FRPP Boss 302 Air-to-Oil Cooler is now available
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Joined: December 18, 2010
Posts: 3,708
Likes: 0
From: NorCal
Sigh, I guess no one wants to believe our results.... it is not even close. With the OEM water-to-oil cooler - the oil takes FOREVER to warm up. Literally, our test with with low 50's outside temps and driving the car mildly. Largely city driving (early morning) and so average speeds were 45mph or so with occasional stops for traffic lights. The Boss took about 20 minutes to get the oil temps to 160 degrees. In the exact same driving conditions, a thermostat controlled air-to-oil cooler took less than 1/2 the time to get the oil to 160 degrees. Again, we could run many more tests.... but the comparison is NOT even close. The non-thermostat OEM solution is a real detriment to oil warm-up times. Now, combine that with an ADDITIONAL non-thermostated cooler (air-to-oil) in series - WOW. I'll shut-up. Please convey your results when done - I have no doubts what you will find.
Bullitt Member
Joined: April 21, 2011
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
From: Santa Clarita, CA
Are you inferring that the stock oil cooler on a Boss takes too long to warm up the oil and could cause damage?
Last edited by nota4re; Feb 21, 2012 at 05:24 PM.
Bullitt Member
Joined: July 15, 2011
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
I'm a believer! 
What worries me most about not haveing a thermostat is the time it takes the oil to warm up on colder days, and oil not getting warm enough at all on cold days during street driving. I have seen this happen before on other cars with oil coolers with no thermostats. I have a Tiger Racing hood which I truly think is going to allow a lot of hot air to escape affecting cooling even more.
And I like to
Cloud9!
What worries me most about not haveing a thermostat is the time it takes the oil to warm up on colder days, and oil not getting warm enough at all on cold days during street driving. I have seen this happen before on other cars with oil coolers with no thermostats. I have a Tiger Racing hood which I truly think is going to allow a lot of hot air to escape affecting cooling even more.And I like to
Cloud9!
Thread Starter
Shelby GT350 Member
Joined: November 20, 2010
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 1
From: Sioux Falls, SD
Install pics. The temp sender is on the backside of the T so you can't see it in the pic. What you're seeing is the factory pressure sensor on the other end of the T.
Thread Starter
Shelby GT350 Member
Joined: November 20, 2010
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 1
From: Sioux Falls, SD
Bullitt Member
Joined: July 4, 2011
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
From: Parker, Colorado
Thread Starter
Shelby GT350 Member
Joined: November 20, 2010
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 1
From: Sioux Falls, SD
V6 Member
Joined: January 19, 2012
Posts: 61
Likes: 1
FL 500S vs. FL400 and other thoughts
Going with the pros and cons on the oil cooler options.
Cool Techs remote filter thermostatically controlled option; is technically the best choice hands down.
BUT!
I am very concerned about manufacture warranty issues.(if any would arise)
The factory spec filter is FL500S, and this system use a FL400
Not that adding an after-market cooler would not bring warranty issues to question.
In place of the remote filter I am thinking of using a remote thermostat like the Mocal
A0T2-3 -10AN Male
and a Canton Sandwich and maintain using the FL 500S oil filter.
Is there an advantage to the remote filter?
The cost of the thermostat is in line with the remote adapter and the number of fittings remains the same.
Cool Techs remote filter thermostatically controlled option; is technically the best choice hands down.
BUT!
I am very concerned about manufacture warranty issues.(if any would arise)
The factory spec filter is FL500S, and this system use a FL400
Not that adding an after-market cooler would not bring warranty issues to question.
In place of the remote filter I am thinking of using a remote thermostat like the Mocal
A0T2-3 -10AN Male
and a Canton Sandwich and maintain using the FL 500S oil filter.
Is there an advantage to the remote filter?
The cost of the thermostat is in line with the remote adapter and the number of fittings remains the same.
V6 Member
Joined: January 19, 2012
Posts: 61
Likes: 1
I just found this sandwich adapter which would solve the remote filter location and thermostatic control. Also they have 1/2 BSPT(British Standard Pipe Thread) to AN adapters.
Mocal Sandwich Plate- 22mm Thread
MOC-SP1GT
Mocal 1/2" BSP x -10 fitting
MOC-2BM810A
Is Mocal a reliable product?
Bullitt Member
Joined: April 21, 2011
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
From: Santa Clarita, CA
1. There is NO issue between an FL400 and and FL500. We use an FL400 because of the thread match. In contrast our oil cooler has 3X LESS pressure drop than the Ford spec unit - by far exceeding any minute differences in the oil filter.
2. I think the 1/2" ports on the Mocal you are referencing are smaller than what I would be comfortable to use.
2. I think the 1/2" ports on the Mocal you are referencing are smaller than what I would be comfortable to use.
Bullitt Member
Joined: April 21, 2011
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
From: Santa Clarita, CA
Kendal ,How is your non-thermo. unit progressing? and will it mount like the Ford unit. Thanks
GT Member
Joined: August 19, 2011
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
From: New York
Kendall
I did the FRPP kit on my car, are the mounting ear locations on the setrab coolers the same and just the heights different or are the height and width different between the two coolers? It would be easy to swap coolers if the hoses and brackets could be reused.
Steve
I did the FRPP kit on my car, are the mounting ear locations on the setrab coolers the same and just the heights different or are the height and width different between the two coolers? It would be easy to swap coolers if the hoses and brackets could be reused.
Steve
V6 Member
Joined: January 19, 2012
Posts: 61
Likes: 1
Kendall
I did the FRPP kit on my car, are the mounting ear locations on the setrab coolers the same and just the heights different or are the height and width different between the two coolers? It would be easy to swap coolers if the hoses and brackets could be reused.
Steve
I did the FRPP kit on my car, are the mounting ear locations on the setrab coolers the same and just the heights different or are the height and width different between the two coolers? It would be easy to swap coolers if the hoses and brackets could be reused.
Steve
The cool tech cooler is Setrab part number 50-172-7612. (72 rows) this is known as a 1 series cooler. All 1 series coolers increase in width as the number of rows increase and the inlet /outlets are on either the right or left side depending on how you choose to mount it. Looking at the cool tech website they mount it so the inlet is on the driver's side of the car.
The Ford Racing Performance Racing Parts cooler is a Setrab part number 50-915-7612. (15 rows) This is known as a 9 series cooler. All 9 series coolers increase in height and the inlet /outlet are on the bottom.
Interchanging between 1 and 9 series will require different mounting points and different length hoses.
If you have a FRPP kit and want a larger cooler they have several 9 series with more rows 920, 925, 934 & 948 using one of these your mounting bracket and hoses could be re-used
http://www.setrabusa.com/pdf/ProLine_STD_Dims_112610.pdf
http://www.setrabusa.com/index.html
Bullitt Member
Joined: April 21, 2011
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
From: Santa Clarita, CA
Good info. Lest anyone think that a 1-series is not as good as a 9-series - you just have to look at flow drop differences and price differences (all Setrab data) to know that the 1-series is a much better, albeit more expensive, cooler.
Thread Starter
Shelby GT350 Member
Joined: November 20, 2010
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 1
From: Sioux Falls, SD
An update on temps through my first three track days this year. Oil has been topping out in the 230s-240s and ECT has been in the 210s to low 230s. Ambient temps have been in the 60s and 70s and elevation between 1600-1950 feet. So far so good. ECT is staying about 20 degrees cooler. I didn't have an oil temp gauge last year but I am very happy with these temps so far.
