FYI there on the back of a curt leduc built 7s ranger. the shocks are 3.0 SAW 16" tripple bypasses
keeping shocks temps down....there WAY to hot
keeping shocks temps down....there WAY to hot
okay so at the last MDR Plaster City race we came in for a pit/driver/codriver change after the first lap and while a buddy was running around the truck shaking the tires to check for wheel bearing issues (which weve been having) he touched the shock body and roasted his fingers in a matter of seconds, we put a heat gun on it and it said 450
!!! how do we keep them down.
FYI there on the back of a curt leduc built 7s ranger. the shocks are 3.0 SAW 16" tripple bypasses
FYI there on the back of a curt leduc built 7s ranger. the shocks are 3.0 SAW 16" tripple bypasses
SMT Racing: Co-Dog
- Nick
- Founder
- Posts: 3973
- Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:36 pm
- Bronco Info: 1995 bird poop target
- Location: La Habra Ca.
Re: keeping shocks temps down....there WAY to hot
It sounds like it may be a valving issue.
"If at first you don't succeed, it may be cheaper to buy it."
Re: keeping shocks temps down....there WAY to hot
If you've looked at the valving and check the PSI then look at an external way to dissipate the heat. Cheapest would be to allow air to circulate around the shock and reservoir more efficiently. Relocate the reservoirs away from heat sources. You could possibly run some sort of oil heat exchanger midstream between the reservoir and shock body, or thirdly would be to install fins on the reservoir.
- magic carpet XLT
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:01 pm
- Location: santa cruz
Re: keeping shocks temps down....there WAY to hot
could be air in the shocks. or the bypass tubes could be all the way closed.
-
randomthoughtsracing
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:46 pm
- Location: so cal.
Re: keeping shocks temps down....there WAY to hot
-Dont have the exhaust dump upstream of the shocks.
-What pressure are you running?
-If you are oversprung then there may be quite a bit of rebound valving trying to control the rear. To little spring and there may be too much compression valving...
-If the heat gun is the infrared type it needs to be pointed at a non reflective surface. Shiny shock bodies throw off the readings.
-Try a Howe power steering cooler with as short of a hose as possible.
-What pressure are you running?
-If you are oversprung then there may be quite a bit of rebound valving trying to control the rear. To little spring and there may be too much compression valving...
-If the heat gun is the infrared type it needs to be pointed at a non reflective surface. Shiny shock bodies throw off the readings.
-Try a Howe power steering cooler with as short of a hose as possible.
- Attachments
-
- 4 runner 023web.jpg (55.04 KiB) Viewed 1554 times
- philofab
- Basura Blanca
- Posts: 5643
- Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:37 am
- Bronco Info: A pile of crap.
- Location: Bullhead, AZ
- Contact:
Re: keeping shocks temps down....there WAY to hot
I was going to post that same picture Joel! A 3.0 should not be overheating on that light of truck.
Follow me on Instagram. @philofab1 or Youtube https://www.youtube.com/philofab/
Re: keeping shocks temps down....there WAY to hot
The 1 car I chased for in the 1000 burned the fox decals on the reservoir. One shock blew the seal the other worked fine.
- SteveG
- Admin
- Posts: 6177
- Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:25 am
- Bronco Info: Wilson: 96, Stretched 17.5", coil-overs / Bypasses, 4-link, a fridge and all the amenities :)
- Location: Arroyo Grande, CA
Re: keeping shocks temps down....there WAY to hot
Cool shock, Joel. I wonder if that cooler would work significantly better in a piggyback configuration then with the reservoir hose ported off the bottom of the cooler.randomthoughtsracing wrote:-Try a Howe power steering cooler with as short of a hose as possible.
In a bypass with the reservoir hose ported off the bottom of the shock body you could put the cooler right on the shock and remote mount the reservoir with a hose. Maybe even add a large block between the shock body and reservoir to aid heat-sinking. It would be fun to experiment with stuff like this.
Sho nuff,
SteveG
SteveG
- Nick
- Founder
- Posts: 3973
- Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:36 pm
- Bronco Info: 1995 bird poop target
- Location: La Habra Ca.
Re: keeping shocks temps down....there WAY to hot
Hmm...that's a very interesting idea. My 2.5's are piggybacks ported off the bottom of the shock. What do you think of replacing the existing resi with a power steering cooler, then adding a 3.0 resi after that?SteveG wrote: Cool shock, Joel. I wonder if that cooler would work significantly better in a piggyback configuration then with the reservoir hose ported off the bottom of the cooler.
If shock temperatures become a problem it might be something worth trying.
"If at first you don't succeed, it may be cheaper to buy it."
