interesting article in Muscle car report .

last page has test figures comparison of brass copper to aluminum
Muscle Car Report - Keeping Your COOL

http://www.musclecarreport.com/muscle-cars.Keeping%20Your%20COOL.001.php

Great article.

You guys really do make some great stuff.

Don,

In the article, the thermostat used was a 160 deg. I think I've read where you recommend a 185 deg thermostat so that the engine warms sufficently to burn off water vapor. How does one determine the correct temperature for the thermostat?

Hi Don,nice article but i have a qustion about a stament made in the article.

They state your alumitech rad is a " 4-core aluminum radiator that would drop your temperature by 10-20 or even 40 degrees "

I thought it was a 2 core/2 tube AL rad that has larger AL tubes with more surface area and more fins to disapate more heat then a std copper/brass 4 core rad could disapate,is that correct or am i wrong on that one?

Or do now you mfg 2 AL rads for the 1968-72 chevelles,1 being the original 2 row AL rad and now an even more correct looking 4 core AL radiator that's in fact a 4 core/4 tube all AL radiator?

I ask because i often rec your radiator to local guys and on t/chevelle too and i want to be make sure i am up to speed/correct on the stat's ofy our AL Rad's when i recommend them.

Thanks....Scott

The Alumitech has a 2 row core. A radiator only has one core.

CHRIS,FYI,a std copper /brass rad that the 68-72 chevelle's use can had 2/3/4core ,not 1 one core.

But I thought the almitech rad for the 68-72 velle's only had 2 large core AL tubes but then it must be an error on the writers part of that cooling article stating the Alumitech rad had 4 core when it really doesnt which is what i thought was the case and the reason i asked the question in the 1st place.

I thought maybe Don/Alumitech had possibly came out with an exact AL copy of the original harrison 4 core rad making an all AL 4 core copy because of the statement that cooling article had stating the alumitech rad was a 4 core which it's not.

Now that would be neat to mfg an exact AL copy and i would like to see how much better the al 4 core rad would cool vs the old std copper brass of same exact design,just AL vs Brass/copper at that point wit same sixe tubes and cooling fin area but that may not becomparing apples to apples,

Don ,just curious,what would happen if you did created an exact copy of a harrison copper/brass 4 core in all AL? Whats the reason thats never done,is the al too expensive to go that route or is there another reason why like it wont be ass efficient with all AL in the std 4 core configuration?

Scott

CHRIS,FYI,a std copper /brass rad that the 68-72 chevelle's use can had 2/3/4core ,not 1 one core.

But I thought the almitech rad for the 68-72 velle's only had 2 large core AL tubes but then it must be an error on the writers part of that cooling article stating the Alumitech rad had 4 core when it really doesnt which is what i thought was the case and the reason i asked the question in the 1st place.

I thought maybe Don/Alumitech had possibly came out with an exact AL copy of the original harrison 4 core rad making an all AL 4 core copy because of the statement that cooling article had stating the alumitech rad was a 4 core which it's not.

Now that would be neat to mfg an exact AL copy and i would like to see how much better the al 4 core rad would cool vs the old std copper brass of same exact design,just AL vs Brass/copper at that point wit same sixe tubes and cooling fin area but that may not becomparing apples to apples,

Don ,just curious,what would happen if you did created an exact copy of a harrison copper/brass 4 core in all AL? Whats the reason thats never done,is the al too expensive to go that route or is there another reason why like it wont be ass efficient with all AL in the std 4 core configuration?

Scott

Scott
I am sure it was the terminology the writer was used to ... I often get customers calling asking for a 4 core aluminum rad ....no such animal ..and then I educate them in the differences of FOUR ROW brass copper to aluminum TWO ROW configurations...the big difference in cooling is based on the differences in construction ..bigger tubes/more tubes in header length /and higher fin count per inch / and no lead as a bonding agent .

I think if there were a aluminum core built in the same design as the original Harrison rad the cooling might be the same ... but weigh half of the original

as some will argue the heat coefficient on a chart is the same or better in brass .. then aluminum ... so it’s the design of the rad that makes the difference ...the original Harrison rad had 31 tubes in the length of the header of a cross flow radiator but aluminum has 41 tubes .. hence more tubes , and at 1 inch tubes in a 2 row configuration verses the brass copper at 1/2 inch tubes in a 3 row your only getting 1.5 inches of tube to fin contact patch where heat dissipation takes place...so again a bit more patch area of the aluminum unit ..also the fin count was low on a Harrison 10 to 12 fin per inch , but with the aluminum 15 to 16 fin per inch ...so all in all bigger tubes .. more tubes .. higher fin count where heat dissipates , tends to give a better heat rejection rate over the Harrison rad, and no lead used as a bonding agent for fin to tube a poor heat transfer agent , at half the weight also if that’s important to some .

typically most users see a 30% increase in cooling ability

hope this answers some questions

Don,thanks,yes ans all my questions.

Does ANYONE know what part number and what car that radiator shroud was used for the article? It covers the entire radiator, and that would provide maximum cooling as compared to my stock shroud on my 69 SS.

I believe those full coverage fan shrouds are from 71 or 72 chevelle's or full size chevies of some sort so cheCk those application out.

Scott