oil in coolant Reservoir

GordnadoCRD · **Posted:** Wed Aug 30, 2017 10:33 pm

Thanks again for all the effort you put into this diagram, WWDiesel.

It explains in detail, on one page, what several pages worth of partial explanations in the FSM explain in a very confusing manner.

flash7210 · **Posted:** Thu Aug 31, 2017 5:52 am

Quote:

As to the flow off the thermostat to the viscous heater and heater core, this flow never passed through the head ever as well

This statement is incorrect.
Hot coolant comes out of the head, goes into the thermostat housing, and then to the viscous heater and cabin heater.

However, the diagram you posted is accurate.

I too do not advocate the use of an in-line thermostat and had suffered through an expensive repair because of it.

joe_ · **Posted:** Thu Aug 31, 2017 11:29 am

If I'm reading the diagram correctly, it's showing that the source of coolant for the viscous heater/heater core and the coolant expansion tank is coolant that's flowing out of the head and through the thermostat housing. From what I'm seeing, only the lowest hose barb (bypass to the water pump inlet) and the highest hose barb (outlet to the radiator) are affected by the thermostat valve; the others are always open. Taking this into consideration, it seems that there is always a path for coolant to flow through the head, even with the combination of a failed OEM thermostat (closed bypass) and an in-hose/inline thermostat (closed radiator hose).

However as flash said, I personally would not recommend the inline thermostat option, nor would I use one myself.

WWDiesel · **Posted:** Thu Aug 31, 2017 12:27 pm

joe_ wrote:

If I'm reading the diagram correctly, it's showing that the source of coolant for the viscous heater/heater core and the coolant expansion tank is coolant that's flowing out of the head and through the thermostat housing. From what I'm seeing, only the lowest hose barb (bypass to the water pump inlet) and the highest hose barb (outlet to the radiator) are affected by the thermostat valve; the others are always open. Taking this into consideration, it seems that there is always a path for coolant to flow through the head, even with the combination of a failed OEM thermostat (closed bypass) and an in-hose/inline thermostat (closed radiator hose).
However as flash said, I personally would not recommend the inline thermostat option, nor would I use one myself.

I stand corrected, both you and flash are correct on the flow to the heater core being constant off the thermostat. Thanks for pointing out this overlook on my part. :roll:

Went back and edited the post!

Still if you look at flow rates through the viscous heater and then heater core, it is very small to depend on this alone to properly protect the head during the critical warm up cycles of the engine.
I stand with both of you on never using an inline thermostat and that was my original intent to convey in my post.....

TURBO-DIESEL-FREAK · **Joined:** Sat Apr 17, 2010 3:29 pm **Posts:** 1167

geordi wrote:

Right back at you.

You have made numerous statements about how the engineers think - even in the posting demanding me to justify my existence to you. So do the same: What training do you have, what engineers have you gotten written responses from, what proof of any of your claims can you offer?

I observe the forum and the reports people make of issues. Everyone is so concerned about this bypass design from the thermostat, but ignoring the reality that there are MULTIPLE pathways that are never closed for that same bypass to exist.

The EGR cooler outlet from the head, loops back to the inlet, bypassing the thermostat completely, it is never closed.
The oil cooler outlet from the block, loops back to the inlet, bypassing the thermostat completely, it is never closed.
The heater loop through the viscous heater exits from the middle of the thermostat, bypassing the thermostat completely, it is never closed.
The off-gas port from the thermostat exits from the middle of the thermostat to the coolant bottle and right back to the inlet, it is never closed.

Observation is a key of any scientist's tool box, yet you seem incapable of it on your own. This is an easy one to observe and test. If there was no flow when the thermostat bypass is closed as you contend, how would the cooling system be able to be filled without heating the thermostat (either idea) up to the opening temperature?

So what formal training do you have that justifies you claiming what someone else thinks, and questioning anyone else? You want to make the accusations, but never answer any questions yourself, you just jump right to attacking me. I DO NOT ADVOCATE ANY PARTICULAR DESIGN OF THERMOSTAT. LET PEOPLE OBSERVE AND DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES WHAT THEY WANT.

Actually, geordi, observation is one of my best skills... it is what helped me to design the Model 001. Your accusation that I lack observation skills ironically reveals the lack of skills that you have.

As far as my credentials are concerned, I know my limits. I am not an engineer, but I know enough to know that I must conduct detailed research before I start mucking around with someone else's design. I therefore consulted professionals and engineers before designing the Model 001 and then developed the Model 001 with their recommendations accounted for. And NO, I did not create or keep detailed engineering reports/studies/observations because I didn't think I would need to deal with the likes of you.

