ABC'S of 80's Cooling Part IV - Hood Vents

[SUMOTOY]

I don't think I am. You are doing this in a step by step operation and all that I'm doing is trying to confirm your conclusions for myself.

Comparing my seat of the pants results with yours it would seem that we're experiencing something similar. The only way I know of to rule this out would be to get your engine temp data if it was available to compare to mine.


Does this make sense?

Rick
It makes sense to me that you have a reluctance to cut holes in your hood. It doesn't makes sense that you haven't removed the fan shroud for instance, and put up data on that. It requires no permanent modification, and takes the pressure off me to *do more*.

The best way to confirm my conclusions, is to do things yourself. BTDT on the 10kcst fluid, I found a lockup issue at high rpm doing that. And found that it still had more compromises to my defined goals and targets in overall heat management. And moved on to relieving myself of the VC fan alltogether because it makes sense to me.

You are satisfied that this VC fluid mod achieved your goals, and I'm quite at peace that it works for you and others. I moved on, put the aux fan in, wired it the way I felt it should be for maximum benefit, and put hood vents in to relieve what I thought to be high engine bay heat caused by trapped heat in the engine bay. Part V will go after more precise *engine temperature* control by using electric fans.

I'm confident my approaches are clear and makes sense, and understand that they may not be for everyone. I'm not sure that Part V data will help you, since our respective goals and targets of engine temps have already been expressed as massively different.

I sum it as our fundamental difference in philosophy: I'm after more precise control of FZJ80 heat management as a whole, you appear to be after better stock radiator cooling using VC fluid changes.

Both approaches make perfect sense to me.

SMT

 

[SUMOTOY]

gawd this nickle-and-dime stuff is killing the thread. Seems that now instead of determining if cutting holes in the hood do or do not decrease underhood temps to accusing of insufficient testing based on another perspective???

As is the nature of forums IME. I'm working hard on getting the electric fans, I'm sure this thread will die quickly with that post.

I've picked my fans, and my controllers for it, and designed the wiring already. I'm still a couple weeks out from the install tho, so I guess we 5/10 this thread a bit longer. Sorry?

Regarding the vents, I did get a massive downpour on my hood vents yesterday, both at rest and driving in traffic., no issues at all. The location for the vents seems to not require drip pans.... I consider that good.

ST

 

[landtank]

Sorry Sumotoy, I didn't realise that asking if you noticed a change in your engine temps or if planning a trip with the truck if you could notice a MPG difference was such a big deal.

So when I remove my fan shroud what am I looking for?

 

[SUMOTOY]

Sorry Sumotoy, I didn't realise that asking if you noticed a change in your engine temps or if planning a trip with the truck if you could notice a MPG difference was such a big deal.

Engine temps are down on my non RT modified needle by 1 width, for what it's worth... MPG? We'll have to wait till my wife drives it. Me,, I whack that SC to 6psi too much, so I go by Fillup per week...

So when I remove my fan shroud what am I looking for?

Any noticeable differences in anything you choose to measure or observe.

ST

 

[Waggoner5]

"What I focused on in Part IV was taking the underhood temps I measured in Part III, and installed hood vents to relieve that heat. Specifically, my concern was/is the air can. What I want with extreme prejudice to task, is my SC inlet temp to be as close to ambient as possible.
Regarding your thoughts on engine bay temp causing better mileage because the heat causes it to run leaner... Here's my opinion. My background and experience would tell me that a higher intake air temp will cause a lower intake air density. This in turn would cause a less powerful combustion, put simply volumetric efficiency of the motor goes down for a given rpm."

I agree with you opinion, but as with GM, Ford, and other manufacturers, the air comes through the fender to keep the IAT temp at a minimum. If you keep the ducting stock that temp would not seem to change a large amout because of hood venting. The ducting may stay a little cooler but I doubt much. When I vented my hood the IAT temps stayed withing 5 degrees with stock type ducting. When I said of my IAT fooling trick. I was simply wanting to test the effects of fooling the ECU into thinking the temp was cooler that it really was. It adversely effected the fueling and timing which made the truck run hotter. The manufacturers have engineered the ECUs performance by the hot air readings of the IAT. When the IAT does read cooler air, it makes the adjustment and the truck is happy, but the air really is cool at that point which changes other ECU parameters.

