• Hello there guest and Welcome to The #1 Classic Mustang forum!
    To gain full access you must Register. Registration is free and it takes only a few moments to complete.
    Already a member? Login here then!

What is your take on this?

I'm running something similar with a 302 and have not had any problems with heat.

I have problems with mine being cold natured to the extreme but not a single worry of over heating....
 
"daveSanborn" said:
Math.

2 x 1" = 2"

3 x .531" = 1.593"


Larger flow capacity wins.
Click to expand...

Right idea, Wrong math when dealing with tubular pipes. Your dealing with pipe area. pie x radius squared

for 1" its = 3.14 * .5 * .5 x 2 pipes= 1.57

for .531 its = 3.14 * .2655 x .2655 x 3 pipes = .6640

Thats assuming that the lengths of the pipes are the same. the 1" one is more then twice as good.
 
"pprince" said:
Since the channels aren't round you would have to do some calculus to determine the volume.
Click to expand...


I hope to god you're not talking to me...... I have to think real hard just to remember how to spell calculus, nevermind actually use it.
 
Theres one more very important determining factor, its the length of each channel. We are just assuming the lengths are the same and the diameter is changing. To much of an unknown to say for sure.
 
"pprince" said:
Since the channels aren't round you would have to do some calculus to determine the volume.
Click to expand...

That ain't it, either. It's about surface area of the tubes, not the cross-sectional area.

But, since the tubes are about the same height (and very "short"), with only the width changing, the original calculation is closer to correct than you might think.

Bottom line is, the wider aluminum tubes do a much better job of heat transfer than the narrow brass versions. Aluminum is a better conductor of heat than brass is, too. So, it's better on a coupla levels.

Aluminum is susceptible to electrolisis, though, so it's not without its shortcomings.
 
"pprince" said:
All I remember from math class is pie are round and cake are square
Click to expand...

unless it's a bundt cake.... when it comes to figuring that out, i'm with mark, time for a beer... :lol
 
got an answer on tube spacing, it is 3/8", same as I have seen on the 3 and 4 row versions. I agree with the above that the resulting flattened tube width comparison is a good comparison of effective contact area... so given that the tube spacing is the same and the width of the radiator is the same, it seems like the 2 row is the better design...

Are traditional radiator tubes copper or brass? Aluminum conducts heat 2X better than brass, but it is only about half of copper...
 
"PJ Moran" said:
That ain't it, either. It's about surface area of the tubes, not the cross-sectional area.

But, since the tubes are about the same height (and very "short"), with only the width changing, the original calculation is closer to correct than you might think.

Bottom line is, the wider aluminum tubes do a much better job of heat transfer than the narrow brass versions. Aluminum is a better conductor of heat than brass is, too. So, it's better on a coupla levels.

Aluminum is susceptible to electrolisis, though, so it's not without its shortcomings.
Click to expand...

Surface and material , thats all about it when it comes to cooling
 
Don't forget it's not only the surface area of the water tubes, but the surface area of the fins.
 
One thing not mentioned by all the math geniuses around here ... that radiator says for '65-'66, yet the outlet is on the left side.

In other words, it's only for MODIFIED '65-'66 cars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top