The Diesel Garage banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
81 - 100 of 131 Posts

· BUG JUICER and
Joined
·
1,256 Posts
idahofox said:
Dollar to a donut hole, the fan mounting is a mirror, fan also. ? ? ?
?


all new components, all new strategy. Even tip clearances were reduced. The fan shroud is now integral to the motor, where is used to be integral to the body. So the fan and shroud can move together now.

Also the fan is 26". 50% larger than the 21" of earlier models.

All wonderful ideas, but the air still has major restrictions, by virtue of aerodynamic design and motor bay crowding. These were not addressed, as far as I can see.

The new fan is said to be quite loud also, FWIW.
 

· BUG JUICER and
Joined
·
1,256 Posts
Going back in time (memory is 46 years old, a commodore 64):

The part of the 06 shroud that attaches to the motor, can be attached on the 04, with possibly small changes.

But won't work with the other 04 parts, rad and rad mounted shroud.



Lb7/lly: rad mounted shroud, motor mounted fan, large gaps (bad) between fan tips and shroud id.

LBZ/06 LLY: half of shroud is a cage that surround the (larger) fan. This meshes to a rad mounted shroud using flexible rubber. Advantage: less tip clearance required, less shroud air recirculation, more (true ambient) air movement

I'm tired, phew.
 

· Senior Member
Joined
·
4,758 Posts
Discussion Starter · #84 ·
stevebos said:
I'll do it! If LBZ components can be retrofitted to a LLY, surely the LLY components can be installed on a LBZ! Does anybody know where I can rent a LBZ - equipped truck? :muha :jk

Hmmmm..up for a "weekend test-drive", eh Steve?
 

· BUG JUICER and
Joined
·
1,256 Posts
Tom

I did a side-side comparison some months ago. I just remember thinking..."yuk, everything is changed" Perhaps it looked worse than it was, but it seemed to me substructure was all redesigned. Even the tranny line routing was lowered, to a new low mount TOC.

If anything, all these nose changes/redesign did was make the fan more effective. Having listened to the LBZ folks, these fans run annoyingly like the LLY, even empty. I know this is a culture that has become accustomed to "you hear the fan and it's good news".

Nonsense. These are my experiences so far.

GM forgot to address inherent airflow in the redesign. They merely needed to design in lower pressure under body, and the problem would have been reduced to tolerable nuisance calls, IMO. The LLY (and LBZ) stack suffer from lousy throughput, the fraction of ambient air that makes it through the stack, at a given speed. It's 12% (of driving speed) with no fan. At 70 mph, there is around 10 mph flow.

The LLY towing envelope increases dramatically, just by adding a mod that moves a greater fraction through the stack at speed. Fingers demonstrated this a year ago with an air dam. While not pretty, he made a good discovery. The current stack and aero combination is underutilized. There is lots more heat exchange available just by getting more air through. Ambient air shortage is choking heat exchange at all times. But it only shows through under max demand, and high OAT's.

IOW, there is no "cause". We run out of heat exchange capacity. There are a few measures that I have found, that improve cooling system function. Some cheap, some expensive. The part retrofit, looks to me to be expensive and impractical, since it does not address what I want to address, ridding the fan. Ridding it completely, except at low speeds. It is errosive to economy, a nuisance to my eardrum, polluting, and just plain power sucking. I don't want a fan that works better, louder, and bigger. I don't want a fan that gets me to the next stoplight. People look at this thing in horror. The HP it consumes in a city drive, could power a house easily. The added pollution, just due to fan ops, is substantial. There all kinds of reasons to not improve it, IMO. I truly feel that GM missed the mark, even in their best attempt. It may take longer to overheat the LBZ, but they didn't fix the (main) deficiency. Cooling air shortage

IMO

All heat to be removed, must be absorbed by the air. The limitation in this issue, is the regulated temp of the coolant. At best, air can only heat up to the coolant inlet temp, about 200 degrees. Once air is at 200 degrees, it has no more heat capacity to carry more, so ect rises. (the only problem with ect rise, is that the system behavior begins to change also, especially pressure sensitive coolant properties) Adding airflow, allows more air mass to carry away more heat at this temperature.

This is the premise of my conclusions 2 years ago, and to this day, I have found nothing to controvert it. A few other improvements to be had, outside of airflow improvements include

A mechanism to remove entrained gasses (if present)
Added heat removal capacity, in the form of oil cooling
Coolant change to 30-40% G-05 HOAT, with a front thermostat change
Tuning-EFI has the best possibilities here, IMO
Improving IAT with a good (not aftermarket) CAI. A power draining thermal feedback loop exists in the stocker.
EPA equipment removal/modification-these are controversial, as they require breaking the law.

note: Different coolants have different properties, G-05 (a hybrid organic acid coolant) is the only one I have used and tested, so there may be others. GM tends to get upset at us for taking these things into our own hands, just be aware, they consider anything but dex-cool to be a warranty exclusion. Which I find interesting, since that position is in direct violation of the Magn Moss Warranty Act (law), which requires them to supply it for free, if they are to take this stand.
 

· Senior Member
Joined
·
128 Posts
killerbee said:
There is lots more heat exchange available just by getting more air through. Ambient air shortage is choking heat exchange at all times. But it only shows through under max demand, and high OAT's.
I'm aware some have tried to improve air flow thru the stack by installing louvres in the hood, with marginal results.