I understand what you guys are trying to accomplish, but other than some slightly better fuel economy numbers I don't see the need to re-engineer Toyotas engine air flow design inside or outside. I have to wonder what the Saudis who run around the 110 degree desert all the time have done to their trucks? The ones I have seen are stock. Even the Turbo charged ones.

 

[landtank]

Not to highjack this thread any more than I have I had an idea just now and will start a new one on the lines of what you've done here.

 

[Walking Eagle]

Rick, you will get your engine temps in Part V, when I go after electric fans with coolant sensor activation. I won't have any 'before data', but I suspect plenty here can supply that.

I seriously doubt anyone here will be able to provide any before data for your vehicle, with your mods, your hood vents, ect. So any after data you get with electric fans will be pretty much useless without something to compare it to.

 

[bigbrowndog]

Looking at these old 40/45/47 series trucks I think the vents are pretty close to the mark. I remember on my old 45 ute the hot air coming out the vents used to annoy me when it came in the cab especially at lower speeds towing my 19foot boat with al its gear. I had no aircon back then. ol.

 

[bigbrowndog]

The vent was carried over to the HJ75 ute's also with one behind where the battery sits,venting to the mudguard.

 

[firetruck41]

Rick, I believe many here misinterpreted my goal to be reducing engine temps, including you. That *is not* and *has not* been my goal. In fact it's quite the opposite, I plan on controlling and raising the temp. If *reduction* is anyone elses goal, then my data will have a blaring omission of *my* engine temps until Part V.
HTH

SMT

You might condiser renaming your old threads from "The ABC'S of 80's Cooling Part xx" to something more relevant, like "ABC's of reducing 80's AC temps". I have a feeling alot of people have misinterpreted your goal, me included.

For instance, it appears cruiserdan is concerned about underhood temps as it relates to engine temps, not AC, in his SC 80. You seem to share his concern in subsequent posts, yet here you talk about the importance of raising engine temps, that is definitely confusing to me.

If you are not able to change the titles, you could ask one of the mods to do it.

I do applaud your willingness to expiriment on your vehicle and share your experiences with the board.

 

[cptmud]

just wondering if anyone has thought about install a scoop into the hood. eg maybe one like the new hilux has.

 

[SUMOTOY]

I seriously doubt anyone here will be able to provide any before data for your vehicle, with your mods, your hood vents, ect. So any after data you get with electric fans will be pretty much useless without something to compare it to.

I understand you feel that way. My goal with the electric fans is to more precisely control the engine temps. Even with all my mods and green coolant, we already know and have baselined that normal operating temps range from 180 to 225 as Mr. T. defines them, one of the reasons the temp guage has a dead spot.

For that goal, I don't need before temps, more specifically, we already know what they are. What my data should do (without any before data) is show a much more consistent engine operating temperature.

I'm good with that for my truck. Your data on your truck may vary.

ST

 

[SUMOTOY]

I agree with you opinion, but as with GM, Ford, and other manufacturers, the air comes through the fender to keep the IAT temp at a minimum. If you keep the ducting stock that temp would not seem to change a large amout because of hood venting. The ducting may stay a little cooler but I doubt much. When I vented my hood the IAT temps stayed withing 5 degrees with stock type ducting. When I said of my IAT fooling trick. I was simply wanting to test the effects of fooling the ECU into thinking the temp was cooler that it really was. It adversely effected the fueling and timing which made the truck run hotter. The manufacturers have engineered the ECUs performance by the hot air readings of the IAT. When the IAT does read cooler air, it makes the adjustment and the truck is happy, but the air really is cool at that point which changes other ECU parameters.

I understand what you guys are trying to accomplish, but other than some slightly better fuel economy numbers I don't see the need to re-engineer Toyotas engine air flow design inside or outside. I have to wonder what the Saudis who run around the 110 degree desert all the time have done to their trucks? The ones I have seen are stock. Even the Turbo charged ones.

I know that when it's cold out, my truck runs a lot better at the same operating temp, than if it's 100 out. That means to me that IAT is pretty key to the equation of performance. Your test fooled the ecu into thinking it had better VE, and it really didn't. I'd expect that would result in a hotter running truck.

