Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

All,

Currently getting a radiator w/ shroud and 16" brushless fan fab'd up. I will be using the sensor to switch on the fan. I will be using a stock thermostat(76.9c) with a 175-195f sensor switch.

I planned on getting the sensor thread bung welded to the lower half of the radiator near the outlet hose (mimicking the AC fan stock sensor switch location)

However, I've read much on that the switch needs to be mounted near the hottest point which would be near the upper hose.

Some of what I've read also states that it needs to be close to the thermostat. Most of that info is non-RB specific as some motors thermostat is located on the upper hose pipe.

Should the switch be close to the coolant temp sensor for thermostat??

Whats optimal when it comes to a RB?

Personally I would use your ECU to control the fan, the OEM water temp sensor on the outlet from the plenum would be the best spot to sample water temperature.

If you use a SSR or an OEM fan controller (from another car)you could even duty cycle your fan so it gently ramps in as water temperature increases and say goes from 30% duty at 75°C and to 100% by 85°C as an example. Far more sophisticated and superior than an on/off thermo switch.

Makes everything a bit more premium.

 

  • Like 1
3 minutes ago, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:

Personally I would use your ECU to control the fan, the OEM water temp sensor on the outlet from the plenum would be the best spot to sample water temperature.

If you use a SSR or an OEM fan controller (from another car)you could even duty cycle your fan so it gently ramps in as water temperature increases and say goes from 30% duty at 75°C and to 100% by 85°C as an example. Far more sophisticated and superior than an on/off thermo switch.

Makes everything a bit more premium.

 

I thought about just doing the ECU route. With the Spal Brushless tech, the fan is basically variable speed on its own with the switch (low speed @175F /max @195F).

I also thought about getting one of the radiator hose sensor provisions to mount the switch, since it seems the upper is deemed the most optimal location.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Nice!

If that's the case, just install that sensor on plenum outlet. 

You're sampling water that is being expelled out from the motor, you would assume it's the best location.

  • Like 1
6 minutes ago, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:

Nice!

If that's the case, just install that sensor on plenum outlet. 

You're sampling water that is being expelled out from the motor, you would assume it's the best location.

Thanks!

The sensor is 3/8 so i may not exactly get it on the plenum but its def going up top! I just found one of those hose adapter in 3/8 on the ebay.

I'll just plug the bung that they welded on the bottom and delete the OEM harness for the than AC fan sensor switch. The new fan is gonna do the job.

  • Like 1

If it were me, I'd just build a controller on an Arduino. Fit it with a little trim pot or two, put it in a sealed box, and use the sensor location in the rad tank. The trim pots would allow the on and off points to be adjusted, rather than relying on hard switching points. The logic in the controller could be as sophisticated or as simple as you like. You could even have extra RTDs or TCs looking at external air T, engine bay T, etc, to inform how hard to run the fan.

I'd see it as an opportunity to experiment with programming some fuzzy logic. Might turn out to be complete overkill, but good fun.

But, if you have the capacity to run it from the ECU, almost any other option is verging on silly. No extra sensors required, all sorts of additional logic available at the twitch of a mouse, etc.

Edited by GTSBoy
  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
    • If they can dyno them, get them dyno'd, make sure they're not leaking, and if they look okay on the dyno and are performing relatively well, put them in the car.   If they're leaking oil etc, and you feel so inclined, open them up yourself and see what you can do to fix it. The main thing you're trying to do is replace the parts that perish, like seals. You're not attempting to change the valving. You might even be able to find somewhere that has the Tein parts/rebuild kit if you dig hard.
    • Can you also make sure the invoices on the box (And none exist in the boxes) are below our import duty limits... I jest, there's nothing I need to actually purchase and order in. (Unless you can find me a rear diff carrier, brand new, for stupidly cheap, that is for a Toyota Landcruiser, HZJ105R GXL, 2000 year model...)  
×
×
  • Create New...