More confusing operating temperature info. (1 Viewer)

[SUMOTOY]

Sumotoy, your stating that you'll see better MPG and wear after your changes are completed, here in this thread. So I don't understand why a comment on having a base line to compare the end results to your final ones is pre mature. I just searched the site as well as skimmed the first of your series and didn't find any mention as I stated above.
...

Rick:
I believe you are reading too much into my posts. I've consistently put up before and after data in my ABC's posts when I do them. I haven't done Part V. Review of relevent literature, would support an improvement in engine efficiency without the mechanical fan load, and an improvement in engine efficiency by reducing the 'normal' engine operating temp variance and to a higher target temp. The review of literature and SAE experiments support the correlations of: engine efficiency and fan load (inverse proportional), and operating temp vs fuel consumption (inverse proportional). You are welcome to present your own review of literature to support your opinions, but that's not a data issue... Yet.

The question really is, are these supported steps to increase engine efficiency going to give an actual measureable increase in MPG on an 80 with a supercharger. Since I'm going after two accepeted paths of increasing engine efficiency by better engine heat management, I have doubled my chances of actually seeing a measureable performance difference. It's certainly quite possible I may not see any. At that point, I can just conclude that I will no longer be worried about augering my radiator at 5000rpm with VC fan lockup. I see the exercise as a win win, for me. YMMV!

I appreciate your keen interest and anticipation of Part V. I submit it's premature to look for Part V data somewhere else, since I haven't written Part V.



Scott Justusson

 

[SUMOTOY]

Yep. With the exception of the Aux fan. I still believe that Toyota did an adequate job of engineering the cooling system even supercharged. There may be room for some improvement in some areas, but I hardly believe that Toyota and its offspring TRD are missing the boat.

I *agree* Toyota did an adequate job of engineering the cooling system. I don't agree that they adequately addressed the cooling system in the supercharger kit. The kit uses a smaller fan, with more heat load! It's the second fan (Dan's recommended) to the more efficient but shroud-shrapnelling ringed fan blade. So TRD certainly mised the boat, it's documented. And there is no 'advisory' to ringed fan kit owners, you shrapnel, then you learn about the revised part number!

Adequate by definition means there is room for improvement. It certainly appears that the steps in improving adequate would/could include a higher (+narrower) operating temp, and electric fans.

The easiest thing is to do nothing. I have a well augered radiator that dictates that doesn't appear to be one of my options.

YMMV

SJ

 

[reffug]

So what I am getting out of this is to stop being concerned about the extra heat from my supercharger as long as my cooling system is in great shape.
Forget the aux fan, hood scoop and other mods.

Yup dats about a thumbnail sketch..........

 

[firetruck41]

Rick:
I believe you are reading too much into my posts. I've consistently put up before and after data in my ABC's posts when I do them. I haven't done Part V. Review of relevent literature, would support an improvement in engine efficiency without the mechanical fan load, and an improvement in engine efficiency by reducing the 'normal' engine operating temp variance and to a higher target temp. The review of literature and SAE experiments support the correlations of: engine efficiency and fan load (inverse proportional), and operating temp vs fuel consumption (inverse proportional). You are welcome to present your own review of literature to support your opinions, but that's not a data issue... Yet.

Since this is an engine temp thread, could you consolidate your data and post your before and after engine temps, from each of your mods?

The question really is, are these supported steps to increase engine efficiency going to give an actual measureable increase in MPG on an 80 with a supercharger. Since I'm going after two accepeted paths of increasing engine efficiency by better engine heat management, I have doubled my chances of actually seeing a measureable performance difference. It's certainly quite possible I may not see any. At that point, I can just conclude that I will no longer be worried about augering my radiator at 5000rpm with VC fan lockup. I see the exercise as a win win, for me. YMMV!

I appreciate your keen interest and anticipation of Part V. I submit it's premature to look for Part V data somewhere else, since I haven't written Part V.



Scott Justusson

If you indeed keep "before" data, it would be required to have data collected prior to a "Part V". If MPG is part of the data collected, I would think that a average over a long period of time/conditions would be best as there are just too many variations to be seen over several tankfuls, or else a couple very exact (read, almost labratory condition) tankfuls of test driving.

 

[SUMOTOY]

If you indeed keep "before" data, it would be required to have data ....

I'm thoroughly enjoying reading preemptive strikes at my ABC Part V data. Please hold off the shark attacks until I put the bait on the hook!

Thanks.

SJ

 

[Romer]

If you guys don't mind can we get back to the discussion at hand

So heat is suppose to be better in some respects. Better MPG and life. I was getting concerned when my temp gauge got to 205. Should I revise that now to 215, 220, 225? I would think you still don't want it to get to where the AC shuts off. That's 226 isn't it? So would max temp under max load on a high day getting to no more than 220 be acceptable.