My focus is reducing the IAT, more specifically reducing the supercharger inlet temp. Exactly increasing the air density at the compressor inlet. It's not a theory, it's a well known and established engineering issue in forced inducted motors.

Again, my truck is as described, and my data and targets/goals are established for my truck. It is quite relevent to anyone else that operates their 80 in extreme environments. I generated heat extreme by adding a compressor, anyone else could add a trailer and/or higher ambient temp.

I can't speak to anyone else's truck. I can and have clearly focus on data, observations and modificatinons with regard to me adding a supercharger to my truck and expecting redline performance without issue.

ST

 

[SUMOTOY]

You might condiser renaming your old threads from "The ABC'S of 80's Cooling Part xx" to something more relevant, like "ABC's of reducing 80's AC temps". I have a feeling alot of people have misinterpreted your goal, me included.

It's pretty clear, if you read post 1 in each thread, what I'm after. I'm not after reducing AC temps. I'm after a more precise control and optimization of 80 engine heat management. This would include heat soaking of the condenser by the radiator, the fan, the shroud, the VC, the engine bay temp, engine bay trapped heat, reducing IAT, and electric fans. In Part IV and Part V, my goal has nothing directly to do with AC, so I don't agree the thread title needs to change.

For instance, it appears cruiserdan is concerned about underhood temps as it relates to engine temps, not AC, in his SC 80. You seem to share his concern in subsequent posts, yet here you talk about the importance of raising engine temps, that is definitely confusing to me.

I understand it confuses you. Part IV, which is to reduce engine bay trapped heat in terms of the heat management goals I have identified above. Part I, II and III were only concerned with cooling the *condenser* as a method of identifying and controlling heat management in front of the radiator. In Part III, I also identified that this modification resulted in increased engine bay temps. In Part IV and V, I have moved into optimization of engine bay and engine temps respectively. Both of which will only indirectly affect AC

The thread title appears to be consistent with my goals and targets, which as of Part III, are no longer at issue with AC performance. I disagree that the title needs to be changed, only the targets and goals understood.

The threads themselves seem to have a good following, and many others are not confused. I do appreciate you taking the time to read them. I understand you feel they aren't clear, and confuse you. Maybe Part V will help...

ST

 

[firetruck41]

It's pretty clear, if you read post 1 in each thread, what I'm after. I'm not after reducing AC temps. I'm after a more precise control and optimization of 80 engine heat management. This would include heat soaking of the condenser by the radiator, the fan, the shroud, the VC, the engine bay temp, engine bay trapped heat, reducing IAT, and electric fans. In Part IV and Part V, my goal has nothing directly to do with AC, so I don't agree the thread title needs to change.



I understand it confuses you. Part IV, which is to reduce engine bay trapped heat in terms of the heat management goals I have identified above. Part I, II and III were only concerned with cooling the *condenser* as a method of identifying and controlling heat management in front of the radiator. In Part III, I also identified that this modification resulted in increased engine bay temps. In Part IV and V, I have moved into optimization of engine bay and engine temps respectively. Both of which will only indirectly affect AC

The thread title appears to be consistent with my goals and targets, which as of Part III, are no longer at issue with AC performance. I disagree that the title needs to be changed, only the targets and goals understood.

The threads themselves seem to have a good following, and many others are not confused. I do appreciate you taking the time to read them. I understand you feel they aren't clear, and confuse you. Maybe Part V will help...

ST

Just to clarify my confusion, in your most recent post, you say, "It's pretty clear, if you read post 1 in each thread, what I'm after. I'm not after reducing AC temps. I'm after a more precise control and optimization of 80 engine heat management. "

While in a previous post in this thread you say "I exactly ignored engine temps for parts I-IV, because I wasn't addressing them." and "My focus in part I-III was optimizing the A/C system by blowing on the condenser with an Aux Fan."

I guess if I understand correctly parts I-IV only concern someone who has a problem with their A/C temps.

Rick et. al.
I exactly ignored engine temps for parts I-IV, because I wasn't addressing them. Put another way, those will vary widely from any specific truck and modifications (or in my case: SC & shroud/fan/rad/ butchery is irrelevent to anyone else). My focus in part I-III was optimizing the A/C system by blowing on the condenser with an Aux Fan.

