quote from him printed in his book, "if you spin the pump too fast, the coolant will be circulated through the engine too quickly. when this happens the coolant doesn`t remain in the engine long enough to efficiently absorb heat and carry it away to the radiator." adding to this, "turning the pump too fast can also cause the pump impeller to whip the coolant into an aerated froth, and putting alot of bubbles in the coolant will significantly decrease the ability of the coolant to absorb heat. then adding, "you should not have to turn the pump faster than 70-75% of crank speed".adding to this, when the heated coolant flows to/in the radiator, it`s not there long enough to cool. so, NOT to open a can of worms, i even checked about posting this subject with another, very respected member here because i was a bit hesitant. but, here it is. "something to back this up", ya always hear from guys, well, that`s my experience. thanks for listening!,,,,,,,,,,happy thanksgiving!

Pump speed could be a factor running wide fn open at redline on a track, but on the street not so much. What are you trying to fix?

not trying to "fix" anything. just passing on my experience about "high-flo" pumps not being needed. and i forgot tomention, the coolant for all tests were 50/50 with distilled water, and a bottle of water wetter. thanx.

Yes, and the cooling system can be a mystery at times for sure when you try and change things for the better. Like needing a coolant bypass for when deleting the heater by using a bypass thermostat, etc. Water wetter can be a bad thing too according to Stewart. I had a aluminum water pump seal fail after 150 miles, which can happen they say.

and stewart says high flow is better. gee, what do they sell?

Thermodynamics and the physics of heat transfer tells us that the higher the flow rate, the more heat transfer. Look in any engineering heat transfer products catalog or engineering heat transfer textbook, and it will have the math behind that.

The only reason you'd want to slow the pump down would be if the flow pressure overcomes the system. And that would only occur in a circle track racing situation as RD points out where you run full throttle or near that continuously. But if the flow pressure overcomes the system on a race car, you should be working at not letting that happen. For instance, Nascar Cup cars typically have system pressures in the 35+ psi range rather than the usual 14-16 psi range for a typical street driven car. You can run a drag race car 1/4 mile at a time and never challenge the flow pressure deal. Same with street driving where you only run full throttle for a short burst.

yes, your thermodynamics are correct, if you keep the coolant at a low enough temp to pull[transfer] heat into it. bringing in, say for instance, 200 degree water into the engine, it wouldn`t pull as much heat out as say, 170 degree water would. so the coolant much transfer as much of the heat to the atmosphere as it can, being in the radiator for a sufficient time to do this. again, your thermodynamics and physics of heat transfer are correct, but, if your coolant temp is`nt low enough entering the engine, it will not transfer heat into it efficiently. right?

Your reference to the difference in temperature is correct. The heat transfer is the product of temperature difference and flow rate. They are independent.

You wouldn't cut the airflow through the radiator to increase heat transfer would you? The same applies to coolant flow rate.

well, 90 some views here, 2 replied. i guess i stand alone, which is fine, just my personal experience, that`s all. thanx.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave the Wave

well, 90 some views here, 2 replied. i guess i stand alone, which is fine, just my personal experience, that`s all. thanx.

---

Sometimes if you dont know enough to say something helpful, the best thing to do is be quiet and listen. I'm in that category.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rustaddict

Sometimes if you dont know enough to say something helpful, the best thing to do is be quiet and listen. I'm in that category.

---

Me too!

well,,,,,,,,,,,,thanks. i guess you`re right.