Installed/How-To: 2014 Forester XT OEM Oil Cooler(pics!)

[mikalem]

Originally Posted by Model Citizen

I get that the throttle body lines are smaller. I don't have the new fxt cooler here to reference and I don't feel like crawling under my older model forester in the dark. But from this thread at least one of the hoses is 3/8. That doesn't seem too far from the throttle body diameter.

Those cusco banjo bolts look pretty small too, let alone the bends. Hence picture of the cusco kit linked for reference.

Assuming choked flow works similarly wether the restriction is 1 inch or 2 feet than does the diameter really matter significantly? I'm far from an expert on that sort of thing, my last college level physics class was about 15 years ago and a lot of brains were lost in between

I can say based on pics earlier in this thread the forester cooler have two different diameter ends - it looks different than the cusco cooler

I was hoping to be able to do this too, since I already have the innovate kit installed and it re-routes these lines. After taking a closer look at the cooler though I'm inclined to just install it per the instructions in OP.

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showp...&postcount=194

[Model Citizen]

Originally Posted by mikalem

I can say based on pics earlier in this thread the forester cooler have two different diameter ends - it looks different than the cusco cooler

I was hoping to be able to do this too, since I already have the innovate kit installed and it re-routes these lines. After taking a closer look at the cooler though I'm inclined to just install it per the instructions in OP.

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showp...&postcount=194

Going off the diy I'd guess 1/2" and 3/8". Nothing necessarily non adaptable.

Just seems like if the throttle body implementation could work that it would greatly simplify this whole mod.

[Kostamojen]

The inlet pipe on the oil cooler is 1/2"... The Throttle body piping is 1/4"

That is 50% less diameter. Converting that over to volume, is over 60% less flow I.E. the throttle body coolant lines can channel only 1/3rd the amount of coolant required for the oil cooler.

So no, the throttle body piping is a BAD IDEA. I wish it wasn't, it is indeed the perfect spot, but its way way too small.

[Model Citizen]

Originally Posted by Kostamojen

The inlet pipe on the oil cooler is 1/2"... The Throttle body piping is 1/4"

That is 50% less diameter. Converting that over to volume, is over 60% less flow I.E. the throttle body coolant lines can channel only 1/3rd the amount of coolant required for the oil cooler.

So no, the throttle body piping is a BAD IDEA. I wish it wasn't, it is indeed the perfect spot, but its way way too small.

Yet the cusco kit worked well enough to bring to market using banjos with the bolt entering perpendicular to flow.


Also found this on eBay.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Coolant-Hose...cff8bf&vxp=mtr

[Kostamojen]

Perpendicular flow isn't the issue you brought up. And if you really trust a third party aftermarket parts manufacturer more than the engineers who actually designed and built the motor in the first place, then so be it, but you might want to find another thread...

[Model Citizen]

Originally Posted by Kostamojen

Perpendicular flow isn't the issue you brought up. And if you really trust a third party aftermarket parts manufacturer more than the engineers who actually designed and built the motor in the first place, then so be it, but you might want to find another thread...

My intent was to question flow restriction of the banjos as a whole. While stating my ignorance on fluid dynamics and temporary flow restrictions.

According to several posts the kit does seem to atleast have some positive affect, granted a small effect, but that's all these Subaru sandwich plates have ever been regarded as creating.

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showp...77&postcount=7

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showp...&postcount=100

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showp...2&postcount=82

I'm no engineer, but I'd think the restrictions of the locations the throttle body coolant hoses are sourced from are no worse than the restriction created by 2 banjos.

Your initial reply acknowledged only the throttle body hose diameter and entirely neglected the restriction created by the banjos. If you follow this thread a significant portion has been discussion on various routings and sourcings or the effectiveness of such.

I've decided that it's simple and cheap enough that there's no reason not to atleast give it a try since the only real thing wasted would be some cheap hose. Not sure the cooler will clear my kraftwerks kit but I'd guess the spill lip could be notched worst case.


Edit: just reread this whole thread and the other one. Still going to give it a try, nobody who has used the "proper" routing has posted any sort of conclusive logs (or really any data for that matter) that show a significant increase in effectiveness over the cusco banjo method.

This was the best of the data posted here using the proper method.

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showp...&postcount=181

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showp...&postcount=184


Did a bit more digging, 21311AA140 is the part number for the 3.6r oil cooler, it costs a good bit more than the dit forester cooler. Any chance of it being a larger core? One immediate issue would be the hose routing angling downward on one tube.

[Simply_the_best]

Got my oil setup installed. Love it.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kostamojen]

Originally Posted by Model Citizen

Your initial reply acknowledged only the throttle body hose diameter and entirely neglected the restriction created by the banjos. If you follow this thread a significant portion has been discussion on various routings and sourcings or the effectiveness of such.

Most of us didn't use the Cusco design because routing from the main radiator hoses makes no sense at all. Having those lines pre-thermostat will limit the amount of coolant flow to the cooler at certain times. And as far as I can tell, Cusco changed their original design which was accessing coolant from the engine block crossover pipe to using both Radiator hoses purely to increase sales to Automatic owners. If you trust something made due to a sales decision of a third party company, then so be it...

As for the banjo bolts, I really don't care. Banjo bolts don't have restrictions like you are trying to state, they have a 90 degree curve but if they are large enough (which the Cusco ones seem to be) they won't have nearly as small of passages as coming from the throttle body.

Either way, if your intent is to replicate the Cusco kit, you should start a new thread.

And the 3.6L oil cooler is not worth the extra cost, its not only not designed for a top mounted application its not significantly larger. But its your money and your car, do what you want...

