The V8 Owners Forum -

v8250 wrote:

mgbv8 wrote:V8250 ! Do you have any idea of the flow capacity of the ally rad you are thinking of using? I've been toying with the idea of converting my MGB rad to an ally one. But they seem to look the same size. The copper cores and fins of a stock rad will conduct heat away much better than aluminium core tubes and fins. So if the rads are similar in design the stock radiator should be better than the ally one shouldnt it? Although the ally rad will be a lot lighter than a brass and copper rad I think ! As a conductor of heat, copper is about 60% more efficient than ally from memory? Perry

Hi Perry, I don't know the true flow rate of the core, the input/output hose connection diameters are the same. When looking for radiators the majority of suppliers simply offer same size/design as a std radiator which, as you quite rightly say, only really gives gains due to weight. The reason why I opted for the Mulfab unit was the sensible increase in size, both core and top & bottom headers [take a close look at the pic' above], this should provide good volume/cooling capacity. The radiator fits under a std bonnet and does not protrude too low below the chassis rails :. no risk of damage. Re' core material, like for like core thermal txfr is circa' 60% better with a copper core assuming they're the same core format. The Mulfab unit uses a danish manufacturer core [can't remember the name right now...], they're very well proven with good fin-to-tube contact area. Many MG V8 racers with high o/p John Eales engines use the Mulfab unit so my choice for this unit with the little 4.0 TVR engine will be fine. Not sure what else to say except I think the radiator is the best available for design/size/efficiency to cost.

Also, I have noted your good advice re' engine stabilizer bar and it makes some sense to install a secondary bar lower down to counteract driver side engine lift. From your experience, what's the engine vibration transfer levels like when a second bar is installed?

Rgds,
Andrew

Welshie wrote:Thanks both, food for thought.

Perry, when you say the 'usual' front bracket do you mean one similar to the Clive Wheatley one that goes from the front cylinder head to chassis rail?

Welshie wrote:Thanks I'm going to fabricate my own.

v8250 wrote:

Welshie wrote:Thanks I'm going to fabricate my own.

Welshie, could you post a pic' of this when done. I'm not certain if my car will need a second bar at the moment, a little concerned at Perry's experience with the Clive Wheatley bar but Perry's engine is putting out considerably more power and is snap hard acceleration...my little 250bhp unit is a baby by comparison...

Welshie wrote:Will be next year now, but will definitely post pics.

3xpendable wrote:Wow, I just browsed through your thread and loved it. Will definitely read in more detail later! I got some ideas too, like the fuel tank heat reflection. I had considered doing that but now I will for sure. I take it you are running twin pipes?

Mine is a messy build compared to yours, but it's being done on a budget. I looked high and low for an extension peice for the gearbox tunnel!!! I asked Heritage and they couldnt find it even though it's on their new shells! My father made one in the end.

I'm of the comclusion now that my car will be 'done when it's done' and I don't get much time to work on it, but it comes along in chunks. It will be 4 years next September that I started the work in earnest so it would be good to have it done by then. I decided against Dynamat as it's so damned expensive. I found a few alternatives I'm going to try.

Are you a member on MG Experience?

3xpendable wrote:Pics aren't showing mate, which ones are you referring to?