remote oil cooler hose size, 8,10 or an12?

[GD51LA]

street use or race track, what hose size and why?

what factors change with the hose size options ?

 

see most comon is an10. when you see most oem external coolers are closer to an12?

does high volume oil pump like nitto need an12 or 10 be just fine

[Duncan]

Dunno.

I run -10 on the race car.

[Dose Pipe Sutututu]

More so GReddy oil relocation kits, sandwich plates, etc. all use 10AN fittings.

And same, I've only used 10AN and my car sees track work (circuit, doing laps, not 10 sec squirt business).

[MBS206]

-10 is plenty for running to an oil cooler.

When you look at oil feeds, like power steering feeds, they're much smaller, and then just a larger hose size to move volume in less pressure. No need for -12.

Even on the race cars, like Duncans, and endurance cars, most of them are all running -10 and everything works perfectly fine, temps are under control, and there's no restrictions.

[TurboTapin]

Let large companies that are making money off selling kits do the preliminary engineering for you. If they all do -10, then that is all you'll ever need. 

Edited Monday at 12:00 PM by TurboTapin

[GD51LA]

majority aftermarket is an10 yes, but majority of OEM is An12

r35 OEM cooler lines at close to an 12, the hard line that car uses is almost 20mm 

Porsche OEM is also AN12

 

i figure, if our power levels are close to 1000hp, then AN12 should be a must if many OEM standard power vehicles use AN12

[Dose Pipe Sutututu]

Food for thought, the stock oil filter thread is a 3/4-16 UNF, which has an ID of about 10 to 12mm (according to ChatGPT lol).

Now compare than to an 10AN, which has an ID of about 14mm (Raceworks is 14.2mm, Speed flow is 14.27mm).

 

[MBS206]

1 hour ago, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:

Food for thought, the stock oil filter thread is a 3/4-16 UNF, which has an ID of about 10 to 12mm (according to ChatGPT lol).

Now compare than to an 10AN, which has an ID of about 14mm (Raceworks is 14.2mm, Speed flow is 14.27mm).

 

To pick up what Dose is putting down. Not a lot of point running a huge hose if the motor is still restricted to the smaller size... It's only capable of flowing so much at that point...

 

*Waits for GTSBoy to come in and bring in the technicalities of length of pipe, and additional restriction from wall friction etc etc*

Edited 8 hours ago by MBS206

[GTSBoy]

1 minute ago, MBS206 said:

To pick up what Dose is putting down. Not a lot of point running a huge hose if the motor is still restricted to the smaller size... It's only capable of flowing so much at that point...

I will rebutt this and the preceding point from Dose....but without doing any calcs to demonstrate anything and without knowing that I am right or wrong. But...

The flow capacity of a fluid transfer system is not limited by the smallest orifice or section of conduit in that system, unless it is drastically smaller than the rest of the system. OK, I use the word drastically perhaps with too much emphasis, but let's drill down on what I really mean.

The flow capacity of the system is the result of the sum of the restrictions of the entire system. So, to make an extreme example, if you have a network with 3" pipe everywhere (and let's say a total length of only a few metres) and that 12mm ID restriction of the oil filter connection being the obvious restriction, then for any given amount of pressure available, the vast majority of all the pressure drop in the system is going to occur in the 12mm restriction. But.... increase the length of the 3" pipeline to, say 1000m, and suddenly the pipe pressure loss will likely add up to either be in the same order of magnitude, possibly even exceeding that of the 12mm restriction. Now the 12mm restriction starts to matter less.

Translate this to the actual engine, actual oil cooler hose sizing, etc etc, and perhaps:

• The pressure loss caused by flowing through the narrow section (being the 12mm oil filter port, and perhaps any internal engine oil flow pathways associated with it) is a certain number.
• The pressure loss through, say, -12 hoses out to the cooler and back is negligible, but
• The pressure loss through -10 hoses out to the cooler, at the exact same length as the above, starts to become a decent fraction of the loss through the 12mm stuff at the filter port. Maybe even it starts to exceed it.

I could actually do these calcs if I knew 1) how much oil was actually flowing in the line, 2) gave enough of a f**k to do things that I hate doing for work, voluntarily for a hypothetical discussion.

Anyway - I reiterate. It's not the narrowest port that necessarily determines how much it can all flow. It is the sum. A long enough length of seemingly fat enough pipe can still cause more loss than a semmingly dominant small bore restriction.

[MBS206]

3 hours ago, GTSBoy said:

I will rebutt this and the preceding point from Dose....but without doing any calcs to demonstrate anything and without knowing that I am right or wrong. But...

The flow capacity of a fluid transfer system is not limited by the smallest orifice or section of conduit in that system, unless it is drastically smaller than the rest of the system. OK, I use the word drastically perhaps with too much emphasis, but let's drill down on what I really mean.

The flow capacity of the system is the result of the sum of the restrictions of the entire system. So, to make an extreme example, if you have a network with 3" pipe everywhere (and let's say a total length of only a few metres) and that 12mm ID restriction of the oil filter connection being the obvious restriction, then for any given amount of pressure available, the vast majority of all the pressure drop in the system is going to occur in the 12mm restriction. But.... increase the length of the 3" pipeline to, say 1000m, and suddenly the pipe pressure loss will likely add up to either be in the same order of magnitude, possibly even exceeding that of the 12mm restriction. Now the 12mm restriction starts to matter less.

Translate this to the actual engine, actual oil cooler hose sizing, etc etc, and perhaps:

• The pressure loss caused by flowing through the narrow section (being the 12mm oil filter port, and perhaps any internal engine oil flow pathways associated with it) is a certain number.
• The pressure loss through, say, -12 hoses out to the cooler and back is negligible, but
• The pressure loss through -10 hoses out to the cooler, at the exact same length as the above, starts to become a decent fraction of the loss through the 12mm stuff at the filter port. Maybe even it starts to exceed it.

I could actually do these calcs if I knew 1) how much oil was actually flowing in the line, 2) gave enough of a f**k to do things that I hate doing for work, voluntarily for a hypothetical discussion.

Anyway - I reiterate. It's not the narrowest port that necessarily determines how much it can all flow. It is the sum. A long enough length of seemingly fat enough pipe can still cause more loss than a semmingly dominant small bore restriction.

That's kind of what I was getting at saying you'd be here soon regarding length etc being able to add additional restriction. 

My assumption (possible donkeys of you and mption) is that the length of hose to an oil cooler, and back, isn't going to be that huge of a loss. Typically you're talking about 1.5m of total length. And so far everyone in our world hasn't had issues with oil not being able to get to a cooler and back, it's more been, how the heck do we get the oil out of the head and back down to the bottom?

I'd nearly hazard a guess the biggest issue people have with oil cooling and oil supply, is being able to get the heat out at the cooler itself (not enough air flow, too small of a cooler etc) Also, when people mount them wrong and make really awesome air traps so they've dramatically diminished the cooling capacity.

[r32-25t]

Mine is all -12, I’m running a dry sump in a billet block though