Posted 13 September 2009 - 01:15 PM
It can have an effect on air charge temp simply because there is less heat in the engine components and, of course, less heat will be transferred to the air charge. However this inlet IAT1 is primarily affected by the speed of the vehicle and probably not useful data in this case. Also when the radiator fan is on you will always notice climbing IATs from heat being sucked back into the intake.Actually if you look carefully at Joeís data, the fan settings did not affect his test negatively. With the NAPA thermostat he ran a 188* low setting but lowest ECT was 184* so the fan never hit itís off speed of 182*, it ran constantly during that log.
With my thermostat the ECT hit a low of 176* and shut the fan off, meaning ECT would probably have even dropped a bit more under different conditions or if the fan kept running. I understand the scientific spirit of your concerns which is why I always perform a hot idle test with the A/C running (fan on) to test thermostats under the most controlled circumstances possible.
I'm not doubting you and or your product. I just want that to be clear. If there is a product that helps our vehicles to perform and operate more efficiently I am all for it.
The IAT differential is in my opinion too dramatic of a change and throws off the information. I've data logged a few cooling products in my time.
Thermostats have long been a debate for the GT500. For proper testing and understanding the benefit between one product or another you need consistent readings and all things being equal except the two or three products. In this case, stock, 180 or 170 TSTAT.
If your TSTAT opens sooner and opens wider and has a better engineered flow design, correct? Then you should be able to test the products on one single car with low speed fan settings off and high speed fan settings coming on at 210 or higher for example.
Obviously yours will open at 170 degrees, NAPA at 180 degrees and the stock at 192 (I believe it's 192 correct me if I am wrong). The time differential between your tstat with no fans reaching 210 degrees or higher scenario, and then duplicate the same testing data log with the NAPA 180 and the stock TSTAT as well just for demonstrative purposes.
I realize it takes a couple of TSTAT's to create one of yours. My point is very simple. Test all 3 with no fan until a much higher temp and determine how effective one is versus the other based on time scale to reach a predetermined temperature. All things being equal that being speed of the tests, stock radiator, stock heat exchanger, same vehicle. Then test on a GT500 with stock radiator and an AFCO Heat Exchanger, same vehicle for all 3 products. Then test on a GT500 with a stock radiator and a Shelby Heat Exchanger, same vehicle, all three products. Then test on a GT500 with a Shebly Radiator and a Shelby Heat Exchanger, same vehicle all three products.
Compile data like this that is comprehensive and shows the difference and results, the product sells itself, IMO.
If your TSTAT flows more efficiently and opens wider then in theory it should climb to 210 degrees, for example, slower than a 180 NAPA TSTAT, correct? Simply based on the fact that it's got a better flow design and opens earlier the NAPA should rise to 210 or 230 much quicker. A test of this nature based on time differentials proves the efficiency of a product based on it's claims. I believe what you have claimed I just think that a different type of testing may be in order.
Playing with fan speeds between different TSTAT's simply introduces anomalies to the testing scenario. Test them at one speed, with no fans and measure the time difference to build to a predetermined median temperature. Test on the same car and then test different cars with different modifications.
You are in essence using the radiator earlier and you should effectively cool the liquid sooner thereby keeping the fluid below said median test temperature.
If the NAPA flows less efficiently then in theory it should climb to the median test temperature faster, yes?
This is by no means an attempt to bash or decry your product. I think you've done a lot of work and due diligence. I think you are also the right person to do the data logging and testing. Personally, I would test it differently, as stated above.
2007 Shelby GT500 Alloy Metallic # 357 NASA Time Trial Unlimited Competition Vehicle
2007 Shelby GT500 Alloy Metallic Coupe
Purchased October 30, 2006
Shelby Registry Documented as GT500 cooling system development car
Revan Racing/Shelby Original Prototype Radiator, Revan Racing/Shelby Original Prototype Heat Exchanger, Revan Racing/Shelby Reservoir Kit
Griggs Racing Products GR40 ST Suspension with Watts Link and Full Front SLA, Dynotech 1-Piece Aluminum Drive Shaft, dba Slotted Rotors, Hawk DTC 70 Race Pads, Brembo LCF 600 Plus Brake Fluid, Forgeline ZX3R's Matte Black with Titanium Fasteners and Hoosier R6 315's on all 4 corners
Kenne Bell 3.6LC Polished Competition Supercharger with 3.75 Upper, Kenne Bell Competition Boost-A-Pump, 2008 Lower Pulley, HPX MAF Sensor, Jon Lund Tuned and Calibrated (at least 100 times), Borla XR-1 Racing Long Tube Headers, Catless X-Pipe, Borla XR-1 Mufflers, Ford Racing Sparco Race Seat, Shelby Shifter, Silver Horse Racing Side Window Louvers, Agent 47 Retro Mirrors, Proglass Retro Ram Air Hood with Run Cool Hood Louvers, Agent 47 Brake Ducts, Schroth Racing harnesses, AEM Wide Band
Stock Motor Died on track at Daytona International Speedway December 2009 at 190+ MPH
New Motor Born February 2010
Custom Diamond/L&M Race Pistons 9.5:1 Compression, Oliver Rods with ARP 2000 Rod Bolts, Manley Titanium Valve Spring Retainers, Ferrea Super Alloy Exhaust and Intake Valves, AP Rings, Speed Pro Main and Rod Bearings, Ford GT Cams, Canton Road Race Oil Pan, Complete ARP 2000 Bolts throughout
Sponsored by: L&M Engines, www.lmengines.com C&R Racing, www.crracing.com Kenne Bell Superchargers, www.kennebell.net Lund Racing, www.lundracing.com SPEC Clutches, www.specclutch.com Griggs Racing www.grigg ing.com & Borla Racing Exhaust Systems www.borla.com