We know there are things we can do when it gets to 210 or 215 like shutting opff the AC, rolling down the window and turning the heat (or rear heater) on.


(Lets focus the discussion on this, and let Scott take the comment to put before and after data in part V and leave that alone)

 

[landtank]

My preference is to run the truck as designed which would be 185 or as close as I can come to it. As far as higher temps are concerned, I haven't seen anyone document that this is better for our engines. Until now it's been speculation based on some reports. If new engines run at these temps reliably then I'd have to think that there is more going on than just letting a stock engine run hot. I mean, they run that way naturally and all the time, not just when you are towing or the ambient temp is over 105*. And I would expect more design changes to the engine itself and the ECU programming as well.

All speculation on my part, but if better mileage and longer lasting engines could be attained by just running the engine hotter, I have to believe someone would make a 220* thermostat for our trucks and market the crap out of it.

 

[SUMOTOY]

So heat is suppose to be better in some respects. Better MPG and life. I was getting concerned when my temp gauge got to 205. Should I revise that now to 215, 220, 225? I would think you still don't want it to get to where the AC shuts off. That's 226 isn't it? So would max temp under max load on a high day getting to no more than 220 be acceptable.

We know there are things we can do when it gets to 210 or 215 like shutting opff the AC, rolling down the window and turning the heat (or rear heater) on.

Ken:

Short answer. Yes, 220 is within the 'normal' operating temp of the 80, as defined by Mr. T, and as Dan posted in the first of this thread.

220F is's not overheating the oil (oil manufacturers define extreme oil temps as 150C), and the A/C is working, and the truck is working hard. Pretty close to it's maximum 'normal' temp, but not exceeding it yet.

We can accept the fact that the 80 operating temp is 202 +/- 45F in a normal truck. What you have to determine, is what's 'normal' for you truck under the same driving conditions only adding a SC. When I towed my camping trailer, I watched the guage closely at 220 to make sure it wasn't a trend. 210 I considered quite normal, and quite optimal actually. That's within 7 degrees of absolute center of 'normal', and gives the benefit of oil moisture blowoff, etc...

I would certainly think and know from experience that occasional hits of 220 should be expected, and normal, as the SC replaces some 'other' defined extreme heat environment. All that said, if this is the temp trend, IOW, it's going 220 and beyond, then you have a problem that needs immediate attention. I'm pretty convinced that the reason the factory guage is dead around center, is it needs to be to accomodate 45F of 'normal' within the center, yet cold and hot need to be indicated.

HTH

Scott Justusson

 

[firetruck41]

Ken:

Short answer. Yes, 220 is within the 'normal' operating temp of the 80, as defined by Mr. T, and as Dan posted in the first of this thread.

Dan's original post was not specific to 80's, and applies to "recent" model Toyota vehicles. "Recent" is pretty ambiguous.

 

[Waggoner5]

I *agree* Toyota did an adequate job of engineering the cooling system. I don't agree that they adequately addressed the cooling system in the supercharger kit. The kit uses a smaller fan, with more heat load! It's the second fan (Dan's recommended) to the more efficient but shroud-shrapnelling ringed fan blade. So TRD certainly mised the boat, it's documented. And there is no 'advisory' to ringed fan kit owners, you shrapnel, then you learn about the revised part number!

Adequate by definition means there is room for improvement. It certainly appears that the steps in improving adequate would/could include a higher (+narrower) operating temp, and electric fans.

The easiest thing is to do nothing. I have a well augered radiator that dictates that doesn't appear to be one of my options.

YMMV

SJ

I give up. When you get the Landcruiser redesigned, let us know.

 

[Romer]

I give up. When you get the Landcruiser redesigned, let us know.

God help us if he comes up with a cockemamey 45 looking design with the radaiator in the back and a rusted bezel in the front.

 

[Waggoner5]

Careful, I am getting pretty close to moving up there and I know where you live.

 

[cruiserdan]

Dan's original post was not specific to 80's, and applies to "recent" model Toyota vehicles. "Recent" is pretty ambiguous.

I still think his comments apply because Toyota has the A/C cut out at 226 and allows it to come back on-line at 217. Clearly they do not consider 217 a threat otherwise they would not allow the A/C to come back on-line at that temperature.

 

[cruiserdan]

Careful, I am getting pretty close to moving up there and I know where you live.

You'd go into that part of town?.................

 

[firetruck41]

I still think his comments apply because Toyota has the A/C cut out at 226 and allows it to come back on-line at 217. Clearly they do not consider 217 a threat otherwise they would not allow the A/C to come back on-line at that temperature.

That certainly sounds like 220 is an allowable temp for the engine, though at the upper end, if only a 6 degree swing will have the AC cutting out.

 

[reffug]

Careful, I am getting pretty close to moving up there and I know where you live.

Send me a map please I have an .