Ronbo
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- San Marcos, CA
Sorry...'all metal' not steel.
-
Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.
Need cooling advise...
- Thread starter Sneaky
- Start date
Sorry...'all metal' not steel.
- Location
- sacramento
I threw the American eagle (champion brand) ae1193 . its a 2 core, with 2 - 1" cores.
I had to remove my CSF 3 core, it was not cutting it. I researched a bunch, and im pretty sure that the CSF 3 core has 3/8" tubes.
There is a stock HD radiator option with a 1.5" single core. like 80$ on alot of the cheap online sites. that was my next option.
I had to remove my CSF 3 core, it was not cutting it. I researched a bunch, and im pretty sure that the CSF 3 core has 3/8" tubes.
There is a stock HD radiator option with a 1.5" single core. like 80$ on alot of the cheap online sites. that was my next option.
Sneaky
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Kelso, Washington
I ordered the AE1193 two core today from Champion.
jeeperjohn
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Temecula, CA
Most of the time afterboil is caused by too little pressure in the cooling system. This is usually due to a small leak in the system. A bad radiator cap is a common cause.
amorth
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Denver, CO
How did the AE radiator go in for you - did you have any troubles? How were the welds? I've read that installing that radiator required some small modifications.
- Location
- sacramento
Ya i heard about the welds and stuff. I figured id give it a try for 175$ shipped. If it dies, im going to a 80$ 1.5" single core . it seemed harder to line up and everything than the CSF 3 row but it went in. the filler neck gets awfully close to the upper radiator support that goes across the front of the rig . I took a cutoff wheel and just cut a chunk out and flappered it clean. that took all of maybe a few extra minutes, then slap some paint on it.
for whatever reason the rad cap fits crazy tight on this setup, not sure why, other than that, I love a large 2 row, all aluminum for under 200$ shipped.
for whatever reason the rad cap fits crazy tight on this setup, not sure why, other than that, I love a large 2 row, all aluminum for under 200$ shipped.
Comanchedude
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Cincinnati,Ohio
Hmm..I just want to see the physics on this " fact"... Please share your In depth study..really I want to see this information ..
Last edited:
- Location
- San Diego
Larger core= more surface area=more cooling.
- Location
- Patterson, Ca
Multiple cores=more surface area? Nice in depth info bill nye.
- Location
- Patterson, Ca
A 1.5" core has 4.71insq surface area per inch of core, 2 1" cores have 6.28insq per inch of tube. I don't design radiators, but I'd assume there would also be more 1" tubes in the same space as 1.5" tubes? I agree that a 3rd core losses a ton of efficiency being sandwiched between the other 2 cores. Pretty sure the manufacturers verified that the 2 core cools better before offering it as the heavy duty option?
MaxxXJ
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Bakersfield CA
Also a thing to consider is the ZJ fan HD option, it cools a lot better than factory, I also put my E-fan on a switch so on the trail where I need if most I flip it on before it has a chance to overheat. I'd also check your hoses for clogs, maybe check your water pump and make sure it's working right, and change out your thermostat for a new one it might not be working correctly, I change mine annually
Sneaky
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Kelso, Washington
Thank you... All thinks I've considered already. I was just not sure what fan clutch I needed. Do I need to ask for a HD one?
- Location
- San Diego
Which is why I said three rows suck.
They do. I've seen more jeeps cure their overheating issues by ditching the aftermarket 3 core garbage and going with an oem single core than anything.
The argument for a 2 row with 1" cores has yet to be determined in my eyes, but I've got one that is oe quality that I'm going to swap in for my stock rad and find out.
jeeperjohn
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Temecula, CA
There are many factors to efficient radiator design. More cores does not always mean better cooling, even if there is more surface area. I read a very in depth article on radiator design on one of the offroad forums a while back and it was very interesting. I had a radiator made for a truck that I had which used dimpled core tubes. That increased the surface area of the tubes by like 30%. The shop that made it is no longer in my city but I bet there are others doing the same thing. Personally I think airflow is the single biggest factor to efficient cooling.
Comanchedude
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Cincinnati,Ohio
Well here is a real world test done by the manufacture.. in simple terms the reason the alum has wider tubes is because it has to to achieve the same cooling ability (or close) as copper/brass units. as for core size its again design.. 3 core unit will cool better because it has more cooling contact points. its been tested its been validated. as for aluminum its fine. its just a cheaper metal so they make much more profit off the aluminum units .