Essentially, all of the experts I consulted strongly recommended a design that exactly mimics the O.E. thermostat, precisely BECAUSE I do not have a million dollar laboratory to experiment in AND I should not second guess what the original designers of the R428's cooling system have done. In my consultations with the Stant engineer, he instructed that I should do the following if I am to raise the operating temperature of the R428 engine...

1) Use the same design thermostat valve as the O.E. valve; essentially, keep the design the same.

2) Make the assembly larger to flow more coolant as compensation for operating the engine at a higher temperature.

I have done both of these things, and it has resulted in a product that performs at a much higher level than the O.E. thermostat. I have done my due diligence in designing the Hot Diesel Solutions Model 001. I will state for the record that engineering studies are not required for the Model 001 because there has been no changes to the design of the R428 engine's cooling system.

Due diligence has not been done on the in-hose thermostat fix, which has been around a long before I came into the picture. It is hypocritical of you to insist I provide proof for my product, but you have not asked the same of this so-called upgrade. An actual change to the design of the R428 engine's cooling system occurs when someone installs this B.S. fix, and I contend that this is where an engineering study REALLY needs to be done. Taking a cue from your insistence that I provide proof for my Model 001, where is the engineering studies done for the in-hose thermostat valve fix?

You are also wrong about another thing; I HAVE given complete answers to questions put to me... YOU and others like you simply haven't been listening.

I agree, observation is a very important key to a scientist's toolbox, but to a scientist with an engineering degree it is also very important to pay heed and respect to another engineer's design. All of these other pathways you write about for the coolant to flow without going through the bypass valve exist, but the engineers who designed the R428 engine obviously felt that an ADDITIONAL bypass circuit is required, otherwise why would they spend the time and effort to design the additional bypass circuit in?

Neither you nor I have the multi-million dollar laboratories and engineering facilities to make the determination of what is required and what is not required in any given engine. In this case, you have a high compression engine that is additionally boosted by a turbocharger, with an aluminum cylinder head on an iron block. This is the absolute worst case scenario for maintaining cylinder head gasket integrity... the engineers who designed this engine probably felt that a LOT of coolant needs to be circulating through the engine at ALL times, even during warm-up and any time the main thermostat valve controlling coolant flow to the radiator is shut.

The bottom line is this... the engineers put in a dedicated cooling system bypass circuit. The H.D.S. Model 001 respects what has been done here, and the in-hose thermostat fix does not... end of story. For you to make the assumption that these other circuits are "good enough" and therefore the bypass circuit can therefore be ignored is extremely unprofessional of you, and NOT worthy of someone who claims to know these engines very well and who is selling his services as a CRD engine repairman.

["Observation is a key of any scientist's tool box, yet you seem incapable of it on your own. This is an easy one to observe and test. If there was no flow when the thermostat bypass is closed as you contend, how would the cooling system be able to be filled without heating the thermostat (either idea) up to the opening temperature?"

You wrote the above comment... I have repeated it here because of how gobsmacked I am at your stupidity.... My only rebuttal to this idiotic comment is that IF THE ENGINE IS COLD, THE BYPASS CIRCUIT IS OPEN. But even if it is closed the cooling system would completely fill anyway... your lack of understanding of cooling systems and flow dynamics is truly breathtaking, geordi.

papaindigo · **Posted:** Thu Aug 31, 2017 3:41 pm

No I don't have a clue why the OP has that much oil in the coolant tank but why are we having this double darn (FYI my stronger term has automatically been softened) useless debate again. Folks a bit of history from someone who has been around way too long. Going back as far as I've worked, no not ASE trained or whatever, including working on car engines built before I could drive. Early engines "bypass" circuit was pretty simple - 1) thermostat closed coolant only circulated thru the block/head unless you paid extra for an optional cabin heater in which case it also flowed thru cabin heater; 2) thermostat open coolant circulated thru block and radiator; 3) thermostat failed to open massive amount of steam from hood and maybe a blown engine; 4) early mechanic solution - drill small hole in thermostat skirt so some coolant ALWAYS flowed to radiator which won't prevent overheating but will prevent #3). PS all cars had temp gauges with real needles to monitor minor overheating. PPS if tstat failed closed short term solution pop out the bad tstat button things back up and drive without a tstat - worked great but not so much in winter.

Fast forward to today and CRD. Not technically much different in that one way or another coolant always flows thru the block/head and since cabin heaters are no longer optional at extra $s thru the cabin heater until tstat opens and diverts some portion of flow to radiator in addition to block/head. In the case of the CRD the opening of the tstat also blocks the "extra" bypass circuit. I won't comment on the "engineering" need for the extra bypass circuit and as far as I can tell no automotive engineers exist on this forum to add expertise but I will assume it is necessary.

