Does anyone know why if the water pump housing switch sides in '73, why it is so hard to find new aftermarket passenger side water pump housings? Fortunately there are used ones out there.
Yes. A/C compressor up top. They also used an idler pulley lower right to add another belt to run the water pump on the truck 440.
That looks like a van and RV setup with the P/S pump mounted up high like that. No trucks that I know of had that arrangement with the second idler pulley where the P/S pump usually sits.
Interesting concepts. I am a chemical engineer and studies heat transfer and even had to design a heat exchanger in college, but I also don't claim to know everything (and don't do this in my day job) and by no means have I tested water flow vs. heat transfer efficiency in cars. But knowing what I know about fluid flow and heat transfer, Kern Dog and Flowkooler can both be right. The generic theoretical heat transfer equation is Q = massflowrate X heat capacity X delta T). Heat transfer throught a heat exchanger is Q = U X A X delta T log (or Q = heat transfer coeffiecient of the exchanger X Area X log mean difference). And you need to calculate Reynolds, Nessult, and Prandtl number to calculate laminar / turbulent flows and calculation coefficients for the flow path. And Heat transfer of water flow calculations involve many calculations for real life applications where one has to take into account friction factors, heat transfer coefficients, fluid viscosity, laminar/turbulent flow path diameters and changes (hoses, radiator tubes (# rows/size), radiator capacity, air con, potential water pump cavitation, equipment damage/forces, driving speeds (racing or everyday), fan/shroud design and speed, etc. There are pump curves that optimize efficiency at various sizes and flow rates. IMO, at the end of the day, it depends on the size and design of each system to determine what is ideal flow for each system. Flow is too low when flow is laminar, but excessive flow beyond respectable turbulence can cause wasted energy and excessive friction that can cause short-and longterm pump caviatation (fluid vaporization which is not good for water flow) and other equipment damage. There are diminishing returns when flow reaches a certain point in a car system. This sounds obvious, but I would bet that prior Chrysler engineers and current Flowkooler engineers have run successful studies across various - typical applications so Flowcooler's pumps probably will be okay across the average Mopar setups - I would call them and ask what makes their pump special or maybe its on their webiste already. I don't think it as simple to says more or less flow, especially in far extremes, is better than one or the other for everyone's car and driving habits and use. There are probably a lot of conflicting opinons on this and I am all ears. I would need to see test data (with various main equipment and sizes) to form more definitive conclusions.
That setup is what Dodge put on my truck in 1978. I ordered it in November of 77 because I knew the 440 was going away. Pretty sure the RV's got it also. There were only 74 D150 trucks built in 78 that got the 440. Probably why you never saw one.
I have a 75 Power Wagon, 440 4 speed that had A/C. It didn't have that idler. They may have made changes after the '75 model year.
I had two of the 78 D150 SE trucks with the 440. One was shipped to CA and had all the smog junk on it where mine did not. Both had the 4 groove crank pulley and the idler. They also got a 28" radiator that was upgraded for 78. I just checked my parts book. It shows both 400 & 440 A, D & W trucks with Power Steering and A/C got the 4 groove and idler. Not sure about 77.
My 77 SE truck with the 440 had ac and I’m pretty sure it had an idler. Doubt I have a pic of that, but will look.
OUTSTANDING DISSERTATION and explanation.....as I use to design high temperature gas to gas heat exchangers, as used in heat recovery equipment. There are probably 4 or 5 people on this fotum that understand what you noted.....the rest of the "experts" subscribe to the "my buddy's said rule" or a fundamental lack of knowledge of thermodynamics. BTW....I use to design to 40-50 ft/sec velocity but the gas density was dependent on composition (sometimes CH4 or C3H8 or SO2 or "refinery gas" coming off of the catalytic cracking tower) and gas temperatures (waste gas temps of 2200° F preheating to 1700° F-1850°F) across Inconel 800HT tubes @ 125 PSI (ASME Class VIII, Div 1 Code stamped unfired pressure vessels)......and I've noted about water pump curves, RPMs, specific heat of the coolant......but was always "poo - pood" by the uneducated who know nothing about fluid dynamics, as noted in the bible: Crane's Flow of Fluids ..... but believe in what their next door's neighbor's cousin's sister's husband's best buddy says......as gospel......perhaps we can educate the non-believers......anyway....thanks for your input.....
Not necessarily.....since the system operates under pressure, the differential pressure, from the inlet (hot side coming from the engine) of the heat exchanger to the cold side of the heat exchanger (returning to the engine or water pump inlet) and because the tubes are in parallel flow, flow will divide equally thru the available tubes. Usually, X-flow designs present more surface area for heat transfer; remember, its the WWW between the tubes that provide the surface area of the heat exchanger.....more tubes + more WWW = more surface area = better efficiency......
The coolest running liquid is water + water wetter, but you can't use that if it freezes where you are, and it has no corrosion prevention.
WRONG.....SURFACE AREA plus velocity thru tubes is the key....either thru more tunes and surface area.....btw....do you understand thermodynamics or just hearsay?
WHY....the correct question is: which radiator has more surface area and which radiator has more fins / Inch (WWW folds) on the air side?? Answer....the one with more surface area....show us the air side fins/inch..
The solution to the argument is elegently simple......show us the dimensions, tube count, fin count of your example for comparison. And if you want, include your coolant velocity, coolant temperatures in and out of both coolant and ambient air side temps, as ambient temps effect BTU heat transfer differences......that way everyone will know which radiator design is more efficient....yes? A blanket comment without substantiation is USELESS.....WHY do you disagree??