 

[SUMOTOY]

Just to clarify my confusion, in your most recent post, you say you are "after a more precise control and optimization of 80 engine heat management"

While in a previous post in this thread you say "I exactly ignored engine temps for parts I-IV, because I wasn't addressing them." and "My focus in part I-III was optimizing the A/C system by blowing on the condenser with an Aux Fan."

Right now there are V parts to my ABC's post (Part I-IV done, V coming). I-III addressed low speed cooling being less than optimal causingby *measured* heat soaking of the condenser in front of the radiator (Read: heat going forward from the radiator is not optimal engine heat managment). Part IV is addressing the resulting underhood heat management problem caused by Part III (read: I got the heat to move backwards better, but it caused higher underhood heat). Part V will address more precise control of the engine temperature via electric fans. All heat management issues, not directly AC related. Any or all can yield AC benefits I suppose, and can be the cause of your confusion.

So I am after a more precise control and optimization of 80 engine heat management. It's clear, consistent, and needs no title change.

HTH

Scott Justusson

 

[firetruck41]

Right now there are V parts to my ABC's post (Part I-IV done, V coming). I-III addressed low speed cooling being less than optimal causingby *measured* heat soaking of the condenser in front of the radiator (Read: heat going forward from the radiator is not optimal engine heat managment). Part IV is addressing the resulting underhood heat management problem caused by Part III (read: I got the heat to move backwards better, but it caused higher underhood heat). Part V will address more precise control of the engine temperature via electric fans. All heat management issues, not directly AC related. Any or all can yield AC benefits I suppose, and can be the cause of your confusion.

So I am after a more precise control and optimization of 80 engine heat management. It's clear, consistent, and needs no title change.

HTH

Scott Justusson

I guess I will just continue to be confused.

But this brings up another question: What method do you use to yield "a more precise control and optimization of 80 engine heat management" when you "exactly ignored engine temps for parts I-IV"? In other words, how can you optimize engine heat management by ignoring engine temps with 4 of 5 significant modifications?

 

[SUMOTOY]

...Let's make one thing perfectly clear - it's not a matter of how I feel. Feel has nothing to do with data. If your goal is more precise control of engine temps, and you don't know what your engine is running now, then how will you know you're more precise?
If you're ok with that, that's your choice. But, if you try to present your suspicions and feelings as fact on this forum, there are plenty of people besides me that are going to jump on it.

Gents
I don't understand your jump, specifically it's premature, I haven't written Part V yet!

I already know I'm *still* within the design parameters of Mr. T. I have a stock thermosat, which means I see (and observed) 180F temps = 'normal'. With a sealed radiator core I haven't seen A/C cutoff = 226F, and have observed 220F without A/C cutoff = 'normal' while towing a 24foot trailer (extreme environment)

My *goal* is to reduce the variance of 'normal' operating temps to an ideal 212F (100C)

Let's try this for my yet unwritten Part V:
My null hypothesis:
Adddressing specific variables in engine heat management, the engine operating temperature variance defined as "normal" by Toyota, will remain unchanged at 202 +/-22F in extreme operating environments.

We already know it's 202 +/- 22, and that the 212 is within the 'normal' operating temp. I observed that my truck is within the 'normal' operating temp as Mr. T defined it in Parts I-IV. What is it exactly prior to Part V? 180-225. My goal and target is 212 +0/-10. Like a seal on a board!... Gents, save some your ordinance for Part V! I *feel* you'll need it

SMT

 

[SUMOTOY]

...It's not a premature jump. It's exactly what I was talking about before. If you set up what you will and will not measure before you make the changes, you can determine what you will and will not be able to learn.

Exactly *my* point, M. Vogt! If you back up to post 1 on ABC Part IV, this is a hood vent install as a way to decrease measured increases in underhood temps caused by adding the aux fan in Part III. The underhood data was recorded and measured as described. Engine temps weren't recorded, because I was not looking for decrease in engine temps by putting in hood vents. That data isn't relevent to *my* objective in Part IV.

I understand you and others want hood vent installs to be relevent to lower engine temps. I haven't measured that data since it wasn't part of my null hypothesis.

Pre-empting any data for Part V? I haven't done Part V. Save yourself some energy for that.



Scott Justusson

 

[alaskacruiser]

SUMO- just to clear things up, you do plan to record pre and post modification engine temps in Part V because you are looking to control engine temps in Part V, correct?