CSF Radiator on N54 135i

[xQx]

Originally Posted by 07tundra

You answered a part of my question so thank you. Do you have any insight on the other half of my question?

Sorry, yes I did.

I'm not familiar enough with the N55 to know, but I'd expect if the N55 radiator were better and easy to fit, lots of people would be swapping them in.

It says a lot for the OEM radiator in the N54 that the CSF radiator actually has the same number of bars and fins, and due to the lack of space in the 1er engine bay, CSF weren't able to make their radiator any deeper than OEM (only the end-tanks are deeper). The additional cooling benefits of the CSF radiator are entirely because of it's 'B' style bars and all-aluminium construction. (I believe)

You have more options in a 335i engine bay, but BMW did a very good job of jamming the biggest and densest radiator they could into the space available in the 1er - it just looks like the N54 generates a lot of heat.

[bNks334]

I posted the logs elsewhere, but here are two logs done on the same track:

N55 Custom Cobb tune
PPK cooling tables (assumed to target lower coolant temps than stock)
88f and humid
http://datazap.me/u/banks334/track-d...oom=5722-31022

N55 Stage 2+ MHD OTS map
Cooling (race mode)
86f and humid
http://datazap.me/u/banks334/lime-ro...ata=6-19-20-22

Lap times were between 1:08 and 1:10 at both events. Both tunes target around 200 load.

While the difference was not as much as I was hoping, there was definitely a noticeable improvement. Coolant temps ran hotter on the COBB tune and so did oil. This extra heat caused excessive timing corrections and load actual was therefore lower all around. The MHD OTS map with revised cooling tables was able to achieve greater loads while maintaining lower temperatures all around.

[fe1rx]

I guess I should report back on my actual results with the CSF radiator. I have logged similar laps on the same track under similar outside air temperature conditions to make the comparison. I must say that I was hoping for more improvement. The cooling has gone from marginal to barely acceptable on this track under these conditions.
This is with a mild AccessPort Drive tune on an N54, so any hotter tune would further accentuate the problem. Oil temps are fine. The engine is still coolant challenged on this track (which admittedly is a tough one on cooling).

[houtan]

It seems like cooling with the stock radiator is fine for you MT cars. For AT/DCT cars, part of the radiator is used to cool the transmission as well. Maybe the CSF radiator has a bigger impact for AT/DCT cars? I haven't tested my car on track yet to see what my coolant/DCT temps look like and unfortunately, i dont have any stock coolant numbers to compare with. But my oil temps were in the 280 range, stock ppk tune. So i guess if i am back at buttonwillow in similar conditions and my oil temps are better controlled maybe the radiator is an improvement?

Next track event should be a 1/2 mile event in october, a different kind of strain on the HW, but a strain nonetheless. I will be running max power possible for my car on PS2 (probably 19ish psi) and logging with MHD. Will share any data i get.

[bNks334]

Originally Posted by fe1rx

I guess I should report back on my actual results with the CSF radiator. I have logged similar laps on the same track under similar outside air temperature conditions to make the comparison. I must say that I was hoping for more improvement. The cooling has gone from marginal to barely acceptable on this track under these conditions.
This is with a mild AccessPort Drive tune on an N54, so any hotter tune would further accentuate the problem. Oil temps are fine. The engine is still coolant challenged on this track (which admittedly is a tough one on cooling).
Attachment 1678974

I am thinking you'd get better results if you coupled the CSF radiator with the tuning revisions to target lower coolant temps. Definitely move to straight water if you haven't already.

I will say that Limerock Park is not particularly taxing on the cooling system. I'd probably have much higher temps on a track like NJMP lightening (lots more on throttle driving).

[WhatsADSM]

Originally Posted by fe1rx

I guess I should report back on my actual results with the CSF radiator. I have logged similar laps on the same track under similar outside air temperature conditions to make the comparison. I must say that I was hoping for more improvement. The cooling has gone from marginal to barely acceptable on this track under these conditions.
This is with a mild AccessPort Drive tune on an N54, so any hotter tune would further accentuate the problem. Oil temps are fine. The engine is still coolant challenged on this track (which admittedly is a tough one on cooling).
Attachment 1678974

Wow that is toasty!

