• Steel Soldiers now has a few new forums, read more about it at: New Munitions Forums!

  • Microsoft MSN, Live, Hotmail, Outlook email users may not be receiving emails. We are working to resolve this issue. Please add support@steelsoldiers.com to your trusted contacts.

Cooling upgrade system.

911joeblow

Active member
508
68
28
Location
Utah
I've got a 6.5T that will be going in in the Spring that my kit will be being transferred to. I'll update to the thread when the swap is done.
You will need to call me and get a couple of parts. The turbo kits are sightly different and have a lower block plate design and a hard 90 deg at the plate to clear the before mentioned bracket. We keep them in stock for just what you are doing.
 

ryanruck

Active member
427
46
28
Location
Cincinnati, OH
You will need to call me and get a couple of parts. The turbo kits are sightly different and have a lower block plate design and a hard 90 deg at the plate to clear the before mentioned bracket. We keep them in stock for just what you are doing.
Gotcha... Will give you guys a call after the new year. Thanks!
 

DCIV

New member
148
0
0
Location
Morristown, TN
So looking at your drawing one might disagree with the routing of your hose. If I were to design this with the given information (and only work I have is keeping a highly modified twin turbo from overheating, but I’m also a firefighter pump operator) I would take a line from the cool side before it enters the head and put it in the back side of the far head. That way all water flows and it’s the coolest possible water. Yours you are expecting the water to flow to the left and to the right. That seems inefficient to me.

I agree that the back spot is very prone to having issues with no where for the heat to go easily, I’m sure it’s very turbulent water there and only swirls it, which is why your system does work. I just think there is a better way is all.
 

911joeblow

Active member
508
68
28
Location
Utah
So looking at your drawing one might disagree with the routing of your hose. If I were to design this with the given information (and only work I have is keeping a highly modified twin turbo from overheating, but I’m also a firefighter pump operator) I would take a line from the cool side before it enters the head and put it in the back side of the far head. That way all water flows and it’s the coolest possible water. Yours you are expecting the water to flow to the left and to the right. That seems inefficient to me.

I agree that the back spot is very prone to having issues with no where for the heat to go easily, I’m sure it’s very turbulent water there and only swirls it, which is why your system does work. I just think there is a better way is all.
We need to cool the block as well as the heads. We did consider tapping into the freeze plugs in the block but we reached balance without having to complicate installation and testing. Also by adding coolant to the pressure side you need to also find a higher pressure source than the water pump to deliver it and since the pump produces variable pressure depending on RPM you have to do that as well. Not an easy or needed way to do it.
 

Sintorion

Member
286
13
18
Location
Fla
So looking at your drawing one might disagree with the routing of your hose. If I were to design this with the given information (and only work I have is keeping a highly modified twin turbo from overheating, but I’m also a firefighter pump operator) I would take a line from the cool side before it enters the head and put it in the back side of the far head. That way all water flows and it’s the coolest possible water. Yours you are expecting the water to flow to the left and to the right. That seems inefficient to me.

I agree that the back spot is very prone to having issues with no where for the heat to go easily, I’m sure it’s very turbulent water there and only swirls it, which is why your system does work. I just think there is a better way is all.

Totally agree. The problem is that this guy defends his product with theory and has zero verifiable proof that his product is better than the other designs out there or that his product does anything at all. Instead of testing he puts his resources into pretty paint colors and flashy web pages. Seems a little deceitful, but of course he promised tests a year ago and even a few weeks ago. Must be hard to compile the data?
 

DCIV

New member
148
0
0
Location
Morristown, TN
Totally agree. The problem is that this guy defends his product with theory and has zero verifiable proof that his product is better than the other designs out there or that his product does anything at all. Instead of testing he puts his resources into pretty paint colors and flashy web pages. Seems a little deceitful, but of course he promised tests a year ago and even a few weeks ago. Must be hard to compile the data?
I believe his product works. I mean if you can remove hot water from the back even a little it has to help. But as far as being better than anyone else’s....how can you ever answer that about anything? Go tell me which is the best #2 philips in the world. I mean how could anyone say theirs was....the metal is better? The handle is better? Must be the ones that are magnetized on the end right?

Everything is marketing, and at the end of the day if his product works, is good quality for a good price, then it’s better than no product at all.

At least in my view. But I still hold strong that there is a better routing, even if not what I suggested at first.
 