Has anyone tried fabricating a hood with prominent heat extractors, a la Mustang?
 

Attachments

· Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
stevebos said:
I'm aware some have tried to improve air flow thru the stack by installing louvres in the hood, with marginal results.

Has anyone tried fabricating a hood with prominent heat extractors, a la Mustang?
Hey stevebos, glad to see you over here. :) One of the most interesting discussions we had on another unmentioned site was the affects of +Pressure and -Pressure on airflow to/thru the stack. There was a small handful of guys that really understood this and took the time to educate the rest of us, very much appreciated.

IIRC adding scoops on the hood would introduce more +P behind the stack when what is needed is -P. Keep the +P on the front of the truck and in front of the stack while lowering -P in the engine compartment and behind the stack and you will have better airflow. This is why simply removing the splash guard has such a positive affect on ECT's.

I went to school on these guys and had impressive results with the airflow mods on my truck, even the patented :tease JJ tow hook mod. KB found later that closing these openings was in fact beneficial to airflow (validated, finally). Hope this helps. JJ
 

· BUG JUICER and
Joined
·
1,256 Posts
JJs CAT said:
I went to school on these guys and had impressive results with the airflow mods on my truck, even the patented :tease JJ tow hook mod. KB found later that closing these openings was in fact beneficial to airflow (validated, finally). Hope this helps. JJ
:bow:

Now hush yourself. You have been well paid. Go back to the leisure life. :nunu:
 

· Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
killerbee said:
:bow:

Now hush yourself. You have been well paid. Go back to the leisure life. :nunu:
Check bounced, wazzup w'dat? :shrug: :jk

Tom, IIRC we had discussion about the 04's almost being too aerodynamic in the front. IIRC the higher bulbus hood provides more frontal area up front and increases +P. I hope I'm remembering this stuff right, it's been a while. JJ
 

· Senior Member
Joined
·
4,758 Posts
Discussion Starter · #92 ·
JJs CAT said:
Tom, IIRC we had discussion about the 04's almost being too aerodynamic in the front. IIRC the higher bulbus hood provides more frontal area up front and increases +P. I hope I'm remembering this stuff right, it's been a while. JJ
The only thing about that is, why weren't GMCs changed? They've been close to the same for 6 years. This is the first time I've ever heard of a vehicle being "too aerodynamic". That just doesn't make sense to me.

Did anyone ever do a study on which model tended to O/H more often? Chevy vs GMC
 

· Senior Member
Joined
·
4,758 Posts
Discussion Starter · #93 ·
OK, after doing some lookups online at various parts suppliers, I've come up with this:

Water pump: LB7, LLY are the same. Couldn't find a listing for LBZ.

Fan clutch: LB7, LLY are the same. LBZ is different part number.

Fan: LB7, LLY are the same. LBZ is different (but we knew that)

A/T oil cooler: same for all three engine models.

Radiator: Surprisingly, the SAME RADIATOR is listed for LB7, LLY and 06 LLY. I could not find LBZ part number. But hasn't it been determined that the 06 LLY and LBZ are the same engine, different programming? Someone explain that.
 

· BUG JUICER and
Joined
·
1,256 Posts
TheBac said:
This is the first time I've ever heard of a vehicle being "too aerodynamic". That just doesn't make sense to me.
absolutely. It is the kiss of death to the HD cooling system. If you square off the nose to the wind, it cost you a few lbs of drag. Air must hit the "wall" and go through. Aerodynamics sends the air over and under. Mileage increases but cooling capacity decreases, with less of that air running THROUGH. THROUGHput

The bulbus nose is an attempt to square off the nose, using an appealing method. It didn't do much however. Also, the taller profile has greater lift. That is the hood I would want if planning to cut in suction vents
 

· Senior Member
Joined
·
4,758 Posts
Discussion Starter · #97 ·
killerbee said:
The rads are not the same for all vehicles. I would be very surprised to learn that the 06 LLY rad is the same as earlier models

TOC is different also.
I'm going to do some more in-depth checking on that. Also check on the rad supports.
 

· Senior Member
Joined
·
128 Posts
JJs CAT said:


Keep the +P on the front of the truck and in front of the stack while lowering -P in the engine compartment and behind the stack and you will have better airflow
Good to hear from you, JJ! :) Information was posted about aerodynamic pressures along the planes of the hood and windshield. IIRC, the pressure was least at the leading edge of the hood and increased to a maximum at the base of the windshield.

I'm curious about the effectiveness of rear facing extractor vents located near the leading edge of the hood; is the P there less than the P in the engine compartment?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
stevebos said:
Good to hear from you, JJ! :) Information was posted about aerodynamic pressures along the planes of the hood and windshield. IIRC, the pressure was least at the leading edge of the hood and increased to a maximum at the base of the windshield.

I'm curious about the effectiveness of rear facing extractor vents located near the leading edge of the hood; is the P there less than the P in the engine compartment?
IIRC the highest +P was low on the front of the vehicle just below the stack, the area where the hood and windshield meet is dead air, no flow. KB did some charting of this and a little experiment where he placed strips of fabric on the hood, the strips up near the windshield hardly moved. I went after pressure enhancements big time, even plugged the tow hook openings to keep the RAM air on the front of the truck longer, IMHO it worked.

Rear facing extractor vents may be a very good idea for improving -P under the hood. I saw a new Escalade with some sweet looking fender vents that might work. JJ :)
 
81 - 100 of 131 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top