Its weird but I have the opposite problem as you. Hot oil temps but reasonable coolant temps. As bNks334 said, I would be curious to see modifying the water pump duty cycle in the tune would have any effect? In theory it shouldn't make any real difference because the DME should have been commanding 100% long back in your situation, but still it would be nice to test it out and see. It can't hurt.

Out of curiosity...
Have you ever replaced the water pump before? They are known to die in weird ways.
Also what concentration of water/coolant do you use?
Any big intercooler aftermarket intercooler blocking flow?

[bNks334]

Originally Posted by WhatsADSM

Wow that is toasty!

Its weird but I have the opposite problem as you. Hot oil temps but reasonable coolant temps. As bNks334 said, I would be curious to see modifying the water pump duty cycle in the tune would have any effect? In theory it shouldn't make any real difference because the DME should have been commanding 100% long back in your situation, but still it would be nice to test it out and see. It can't hurt.

Out of curiosity...
Have you ever replaced the water pump before? They are known to die in weird ways.
Also what concentration of water/coolant do you use?
Any big intercooler aftermarket intercooler blocking flow?

As stated earlier, the DME only commands 100% water pump duty cycle at WOT or 108f... You usually spend most time at partial throttle and the ambient threshold is pretty much never going to be achieved.

[WhatsADSM]

Originally Posted by bNks334

As stated earlier, the DME only commands 100% water pump duty cycle at WOT or 108f... You usually spend most time at partial throttle and the ambient threshold is pretty much never going to be achieved.

I'm not sure where you are getting this statement:
"the DME only commands 100% water pump duty cycle at WOT or 108f"

Do you have any data to back this claim up?

The 108*F number you are quoting is the ambient temp to kick into the "High + KFT" table. These tables lower the water temp set point from the normal set point (106C to something much lower). However the data fe1rx posted shows water temps way way above the set point. Any reasonable control algorithm (I'm guessing its PID-based) in the DME should have saturated and be attempting to run the water pump HARD (like full on) to get back down to the set point. Tuning those tables differently will just change the set point (of a saturated control system) even lower... hard to imagine that makes any difference.
If I set my AC in my house to 40*F, I'm sure it won't get there. If I then lower it to 30*F will that change anything? If you are seeing consistent 280*F oil temps on track will a BMS oil temp bypass fix your oil temp problem?

So yea unless I see some real data (best would be actual temp changes from back-to-back tunes, otherwise duty cycle data under an overtemp situation), I am not believing tuning the coolant tables to a lower setpoint is going to help.

[bNks334]

Originally Posted by WhatsADSM

I'm not sure where you are getting this statement:
"the DME only commands 100% water pump duty cycle at WOT or 108f"

Do you have any data to back this claim up?

The 108*F number you are quoting is the ambient temp to kick into the "High + KFT" table. These tables lower the water temp set point from the normal set point (106C to something much lower). However the data fe1rx posted shows water temps way way above the set point. Any reasonable control algorithm (I'm guessing its PID-based) in the DME should have saturated and be attempting to run the water pump HARD (like full on) to get back down to the set point. Tuning those tables differently will just change the set point (of a saturated control system) even lower... hard to imagine that makes any difference.
If I set my AC in my house to 40*F, I'm sure it won't get there. If I then lower it to 30*F will that change anything? If you are seeing consistent 280*F oil temps on track will a BMS oil temp bypass fix your oil temp problem?

So yea unless I see some real data (best would be actual temp changes from back-to-back tunes, otherwise duty cycle data under an overtemp situation), I am not believing tuning the coolant tables to a lower setpoint is going to help.

You just said it yourself, the table for High +KFT mode is different, and the only way to kick the water pump into that table is to stay at WOT or be over 108f (stock settings). It 100% appears as if the pump is driven harder in HIGH and HIGH + KFT mode. I get what you're saying though... the pump should be at 100% as soon as the car goes over target of 223 (normal mode). However, you can't assume there is enough duty cycle in normal mode to ever hit 100%. Unfortunately, we don't have the pid to log water pump duty cycle with MHD. I can check "torque" or "carly" to see if they have the pid. I know Torque allows you to log the radiators fan speed.

