I own a 66, but looking at a 72. Is there anyone out there who can check their 72 Judging Manual to see if a base engined 350 with turbohydramatic has a brass/copper radiator. From what I can tell the only aluminum radiators were LT-1's and base engined cars with 4 speed trans. Thanks, Gary
-
-
Re: 72 radiator information
You are correct. On Sharks of that era only the 'Plain Jane' base engine and SP HP option used the small HP aluminum radiator. Addition of A/C or AT to base shifted radiator to larger copper. On earlier Sharks, the upgraded to 350/350 formula also swapped out the al rad with its expansion tank. -
Re: 72 radiator information
You are correct. On Sharks of that era only the 'Plain Jane' base engine and SP HP option used the small HP aluminum radiator. Addition of A/C or AT to base shifted radiator to larger copper. On earlier Sharks, the upgraded to 350/350 formula also swapped out the al rad with its expansion tank.Comment
-
Re: 72 radiator information
Thanks for the reply. I thought that I had it correct. It just seemed strange that in Mid-Years, aluminum was the prefered material due to better heat transfer. In Sharks, it is the brass/copper that have better cooling. Go figure!Comment
-
Re: 72 radiator information
Thanks for the reply. I thought that I had it correct. It just seemed strange that in Mid-Years, aluminum was the prefered material due to better heat transfer. In Sharks, it is the brass/copper that have better cooling. Go figure!Comment
-
Re: 72 radiator information
Gary----
Not exactly. It is true that all 63-67 small blocks used an aluminum radiator, GM #3155316. However, most mid-year big blocks used a brass radiator, GM #3008566(with AT oil cooler) or #3008567(w/o AT oil cooler), and did not use a seperate supply tank. The exceptions were 1965 with L-78 and 1967 with L-88. Early 396 cars used aluminum radiator GM # 3005936. Later 396 cars and 67 L-88 used aluminum radiator, GM #3007436. Both the 3005936 and 3007436 aluminum radiators used seperate tanks and had a core which was 2" wider than the small block 3155316. The 3005936 radiator had a straight inlet identical to the 3155316. The 3007436 radiator had a curved inlet.
For C3 chrome bumper cars, things didn't really change all that much. 1968 big blocks used the same radiators as 1967. Most 69-72 big blocks used brass radiator GM # 3019190. This radiator used a seperate supply tank. It was used with all big blocks, including A/C and/or THM. 1968-69 L-88s as well as 1970-72 ZR-1 and ZR-2, used the aluminum radiator GM #3007436.
Small block 68-72 cars were the main difference with respect to mid-years, although most 68-72 small blocks used the same 3155316 aluminum radiator as mid years. However, 1968 small blocks with THM and/or C60 used brass radiators GM #3008566 or 3008567. 1969-72 small blocks with THM and without A/C used brass radiator GM #3018802. 1969-72 small blocks with A/C used brass radiator GM #3018803. 1972 and, probably, 1971 LT-1 engines used brass radiator GM #3018802. All other 68-72 small blocks with manual transmissions used aluminum radiator GM # 3155316. Some folks claim that 68-70 small blocks with 350hp engines may have used a brass radiator. Not according to GM, though, and I've never seen a documented case of one.
Incidentally, the cooling capacity of the aluminum GM #3007436 radiator exceeds that of ANY other 63-72 Corvette radiator, brass or aluminum.In Appreciation of John HinckleyComment
-
Re: 72 radiator information
Gary----
Not exactly. It is true that all 63-67 small blocks used an aluminum radiator, GM #3155316. However, most mid-year big blocks used a brass radiator, GM #3008566(with AT oil cooler) or #3008567(w/o AT oil cooler), and did not use a seperate supply tank. The exceptions were 1965 with L-78 and 1967 with L-88. Early 396 cars used aluminum radiator GM # 3005936. Later 396 cars and 67 L-88 used aluminum radiator, GM #3007436. Both the 3005936 and 3007436 aluminum radiators used seperate tanks and had a core which was 2" wider than the small block 3155316. The 3005936 radiator had a straight inlet identical to the 3155316. The 3007436 radiator had a curved inlet.
For C3 chrome bumper cars, things didn't really change all that much. 1968 big blocks used the same radiators as 1967. Most 69-72 big blocks used brass radiator GM # 3019190. This radiator used a seperate supply tank. It was used with all big blocks, including A/C and/or THM. 1968-69 L-88s as well as 1970-72 ZR-1 and ZR-2, used the aluminum radiator GM #3007436.
Small block 68-72 cars were the main difference with respect to mid-years, although most 68-72 small blocks used the same 3155316 aluminum radiator as mid years. However, 1968 small blocks with THM and/or C60 used brass radiators GM #3008566 or 3008567. 1969-72 small blocks with THM and without A/C used brass radiator GM #3018802. 1969-72 small blocks with A/C used brass radiator GM #3018803. 1972 and, probably, 1971 LT-1 engines used brass radiator GM #3018802. All other 68-72 small blocks with manual transmissions used aluminum radiator GM # 3155316. Some folks claim that 68-70 small blocks with 350hp engines may have used a brass radiator. Not according to GM, though, and I've never seen a documented case of one.
Incidentally, the cooling capacity of the aluminum GM #3007436 radiator exceeds that of ANY other 63-72 Corvette radiator, brass or aluminum.In Appreciation of John HinckleyComment
-
Re: 72 radiator information
It's easy to figure, Gary, once you get the facts right. Go pull a Handbook Of Chemistry & Physics. Look up the heat tranfer coefficient of Al vs. Brass/Copper. If memory serves, you'll see brass/copper has almost a 10:1 advantage over Al! That's why prefered electrical wiring is Cu instead of Al and Al only comes into play in times where there is a shortage of Cu (electrical conductivity and thermal conductivity almost always co-vary in direct proportion).
Sooo, that spoils the Al rad is better than Cu rad theory, right? Well, not right....
Al has superior strength characteristics than Cu. Cu/brass are softer and more ductile, meaning, under pressure and shock/vibration stress, the Al part has a strength advantage over Cu. In radiator application, the name of the game is cooling fin density. How many cooling pipes and their surrounding cooling fins can you pack per cubic/linear inch to transfer heat into a fixed air column (cfm)?
If you start scaling down the geometry (thickness of cooling pipe side walls and thickness of cooling fins) to make a high performance radiator (BTU/cfm of air flow), you reach a point where the Cu/Brass construction can't hack the application (pipes will rupture under internal pressure, and cooling fins will deform from air column velocity) but Al can!
So, you wind up with a situation where the less efficient Al material can achieve an advantage despite it's lower thermal transfer characteristics just because it can be formed with a greater packing density. Now, if space/weight are a consideration and you're willing to sacrifice cost, the Al radiator wins. That's why you see 'em almost exclusively on HP vintage race cars and in applications like Corvette.
But, when you start pushing the envelope (design cost and/or GROSS heat transfer) the Al/Cu material construction wins but it's gonna be a bigger and heavier overall silhouette. So, the base motor Shark devoid of high heat generating options (automatic transmission, air conditioning) gets a performance boost from the smaller/lower weight Al radiator and cost isn't such a big deal because this is a pricey performance car.
When you add heat generating options (AT, AC) you push the Al radiator's gross heat transfer silhouette and the Al/Cu radiator starts to make sense. When you crawl up to HP engine packages LT-1, L78, L88, you want the HP/weight advantage that Al gives, so you design in an Al radiator that's a special HP design with higher cost silhouette and advanced packing density, then compensate by denying the car high heat generating options. When you get to 'driver' class big blocks that aren't made for race and WILL see stop/go city driving, you fall back and punt by dropping the HP Al radiator and putting in a larger/heavier Cu/Brass radiator with greater gross heat transfer, lower cost and higher weight penalty.
Does the scenario make more sense now? It's not just a heat transfer tradeoff. It's a cost, weight, size, geometry, heat transfer situation.Comment
-
Re: 72 radiator information
It's easy to figure, Gary, once you get the facts right. Go pull a Handbook Of Chemistry & Physics. Look up the heat tranfer coefficient of Al vs. Brass/Copper. If memory serves, you'll see brass/copper has almost a 10:1 advantage over Al! That's why prefered electrical wiring is Cu instead of Al and Al only comes into play in times where there is a shortage of Cu (electrical conductivity and thermal conductivity almost always co-vary in direct proportion).
Sooo, that spoils the Al rad is better than Cu rad theory, right? Well, not right....
Al has superior strength characteristics than Cu. Cu/brass are softer and more ductile, meaning, under pressure and shock/vibration stress, the Al part has a strength advantage over Cu. In radiator application, the name of the game is cooling fin density. How many cooling pipes and their surrounding cooling fins can you pack per cubic/linear inch to transfer heat into a fixed air column (cfm)?
If you start scaling down the geometry (thickness of cooling pipe side walls and thickness of cooling fins) to make a high performance radiator (BTU/cfm of air flow), you reach a point where the Cu/Brass construction can't hack the application (pipes will rupture under internal pressure, and cooling fins will deform from air column velocity) but Al can!
So, you wind up with a situation where the less efficient Al material can achieve an advantage despite it's lower thermal transfer characteristics just because it can be formed with a greater packing density. Now, if space/weight are a consideration and you're willing to sacrifice cost, the Al radiator wins. That's why you see 'em almost exclusively on HP vintage race cars and in applications like Corvette.
But, when you start pushing the envelope (design cost and/or GROSS heat transfer) the Al/Cu material construction wins but it's gonna be a bigger and heavier overall silhouette. So, the base motor Shark devoid of high heat generating options (automatic transmission, air conditioning) gets a performance boost from the smaller/lower weight Al radiator and cost isn't such a big deal because this is a pricey performance car.
When you add heat generating options (AT, AC) you push the Al radiator's gross heat transfer silhouette and the Al/Cu radiator starts to make sense. When you crawl up to HP engine packages LT-1, L78, L88, you want the HP/weight advantage that Al gives, so you design in an Al radiator that's a special HP design with higher cost silhouette and advanced packing density, then compensate by denying the car high heat generating options. When you get to 'driver' class big blocks that aren't made for race and WILL see stop/go city driving, you fall back and punt by dropping the HP Al radiator and putting in a larger/heavier Cu/Brass radiator with greater gross heat transfer, lower cost and higher weight penalty.
Does the scenario make more sense now? It's not just a heat transfer tradeoff. It's a cost, weight, size, geometry, heat transfer situation.Comment
-
Thank you both!
Thanks again.Comment
-
Thank you both!
Thanks again.Comment
Comment