Yet an even higher flow thermostat?

Old Henry said:
I would also like to know what engine it was pumping through, and what thermostats were in the engine that they were pumping through.
Click to expand...

I just talked to Skip. (941-505-9085) He said all pumps are and have been tested on an independent test machine that does not pump through an engine nor thermostats. All flow measurements are and have been on that machine and do not reflect flow rate through an engine. He has never flow tested his pumps in an engine nor pumping through thermostats. That's probably why he does not recommend using them with thermostats.
 
Last edited:
I am no flathead expert by any means. New to them in fact.
However I have experienced too much flow being not necessarily a good think. I have had a couple vehicles over the years that were running hot. Turns out there was no thermostats in them and the water was flowing to quickly through the radiator to transfer enough heat.
After installing thermostats which slowed the flow down they ran great and no longer ran hot.
Flatheads different?
 
Looks like we need a complete test setup in an environmental chamber.
I plan to pump with my 1940 stock flathead fire engine (Stant 14157 thermostats, 50/50 coolant) in early June. We can hope for a nice hot day. I pumped for 2 hours on a 70-degree day last September and the Sunpro temp gauge stayed around 160. That would indicate that the thermostats did not open or were just slightly open. I tested them and the gauge before installation against my instant read thermometer on the stove.
 
what Mr Mitchel (G.M.) normally FAILS to tell you every time he brags about his '39 pick up, is that on his '39 pick up he has a full radiator shroud (that will flow air through the ENTIRE radiator core) and that he has a modified industrial high flow fan (that flows a higher volume of air, than a stock fan, through the ENTIRE radiator core) and so the fast idle test is probably equivalent of driving at 20 or so MPH that produces the cooling effects with a stock fan and no shroud..

now, how many of us have the shroud and high volume fans on our cars when we test for cooling problems? so is his "fast idle cooling test on his '39 PU" a real world test that is applicable to any other people who are attempting to resolve cooling issues? doubtful.

I ran skips pumps on my '41 pickup and found all driving above 20 MPH or so to be fine, but when idling in traffic the motor heated up just as it did with stock pumps. i had stock fan and no shroud on the truck. i found did Skips pumps to be a very high quality product, but without the benefits of the shroud and high volume fan, the pumps provided no more low speed and idling relief from a set of stock pumps.

increased air flow (with the shroud and high volume fan) is the key to his '39 pick up. Skips also recommends no thermostats so as far as high volume skips pumps go, a high volume thermostat is pretty much a moot point....

these are just my thoughts and experiences in regards to the ongoing cooling challenge of our flatheads. i do feel that in a stock environment, a high volume thermostat should have more benefit than having no thermostats at all...
 
Last edited:
donald1950 said:
I ran skips pumps on my '41 pickup and found all driving above 20 MPH or so to be fine, but when idling in traffic the motor heated up just as it did with stock pumps.
Click to expand...

The reason for that is because the "turbine" impeller on Skips pumps is a "multiflow" design that, when compared to the modern "centrifugal" design, is like comparing a room oscillating fan to a centrifugal fan like is in all furnaces, air conditioners, auto heater/air conditioners, etc. The multiflow design, like the room fan blades, can move a lot of air provided there is no resistance. But, with any resistance, that style can not push through the resistance like a centrifugal fan can push through ducts in a house, etc. For full discussion and explanation of the physics of the multiflow vs. centrifugal impeller go here: http://www.fordbarn.com/forum/showthread.php?t=106054

For any that think I somehow have a "horse in the race" on this issue just read the thread that I referenced. I began the investigation contained in that thread with a totally open mind trying to find a better water pump and learned much about the differences between the different kinds and have shared them for the benefit of others that may be interested in them. If Skip's pumps had ever been tested pushing water through an engine and thermostat in comparison to modern centrifugal design pumps I'd have much more confidence in the claims of their advantages over other pumps. But, my belief, understanding the physics of the two types of impellers, is that, although Skips impellers most definitely push more water than the other type of pump in the only test that he's ever done - just pushing water through a hose from one container to another, they are not, in fact, as efficient as the centrifugal impellers in pushing water through the resistance of the small engine block passages and thermostat. Skip must have discovered that fact at some point as he does not recommend the use of thermostats with his pumps.

I know a lot of folks have bought Skips pumps and swear by them and I'm glad they're happy with them and hope they continue to be. I am just as happy with my modern centrifugal pump with the ball bearings in place of the bushings of the old style pump that Skip rebuilds and plan on continuing that happiness. :)

Just my 2¢
 
Thanks for the explanation Professor. I have never bought the theory myself. Just doesn't make sense that the faster you run water through the radiator, the cooler it gets.
 
If the coolant stays in the radiator longer because the flow is restricted, then the water stays in the block longer. If it stays in the block longer, it is absorbing more heat that has to be rejected in the radiator. I don't profess to know the answer, it seems like another "chicken or egg" dilemma.
 
Lawson Cox said:
Thanks for the explanation Professor. I have never bought the theory myself. Just doesn't make sense that the faster you run water through the radiator, the cooler it gets.
Click to expand...

Hopefully I did not suggest that moving water slower through the engine and radiator improved cooling. I would not suggest that because that is not the case. That erroneous theory is that to cool the water better in the radiator it needs to be in there longer to give it more time to give up its heat so moving it through slower is better. The mistake in that theory is that, while the water is moving slower and cooling more going through the radiator, it is also moving slower and heating more going through the engine. So, the two nullify each other and slower moving water does not, in fact, cool better.

The reason moving more water faster through the engine and radiator cools better is because more heat transfers quicker when the temperatures of the two hot and cold objects are more different. One example is when you come into the heated house from the cold outside the warmer air in the house will eventually warm you up. But, if you move your cold body next to a roaring fire in a fireplace that is much hotter than your body it will heat it up much faster. What that means is that when water is moving faster through the engine and radiator, the temperature of the water in the radiator and engine are more different when the water first enters the engine and radiator and thus, transfers heat faster to the water and from the water to the radiator. The slower the water is moving and the longer it is in the radiator or engine, the less different the temperature of the water and surrounding surfaces becomes so that the heat transfer rate slows down. Thus, the engine cools better the faster and higher volume of water is that is moved through it and the radiator.

Hope that all makes sense.
 
40cpe said:
If the coolant stays in the radiator longer because the flow is restricted, then the water stays in the block longer. If it stays in the block longer, it is absorbing more heat that has to be rejected in the radiator. I don't profess to know the answer, it seems like another "chicken or egg" dilemma.
Click to expand...

My point exactly.
 
Hi Everyone, Thanks for the link Ronnie, I enjoyed reading that. Thanks to everyone else for their contributions, also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top