The cooling systems capacity is still exceeded with track driving or even a 4th gear pull even when you force the car into high+kft mode at all times. What's the benefit of coding the tables then? The cars stays in high+kft mode at part throttle, or even off throttle, which allows the car to continue to shed heat down to coolant temps of as low as 180f. When you get back on throttle you now have a much higher ceiling before you get back into that danger zone of 230f+

[WhatsADSM]

Originally Posted by bNks334

You just said it yourself, the table for High +KFT mode is different, and the only way to kick the water pump into that table is to stay at WOT or be over 108f (stock settings). It 100% appears as if the pump is driven harder in HIGH and HIGH + KFT mode. I get what you're saying though... the pump should be at 100% as soon as the car goes over target of 223 (normal mode). However, you can't assume their is enough gain when the car is in that mode to ever hit 100% duty cycle. Unfortunately, we don't have the pid to log water pump duty cycle with MHD. I can check "torque" or "carly" to see if they have the pid. I know Torque allows you to log the radiators fan speed.

The cooling systems capacity is still exceeded with track driving or even a 4th gear pull even when you force the car into high+kft mode at all times. What's the benefit of coding the tables then? The cars stays in high+kft mode at part throttle, or even off throttle, which allows the car to continue to shed heat down to coolant temps of as low as 180f. When you get back on throttle you now have a much higher ceiling before you get back into that danger zone of 230f+

If you look at fe1rx's data you will find there are quite a few laps where the minimum value he logged is still over the set point (normal set point is 106). I do understand where you are coming from though, as under the off throttle sections *if* the DME is using the "normal" mode setpoint of 106 and you begin to approach that the P and D terms will soften and it will likely command something under 100%. It would be better to simply go full bore to try to build up a little extra buffer in the off/partial throttle sections. The reality is we really don't know how the DME switches between those tables and unfortunately we can't log either the coolant setpoint nor the commanded pump duty cycle (at least without bring out a scope and doing some tapping of wires).

So in terms of data we really would have to just rely on real world coolant temp data. Ideally we would try to control the variables so the only difference was the coolant tables. I.e. Same track, same day, same conditions, same driver, same tune except coolant tables. Kind of hard to do.

Your data is the closest thing we have to this, albeit not perfect. I download the CSVs threw them in excel and then trimmed them to the point where coolant and oil temps stabilized. Here is the data:



There does appear to be an improvement, but its not very big. On average roughly 3*F for coolant and oil temp. Interestingly the maximums are very close between the runs. Also it looks like the IATs were actually hotter with the COBB tune. Not sure the state of the modifications on the car, but that tends to suggest the ambient temps were actually hotter when you ran with the stock tables... Which makes the small improvement even less believable.

[bNks334]

Originally Posted by WhatsADSM

There does appear to be an improvement, but its not very big. On average roughly 3*F for coolant and oil temp. Interestingly the maximums are very close between the runs. Also it looks like the IATs were actually hotter with the COBB tune. Not sure the state of the modifications on the car, but that tends to suggest the ambient temps were actually hotter when you ran with the stock tables... Which makes the small improvement even less believable.

Seems like a bigger difference then that, but I don't know how you trimmed the data. Temps for the MHD tune don't hit the same temps for the COBB tune until almost the end of the session. The gains are seen every lap before then... you can't trim that data out lol And again, the MHD tune was seeing higher load peaks since coolant temps were lower and timing wasn't being pulled as much.

I get averages of (timestamp 300s-1250s):
MHD 200f coolant
COBB 212f coolant

MHD 247f oil
COBB 257f oil

I have a duct in place now that dumps air onto my turbo/exhaust manifold. I also wrapped all my piping in heat tape. Seems to have dropped IAT's a few degrees, but it was hard to quantify. Weather was 100% 88f and 86f. Next HPDE I can try stock cooling settings and then run the next session with race cooling settings. For now, this is the best data I've got and doing this type of stuff on track is usually the last thing on my mind! It takes a lot of time and effort to get good recordings and then to analyze the data.

Also to note is that I had PPK flashed as a base tune with the COBB flash. Those were not the "stock" cooling tables in the first log. PPK tune most certainly revised the cooling over stock, but not nearly as aggressively as MHD settings. That may be why I see a bit better cooling in all my HPDE logs vs others that don't have PPK base tune.