Action

Well-known member
3,576
1,557
113
Location
East Tennessee
Normally, in the coolant path, would the coolant just go into a path and stop? Or does it go up one hole and back down another? I am asking about in the factory block / heads. I haven't removed a head yet to see.
 

Sintorion

Member
286
13
18
Location
Fla
Normally, in the coolant path, would the coolant just go into a path and stop? Or does it go up one hole and back down another? I am asking about in the factory block / heads. I haven't removed a head yet to see.
That is a valid question. I would wonder how if the coolant is stagnant as he claims that it could have even got there in the first place. It isn't like they filled the block with coolant and put the plates on.

In order for the fluid to flow as he claims the pressure would have to be greater at that port than what it is at the point he taps it back in. If the pressure is greater on the other side, you are flowing uncooled coolant back into the block. My guess is that is why the competing product has a check valve which Joe does not have.

I think DCIV has the better though of pull coolant from the radiator and running it to the back of the block. When my back bedroom was consistently hotter than the rest of the house, I didn't just add a return, I upgraded the supply line. This doesn't seem to be any different. The problem isn't that there isn't enough return, it isn't getting a cool supply.
 

DCIV

New member
148
0
0
Location
Morristown, TN
I think DCIV has the better though of pull coolant from the radiator and running it to the back of the block. When my back bedroom was consistently hotter than the rest of the house, I didn't just add a return, I upgraded the supply line. This doesn't seem to be any different. The problem isn't that there isn't enough return, it isn't getting a cool supply.
If you read his post there is a very interesting point he made that wasn’t on his site that he was also wanting to get hot water out of the block and was even thinking about going through a freeze plug. First I don’t think he wants to go through a freeze plug as it’s not near as easy to instal, near as easy to seal. Now if the heat needs to leave the block that adds a level of complexity to everything.

My way would just add in cooler water into the rear head, the heat from the block still needs to exit. I am guessing that’s why he has his the way he does.

The thing is he is trying to make a fix that is a huge design flaw, he is trying to find the easiest, cost effective, and long term solution to work around this design flaw and given you really don’t want to be messing with freeze plugs unless you have the block out then his maybe the optimal way. There really will never be a hands down proof no matter what.
 

87m998

Member
70
10
8
Location
Idaho
I bought this kit awhile back and just got around to taking it for a drive. I'm not happy, this kit as supplies and installed per directions causes overheating by removing a line going to the overflow tank. This also does not let the system pressurize. This kit should have come with a different fitting for the coolant hose going to the overflow tank
View attachment 718384
 

Attachments

Last edited:

911joeblow

Active member
508
68
28
Location
Utah
I bought this kit awhile back and just got around to taking it for a drive. I'm not happy, this kit as supplies and installed per directions causes overheating by removing a line going to the overflow tank. This also does not let the system pressurize. This kit should have come with a different fitting for the coolant hose going to the overflow tank
View attachment 718384
The attachment does not work but if you have a HMMWV then you should have the return as part of the kit. It sounds like you may have ordered a civilian kit? Where did you buy the kit, on our site or EBAY? PM me and I will look up your order to see what you got.
 

911joeblow

Active member
508
68
28
Location
Utah
That is a CUCV Hybrid kit. Send me a PM with your name so I can find your order. We need to hey you the correct kit ASAP!
 

911joeblow

Active member
508
68
28
Location
Utah
Guys we are nearing the end of our current run of kits and I know a lot of us are prepping for hot summer driving. So I wanted to make sure my SS brethren get first shot at the last few remaining kits. We have a few 6.2/6.5 kits left and down to one 6.5 Turbo kit before we will be out for a bit while the CNC shop finishes up. We got a bit of a rush in the early spring that caught us a bit off guard!
 

obijohn

New member
21
17
3
Location
Seattle suburbia
That is a valid question. I would wonder how if the coolant is stagnant as he claims that it could have even got there in the first place. It isn't like they filled the block with coolant and put the plates on.
It will get there because the level of water will equalize across the engine, but it will not flow as well due to the longer effective path for the coolant to take increasing resistance to flow. If you have two pipes of the same diameter hooked up to a common source, the shorter one will have a higher flow rate. If you run the hot water in a bathtub with the drain open below the faucet, your feet will be hotter than your shoulders.

