Hello! Log in or Register   |  Help  |  Donate  |  Buy Shirts  See all banner ads | Advertise on TheSamba.com  
TheSamba.com
 
Adding modern scoop for split bus engine bay cooling / pres.
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Forum Index -> Split Bus Share: Facebook Twitter
Reply to topic
Print View
Quick sort: Show newest posts on top | Show oldest posts on top View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Clara Premium Member
Samba Member


Joined: June 14, 2003
Posts: 11318

Clara is offline 

PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 10:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sniperx wrote:
Still thinking you're going up the wrong tree....

I'm running 14.3 AF ratio, 6.4x15 tires (30 inch diameter), 3.88rp, 82 4th gear, and am hitting 250 CHT on the freeway. I am also running a Porsche pulley. My oil temp at the sump (pre-coolers I believe) is 170. My motor does not run leaner on the highway due to fan speed and engine volume. My brother, an engineer, described it as this...when your available volume is so large in comparison to the draw or the flow the amount calculated is negligible. Basically consider a dam. It has a HUGE lake on the other side. The amount of pressure lost at the turbine due to the small leaks and cracks is so small its not taken into consideration. When you take the amount of air available to your motor in consideration vs the amount being used....its negligible.

My problem NOW...running too cold. I'm topping at 200 CHT on the road. I guess I could go leaner or raise the CR and get my temps back up.


On top of it all.....I'm getting over 30mpg now on a 2110 stroker.


Yes, running a porsche (smaller than stock) pulley is a bad idea unless it is over 100F outside.
Swap back to a stock pulley and belt until the weather heats up.

Does anyone have any data to say pressure has anything to do with cooling the VW? When I did some tests, I found pressure to be un-important.
Do your own on your running bus, and while it does change some, it is not enough for air density to do more cooling. I found an air flow meter and temp guages to give useful info.

Scoops just blast air through the engine compartment.
My tests showed that w/o external air scoops that the engine compartment temps are 10C higher than outside.
Scoops brought down engine compartment temps to the same as outside.
Scoops also brought head temps down 10C.
Amazing co-incidence that was the same number, huh?


now back to your regular scheduled package of hackage.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
flemcadiddlehopper
Samba Member


Joined: December 05, 2011
Posts: 2168
Location: Kelowna, BC. Canada.
flemcadiddlehopper is offline 

PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry..."feel" and "I think" are part of ownership of a statement. This is used so not to confuse people with it being stated as a fact, but merely what I think or feel.

I am not dismissing the success of your engine, or the stats that you have provided based on your observations. Your input as a counterpoint has been valued.
You have stated that there is no problem with air flow, that there is enough for you engine to perform and cool it. Yet your engine is running too cold and you are trying to sort that issue out.
I then would suggest that your engine may not be the best subject for this discussion as you have proven that diminished airflow did not solve your too cold issue.
That is a very unique problem with your engine and not the norm, obviously.

I simply, out of interest, would like to know what pressure the engine bay exists in, is there in fact a pressure drop do to the extra air usage of aftermarket performance goodies.

I don't place engineers on a pedestal, if I did who would design it to hold their weight? I simply don't think that the designers had a 225% margin in the design of air flow to the engine bay of early buses.

The design of the front scoop and a 3" pipe run to the engine bay, that I have proposed, flows enough air to nearly meet the requirements of a stock engine and will exchange the air in the engine bay 43 times/min. .

Gordo.
_________________
Everybody Dies....Some Never Live.

Retrograde Garage. Vintage Aircooled, and others.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Sniperx
Samba Member


Joined: February 14, 2010
Posts: 767
Location: Japan
Sniperx is offline 

PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

We're getting into the fuzzy area here of "feel", "think", and "marginal". I FEEL the air vents flow plently not mention the various air leaks around the motor.

I'm not saying your system won't cool or even cool better...what I AM saying is it won't help you. I have demonstrated its not the air flow that can play the biggest factor in your engine temperature, but things like tuning, compression, and fan speed are. I can run my big motor pretty much as hard as I want and I only ever get up to 350 CHT max on a serious climb.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
flemcadiddlehopper
Samba Member


Joined: December 05, 2011
Posts: 2168
Location: Kelowna, BC. Canada.
flemcadiddlehopper is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chrisflstf wrote:
Quote:
A Porsche fan moves 3000 cubic feet/min. dual 51mm webers flow test at around 1500 cubic feet/minute. The exchange rate is now 125 times/minute. That is a 266% increase in air flow.


Yes, thats true, but can you pull that much air through the stock vents?


That is the point being made here. The designers,I feel, had no view of what future customizers would do to their creation, and that increase in air flow is most likely beyond their spillage factor.

