Aluminum radiators.

[1976K5CHALET]

Griffin..Be Cool...etc. Anyone have any experience with any of these in an 81 up application? Up to no good...

DW

[Psycho71]

I've got a Champion (Ebay special) all-welded aluminum radiator on my '71 chevy. It's the 2 row version, and cools it great, been on there more than 5 yrs now. It has a 14" and a 10" shrouded fan set-up on it. I bought the 3 row version for my 85burb, and it cools it just fine as well. It has the factory clutch fan on it. I would not hesitate to buy another Champion radiator.

I will say this though, both of the ones I have had fitment issues. Both sit just fine in the bottom pads/stirrups. Neither one fit right with the factory top hardware. I ended up creating a bracket for each application. I imagine the more well known makers probably fit better though.

[Firebirdjones]

Originally Posted by Psycho71

I've got a Champion (Ebay special) , both of the ones I have had fitment issues. Both sit just fine in the bottom pads/stirrups. Neither one fit right with the factory top hardware. I ended up creating a bracket for each application. I imagine the more well known makers probably fit better though.

This is one complaint I have about them, they just don't have the raised portion on the tanks for the factory style brackets.

Another issue I have with mine is about a month after install, the tank started leaking at the seam. I had to remove it and reweld it.

I went with a 3 core to cool a 6.0 LS engine swap in my blazer. With dual 4th gen camaro electric fans, it does ok, but it's not what I'd call perfect. When I'm idling on trails with little air flow and the AC blowing, it gets pretty warm, even with both fans full blast.
Biggest issue with them is the tube size. They use tubes of about 1/4-3/8" which is common among cheaper aluminum radiators, not much surface area for cooling (bigger is better). I'll replace it with something else when the time comes.

As for the other brands,,,,

I run a Griffin radiator in 2 other cars and there is simply no comparison. A simple 2 core in my 640 HP chevelle with 1 1/4" tubes and the stock fan setup and I can't get that thing over 175 degrees when it's 110 outside (a/c on or not). Larger tubes and a higher "fin per inch" count equals a much more efficient radiator. Not to mention they mimic the outward appearance of a stock copper radiator, so when painted black no one knows the difference. They mount just like factory with no mods at all. However at $600 a piece, it's up to you.
My opinion.....this is a classic example of getting what you pay for. I'll use nothing but Griffin anymore.

[tobiahr]

Originally Posted by Firebirdjones

Biggest issue with them is the tube size. They use tubes of about 1/4-3/8" which is common among cheaper aluminum radiators, not much surface area for cooling (bigger is better).
Larger tubes and a higher "fin per inch" count equals a much more efficient radiator.

Not going to dispute which radiator may be better but the statement about surface area is incorrect.
Surface area may increase but not in proportion to the volume of the tubing.
Surface area of the side = 2 x 3.14 x radius x length
Volume = 3.14 x radius squared x length
Ratio: 2πr(r+h) / πr²h = (2(h+r)) / (rh)

1/4 by 10 in tube
Surface area of the side = 2 x 3.14 x .125 x 10 = 7.85 sq. inches
Volume = 3.14 x 0.015625 x 10 = 0.490625 cubic inches

Surface area of the side to Volume ratio = 8.2

1 1/4 by 10 in tube
Surface area of the side = 2 x 3.14 x .625 x 10 = 39.25 sq. inches
Volume = 3.14 x 0.390625 x 10 = 12.265625 cubic inches

Surface area of the side to Volume ratio = 3.4

The amount of flow may be helping the Griffin cool better but bigger is not always better. As an example a factory 4 core radiator will normally cool better than a 2 core, even though the 2 cores are normally larger in diameter than the 4 core.

[Firebirdjones]

Originally Posted by tobiahr

Not going to dispute which radiator may be better but the statement about surface area is incorrect.
Surface area may increase but not in proportion to the volume of the tubing.
Surface area of the side = 2 x 3.14 x radius x length
Volume = 3.14 x radius squared x length
Ratio: 2πr(r+h) / πr²h = (2(h+r)) / (rh)

1/4 by 10 in tube
Surface area of the side = 2 x 3.14 x .125 x 10 = 7.85 sq. inches
Volume = 3.14 x 0.015625 x 10 = 0.490625 cubic inches

Surface area of the side to Volume ratio = 8.2

1 1/4 by 10 in tube
Surface area of the side = 2 x 3.14 x .625 x 10 = 39.25 sq. inches
Volume = 3.14 x 0.390625 x 10 = 12.265625 cubic inches

Surface area of the side to Volume ratio = 3.4

The amount of flow may be helping the Griffin cool better but bigger is not always better. As an example a factory 4 core radiator will normally cool better than a 2 core, even though the 2 cores are normally larger in diameter than the 4 core.

I would kindly have to say that theory is incorrect. On paper and real world conditions are the difference. Looks good on paper but in the real world those 4 cores actually hamper the airflow rendering them not quite as efficient. Not as much air flow on those back tubes.
By using only 2 cores and increasing the size of the tubes, things aren't as packed inside.
The air flow on my 2 vehicles as an example would be the opposite. The blazer in question actually has more airflow with it's dual electric fans while not moving,,,,and it has 3 cores which should be better right?? Not so. My chevelle uses a stock clutch fan (less airflow sitting still) and a 2 core radiator with larger tubes, yet it runs cooler. Both radiators are the same size with same surface area dimensionally.

You don't have to take my word for it though, just give Griffin a call, they are more than happy to talk radiators.

Like you, I was also concerned as I always thought a 4 core would be better. Talking with them about my 454 chevelle, making 640 HP and having a large condensor in front, running the AC and 110 degrees outside, I was worried about cooling to say the least. At first I never thought their 2 core aluminum radiator would do the trick. After all I was running a 4 core copper radiator before that and it did the job (temps of 190 at the most). So when they said 2 core with larger tubes I thought,,,there is no way.

They assured me this radiator would cool 750-800 HP so I bought it. Now I can't get this car over 175 degrees in the heat with the AC blowing, doesn't matter if I'm in traffic or not. They weren't kidding. The proof is in the results.

I can't say the same for the cheap 3 core Champion radiator I have in the blazer. The cores are smaller, but hey it's a 3 core right?? It should be better?? I'm running a dual electric fan setup from a 4th gen, it's an LS engine as well. It runs warm with the AC on in traffic or if I'm idling around on the trails. Those electric fans provide a ton of airflow,,even more than the simple clutch fan on my chevelle,,,,yet it shoots up over 220 after about a 1/2 hour and keeps climbing to the point I have to shut it off, I'm not interested in seeing where it peaks. Running down the road it cools down and runs 175ish. I'm not impressed. More cores don't mean better cooling....

My 79 454 (now a 502) 1 ton pickup still runs it's original 4 core copper radiator. It does okay, but with the AC on it runs warm, and will peg the temp gauge if left idling too long. Towing is the same way. Flat ground is fine,,,but I don't dare turn on the AC while towing a heavy load. When I hit some of the hills around here the temp climbs quick. In the heat of the day it's best to pull over at the bottom of the hill, grab a bite to eat and let the truck cool before tackling the climb.
I'm about to pull the trigger on another Griffin (2 CORE ) And I'm willing to bet, just like the chevelle did,,,it will cool the truck better, allow me to run the AC while towing, and I probably won't need a cool down before I tackle these mountain grades.