Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:44:47 -0400 From: "gw" <nospamnospam.net> Subject: Re: nospam$# oil cooler!
"SmaartAasSaabr" <smaartaassaabrnospaml.com> wrote in message news:1126563597.749234.32690nospam2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > gw wrote: >> > >> >> I already bought the cooler and installed it, so it's a moot point. The >> only >> US car it might have showed up in was the Cadillac Catera. I didn't think >> to >> check at the time. >> >> It's the idiotic design that bothers me more than anything else. An >> air-to-oil cooler was fine for the turbo cars, and for just about any >> other >> engine I've seen. Why bury a cooler in the V of the engine? I've heard of >> these things failing in as little as 18,000 miles. >> >> I suppose I shouldn't be surprised after the timing belt fiasco.... >> >> Thanks again, GM. > > The advantage to a water-oil cooler is that the oil is maintained > somewhere around the temperature of the coolant, slightly higher, > continously. With the Saab Turbo-type air/oil cooler, the oil can be > overcooled in high-speed low-load (ie coasting at 100 mi/h) situations, > while it can overheat in high-load low-speed situations (dicing through > traffic, towing a trailer uphill). > OK, fine, it has advantages. You could still do it external to the engine block. Mixing oil and coolant inside the engine block is just a bad idea, IMHO. In fact, other than my VW GTI, this is the only car I've ever owned with an oil cooler of any kind. This is a 170 HP V6, not a high-revving 4 cyl turbo motor with all the added heat of the turbo. The oil cooler would have been an $1800 dealer repair. That would pay for a whole bunch of oil changes.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