[Model Citizen]

Originally Posted by Kostamojen

Most of us didn't use the Cusco design because routing from the main radiator hoses makes no sense at all. Having those lines pre-thermostat will limit the amount of coolant flow to the cooler at certain times. And as far as I can tell, Cusco changed their original design which was accessing coolant from the engine block crossover pipe to using both Radiator hoses purely to increase sales to Automatic owners. If you trust something made due to a sales decision of a third party company, then so be it...

As for the banjo bolts, I really don't care. Banjo bolts don't have restrictions like you are trying to state, they have a 90 degree curve but if they are large enough (which the Cusco ones seem to be) they won't have nearly as small of passages as coming from the throttle body.

Either way, if your intent is to replicate the Cusco kit, you should start a new thread.

And the 3.6L oil cooler is not worth the extra cost, its not only not designed for a top mounted application its not significantly larger. But its your money and your car, do what you want...

No need for a stick up your ass or to make assumptions about having intent in replicating a given kit.

I'm not looking to replicate, I am looking to sort out a path. Fact is banjo bolts are a restriction, so are the throttle body hoses for that matter.

Nobody who has done this mod the "right" way has shown useful data other than one poster that i linked. At least several people using the cusco solution have posted a bit of data.

I plan on trying the throttle body hoses, why? Because its only a couple $ for some hose, a few minutes of time and nobody has shown any information worth a shit that it shouldn't at least be given a try (avo kit and possibly others iirc use the tb hoses for turbo cooling).

My apologies all high and mighty sir for asking questions in the one relevant active thread for the topic.

Thanks for the info on the 3.6 cooler, i could not find any measurements or accurate pictures of the cooler itself this morning, i did search. The only info i could find was that its nearly 2x the cost. Considering the same oil filters are used i was hoping that maybe it basically was just a larger core, which would have been valuable.

Once again my apologizes for asking questions about alternative methods in a thread that in large part has been a discussion about alternative methods from the op.

[Kostamojen]

Originally Posted by Model Citizen

Nobody who has done this mod the "right" way has shown useful data other than one poster that i linked. At least several people using the cusco solution have posted a bit of data.

I'm still waiting on the snow to clear on the road I tested on before I did the oil cooler.

But I'm not going to defend myself against someone willing to ignore the trial-and-error process the rest of us went through to come up with this DIY.

[Model Citizen]

Originally Posted by Kostamojen

But I'm not going to defend myself against someone willing to ignore the trial-and-error process the rest of us went through to come up with this DIY.

I did read the threads, yours included, and i have been following this since fall despite the join date.

You don't need to defend yourself against anything, unlike yourself i wasn't being aggressive, confrontational or prickish. I was asking questions in an absence of fact.

To me it seems like an option that has been theory crafted against, but not actually tested in this application. Validating how stupid I am will take what; a trip to parts store, few $ and maybe 10 minutes of time. Unless you can point out where the throttle body hoses were found to be a miserable failure in actual testing.

Fact is right now the throttle body method has about as much data behind it as the proper method, near 0.

I'll give it a try just so you can tell me I have downs.

[Kostamojen]

I'm trying to save you the trouble and the money... When you get that throttle body pipe off and see how small it really is and go "oh, this is way too small" like a few of us have.

To use the throttle body hoses, you will have to buy extra adapters for dealing with the change in pipe diameter, cant just use the same size hose from either side. Thats going to cost extra money. Then you might also have the issue of feeding so little coolant into and out of the cooler that it might not actually be able to cool the oil enough to make a noticable difference.

The Cusco kit uses banjos, but they are the correct size to match up to the oil cooler piping even if they have restriction and are not getting coolant feeds from the ideal locations.

But its your car, your wallet, do what you wish.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by Kostamojen

Most of us didn't use the Cusco design because routing from the main radiator hoses makes no sense at all. Having those lines pre-thermostat will limit the amount of coolant flow to the cooler at certain times. And as far as I can tell, Cusco changed their original design which was accessing coolant from the engine block crossover pipe to using both Radiator hoses purely to increase sales to Automatic owners. If you trust something made due to a sales decision of a third party company, then so be it...

As for the banjo bolts, I really don't care. Banjo bolts don't have restrictions like you are trying to state, they have a 90 degree curve but if they are large enough (which the Cusco ones seem to be) they won't have nearly as small of passages as coming from the throttle body.

As someone that went from Forester XT to Cusco kit route, I can say safely the following points:

• Cusco kit, banjo and all, presents ZERO cooling issues. Maximum track temps achieved were around 116C in a 20-minute session, temps were stable and did not go past that point.
• It took around 1 week of driving to get all of the air bubbles out.
• There seems to be little/no issues arising from using a banjo setup on the Cusco oil cooler. FWIW, the two fittings are the same size instead of the one large one small setup on the Forester cooler.
• If one wanted to maximize oil cooling, plumbing from the radiator hoses is infinitely better than plumbing from coolant out of the block.

Most of us don't use the Cusco design because considering the price, it's borderline standalone oil cooler kit pricing... the thermostat placement is only an issue when the engine is cold.

-alex

[Kostamojen]

Originally Posted by mav1178

the thermostat placement is only an issue when the engine is cold.

-alex

Its still an issue. More of an issue for daily drivers in varrying environmental tempuratures. The coolant coming from the block location we are using is right after the radiator pipe just past the thermostat, so i doubt the temp difference is much if any. I'm more concerned about the water pump actually pumping coolant to the cooler at all times and not getting a stagnant feed when the thermostat is closed.