And I do run a 3core csf copper /bass.. 2 electric fans and it never gets close to over heating even in 90+ deg heat and high humidity off road running the piss out of the 4.0.. it flat cools. so I would put it against any aluminum unit. and i have never heard or seen anyone say they got rid of a 3 core to fix overheating issues..that's just BS .
http://www.hotrodhotline.com/content/aluminum-vs-copper-brass-article-us-radiator
U.S. Radiator:
The thermal conductivity or heat transfer rate of copper is 92% versus aluminum which is approximately 49%. However, the copper fin bonded to the tubes, or water passages, using lead solder is very inefficient and slows the heat transfer rate to just slightly better than that of aluminum. This can be a disadvantage of copper if the bonding process does not allow the copper fin to touch the brass tube, and why not all copper/brass cores of similar design, but different manufactures, transfer heat equally.
Copper/brass radiators, because of their weight and durability, have been around a long time and can be easily disassembled and reassembled for cleaning purposes. Not the case with aluminum, unless speaking of the O.E. version that comes with crimp mounted plastic tanks. As a result the life expectancy of the aftermarket aluminum radiators will be far less than that of copper/brass.
To better understand the function and performance of any given radiator it helps to understand the “cooling” process and think of it in a way that allows for comparison. The words cooling, or better cooling, or efficient cooling are thrown around a lot in advertising and promotional terms but for the most part un-quantifiable at best without a reference or yardstick to measure by.
To measure and control the cooling processes you have to take several variables into consideration. Variables include engine temperature production at different rpm’s, or engine operating btu output, coolant absorption rates, coolant flow rates, or gpm’s, and coolant temperature reduction rates that will vary with the size of the radiator and the amount of (cfm’s), speed, and temperature of the air flowing through the radiator. The only device to actually compare one radiator vs. another with absolute control is to have a wind-tunnel that can duplicate actual driving conditions under various specified conditions. U.S. Radiator built radiator dyno or test stand in 1999 and tested every core design and manufacturer, in both copper/brass and aluminum, for plain and simple temperature drop, inlet to outlet, at specific and controlled parameters
So what did U.S. Radiator learn? First and foremost, they discovered that where the radiator is concerned core design and NOT material had the greatest effect on temperature drop. While all radiator cores might look the same they perform differently based on tube spacing and fins per inch. Heat transfer points where temperature is actually allowed to leave the radiator are where the fin is bonded to the tube. The more transfer points, the greater the temperature drop. A 60’s core for example had a 1/2” tube spacing (ie, 1/2” fin between the tubes) and by going from a two row radiator to a four row core design they were able to double the heat transfer points which resulted in a 15-20% increase in temperature drop without changing the other variables (air flow, coolant flow). In the 80's the Japanese came out with a core design in response to the need to down size, which has become the standard, and was efficient enough to allow the re-introduction of aluminum (a less efficient heat transfer material) at the O.E. level. By changing the tube spacing to 3/8", a design referred to as High Efficiency in the industry, more tubes or water passages and fins were allowed across the face of a core with a specific width in inches. The design was simple enough but proved to be very efficient in that more heat transfer points created greater temperature drop inlet to outlet. At this point the move to aluminum construction was purely financial in that raw materials are purchased “by the pound” and a finished aluminum radiator weighs about 25% of a copper/brass unit (dollars per pound being almost equal at that time) and resulted in huge savings to the O.E.’s . This is why we’ve seen most copper/brass manufacturers either switch to aluminum or fold up their tents permanently. It is important to note that this decision was based solely on financial savings and should not be confused with more efficient.
And I do run a 3core csf copper /bass.. 2 electric fans and it never gets close to over heating even in 90+ deg heat and high humidity off road running the piss out of the 4.0.. it flat cools. so I would put it against any aluminum unit. and i have never heard or seen anyone say they got rid of a 3 core to fix overheating issues..that's just BS .
http://www.hotrodhotline.com/content/aluminum-vs-copper-brass-article-us-radiator
U.S. Radiator:
The thermal conductivity or heat transfer rate of copper is 92% versus aluminum which is approximately 49%. However, the copper fin bonded to the tubes, or water passages, using lead solder is very inefficient and slows the heat transfer rate to just slightly better than that of aluminum. This can be a disadvantage of copper if the bonding process does not allow the copper fin to touch the brass tube, and why not all copper/brass cores of similar design, but different manufactures, transfer heat equally.