- Deleted Account
- Posts: 531
- Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:41 pm
- Bronco Info: depends on what day
- Location: Ramona, California
Re: keeping shocks temps down....there WAY to hot
Racing not at Plaster City makes the bigest differance. 
Mark Kiefer
Southwest Performance
858-449-2292
http://www.southwestperformance.net
Pics
http://www.photobucket.com/home/southwe ... /allalbums
http://www.facebook.com/SouthwestPerformance
Southwest Performance
858-449-2292
http://www.southwestperformance.net
Pics
http://www.photobucket.com/home/southwe ... /allalbums
http://www.facebook.com/SouthwestPerformance
- philofab
- Basura Blanca
- Posts: 5643
- Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:37 am
- Bronco Info: A pile of crap.
- Location: Bullhead, AZ
- Contact:
Re: keeping shocks temps down....there WAY to hot
A 3.0 resi is only bigger because of the added shaft volume it needs to compensate for. There is not much more surface area to help cooling. You would be better off doing a one way valve and a return line so the oil circulated in the shock.Nick wrote:Hmm...that's a very interesting idea. My 2.5's are piggybacks ported off the bottom of the shock. What do you think of replacing the existing resi with a power steering cooler, then adding a 3.0 resi after that?
If shock temperatures become a problem it might be something worth trying.
Follow me on Instagram. @philofab1 or Youtube https://www.youtube.com/philofab/
- bajascott
- My belly is my best friend
- Posts: 2006
- Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:29 pm
- Bronco Info: its black, its fun to drive,and i dont have enough money to build it the way i want to!:)
- Location: southern oregon
- Contact:
Re: keeping shocks temps down....there WAY to hot
hahahahahahaha yea you are right. i raced there in a 9 car and 5/16 car in the early 90's and it was BEAT then.mkiefer wrote:Racing not at Plaster City makes the bigest differance.
- Nick
- Founder
- Posts: 3973
- Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:36 pm
- Bronco Info: 1995 bird poop target
- Location: La Habra Ca.
Re: keeping shocks temps down....there WAY to hot
I wasn't really thinking in terms of surface cooling area, i was thinking about the added oil volume. The resis on a saw piggy back are teenie. I was thinking that adding the cooler, and a larger resi would be beneficial.philofab wrote:A 3.0 resi is only bigger because of the added shaft volume it needs to compensate for. There is not much more surface area to help cooling. You would be better off doing a one way valve and a return line so the oil circulated in the shock.Nick wrote:Hmm...that's a very interesting idea. My 2.5's are piggybacks ported off the bottom of the shock. What do you think of replacing the existing resi with a power steering cooler, then adding a 3.0 resi after that?
If shock temperatures become a problem it might be something worth trying.
"If at first you don't succeed, it may be cheaper to buy it."
- philofab
- Basura Blanca
- Posts: 5643
- Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:37 am
- Bronco Info: A pile of crap.
- Location: Bullhead, AZ
- Contact:
Re: keeping shocks temps down....there WAY to hot
Oil volume will only help if it circulates... the oil in a shock does not.Nick wrote:I wasn't really thinking in terms of surface cooling area, i was thinking about the added oil volume. The resis on a saw piggy back are teenie. I was thinking that adding the cooler, and a larger resi would be beneficial.philofab wrote:A 3.0 resi is only bigger because of the added shaft volume it needs to compensate for. There is not much more surface area to help cooling. You would be better off doing a one way valve and a return line so the oil circulated in the shock.Nick wrote:Hmm...that's a very interesting idea. My 2.5's are piggybacks ported off the bottom of the shock. What do you think of replacing the existing resi with a power steering cooler, then adding a 3.0 resi after that?
If shock temperatures become a problem it might be something worth trying.
Follow me on Instagram. @philofab1 or Youtube https://www.youtube.com/philofab/
- tcm glx
- Peanut Butter
- Posts: 7309
- Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:19 am
- Bronco Info: 93 Ford Bronco 5.8
- Location: Riverside Ca
- Contact:
Re: keeping shocks temps down....there WAY to hot
philofab wrote:
Oil volume will only help if it circulates... the oil in a shock does not.
But more oil volume means it stays cooler doesnt? I mean if I understand correctly, 10 qts stay cooler than 5 qts right? (as an example)
- philofab
- Basura Blanca
- Posts: 5643
- Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:37 am
- Bronco Info: A pile of crap.
- Location: Bullhead, AZ
- Contact:
Re: keeping shocks temps down....there WAY to hot
If it circulates... but nothing really does that in a shock other than maybe a little convection.tcm glx wrote:philofab wrote:
Oil volume will only help if it circulates... the oil in a shock does not.