Yet we know the engine is not going to run our of air, but a pressure drop must be occurring. The stock VW fan has an increase in pressure of 5 psi (@ 3900rpm) above atmospheric pressure, so a pressure drop in the engine compartment is a pressure drop in the cooling air. Albeit marginal.

Gordo.
_________________
Everybody Dies....Some Never Live.

Retrograde Garage. Vintage Aircooled, and others.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
chrisflstf
Samba Member


Joined: February 10, 2004
Posts: 1963
Location: San Diego
chrisflstf is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 9:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
A Porsche fan moves 3000 cubic feet/min. dual 51mm webers flow test at around 1500 cubic feet/minute. The exchange rate is now 125 times/minute. That is a 266% increase in air flow.


Yes, thats true, but can you pull that much air through the stock vents?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
CoastalAirCooledVW
Samba Member


Joined: September 02, 2012
Posts: 1882
Location: Mckinleyville, CA (Humboldt County)
CoastalAirCooledVW is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

zombievws wrote:
what happens if you don't run a engine lid? my ratty 67 singlecab seems fine around here. what about freeway driving?

Just Don't. It is bad.
_________________
1966 Velvet Green Standard
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Classifieds Feedback
zombievws
Samba Member


Joined: July 14, 2012
Posts: 136
Location: greeneville tn
zombievws is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 8:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

what happens if you don't run a engine lid? my ratty 67 singlecab seems fine around here. what about freeway driving?
_________________
unique is what we seek, bizarre is what we are.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
flemcadiddlehopper
Samba Member


Joined: December 05, 2011
Posts: 2168
Location: Kelowna, BC. Canada.
flemcadiddlehopper is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sniperx wrote:
However...all of those changes did NOT change how air actually came into the engine bay. This leads me to believe...they didnt see a need to change this.


What the designers intended has been thrown out the window once a high revving,porsche fanned, 4x51 mm throttled, large displacement engine is installed.
Compare this to what was intended. Engine compartment volume is roughly 36 cubic feet. Stock doghouse fan moves 25 cubic feet/sec or 1500 cubic feet/min @3900 rpm. stock carb sucks 200 cubic feet/min. The air exchange rate of the engine compartment is 47 times a minute.
A Porsche fan moves 3000 cubic feet/min. dual 51mm webers flow test at around 1500 cubic feet/minute. The exchange rate is now 125 times/minute.

That is a 266% increase in air flow. Still inside the design parameters from the '50s ?
I would think that adding the 1558cfm from my 3" forced air pipe would be welcomed.


Gordo.
_________________
Everybody Dies....Some Never Live.

Retrograde Garage. Vintage Aircooled, and others.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Sniperx
Samba Member


Joined: February 14, 2010
Posts: 767
Location: Japan
Sniperx is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

However...all of those changes did NOT change how air actually came into the engine bay. This leads me to believe...they didnt see a need to change this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
BRANDEN HOY
Samba Member


Joined: May 07, 2004
Posts: 132
Location: ARIZONA
BRANDEN HOY is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

flemcadiddlehopper wrote:
Wow, this got people talking.

... Second porsche did rear engine because VW did...



I was referring to Dr. Porsche, not Porsche the company. I guess I could have been more clear. I would also guess that Porsche, the company, did not do it because VW did, bt instead they did it because Dr. Porsche, the MIC, believed it to be an efficient design and that's how he wanted it.

But I could be wrong...


Weren't there changes to the cooling tins and the oil coolers made along the way also? I can think of the switch from the 36hp style shroud to the 40hp style, then to the doghouse cooler and i believe there are diferent sized fans along the way also. it seems to me that there were always improvements being made to the cooling system.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Sniperx
Samba Member


Joined: February 14, 2010
Posts: 767
Location: Japan
Sniperx is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm going to put a glass on the ground, put a hose in the vent, and rev the engine. Driving the car will not affect how the engine uses air in this case.

Do you think air scoops were something that just dawned on engineers in the 90s?

This is what your modification will do. It will put cooler air into the engine bay under pressure when driving at speed. Congratulations. What will this do for your car? Cool the motor by air rushing over over it and out the side vents. It will not give you "boost" in the intake. It will not provide significantly cooler air temperature to the intake as the air entering the intake is not heated that much to begin with.

Fixing problems that don't exist.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
flemcadiddlehopper
Samba Member


Joined: December 05, 2011
Posts: 2168
Location: Kelowna, BC. Canada.
flemcadiddlehopper is offline 

PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cru62 wrote:
Sniperx wrote:

I guess I'll do my OWN impromptu water gauge to prove to myself my thinking is wrong. I will stick a hose in a glass of water and the other end stuck into my air vents. I will then free-rev the motor in neutral and observe any changes. That will take wind induced vacuum out of the equation.


