yep
I tee into the air seperator tank circuit right at the thermostat then back in through the tank return line . This keeps the circuit thermostatically controlled .

 

YAY!! We agree again.

 

do i get a hug ?

 

Of course and thx for asking!
Like I always say, the car stuff is one thing but the people stuff is another.

 

I like the idea of keeping it thermostatically controlled but those hoses are not very big. I would think the heater hoses would provide better flow. ???

 

Oh, sorry. That's proprietary data and it will cost you.

 

maybe but I wouldn't want to take too much flow for the smaller rad anyway.
I put a T very close to the thermostat and have a very short length of the small dia. hose before the T . After the t the hose size is increased . The return hose is plenty big enough .
The test - does it work ? All i can do really is see if it is getting hot and yes it is .

 

That feels much better . Heh

 

Pics? Air separator tank? You mean the coolant reservoir?

 

I personally have not seen one plumbed that way. I dont see why that wouldnt work and in the climates that have cooler temps it may be a better way of doing it?
One option I forgot is:

barrel type thermostat---these type thermostats increase coolant flow. The thermostat actually can be a substainal restriction to coolant flow even when it is fully opened. I did figue out a way to use one but it does require that the bypass circuit to be permantly closed. Thats not hard too do and it really doesnt matter in the hot climate areas. You can even get a 160F thermostat if you want--using this mod. That may NOT be a good thing, but it is an interesting idea.
OD

 

OD, are you set up this way? Can you give me a visual?

 

You mean the barrel type thermostat?
No I took mine out , didnt need it with the set up i run. With my set up it was actually allowing my car to run too cool when ambients got below 90F.
A thermostat will not fix the lack of cooling capacity---remember that.
OD

 

The solution is simple. Install a 3"+ thick radiator.

It's all about capacity. U either haz itz or notz ....

 

capacity includes "Airflow". Just a reminder--because imho THAT is the major factor missing with the 8. Airflow is poor relative to the engines needs.
3" rad in itself could make it worse.
OD

 

It is the opposite.
A bigger, thinner rad is actually better, but ultimately, it is the airflow through the core (as OD noted) that matters, not the capacity.
Bigger capacity just means you get a few extra seconds before it overheats and then a longer period before it cools off again.

I've tried a couple different radiators and, ultimately, it was the one with the lower fin density (BHR) that kept the car the coolest overall.
Before that, it was the OE rad that was best compared to all the other options.

 

on a day i was wot on my fav mt road going up in 2/3 my temps topped at 195f, it was 96f out side. my mods are no bumper beam, romoved grill, under drive crank pulley, 160 threm, fans on full power at 181. on the freeway i sit at 164f

 

AIRFLOW!!!
What do you do in the winter?
OD

 

As in no crash bar??

 

And where did you get the 160F thermostat and does it have the bypass built in? Something is not right. Unless you were only WOT for a few seconds.

 

When you increase the radiator capacity by several hundred percent over OE, which with intelligent flow path routing greatly increases the coolant dwell time in the radiator, you don't need a high fin density, but don't let me get in the way of your assumptions.

I'm sure the BHR unit will satisfy most forum enthusiasts needs. I'm sure professional RX-8 racers have their reasons for using the option I suggested. I'm sure OD has his reasons for continuing to pursue other options in light of the BHR offering. I'm sure the *** flavored koolaid guzzlers will now have their usual shout out .....

 

Nice of you to drop by Team .... LOL

 

This thread has got me thinking and looking at old threads with similar topics. If I experience any overheating on the track now that I am supercharged I will be changing to one oil cooler on the drivers side and a second radiator where the passenger side oil cooler would normaly be.

I am thinking about using the B&M 20500 BTU 11X18X1.5" supercooler. One as a radiator and one as an oil cooler. I believe these are the same cooler that Jeff (MM) was using as a secondary radiator (he had the 11X11 X 1.5 unit). They can be bought for around $70 each and are practically impervious to flying rocks or other debris

These coolers are also offered with fans but I dont think it would be required as I will only need extra cooling on the track where air flow wont be a problem.

As an added bonus, removing the stock oil cooler lines would probably remove some weight and increase oil pressure/flow.

 

The BHR radiator worked great for me on the track when NA and it works great with FI on the street. Not sure if it will be enough when I start pushing the car on the track on 90+ deg days.

I would have considered a large 3"+ radiator if there was a direct fit or minimal mod required unit available. Oh and at a reasonable price, under $800?

 

Does it really matter if it is a oil cooler, radiator, trans cooler, etc? I know the fluidyne I have is listed as oil only but is there really and construction difference. Is a tube style oil cooler the same as one of the same size that is listed as a radiator?

 

You should be able to use an oil cooler as a secondary radiator. The race oil coolers fluidyne sells look like the best available, they hold over a quart of oil. They just dont have one in a size that would fit well in the stock oil cooler location. I could be wrong though. Anyone know why some come with come with 3 or 4 fittings instead of just 2?