In order for the fluid to flow as he claims the pressure would have to be greater at that port than what it is at the point he taps it back in. If the pressure is greater on the other side, you are flowing uncooled coolant back into the block. My guess is that is why the competing product has a check valve which Joe does not have.
If the temperature is hotter, then the pressure will be greater, and it will flow. Keeping the diameter of the return line small helps to do so. Note that the return lines tie in to the front crossover, before the coolant is returned to the radiator. Because there is a vacuum there, caused by the water pump moving coolant around and the flow is directed from the engine into the radiator at this point, and because the diameter of the crossover and the return to the radiator means the total area of the pipe back to the radiator is much larger than the two small lines running from the rear of the cylinder heads, coolant will not flow backwards because it will not move from a zone of lower pressure to a zone of higher pressure... that is impossible.

I think DCIV has the better though of pull coolant from the radiator and running it to the back of the block. When my back bedroom was consistently hotter than the rest of the house, I didn't just add a return, I upgraded the supply line. This doesn't seem to be any different. The problem isn't that there isn't enough return, it isn't getting a cool supply.
You could run incoming, cold coolant to the back of the block via lines to freeze plugs, but that would greatly complicate this system and introduce additional fragility. This system's design seems to take into account that the original engine cooling design was close, but not quite right, and that a little modification to ensure even flow out of the top (thus ensuring even flow from the bottom) would be sufficient. IMO the worst effect from such a system is no effect... a placebo. However, I doubt it has no effect. It's pretty obvious from the redesigns of the block that insufficient cooling to the rear cylinders is a known problem, and this is a logical, simple system that should help to address that.

I want to mention a couple more things. First, as engineers we don't need to know everything in exhaustive detail to know enough to make a decision. Given that the inventor is honest with his description of how he developed the system including sizing the return hoses based upon experimentation and measurement (the Scientific Method), it should be an improvement. So, really there are only two questions: do you trust the inventor to be honest about his approach to developing the system and on the results he obtained, and is it worth it to you specifically to spend around $300 with a minimal chance of doing harm and a non-minimal chance of making your engine last? Second, Sintorion, you have stated that you believe this kit is worthless at best (I don't believe you've asserted it could cause engine damage). Is it that you don't buy into the concept that the rear of these 6.2/6.5 engines has less coolant flow than the front, and thus the rear cylinders run hotter? Or that you don't believe this kit could possibly affect that?
 
Last edited:

911joeblow

Active member
508
68
28
Location
Utah
Well said Sir!

It will get there because the level of water will equalize across the engine, but it will not flow as well due to the longer effective path for the coolant to take increasing resistance to flow. If you have two pipes of the same diameter hooked up to a common source, the shorter one will have a higher flow rate. If you run the hot water in a bathtub with the drain open below the faucet, your feet will be hotter than your shoulders.



If the temperature is hotter, then the pressure will be greater, and it will flow. Keeping the diameter of the return line small helps to do so. Note that the return lines tie in to the front crossover, before the coolant is returned to the radiator. Because there is a vacuum there, caused by the water pump moving coolant around and the flow is directed from the engine into the radiator at this point, and because the diameter of the crossover and the return to the radiator means the total area of the pipe back to the radiator is much larger than the two small lines running from the rear of the cylinder heads, coolant will not flow backwards because it will not move from a zone of lower pressure to a zone of higher pressure... that is impossible.



You could run incoming, cold coolant to the back of the block via lines to freeze plugs, but that would greatly complicate this system and introduce additional fragility. This system's design seems to take into account that the original engine cooling design was close, but not quite right, and that a little modification to ensure even flow out of the top (thus ensuring even flow from the bottom) would be sufficient. IMO the worst effect from such a system is no effect... a placebo. However, I doubt it has no effect. It's pretty obvious from the redesigns of the block that insufficient cooling to the rear cylinders is a known problem, and this is a logical, simple system that should help to address that.

I want to mention a couple more things. First, as engineers we don't need to know everything in exhaustive detail to know enough to make a decision. Given that the inventor is honest with his description of how he developed the system including sizing the return hoses based upon experimentation and measurement (the Scientific Method), it should be an improvement. So, really there are only two questions: do you trust the inventor to be honest about his approach to developing the system and on the results he obtained, and is it worth it to you specifically to spend around $300 with a minimal chance of doing harm and a non-minimal chance of making your engine last? Second, Sintorion, you have stated that you believe this kit is worthless at best (I don't believe you've asserted it could cause engine damage). Is it that you don't buy into the concept that the rear of these 6.2/6.5 engines has less coolant flow than the front, and thus the rear cylinders run hotter? Or that you don't believe this kit could possibly affect that?
 
Top