I, for one, look forward to those results.


If you do....remember the non test end of the water meter needs to be in a non pressure effected area, so as not to skew your results. Remember pressure changes in the cabin area at speed too, unless it is completely sealed.

Gordo.
_________________
Everybody Dies....Some Never Live.

Retrograde Garage. Vintage Aircooled, and others.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
flemcadiddlehopper
Samba Member


Joined: December 05, 2011
Posts: 2168
Location: Kelowna, BC. Canada.
flemcadiddlehopper is offline 

PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow, this got people talking.

Couple of points made back there somewhere that are wrong. (i would do the thing with all the quotes from who said what but that looks like too much trouble). First of all, the motorbike thing...yes trumpets in the wind did not work for carbs, no, superbikes do not have large air boxes because they don't use ram air. They do use ram air, the ram air charges the air box, the air box is of a certain size to accommodate sudden full open throttle and to smooth the pulses between the cylinders pulling at the air in different directions. Second porsche did rear engine because VW did.

I like the Sniperx test with the blocking off of the vents, that would have been interesting to see what the water metre said on that one.

My one question that no one seems to be able to answer (and what I want to test for) What is the pressure in the engine bay during various driving conditions? And would adding more air to the engine bay change the variances of those pressures? And would having those variances evened out make changes to the engine performance and/or cooling?

I do realize that no one has or has ever had a problem with running out of air, (volume) especially in Canada , in their VWs.

Just think for a moment, what if they were to design a bus, today, and had to use our existing drive assembly? Without any knowledge of what was done by VW or Porsche in the past. What would the air intake for the engine bay look like?

gordo.
_________________
Everybody Dies....Some Never Live.

Retrograde Garage. Vintage Aircooled, and others.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
CoastalAirCooledVW
Samba Member


Joined: September 02, 2012
Posts: 1882
Location: Mckinleyville, CA (Humboldt County)
CoastalAirCooledVW is offline 

PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Derek Cobb wrote:

The bus must have had thoroughly adequate air vents as they changed very little from the 25hp through the 1500, then only one change in 1968 through the end of the aircooled production, unlike the Beetle that was constantly getting added louvers each time the engine was upgraded.
.


Sniperx wrote:

BUT...they didn't need it. 1968 saw scoops installed on the upper corners, you say? Thats correct. However...they kept those same scoops from the 1600 all the way to the 2.0. Meaning the addition of 400cc did not warrant a redesing of the airflow system.



I guess I'll do my OWN impromptu water gauge to prove to myself my thinking is wrong. I will stick a hose in a glass of water and the other end stuck into my air vents. I will then free-rev the motor in neutral and observe any changes. That will take wind induced vacuum out of the equation.


I just wanted to point out that bay windows did change scoops after 1968. When VW made the switch to the pancake engine the scoops gained a considerable increase in size. What is interesting is that a 1700 and 1600 are a similar size but the 1700 has much bigger vents. A 1700 and a 2.0 are quite different in size but have the same vents. What does this all mean? Beats me Laughing . This is a very interesting subject and I look forward to your results. You would think that at least one person who works for a modern car company and has access to a wind tunnel would own a split bus too Confused
_________________
1966 Velvet Green Standard
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Classifieds Feedback
mandraks
Samba Member


Joined: November 28, 2004
Posts: 5423
Location: Lawrenceville, Ga
mandraks is offline 

PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

just to be clear, i am quite intrigued by this, and am not in any way suggesting that your are wrong! I only provided some thoughts prompted by your question above Smile

and, no i am not assuming that front engine cars are all watercooled, i am quite familiar with DKWs, similar vintage and shape, same country, too no tto mention the awesome NSU Prinz, and Spider.

I only suggested that Porsche needed to show something the other guys did not, otherwise they could have similar picked a different manufacturer's design.

you come up with something clever, and i will be more than happy to look at the pictures and review your results.
_________________
regards

Uli

----------------------------------------
'53 3-Fold Oval, L35 Metallic Blue, looking for a narrow hatch panel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
cru62 Premium Member
Samba Member


Joined: December 31, 2002
Posts: 4000
Location: Margaritaville.....24/7
cru62 is offline 

PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sniperx wrote:

I guess I'll do my OWN impromptu water gauge to prove to myself my thinking is wrong. I will stick a hose in a glass of water and the other end stuck into my air vents. I will then free-rev the motor in neutral and observe any changes. That will take wind induced vacuum out of the equation.


I, for one, look forward to those results.
_________________
"My biggest worry is that when I die, my wife will sell all my parts for what I told her I paid for them"-Jon

Jokes about German sausage are the wurst.

