Full Width Radiator for Spitfire, worth it?
Discussion
My existing radiator in the Spitfire has now started to leak in several places so I think I may treat the car to a new one.
Do the full width (22") radiators make much difference or shall I just save myself £15 and go for a standard (16") one as what is fitted at the moment?
I've certainly not had any cooling issues before so is the extra (albeit small) amount of money not really worth it?
Do the full width (22") radiators make much difference or shall I just save myself £15 and go for a standard (16") one as what is fitted at the moment?
I've certainly not had any cooling issues before so is the extra (albeit small) amount of money not really worth it?
spitfire-ian said:
My existing radiator in the Spitfire has now started to leak in several places so I think I may treat the car to a new one.
Do the full width (22") radiators make much difference or shall I just save myself £15 and go for a standard (16") one as what is fitted at the moment?
I've certainly not had any cooling issues before so is the extra (albeit small) amount of money not really worth it?
Why change - only reason would be if you have seriously hotted the lump up. If (when not leaking) the std size cools as it should, you have answered your own question Do the full width (22") radiators make much difference or shall I just save myself £15 and go for a standard (16") one as what is fitted at the moment?
I've certainly not had any cooling issues before so is the extra (albeit small) amount of money not really worth it?
jellison said:
spitfire-ian said:
My existing radiator in the Spitfire has now started to leak in several places so I think I may treat the car to a new one.
Do the full width (22") radiators make much difference or shall I just save myself £15 and go for a standard (16") one as what is fitted at the moment?
I've certainly not had any cooling issues before so is the extra (albeit small) amount of money not really worth it?
Why change - only reason would be if you have seriously hotted the lump up. If (when not leaking) the std size cools as it should, you have answered your own question Do the full width (22") radiators make much difference or shall I just save myself £15 and go for a standard (16") one as what is fitted at the moment?
I've certainly not had any cooling issues before so is the extra (albeit small) amount of money not really worth it?
I'd respectfully disagree with Jellison.
The narrower radiator which the later Spitfires were fitted with is a bit marginal in terms of cooling ability. Think about it, the 1200 engines on the early Spitfires came with full width radiators.
The only reason Triumph (by then BL) went for the narrow rads on the square tail Spitfires was to save cost and nothing else.
More so for the 1500 than your Mk IV, the cooling is a bit iffy and the benefit of the wider rad is that it gives you a bit extra contingency.
If your old rad is showing its age and you are thinking of replacing, then the full width is the way to go in my opinion.
The narrower radiator which the later Spitfires were fitted with is a bit marginal in terms of cooling ability. Think about it, the 1200 engines on the early Spitfires came with full width radiators.
The only reason Triumph (by then BL) went for the narrow rads on the square tail Spitfires was to save cost and nothing else.
More so for the 1500 than your Mk IV, the cooling is a bit iffy and the benefit of the wider rad is that it gives you a bit extra contingency.
If your old rad is showing its age and you are thinking of replacing, then the full width is the way to go in my opinion.
Spitfire2 said:
I'd respectfully disagree with Jellison.
The narrower radiator which the later Spitfires were fitted with is a bit marginal in terms of cooling ability. Think about it, the 1200 engines on the early Spitfires came with full width radiators.
The only reason Triumph (by then BL) went for the narrow rads on the square tail Spitfires was to save cost and nothing else.
More so for the 1500 than your Mk IV, the cooling is a bit iffy and the benefit of the wider rad is that it gives you a bit extra contingency.
If your old rad is showing its age and you are thinking of replacing, then the full width is the way to go in my opinion.
When Triumph made the rad narrower they also increased the density and cooling properties of the core, therefore, they were able to cool at least as efficiently as the earlier full width ones.The narrower radiator which the later Spitfires were fitted with is a bit marginal in terms of cooling ability. Think about it, the 1200 engines on the early Spitfires came with full width radiators.
The only reason Triumph (by then BL) went for the narrow rads on the square tail Spitfires was to save cost and nothing else.
More so for the 1500 than your Mk IV, the cooling is a bit iffy and the benefit of the wider rad is that it gives you a bit extra contingency.
If your old rad is showing its age and you are thinking of replacing, then the full width is the way to go in my opinion.
If you aren't making any changes to the engine which will require additional cooling then why change?
I fitted the larger radiator to my 1500 4 years ago and it was a good move, it does make a difference when stood in traffic etc. It also allows you to up grade other parts later on if you want to.
As much as I like my Spitfire they where built to a cost, some times to the detriment of the car.
As much as I like my Spitfire they where built to a cost, some times to the detriment of the car.
itiejim said:
Spitfire2 said:
I'd respectfully disagree with Jellison.
The narrower radiator which the later Spitfires were fitted with is a bit marginal in terms of cooling ability. Think about it, the 1200 engines on the early Spitfires came with full width radiators.
The only reason Triumph (by then BL) went for the narrow rads on the square tail Spitfires was to save cost and nothing else.
More so for the 1500 than your Mk IV, the cooling is a bit iffy and the benefit of the wider rad is that it gives you a bit extra contingency.
If your old rad is showing its age and you are thinking of replacing, then the full width is the way to go in my opinion.
When Triumph made the rad narrower they also increased the density and cooling properties of the core, therefore, they were able to cool at least as efficiently as the earlier full width ones.The narrower radiator which the later Spitfires were fitted with is a bit marginal in terms of cooling ability. Think about it, the 1200 engines on the early Spitfires came with full width radiators.
The only reason Triumph (by then BL) went for the narrow rads on the square tail Spitfires was to save cost and nothing else.
More so for the 1500 than your Mk IV, the cooling is a bit iffy and the benefit of the wider rad is that it gives you a bit extra contingency.
If your old rad is showing its age and you are thinking of replacing, then the full width is the way to go in my opinion.
If you aren't making any changes to the engine which will require additional cooling then why change?
jellison said:
What I said was if the same std engine then no ned to change, if a larger one (15 vs 13) then, well yes it "would "make sense then.
1500 and mk4 came with the same,not very good rad. Full width is recommended by lots of Triumph experts. Not critical on Mk4 but still strongly recommended even on standard.
The 3 bearing engines need good cooling. It all helps.
Spitfire2 said:
jellison said:
What I said was if the same std engine then no ned to change, if a larger one (15 vs 13) then, well yes it "would "make sense then.
1500 and mk4 came with the same,not very good rad. Full width is recommended by lots of Triumph experts. Not critical on Mk4 but still strongly recommended even on standard.
The 3 bearing engines need good cooling. It all helps.
Gassing Station | Triumph | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff