Cooling issues are among us....

[hemiCouple]

Haha ooo goodie.

Not sure on the oil temperatures to be honest.

here's an excerpt from the ford monitor list provided by cobb, seems to back up that the mustang is as well

(4) Oil Temperature – Inferred oil temperature as calculated by the ECU algorithm.

Sponsored

 

[dragonacc]

here's an excerpt from the ford monitor list provided by cobb, seems to back up that the mustang is as well

(4) Oil Temperature – Inferred oil temperature as calculated by the ECU algorithm.

I wonder how it's inferred...? Using oil pressure, assumed (based on factory spec) oil viscosity, and coolant temp? Maybe that's over or under complicated.

 

[Anthony@HTM]

here's an excerpt from the ford monitor list provided by cobb, seems to back up that the mustang is as well

(4) Oil Temperature – Inferred oil temperature as calculated by the ECU algorithm.

There is what looks to be an oil temperature sensor right on the oil filter housing.

Not certain though, could be oil pressure..

 

[hemiCouple]

There is what looks to be an oil temperature sensor right on the oil filter housing.

Not certain though, could be oil pressure..

the green thing? 9278?

 

[hemiCouple]

I wonder how it's inferred...? Using oil pressure, assumed (based on factory spec) oil viscosity, and coolant temp? Maybe that's over or under complicated.

Engine temperature, oil pressure switch and engine speed data

 

[dragonacc]

Engine temperature, oil pressure switch and engine speed data

So changing oil viscosity won't throw off the reading then?

 

[hemiCouple]

So changing oil viscosity won't throw off the reading then?

I run heavier than stock in my car and it seems to effect it marginally just going on trending data, I haven't put a sensor to it, most I've done to prove/disprove the algorithm is with a IR gun on various spots. Which is barely worth mentioning

 

[arghx7]

I'll begin by saying, ok, more cooling is better. If you want to enhance cooling, go for it. There will be a performance benefit from running lower charge air temps due to knock sensitivity, with a lesser benefit from oil and coolant temp reduction.

The flip side is, the stock ECU is smart enough to cut power if you're exceeding limits of what the engine was designed for in terms of air, coolant, and oil temperatures. So you really shouldn't worry about suddenly breaking something from excursions into high temperature running. Now some of the failsafes' effectiveness could change depending on how much the tune has been altered.

I have about 2 clean laps before the radiator just quits cooling efficiently.

It's one thing if your coolant temperatuer is running away and you are getting into ECU torque reduction, but if a consistent 224F/106C is what you consider quitting on you, you have really high expectations for radiators. There are lots of cars that run that hot intentionally from the factory just for fuel economy. There are lots of trucks that run that hot when pushed to the limit when towing. There's nothing wrong with wanting to cool the engine down, but 106C is just not that hot.

Now the oil temps are another story. If you needed to add an oil cooler to keep out of ECU torque reduction, then yeah that's important.

Tiny overworked turbos heating oil up is one of the causes, yeah. But mix that with oil be squirted on forged Pistons that are already pretty hot due to the high IATs, and you've got a nightmare. A larger turbo would solve a lot of these issues of course.

A lot of the heat built up in the bearing housing of a turbo gets transferred to the coolant. Even with a larger turbo, the thing is still going to be spinning 150k + rpms. Engines reject way more heat through coolant than through oil, it's just that the oil heat exchanging is normally very limited. Even externally mounted oil coolers are tiny compared to radiators.

looking at the 2.0 head there is no doubt why there are cooling issues IMHO

I'm trying to follow you here but I'm not understanding. The heads are designed with an integrated exhaust manifold. They're meant to take heat out of the exhaust and put it into coolant. Naturally that places a burden on the radiator, but if tracking the engine results in less than 230F/110C coolant temps that's not bad at all for a stock radiator.

The water jacket is designed with computational fluid dynamics methods to keep the exhaust valve bridges and valve seats from overheating as measured at steady state peak power conditions (ie, a continuous torture test in a lab). The shape of the passages are for balancing coolant flow in the engine. I don't see what's wrong with them.

 

[Anthony@HTM]

I'll begin by saying, ok, more cooling is better. If you want to enhance cooling, go for it. There will be a performance benefit from running lower charge air temps due to knock sensitivity, with a lesser benefit from oil and coolant temp reduction.

The flip side is, the stock ECU is smart enough to cut power if you're exceeding limits of what the engine was designed for in terms of air, coolant, and oil temperatures. So you really shouldn't worry about suddenly breaking something from excursions into high temperature running. Now some of the failsafes' effectiveness could change depending on how much the tune has been altered.

It's one thing if your coolant temperatuer is running away and you are getting into ECU torque reduction, but if a consistent 224F/106C is what you consider quitting on you, you have really high expectations for radiators. There are lots of cars that run that hot intentionally from the factory just for fuel economy. There are lots of trucks that run that hot when pushed to the limit when towing. There's nothing wrong with wanting to cool the engine down, but 106C is just not that hot.

Now the oil temps are another story. If you needed to add an oil cooler to keep out of ECU torque reduction, then yeah that's important.

Yes I did have to add an oil cooler.

As coolant temps rise so do oil temps. The way to solve the high oil temps is by adding a larger radiator. Since the exhaust manifold sits in the head surrounded by coolant it is extemely important.

This car runs at 185-190f on the street as far as coolant temps go. 35F higher at the track is not ok with oil temps over 270F.

 

[hemiCouple]

I'll begin by saying, ok, more cooling is better. If you want to enhance cooling, go for it. There will be a performance benefit from running lower charge air temps due to knock sensitivity, with a lesser benefit from oil and coolant temp reduction.

The flip side is, the stock ECU is smart enough to cut power if you're exceeding limits of what the engine was designed for in terms of air, coolant, and oil temperatures. So you really shouldn't worry about suddenly breaking something from excursions into high temperature running. Now some of the failsafes' effectiveness could change depending on how much the tune has been altered.



It's one thing if your coolant temperatuer is running away and you are getting into ECU torque reduction, but if a consistent 224F/106C is what you consider quitting on you, you have really high expectations for radiators. There are lots of cars that run that hot intentionally from the factory just for fuel economy. There are lots of trucks that run that hot when pushed to the limit when towing. There's nothing wrong with wanting to cool the engine down, but 106C is just not that hot.

Now the oil temps are another story. If you needed to add an oil cooler to keep out of ECU torque reduction, then yeah that's important.



A lot of the heat built up in the bearing housing of a turbo gets transferred to the coolant. Even with a larger turbo, the thing is still going to be spinning 150k + rpms. Engines reject way more heat through coolant than through oil, it's just that the oil heat exchanging is normally very limited. Even externally mounted oil coolers are tiny compared to radiators.



I'm trying to follow you here but I'm not understanding. The heads are designed with an integrated exhaust manifold. They're meant to take heat out of the exhaust and put it into coolant. Naturally that places a burden on the radiator, but if tracking the engine results in less than 230F/110C coolant temps that's not bad at all for a stock radiator.

The water jacket is designed with computational fluid dynamics methods to keep the exhaust valve bridges and valve seats from overheating as measured at steady state peak power conditions (ie, a continuous torture test in a lab). The shape of the passages are for balancing coolant flow in the engine. I don't see what's wrong with them.

We see high 260s coolant and 280s oil when the car is driven hard for more than a couple laps in stock/near stock form. That, for me. is an issue.

Edit: I am talking about the focus st as that is what I referenced in my post.
these are all issues seen on other ecoboost platforms you'd be surprised how many things are similarly posted about here and on the ST forums. I am simply trying to share what I've learned from those platforms as to hopefully save you guys the growing pains we went through,some may not find it useful and that's fine

 

[arghx7]

High 260s F coolant and 280s F oil is getting you into ECU torque reduction. So yeah, that's too high. I really appreciate you sharing your insights.

What I'm trying to say is, if a fluid isn't getting hot enough to go into torque reduction, it's nice to have improved cooling but it's, strictly speaking, not necessary. The stock ECUs are smart. I just don't want someone who doesn't even track their car, but only does an occasional fun backroads drive to automatically think they need to spend a bunch of money to keep their engine from getting damaged.

I still fully agree with the spirit of this thread. I'd like to see more info on how different oil cooler configurations perform for example.

 

[hemiCouple]

High 260s F coolant and 280s F oil is getting you into ECU torque reduction. So yeah, that's too high. I really appreciate you sharing your insights.

What I'm trying to say is, if a fluid isn't getting hot enough to go into torque reduction, it's nice to have improved cooling but it's, strictly speaking, not necessary. The stock ECUs are smart. I just don't want someone who doesn't even track their car, but only does an occasional fun backroads drive to automatically think they need to spend a bunch of money to keep their engine from getting damaged.

I still fully agree with the spirit of this thread. I'd like to see more info on how different oil cooler configurations perform for example.

I misunderstood the tone of your post sorry. I agree with you actually, there is little need on the focus platform for the average user to seek hardcore cooling options. Some of the temperature thresholds are a little too conservative on the 2.0L however. I'd reference ford racing and their catalyst protection strategy. Independent testing proved that the temps they were reporting were....well frankly they were dead wrong. There are a number of heat related failsafes, for example one of our partners just caught a lot of problems trying to dyno their car, turns out it was a perfect storm of their extreme elevation and the rigors of dyno pulls putting the ecu into a reduced load target.
It's important for us, as enthusiasts to seek solid data and make intelligent, quantifiable changes. I think the OP is on to something here and I can't wait to see the results.

 

[Anthony@HTM]

High 260s F coolant and 280s F oil is getting you into ECU torque reduction. So yeah, that's too high. I really appreciate you sharing your insights.

What I'm trying to say is, if a fluid isn't getting hot enough to go into torque reduction, it's nice to have improved cooling but it's, strictly speaking, not necessary. The stock ECUs are smart. I just don't want someone who doesn't even track their car, but only does an occasional fun backroads drive to automatically think they need to spend a bunch of money to keep their engine from getting damaged.

I still fully agree with the spirit of this thread. I'd like to see more info on how different oil cooler configurations perform for example.

If people actually read the first post they won't think they need anything. For most people the performance pack radiator will be more than enough.

I am bringing this up because the car is almost stock, not making big power and ambient temps haven't even past 80F.

It's usuually well over 80F where I track so things can only get worse with the stock hardware. I'm not saying you need to get a radiator, oil cooler and intercooler to avoid damage immediately.

But overtime tracking a car to its limits like this will only put more wear and tear on the internals.

 

[arghx7]

Some of the temperature thresholds are a little too conservative on the 2.0L however. I'd reference ford racing and their catalyst protection strategy. Independent testing proved that the temps they were reporting were....well frankly they were dead wrong.

I know we're talking about the 2.0 liter, but when the Ford Racing tune comes out for the 2.3 we're going to revisit this issue. I've read a lot of those posts about the catalyst protection and claims that FR made up a bunch of numbers and I don't agree with that assessment. It was just an apples-to-oranges comparison

Catalyst temperatures are based on drilling into the middle of the catalyst bed and measuring there with an actual k type thermocouple and datalogging with with high enough sample rates. I didn't see any indication that people in that big thread were doing that. Normally you put one thermocouple in each of the turbo scrolls (if it's twin scroll), one after the turbine, one at the catalyst inlet, one in the middle of the catalyst bed, and one after the catalyst. That can require machining, the right data acquisition equipment, and expensive extra parts.