Back in 2010 when I joined LOST some were already seeing failed open or opening too soon OEM tstats and the attendant cold running engines. That sparked lots of discussion given the cost of the OEM tstat and the fact that it could not be serviced and kapalczynski began working on a serviceable tstat. Another "solution" some came up with was to put an aftermarket tstat in the upper radiator hose (a.k.a. the inline option). When that idea first came out I STRONGLY recommended putting a small hole in the inline tstat skirt and locating that hole "up" in the hose to a) ensure air rising in the coolant could bleed to the coolant tank and b) most importantly make sure some coolant circulated to the radiator in case the extra bypass was closed and to ensure timely opening of the inline tstat. PS please note the extra bypass circuit is NOT closed on all failed OEM tstat only those where the OEM tstat failed in the fully open position - the more common failure mode is to fail by opening too soon (see the need for the skirt hole in the inline).

I know a number of folks used the inline option with at least some degree of success. As time passed though there was some concern expressed about possible overheating and possible head issues and the inline subsequently fell out of favor although a) some continued to use it with no problem and b) to the best of my knowledge no one has definitively proven such use causes overheating problems comments to the contrary notwithstanding.

Bottom line is I know of no one on the forum (hear me those of you that say/claim otherwise) that currently "recommends" the inline tsat as anything but a short term solution until it can be replaced with an OEM unit or equivalent and that has been the case for several years.

So please drop you swords and retire to your respective corners; take several deep breaths; and move on to more fruitful topics. Anyone who feels the need or urge to flame me don't bother as I'm to old to give a darn.

PS I've never been comfortable with the inline, don't recall ever recommending it, never used it, have replaced failed OEM units with Kap's and the HDS unit.

TURBO-DIESEL-FREAK · **Joined:** Sat Apr 17, 2010 3:29 pm **Posts:** 1167

papaindigo wrote:

No I don't have a clue why the OP has that much oil in the coolant tank but why are we having this double darn (FYI my stronger term has automatically been softened) useless debate again. Folks a bit of history from someone who has been around way too long. Going back as far as I've worked, no not ASE trained or whatever, including working on car engines built before I could drive. Early engines "bypass" circuit was pretty simple - 1) thermostat closed coolant only circulated thru the block/head unless you paid extra for an optional cabin heater in which case it also flowed thru cabin heater; 2) thermostat open coolant circulated thru block and radiator; 3) thermostat failed to open massive amount of steam from hood and maybe a blown engine; 4) early mechanic solution - drill small hole in thermostat skirt so some coolant ALWAYS flowed to radiator which won't prevent overheating but will prevent #3). PS all cars had temp gauges with real needles to monitor minor overheating. PPS if tstat failed closed short term solution pop out the bad tstat button things back up and drive without a tstat - worked great but not so much in winter.

Fast forward to today and CRD. Not technically much different in that one way or another coolant always flows thru the block/head and since cabin heaters are no longer optional at extra $s thru the cabin heater until tstat opens and diverts some portion of flow to radiator in addition to block/head. In the case of the CRD the opening of the tstat also blocks the "extra" bypass circuit. I won't comment on the "engineering" need for the extra bypass circuit and as far as I can tell no automotive engineers exist on this forum to add expertise but I will assume it is necessary.

Back in 2010 when I joined LOST some were already seeing failed open or opening too soon OEM tstats and the attendant cold running engines. That sparked lots of discussion given the cost of the OEM tstat and the fact that it could not be serviced and kapalczynski began working on a serviceable tstat. Another "solution" some came up with was to put an aftermarket tstat in the upper radiator hose (a.k.a. the inline option). When that idea first came out I STRONGLY recommended putting a small hole in the inline tstat skirt and locating that hole "up" in the hose to a) ensure air rising in the coolant could bleed to the coolant tank and b) most importantly make sure some coolant circulated to the radiator in case the extra bypass was closed and to ensure timely opening of the inline tstat. PS please note the extra bypass circuit is NOT closed on all failed OEM tstat only those where the OEM tstat failed in the fully open position - the more common failure mode is to fail by opening too soon (see the need for the skirt hole in the inline).

I know a number of folks used the inline option with at least some degree of success. As time passed though there was some concern expressed about possible overheating and possible head issues and the inline subsequently fell out of favor although a) some continued to use it with no problem and b) to the best of my knowledge no one has definitively proven such use causes overheating problems comments to the contrary notwithstanding.

Bottom line is I know of no one on the forum (hear me those of you that say/claim otherwise) that currently "recommends" the inline tsat as anything but a short term solution until it can be replaced with an OEM unit or equivalent and that has been the case for several years.

So please drop you swords and retire to your respective corners; take several deep breaths; and move on to more fruitful topics. Anyone who feels the need or urge to flame me don't bother as I'm to old to give a darn.

PS I've never been comfortable with the inline, don't recall ever recommending it, never used it, have replaced failed OEM units with Kap's and the HDS unit.

