hay my radiator just exploded dose any one make an all aluminum radiator for the 95 fjz 80 or did Toyota build one for a different year or county just looking to up grade this so important part
thanks
thanks
aluminum radiator (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter richardmvaldez
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
NLXTACY
Wits' End
$800!!??!?!? Wow.
No not nuts really, that's a Ron Davis Racing (ha this then has race and landcruiser in it!) which is a perfect fit and has an absolutely amazing amount of reserve for rigs with FI. Well worth it IMHO.
- Thread starter
- #8
so who knows about this oem 3 core what fits from what 80 i mean 800$ thats as much as my 4in lift
alia176
SILVER Star
Dude,
a punctuation or two?
Isn't alum a better heat conductor than brass? Or is it the other way around? Curious as to why the 3 core brass oem unit gets so much press over the ron davis unit...
Moby
GOLD Star
I looked into this before I bought a Ron Davis unit for my FJ-62. This is just repeating my research:
- Brass is better than aluminum but the solder used in the construction of a brass radiator is not thus in the finished product the advantage is negated or goes in favor of aluminum.
- With aluminum the radiator can be made with fewer larger cores because aluminum is stronger. Larger cores within the same physical dimensions means more surface area (usually aluminum rads are 1 or 2 cores vs. 3 or 4 for a quality brass unit)
- Cooling effectiveness of the rear most cores decreases as core count goes up (the 4th core does not cool as well as the first).
I'm not so sure about your second point. As the mass of an object increases it's surface area to volume ratio decreases.
I think the OEM rad is Aluminum (it is in my 97) When I replaced mine I used the 93 3core brass radiator, I got it from Cdan It was ALOT less then Ron Davis Racing rad. Where I live out hear on the edge of the dessert cooling can be an issue. I have not had a single problem with over heating or running hot since I swaped out to the new 93 rad. I have ran it hard thru all weather without any problems.
alia176
SILVER Star
I used to have an ALUM oem '96 radiator and it was never a problem for me either. My reason for switching to the brass unit is due to my carelessness. I broke the dang nipple on top
Dude,
a punctuation or two?
Isn't alum a better heat conductor than brass? Or is it the other way around? Curious as to why the 3 core brass oem unit gets so much press over the ron davis unit...
Copper is a much better conductor than aluminum, the "brass" radiator has copper components, Aluminum radiators are popular with racers because they are much lighter than brass/copper, makes a noticeable difference in a 2000 pound race car.
And in a never ending quest for fleet average fuel efficiency aluminum radiators have become popular with manufacturers also. as a raw material aluminum is much cheaper than copper or brass but the process to turn it into a radiator is more difficult.
in a 6K pound brick shaped SUV with big tires lift and an mild engine, the exact opposite of a race car aluminum radiators has no real advantage.
In 95 the 80 series went on a diet to reduce weight. one of the changes was the radiator was changed from copper/brass to aluminum. if you have a 93-97 you can use either one.
Last edited:
RT, all other things equal I agree about Al vs. Cu as materials and how that applies to radiators, but ,you also have to factor the thicker core, the wider tubes, the number of tubes and the fact the RDR has no plastic top or plastic bottom which represent HUGE areas of only averagely conducting material sitting on top of and on bottom of the core. It just isn't true that the only reason to swap to Al is to shave some weight (unless you are only comparing the OEM brass/copper vs the OEM Al) and in fact it wasn't even a consideration of mine when selecting something (I've only got a 5500 lb brick but still saving some weight with a radiator while you're running sliders and bumpers and skids isn't something I'd personally worry with). The reserve of this radiator is absolutely amazing and while my original OEM aluminum (97) was a wonderful radiator and I'm not slamming it at all, to say that there is no advantage to this radiator (especially for FI as I've written all along) is just wrong. To say that there is no advantage to the OEM Aluminum radiator vs the OEM Brass/Copper (other than the weight) is probably still somewhat arguable and I don't truly think that anyone has back to back compared those two new OEM versions? The reason I say still somewhat arguable is that you also have to factor the solder used in the brass/copper which represents small dead spots all over the tubes that hinder the heat transfer. All in all I'm just saying that this is all arguable OEM-to-OEM but you get into the world of an all aluminum, thicker core, wider tube, wider fin racing radiator all tigged and with no solder and you're not really talkin apples to apples anymore, not that there's anything wrong with or lacking on the OEM variants either (except the f'n plastic tube that I almost broke about a dozen times cause I'm clutzy
).
yes talking more about OEM AL vs CU, my 80 being naturally aspirated I would have no reason to look any further than OEM.
Moby
GOLD Star
Well, like I said, I was just repeating the research that I did. I can't defend it beyond providing the source of the data. This particularly point came from the tech column that answers readers questions in Hot Rod magazine. Usually they choose one main question to go in depth on and one month it was aluminum versus brass radiators. It's possible that the explanation in the article was an oversimplification of the design issues involved and that summing it up in this manner doesn't provide an accurrate description of what is going on.
The point about the solder defeating the overall cooling effectiveness of brass over aluminum in the final product also came from that article.
I would bet Toyota's decision was more based as to save $$$
All their other models had aluminum radiators so why stick with copper/brass ?
I replaced mine with the same copper/brass OEM 3 years ago.
At least on my case, in a third world country, when driving way out of civilization , I would have better chances to find someone with the knowledge and solding stuff to repair a copper/brass core than a aluminum core.
Respectfully, that isn't what the second point was referring to. For one I think that the term "core" was accidentally swapped with "rows" in that post there but disregarding that, the point is that these aluminum radiators have larger rows and less rows and that the surface area of this type of core configuration is much more effective than the surface area of several smaller sized rows stacked three to four deep. The density of metal in the hollow tube here isn't the issue nor is how much that hollow tube displaces in volume nor is how much that hollow tube weighs. The diameter of metal of the hollow tube is the issue and it is indeed a surface area issue and surface shape issue (more oval vs. more round) but not so much a mass issue. All other things equal if you took the copper tube to the same specific surface area as well as surface shape you'd get the best of both worlds (better conductivity of copper and the greater surface area associated w/ aluminum) BUT the copper tubes would have to be thicker (stronger) and then there are weight penalties. Just to clarify.
I guess I misspoke. I was not referring to the weight of a radiator. I was referring to the size of the rows. A larger diameter row will have a lower suface area to volume ratio than a smaller diameter row. It's a fact. Moby stated, "Larger cores within the same physical dimensions means more surface area (usually aluminum rads are 1 or 2 cores vs. 3 or 4 for a quality brass unit)," which is incorrect. He may have meant something else, but that's not what he said.
I've never studied thermal or fluid dynamics, but the larger frontal area of each aluminum row may outweigh the smaller overall surface area when it comes to the transfer of heat from the radiator to mono directional air. Physical design probably outweighs thermal conductivity such that a radiatorl of better design, but less conductive material will outperform a radiator of lesser design and more conductive material. Of course this is all probably a moot point for an LC.
I've never studied thermal or fluid dynamics, but the larger frontal area of each aluminum row may outweigh the smaller overall surface area when it comes to the transfer of heat from the radiator to mono directional air. Physical design probably outweighs thermal conductivity such that a radiatorl of better design, but less conductive material will outperform a radiator of lesser design and more conductive material. Of course this is all probably a moot point for an LC.