But more oil volume means it stays cooler doesnt? I mean if I understand correctly, 10 qts stay cooler than 5 qts right? (as an example)
If more volume automatically meant cooler shocks everyone would sell a 2.0 shock with a 4 gallon resi.
Follow me on Instagram. @philofab1 or Youtube https://www.youtube.com/philofab/
- Nick
- Founder
- Posts: 3973
- Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:36 pm
- Bronco Info: 1995 bird poop target
- Location: La Habra Ca.
Re: keeping shocks temps down....there WAY to hot
I got this line of thinking from some old class 11 guys. Since as we all know they are restricted as to suspension, they would use huge resis on their shocks to help keep things cool. Further, look at the pic that Joel put up, a huge blackhawk resi on a 2.5.philofab wrote:If it circulates... but nothing really does that in a shock other than maybe a little convection.tcm glx wrote:philofab wrote:
Oil volume will only help if it circulates... the oil in a shock does not.
But more oil volume means it stays cooler doesnt? I mean if I understand correctly, 10 qts stay cooler than 5 qts right? (as an example)
If more volume automatically meant cooler shocks everyone would sell a 2.0 shock with a 4 gallon resi.
"If at first you don't succeed, it may be cheaper to buy it."
- SteveG
- Admin
- Posts: 6177
- Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:25 am
- Bronco Info: Wilson: 96, Stretched 17.5", coil-overs / Bypasses, 4-link, a fridge and all the amenities :)
- Location: Arroyo Grande, CA
Re: keeping shocks temps down....there WAY to hot
The Blackhawk reservoirs have valving in the reservoir which will also create heat... not the case with a non-Blackhawk reservoir.
Sho nuff,
SteveG
SteveG
-
randomthoughtsracing
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:46 pm
- Location: so cal.
Re: keeping shocks temps down....there WAY to hot
Exactly, the shock pictured above does generate heat at the reservoir due to the second valve stack. The length of hose pictured on the coilover would definately not be ideal for any heat exchange.
Try some rough math on the hose volume vs. the rod volume.
-8 hose is 7/16ID = .4375" this gives a 12" -8 hose an internal fluid volume of around 8.24 cubic inches.
7/8 rod is .875 giving it a displecement of 1.373 per inch of rod stroke.
So in order for even a little bit of fluid (let alone a big shot) from the shock to reach the reservoir the shock would need to cycle over 6". An 18" hose would need more than 9" of stroke.
As a subsequent design I ran this setup on the front of AGM's class 1 car at the 1000. The piggyback reservoir is full of fluid and the second reservoir houses the dividing piston. San Felipe is coming...
Try some rough math on the hose volume vs. the rod volume.
-8 hose is 7/16ID = .4375" this gives a 12" -8 hose an internal fluid volume of around 8.24 cubic inches.
7/8 rod is .875 giving it a displecement of 1.373 per inch of rod stroke.
So in order for even a little bit of fluid (let alone a big shot) from the shock to reach the reservoir the shock would need to cycle over 6". An 18" hose would need more than 9" of stroke.
As a subsequent design I ran this setup on the front of AGM's class 1 car at the 1000. The piggyback reservoir is full of fluid and the second reservoir houses the dividing piston. San Felipe is coming...
SteveG wrote:The Blackhawk reservoirs have valving in the reservoir which will also create heat... not the case with a non-Blackhawk reservoir.
- Attachments
-
- 100_0710web.jpg (93.4 KiB) Viewed 1467 times
Last edited by randomthoughtsracing on Wed Jan 27, 2010 8:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- SteveG
- Admin
- Posts: 6177
- Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:25 am
- Bronco Info: Wilson: 96, Stretched 17.5", coil-overs / Bypasses, 4-link, a fridge and all the amenities :)
- Location: Arroyo Grande, CA
Re: keeping shocks temps down....there WAY to hot
Another cool shock, Joel!
This might be bordering on top-secret here, but what kind of valve changes (in the shock) were you able to make because of the Blackhawk reservoir? Did you have to lighten the valving to get the same damping?
I know the Blackhawks are only for Bilsteins, but they sure would look good attached to a pair of these.
This might be bordering on top-secret here, but what kind of valve changes (in the shock) were you able to make because of the Blackhawk reservoir? Did you have to lighten the valving to get the same damping?
I know the Blackhawks are only for Bilsteins, but they sure would look good attached to a pair of these.
- Attachments
-
- 4.0SAWCoilBucket.jpg (90.2 KiB) Viewed 1460 times
Sho nuff,
SteveG
SteveG