[WhatsADSM]

Originally Posted by bNks334

Seems like a bigger difference then that. I spent almost all of the latest log at around 255f oil whereas on the older log I am over 260f by the 1st lap. Coolant is also almost 10f+ delta difference across the entire session.

I have a duct that dumps air onto my turbo/exhaust manifold now. I also wrapped all my piping in heat tape. Seems to have dropped IAT's a few degrees, but it was hard to quantify.

Also to note is that I had PPK flashed as a base tune, which means those were not the "stock" cooling tables in the first log. PPK tune most certainly revised the cooling over stock, but not nearly as aggressively as MHD settings.

I can fully agree that running the water pump full bore the second you enter the track can certainly add a lap or so to a session, no doubt.

However the really important data occurs when you start to reach a thermal equilibrium. That tells you the truth about the cars ability to shed heat and stave off limp modes. I don't have a water pump issue but I know in my case my goal with oil temps is not just get 7 laps instead of 6, but rather ensure that I can run a full session.

Trust me I really had zero idea what the data would say before I compiled it. I simply open your logs found the begin/end timestamps where you got near thermal stabilization and trimmed them. Then I just ran the min, max, avg, median, std dev.

Here is the xls.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6K...w?usp=drivesdk

I do wonder what the PPK runs for cooling tables. It seems that MHD only exports the regular bin.... or at least I haven't seen a copy of PPK I dont think. It would be easy to open it up and look if someone has a copy.

[bNks334]

Originally Posted by WhatsADSM

I can fully agree that running the water pump full bore the second you enter the track can certainly add a lap or so to a session, no doubt.

However the really important data occurs when you start to reach a thermal equilibrium. That tells you the truth about the cars ability to shed heat and stave off limp modes. I don't have a water pump issue but I know in my case my goal with oil temps is not just get 7 laps instead of 6, but rather ensure that I can run a full session.

Trust me I really had zero idea what the data would say before I compiled it. I simply open your logs found the begin/end timestamps where you got near thermal stabilization and trimmed them. Then I just ran the min, max, avg, median, std dev.

Here is the xls.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6K...w?usp=drivesdk

I do wonder what the PPK runs for cooling tables. It seems that MHD only exports the regular bin.... or at least I haven't seen a copy of PPK I dont think. It would be easy to open it up and look if someone has a copy.

I updated my post. I'll take a look at how you compared the data. I trimmed off the first lap up to about the 1250s mark. I compared 15minutes of the two 20 minute sessions. One file had quiet a bit of extra at the end. Just visually looking at the two datazaps seems to be more than a 3f delta between the two days (closer to 10f), but it's not the best data anyway.

PPK bin: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9...l83WVdjdDVkVVk

I don't have software on my work computer to go looking into bins at work lol

I do find it really interesting that Fel1x didn't really see all that great of results from the CSF radiator. People have had much different things to say...

[fe1rx]

After 2 years and 7000 mostly track km, at my first track event this year my air conditioning stopped working. A quick check of system pressure showed the failure was due to a leak, with the condenser being the logical first suspect. No impact damage was apparent on the face of the condenser.

Pressurizing the system with inert gas showed that the leak was small, as no leak could be heard and the pressure dropped slowly. A bit of oily residue with aluminum dust in it at the lower RH corner of the condenser had me suspecting this was the location of the leak. I removed the bumper cover, intercooler, fan shroud and radiator to get enough access to replace the condenser, but before removing it I did a soapy water test to find the leak, which was indeed where I had suspected.

The cause was rubbing between the radiator and condenser. The radiator is pretty rugged and the wear barely shows.



The condenser tubes are very fragile by comparison.



The CSF radiator’s right hand tank welds align directly with the condenser’s fragile tubes producing a wear hazard.



On the left hand side, the contact is still metal-to-metal but is not on the fragile condenser tubes.



The OE radiator tanks have features that space the condenser tubes away from any chance of contact with points of abrasion.



Being plastic, the OE radiator tanks are inherently less abrasive than the CSF aluminum tanks.

[houtan]

Thanks for sharing this! I will have to look at mine to see if I will have the same issue.

