What's the verdict on the need of oil cooler?

[ayau]

Originally Posted by wootwoot

The ecu pulls timing and the car loses power when the oil temps get to 230F. I think that is solid evidence that 260F is too high.

Furthermore, the JDM RA Race-ready model comes with a factory oil cooler. One can infer that the car needs an oil cooler for heavy track sessions.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/go/news/...a-racing-japan

[ayau]

Originally Posted by Apocalypso

I ordered it from www.rallysportdirect.com

Thanks. How difficult is it to route the wires from the DIN to the engine bay?

[BatStig]

Originally Posted by ayau

Thanks. How difficult is it to route the wires from the DIN to the engine bay?

Great question. I'll be finding out this weekend.

Anything else you want to know please PM me so we don't keep clogging up this oil cooler thread with gauge stuff. I'll be happy to answer.

[smbstyle]

Originally Posted by wootwoot

The ecu pulls timing and the car loses power when the oil temps get to 230F. I think that is solid evidence that 260F is too high.

Few issues with this. First, who all, other than Perrin, tested and found that 1.) oil temp crossing XXX is the reason for the ECU to pull timing, and 2.) how do they know that the oil temp caused the ECU to pull timing? Did IAT and water temp stay constant, and was it only oil temp that went up? Nothing against Perrin, but they're in the business of selling parts, and I'd like to see an independent test result showing yes, when oil temps cross XXX*f, timing is pulled by the ECU, and it is a direct result of high oil temps, and it is not due to IAT, water temp, or any other stock sensor reading crossing a specific temp.

So no, sorry, I don't see that as solid evidence at all. 260* is some arbitrary number that no one can tell me why this is the max safe temp. I understand cooler is better, but I have no reason to throw on an oil cooler if the engine was designed to be capable of handling 290-300*f for 30 minute sessions without issue, like many other factory cars are capable of. I can't imagine Subaru didn't think of taking the car out to the track to get some stock sensor readings before they put it into production.

[robispec]

I did I did!!
and I think the oil running the cams is the cuprate as the ECUTECK logs all show preset setings but the total load trace is dropping when the oil temp trace crosses the 230 mark...(even when you defeat the temp sensor. ecu input...lol

[orthojoe]

Originally Posted by smbstyle

Few issues with this. First, who all, other than Perrin, tested and found that 1.) oil temp crossing XXX is the reason for the ECU to pull timing, and 2.) how do they know that the oil temp caused the ECU to pull timing? Did IAT and water temp stay constant, and was it only oil temp that went up? Nothing against Perrin, but they're in the business of selling parts, and I'd like to see an independent test result showing yes, when oil temps cross XXX*f, timing is pulled by the ECU, and it is a direct result of high oil temps, and it is not due to IAT, water temp, or any other stock sensor reading crossing a specific temp.

So no, sorry, I don't see that as solid evidence at all. 260* is some arbitrary number that no one can tell me why this is the max safe temp. I understand cooler is better, but I have no reason to throw on an oil cooler if the engine was designed to be capable of handling 290-300*f for 30 minute sessions without issue, like many other factory cars are capable of. I can't imagine Subaru didn't think of taking the car out to the track to get some stock sensor readings before they put it into production.

Love it. Why can't everyone think this way? Solid data and facts only. No assumptions or half truths.

[smbstyle]

Originally Posted by orthojoe

Love it. Why can't everyone think this way? Solid data and facts only. No assumptions or half truths.

OIL TEMP REACHES 260*......

[wootwoot]

We only have one data point on this topic and it was provided by Perrin. They provided this data before their oil cooler came to the market..... I actually believe it was this dyno generated data that provoked them to make an oil cooler in the first place.

So you guys are saying we need to go by the data and not speculation and assumption, yet you ignore the one data point we have..... That makes a ton of sense....

[ayau]

Originally Posted by wootwoot

We only have one data point on this topic and it was provided by Perrin. They provided this data before their oil cooler came to the market..... I actually believe it was this dyno generated data that provoked them to make an oil cooler in the first place.

So you guys are saying we need to go by the data and not speculation and assumption, yet you ignore the one data point we have..... That makes a ton of sense....

Correlation does not imply causation. Just because oil temp reached X degrees doesn't mean that ECU was dialed back. There could be other variables that weren't taken into account as @smbstyle mentioned.

[smbstyle]

Originally Posted by wootwoot

We only have one data point on this topic and it was provided by Perrin. They provided this data before their oil cooler came to the market..... I actually believe it was this dyno generated data that provoked them to make an oil cooler in the first place.

So you guys are saying we need to go by the data and not speculation and assumption, yet you ignore the one data point we have..... That makes a ton of sense....

"one data point" is the key word. Well, now 2 with robispec's above comments, but I think it's foolish to completely rely on one vendors test and take it as gospel. I'm not knocking Perrin at all, but it's reasonable to want to see if this issue occurs across different cars, and what that issue is directly caused by (oil, iat, water temps?) before making the claim that timing is pulled on these cars as a direct result of oil temps crossing 230*. Just some healthy speculation.

[Dave-ROR]

Actually I wouldn't be surprised at the ECU pulling timing based on various parameters, including oil temp. That should be easy to find in the ECU for those who can look. Oil temps most likely aren't the only thing increasing so I agree with the others that it's difficult to make that direct correlation as the sole cause of timing being pulled, etc.

This wouldn't be the first car to pull timing based on coolant and oil temp sensors though, assuming that's all the car does is just pull timing. I haz no idea.

Either way I just prefer my oil to run cooler and pull heat out of the rest of the components in the engine.

[wootwoot]

Originally Posted by robispec

I did I did!!
and I think the oil running the cams is the cuprate as the ECUTECK logs all show preset setings but the total load trace is dropping when the oil temp trace crosses the 230 mark...(even when you defeat the temp sensor. ecu input...lol

How is this not positive proof of a 230F oil temp high point?

[smbstyle]

Originally Posted by wootwoot

How is this not positive proof of a 230F oil temp high point?

That's an indicator that the ECU is pulling timing at that oil temp, which i acknowledged in my previous post, where did I discredit robispec's results?

I think you are missing my original point..

[robispec]

my prob is the question WHY isnt that important to me. We just developed a system that never lets the parameter get to a point to cause the loss in power.
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showt...35#post1013035
or
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showt...13#post1023713