The mid-bid of the catalyst can be a lot hotter than the inlet gases, or it can be colder. Sometimes it functions as a sort of furnace, where a bunch of chemical reactions occur, that makes the midbed temperature hotter (full load running with scavenging is a good example). The level of exothermic reactions depends a lot on the CO% and O2% concentration entering the exhaust. Now sometimes the cat functions as a heat sink, where it absorbs thermal energy and ends up cooler than the inlet gas temperatures. During warm up that's usually what happens.

The flip side is, you can overtemp the cat plenty of times (up to a point) and the driver won't notice anything. It will only show up as having poor emission performance in EPA/CARB tests. Those catalyst efficiency CELs only come on after the cat is significantly past the point of failing EPA tests. The criteria for triggering those emission-related trouble codes is based on government regulation.

So basically, Ford Racing has a stricter criteria for an overheated cat. A normal owner just doesn't want it to melt and clog, and preferably not throw a code (although the codes can be turned off). Ford wants it to pass expensive lab emission tests, which regular owners don't know about or care about.

So nobody's lying or making stuff up, Ford Racing and the aftermarket tuners are just coming at it from a different point of view, with different ways of measuring temperatures and different metrics for what constitutes overheating.

There are a number of heat related failsafes, for example one of our partners just caught a lot of problems trying to dyno their car, turns out it was a perfect storm of their extreme elevation and the rigors of dyno pulls putting the ecu into a reduced load target.

The model based temperature failsafes are really meant for the stock hardware, or in the case of Ford Racing tunes, the hardware they tell you to run. Once you start changing stuff around I can see them kicking in unnecessarily, or the opposite.

 

[hemiCouple]

I know we're talking about the 2.0 liter, but when the Ford Racing tune comes out for the 2.3 we're going to revisit this issue. I've read a lot of those posts about the catalyst protection and claims that FR made up a bunch of numbers and I don't agree with that assessment. It was just an apples-to-oranges comparison

Catalyst temperatures are based on drilling into the middle of the catalyst bed and measuring there with an actual k type thermocouple and datalogging with with high enough sample rates. I didn't see any indication that people in that big thread were doing that. Normally you put one thermocouple in each of the turbo scrolls (if it's twin scroll), one after the turbine, one at the catalyst inlet, one in the middle of the catalyst bed, and one after the catalyst. That can require machining, the right data acquisition equipment, and expensive extra parts.

The mid-bid of the catalyst can be a lot hotter than the inlet gases, or it can be colder. Sometimes it functions as a sort of furnace, where a bunch of chemical reactions occur, that makes the midbed temperature hotter (full load running with scavenging is a good example). The level of exothermic reactions depends a lot on the CO% and O2% concentration entering the exhaust. Now sometimes the cat functions as a heat sink, where it absorbs thermal energy and ends up cooler than the inlet gas temperatures. During warm up that's usually what happens.

The flip side is, you can overtemp the cat plenty of times (up to a point) and the driver won't notice anything. It will only show up as having poor emission performance in EPA/CARB tests. Those catalyst efficiency CELs only come on after the cat is significantly past the point of failing EPA tests. The criteria for triggering those emission-related trouble codes is based on government regulation.

So basically, Ford Racing has a stricter criteria for an overheated cat. A normal owner just doesn't want it to melt and clog, and preferably not throw a code (although the codes can be turned off). Ford wants it to pass expensive lab emission tests, which regular owners don't know about or care about.

So nobody's lying or making stuff up, Ford Racing and the aftermarket tuners are just coming at it from a different point of view, with different ways of measuring temperatures and different metrics for what constitutes overheating.



The model based temperature failsafes are really meant for the stock hardware, or in the case of Ford Racing tunes, the hardware they tell you to run. Once you start changing stuff around I can see them kicking in unnecessarily, or the opposite.

You brought up a very valid point about the testing done by COBB there was no midbed thermocouple their pre cat sensor never exceeded 1420F and post cat never exceeded 1243F while the cpu algorithm calculated nearly 1600 degrees (catalyst management targets below 1650F) The temperatures there are nowhere close to harmful for a catalyst. Which supports my assertion it's a bit conservative.

Sponsored