So what did you come up with to prevent it from happening in the future?

[bbnks2]

Thanks for sharing. This is why people need to lay off knocking OE engineering LOL. There is 0 comparison between the amount of R&D a manufacturer goes through vs what these aftermarket companies do (which is basically none other then getting parts to fit a chassis).

[fe1rx]

Originally Posted by houtan

Thanks for sharing this! I will have to look at mine to see if I will have the same issue.

So what did you come up with to prevent it from happening in the future?

To fix this problem, I found some high temperature (400°F rated) silicone foam with a high temperature (350°F rated) pressure sensitive adhesive at McMaster Carr.

https://www.mcmaster.com/catalog/125/3717



I got some 1/16” thick and ¼” thick strips to cover the two levels of the radiator.





Here is how the new condenser looks without foam:





And with foam:

[fe1rx]

Installaton of the CSF radiator improved my cooling to barely adequate. To try and improve things further, I have added three Trackspec hood vents. Trackspec doesn't have a E82-specific kit, but E90 E92 M3 Center Vent and a pair of their Large Rectangular Universal Hood Louvers fits nicely in our cars, if you are prepared to do a bit of trimming of the hood reinforcing structure.

I will give them a good test this weekend at Calabogie where the temperatures are supposed to peak at 32°C / 81°F.

[mKilgore]

81F huh? that's a crisp spring day here in the southeast US lol.

[semaj]

Originally Posted by fe1rx

Installaton of the CSF radiator improved my cooling to barely adequate. To try and improve things further, I have added three Trackspec hood vents. Trackspec doesn't have a E82-specific kit, but E90 E92 M3 Center Vent and a pair of their Large Rectangular Universal Hood Louvers fits nicely in our cars, if you are prepared to do a bit of trimming of the hood reinforcing structure.

I will give them a good test this weekend at Calabogie where the temperatures are supposed to peak at 32°C / 81°F.

Attachment 2102888

Attachment 2102889

Do you have any more pictures of the car from afar? I'm curious what it looks like with the side vents too as I want to do the tracspec vents as well.

[fe1rx]

My car is an N54 with the original intercooler running a Stage 1 LT Drive Cobb AccessPort tune (which is very mild). I have left the tune there because I want the car to be driveable for extended 20-30 minute lapping sessions. The N54 is coolant temperature challenged, which has been my motivation to install the CSF radiator and now, hood vents. I have enough data that I can see how hood vents affect coolant and oil temperatures. The data presented is from the peak coolant and oil temperatures recorded during extended hot laps at a variety of outside air temperatures at several different tracks. Peak oil and peak water do not necessarily occur on the same lap or at the same place in the lap. Water in particular recovers quickly when pace is relaxed. Therefore any holdups (i.e. encountering slower traffic) can affect the results. I have included data from 25 lapping sessions without the hood vents and 15 lapping sessions with the hood vents. I have plotted maximum water temperature vs. OAT and also (maximum water temperature - OAT) vs. OAT. The two approaches reveal the same conclusions, but in a slightly different way. I could (and perhaps should) have kept only the highest recorded water and oil temperatures at each OAT for which I have data because only the highest values actually matter.

What is apparent is that there are 3 modes of operation: below about 16°C (61°F) the water temperature does not track OAT and is being regulated by the thermostat. Between 16-23°C (61-73°F) the thermostat is wide open and the radiator is working at peak capacity. Therefore the coolant temperature rises in direct proportion to OAT. Above 23°C (73°F) the coolant will reach the power reduction limit of 117°C and coolant temperature will not rise much above that level as power is progressively reduced to protect the engine.

Oil temperatures do not track OAT and are never an issue on my car.

The hood vents have no discernable impact on peak water or oil temperatures. Whatever the benefits of the hood vents, they don't extend to allowing extended lapping sessions at hotter outside air temperatures.

[davidwarren]

Felix, have you reprogrammed the coolant set points? MHD allows that. Maybe you mentioned, but what coolant are you using?

I’m running distilled and water wetter, no a/c, a hood vent, and the “sport” MHD setting. My coolant temps top out at 103C on track.

You might be seeing no change because the ECUbis still targeting 230f/110c