Copper/brass radiators, because of their weight and durability, have been around a long time and can be easily disassembled and reassembled for cleaning purposes. Not the case with aluminum, unless speaking of the O.E. version that comes with crimp mounted plastic tanks. As a result the life expectancy of the aftermarket aluminum radiators will be far less than that of copper/brass.
To better understand the function and performance of any given radiator it helps to understand the “cooling” process and think of it in a way that allows for comparison. The words cooling, or better cooling, or efficient cooling are thrown around a lot in advertising and promotional terms but for the most part un-quantifiable at best without a reference or yardstick to measure by.
To measure and control the cooling processes you have to take several variables into consideration. Variables include engine temperature production at different rpm’s, or engine operating btu output, coolant absorption rates, coolant flow rates, or gpm’s, and coolant temperature reduction rates that will vary with the size of the radiator and the amount of (cfm’s), speed, and temperature of the air flowing through the radiator. The only device to actually compare one radiator vs. another with absolute control is to have a wind-tunnel that can duplicate actual driving conditions under various specified conditions. U.S. Radiator built radiator dyno or test stand in 1999 and tested every core design and manufacturer, in both copper/brass and aluminum, for plain and simple temperature drop, inlet to outlet, at specific and controlled parameters
So what did U.S. Radiator learn? First and foremost, they discovered that where the radiator is concerned core design and NOT material had the greatest effect on temperature drop. While all radiator cores might look the same they perform differently based on tube spacing and fins per inch. Heat transfer points where temperature is actually allowed to leave the radiator are where the fin is bonded to the tube. The more transfer points, the greater the temperature drop. A 60’s core for example had a 1/2” tube spacing (ie, 1/2” fin between the tubes) and by going from a two row radiator to a four row core design they were able to double the heat transfer points which resulted in a 15-20% increase in temperature drop without changing the other variables (air flow, coolant flow). In the 80's the Japanese came out with a core design in response to the need to down size, which has become the standard, and was efficient enough to allow the re-introduction of aluminum (a less efficient heat transfer material) at the O.E. level. By changing the tube spacing to 3/8", a design referred to as High Efficiency in the industry, more tubes or water passages and fins were allowed across the face of a core with a specific width in inches. The design was simple enough but proved to be very efficient in that more heat transfer points created greater temperature drop inlet to outlet. At this point the move to aluminum construction was purely financial in that raw materials are purchased “by the pound” and a finished aluminum radiator weighs about 25% of a copper/brass unit (dollars per pound being almost equal at that time) and resulted in huge savings to the O.E.’s . This is why we’ve seen most copper/brass manufacturers either switch to aluminum or fold up their tents permanently. It is important to note that this decision was based solely on financial savings and should not be confused with more efficient.
jeep.kevin
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Edwards AFB CA
To answer your question the AE and Champion rads are pretty much clones. I've installed both (champion in my rig, AE in a friends rig).
there are two things you will need to address:
1. The trans cooler lines will not bolt right up with what you get in the box with either rad, all I did was go get a 5ft piece of trans line and a tube flare tool and re-made the trans lines to just clamp on instead.
2. There is some metal massaging needed to get the rad to fit. right below where the lower cooling hose hooks up to the rad there is some sheet metal in the way that will contact the bottom corner of the rad. I just used a BFH and made some room, I chose to do that instead of trying to cut it out.
All together it was maybe and additional 20 mins of work to get it installed.
- Location
- San Diego
so because you've never heard of it its BS? you're an idiot.
souske
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- The land of competition
you're a potato
- Location
- San Diego
Your point?
MaxxXJ
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Bakersfield CA
No, they do not make an "HD" fan for an xj, you ask for a 97 zj fan, not the "max cool" just the normal heavy duty fan clutch
Idk that the "severe duty" clutch from their heavy duty package will fit an XJ I just got the heavy duty clutch from their normal 4.0 motor and it's better in my opinion