Stop dead photo links! Post your photos to The Samba Gallery!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Sniperx
Samba Member


Joined: February 14, 2010
Posts: 767
Location: Japan
Sniperx is offline 

PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Its entirely probably that that is why PORSCHE did it...but why did VW do it for so many vehicles, for so long....and none of them being offered from a "high performance" angle.

Not saying its good, bad, right or wrong....but AM saying that if the VW system as a whole across the market had cooling problems...they should have exploited the natural airflow produced by the car moving forward in addition to the active cooling system.


BUT...they didn't need it. 1968 saw scoops installed on the upper corners, you say? Thats correct. However...they kept those same scoops from the 1600 all the way to the 2.0. Meaning the addition of 400cc did not warrant a redesing of the airflow system.

NOW. What I DO think and have heard similar confirmations of, with increased highway speeds came increased wind speeds. This increase across the vents possibly acts as a vacuum, lessening the airflow into the engine compartment...thus in 68 they added the "ram air" system to the equation.

but this is all moot...everyone knows the internet knows better than any engineer..............


I guess I'll do my OWN impromptu water gauge to prove to myself my thinking is wrong. I will stick a hose in a glass of water and the other end stuck into my air vents. I will then free-rev the motor in neutral and observe any changes. That will take wind induced vacuum out of the equation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
BRANDEN HOY
Samba Member


Joined: May 07, 2004
Posts: 132
Location: ARIZONA
BRANDEN HOY is offline 

PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 3:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I awlays thought it was common knowledge that Porsche's rear engine location was to improve handling and weight transfer under hard breaking conditions and keeping the weight over/behind the rear drive tires helped traction. I could be wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Sniperx
Samba Member


Joined: February 14, 2010
Posts: 767
Location: Japan
Sniperx is offline 

PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Theres a problem here...

You're both assuming all front engine cars are water based or all water cars are front engined. Both are far from true.

I also wasn't saying SOLELY passive cooling...anymore than a water cooled car is SOLELY passive cooling.
------------------------------
engine up front, rear drive requires a looong driveshaft,
--Correct, so thats out

engine up front and front drive already existed (next logical option)
--Right, but is this a bad thing? FF cars are fine and prevelent today.

engines up front get in the way of your feet if you build a small vehicle
--Ghias aren't small, bugs have a giant underhood space...Busses have no leg room. Its contradictory throughout VWs line...so this wasn't the reason for VWs only engine layout and placement all the way to present (porsche, vw, audi....all diffierent layouts in similar cars...of course theres some differences)

tires need room to turn, making engine room smaller requiring an upright layout....
--THIS may have more value. By having front wheel drive they need more complex steering parts and other problems like suspension.

engine in the rear, less noise, better traction
--Less noise? Debateable. Better traction, yes....but the under powered vehicle has little problem hooking up as is.

front cooler requires plumbing, and potentially a fan (so it can cool when the vehicle is stopped in traffic on a hot day)
--EXCEPT...we're not talking liquid here...ducting to take air from the front of the engine across the motor at speed allowing for a smaller fan and less HP used to turn it.

We're not adding weight here....just engine location to take advantage of naturally occuring forced air in addition to a VW inspired fan system.


Derek: You're right about the margins as I showed by my blocking of the cooling vents.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Derek Cobb
Annoying


Joined: March 11, 2004
Posts: 2556

Derek Cobb is offline 

PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the reasons for putting the engine out back had very little to do with cooling. It was all about minimalizing the parts to produce a very inexpensive vehicle. No water pump, no radiator, no driveshaft. When you review the evolution of the Beetle (and the Bus) you see the progression of technology and cooling systems seemed to be modified and updated most often.
A passive system could be a real problem say, moving slowly up a long, steep hill with a tail wind. Active system draws what it needs as it needs it.

The bus must have had thoroughly adequate air vents as they changed very little from the 25hp through the 1500, then only one change in 1968 through the end of the aircooled production, unlike the Beetle that was constantly getting added louvers each time the engine was upgraded.

I think the margin for the Bus was extremely wide, to the point that I seriously doubt any Bus has ever overheated from a lack of airflow to the engine compartment. There are dozens of other culprits that'll burn them up, but inadequate access to cooling air is very, very low on my list of things that need tweaking.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Facebook Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Split Bus All times are Mountain Standard Time/Pacific Daylight Savings Time
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 2 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

About | Help! | Advertise | Donate | Premium Membership | Privacy/Terms of Use | Contact Us | Site Map
Copyright © 1996-2020, Everett Barnes. All Rights Reserved.
Not affiliated with or sponsored by Volkswagen of America | Forum powered by phpBB