Papaindigo: I am not flaming you here, as I know you to be a fair minded man, and just want to see things settled. But there is a right and a wrong way to do things sometimes, with little or no room for compromise. The very fact that CRD engines seem to have a high rate of cylinder head issues in North America only should speak loudly to owners that you should not mess with the cooling system unless you know exactly what you are doing. geordi does not, and I am here to call him on it.

What you worked on as a kid does not apply anymore to modern IC engines. Just like engine oils have advanced leaps and bounds over the pat 40 years, so has everything else on an engine. Power is being concentrated into smaller and smaller packages, and the systems that support them become more and more critical. What was once considered good by engineers - an open bypass circuit in 1960s era V-8 gasoline engines - has become a dedicated bypass circuit in a relatively modern diesel engine with half the displacement producing the same amount of power. This was done for a reason, don't you think?

I will most certainly NOT "drop my sword" when we still have the type of members like geordi advocating B.S. That would not be in the interests of newer members looking for good advice, which is why we join forums in the first place.

geordi · **Posted:** Thu Aug 31, 2017 6:11 pm

The first thing you CAN do is stop putting words in my mouth.

I do not advocate for ANY thermostat solution over ANY OTHER thermostat solution. That is final.

TURBO-DIESEL-FREAK · **Joined:** Sat Apr 17, 2010 3:29 pm **Posts:** 1167

geordi wrote:

The first thing you CAN do is stop putting words in my mouth.

I do not advocate for ANY thermostat solution over ANY OTHER thermostat solution. That is final.

Probably not... but actions speak louder than words, geordi. I have a customer who has stated that you installed the in-hose thermostat when you went to service his CRD, and that was after giving him the clear impression that you would replace the O.E. thermostat. So, while it is not publicly obvious, you clearly have your preferences.

And do not bother mentioning the mutual customer the two of us in California. She ordered her Model 001 independently long before having you over to service her vehicle, so you had no part in her decision making process; you only installed it. For the record, that was the ONLY time I ever heard a complaint about installation of the Model 001; now why oh why does that strike me as a coincidence?

Yes, most of the time you are VERY careful with your words, making sure to try and appear neutral. This fools some people, unfortunately... especially those who do not perform some third party fact checking, either because they are lazy or they do not have the time to do so.

But when you make your claims about lack of evidence in regards to the effectiveness of the H.D.S. Model 001 and lack of evidence to the problems associated with the in-hose thermostat fix, you give the following impressions to people who do not know you like some of us do...

1) Due to your prominence as a travelling CRD engine repairman, you know what you are talking about, and that leads to...

2) ... people drawing the conclusion that, "if one upgrade is as good as the other because there is no clear evidence as to the superiority/inferiority of one over the other, then I will pick the cheaper option".

And this is precisely what you want those impressionable people to think. This is great for you, because CRD owners who adopt the in-hose thermostat fix will likely end up being customers of yours to repair cylinder head gasket failures down the road. This means $$$ in your pocket with your rather long list of upgrades that you have deemed necessary... you know... the "cheaper by the boatload" torque-to-yield cylinder head bolts and the suspect valves. Both of these parts have been put under your scrutiny by the following sticky threads that - surprise, surprise - have YOU as the original poster.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=79984

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=84902

In both circumstances, you have spun the narrative to make it look like the culprit for the CRD engine's cylinder head woes are these two items. This fits in nicely for you because you can install a new set of valves and ARP studs when you go to service your customers vehicles; with a nice tidy mark-up, naturally. Oh, and isn't it curious that in neither case has anyone found ANY conclusive evidence of poorly designed O.E. head studs of engine valves. No need for evidence when it concerns your business interests, eh, geordi?

Anybody ever figure out why CRD engine cylinder heads appear give out so easily in North America, (I say "appear" because there are no statistics stating the number of failures is significantly above the norm... it may certainly be the case, but remember that this is a forum where people come to solve their vehicle problems), but there is very little written about the problem anywhere else in the world?

Oh, but why bother to go down that dark alley because you have ALL the answers; after all, you slammed my suggestion that cooling system malfunctions and failures may be the real culprit in your head stud research data thread. So much for using the scientific method for coming to the correct conclusion about this apparent problem.

The point I have been drilling in to people like you for close to three years now is that there is no cheap magic bullet for quickly repairing the low engine operating temperature problem with the CRD engine. Indeed, this is true when designing any upgrade part for today's engines.

WWDiesel · **Posted:** Thu Aug 31, 2017 8:24 pm

BAD advice is much worse than NO advice!!! :roll:

We should all just want to help fellow members, new or old, on this forum not to make some of the bad mistakes others have unknowingly or mistakenly made in the past and ended up costing big bucks!!!! :roll:

oil in coolant Reservoir

Who is online