I am looking at putting more cooling into my car, currently has factory brass/copper rad (2 row) . . . I can get factory unit recored with high efficiency 3row, or new brass/copper 3row, OR aluminum 2row or 3row . . . not too concerned about the OE look (the aluminum rad would be painted black to diminish that AL look . . . put just wondering which would give best cooling for the buck ???? Car runs hotter than I like when at highway speeds (about 3/4 way up on temp gauge, but turning on heater helps, so figure not enough cooling from the rad itself) . . . .

Oh, this isn't the Sport Satellite - it has factory 3row 26" with high efficiency rad - cools GREAT !!

Thoughts ???

Thanks

I had a similar situation with my BB Coronet, so maybe sharing my experience will help. I originally had a 26 inch 3 row radiator and at hwy speeds in the summer (temps in the 90's), the coolant temp would slowly increase the faster I went. To me, that indicated insufficient cooling capacity since airflow is not an issue at those speeds.

So I decided to try a 2 row aluminum radiator. Same core size, 26 inch with 2 rows of 1 inch tubes (think the brass radiator 3 rows of 1/2 inch tubes). On paper, the aluminum radiator has a larger tube surface area which should increase the cooling capacity. After installing the radiator and driving on the hwy at similar temps, the coolant temp was lower than before. With the brass radiator, the coolant temp was about 200-205F and with the aluminum radiator, the temp dropped down to around 190-195F.

Hope this helps. But be aware that your results may vary.

the first thing i would do, is see just what temperature "3/4's of the way" on the gauge really is.
a harbor fright infrared temperature probe would give you a good starting point.
your cooling system may be working ok, but the sending unit or gauge may not be.

as to the radiator choice, it seems the aluminum ones today are the best cooling bang for the buck. champion seems to have a good reputation.
just my opinion. your mileage may vary.

This.

You need to find your starting point.

That being said, I have a 22" 4-row copper/brass in my '65 Dodge (440-6, 727, 3.23) and I have no cooling issues at all. I'm running an OE fan shroud (mid-70's, 6-cyl A-body), and no clutch fan. Car runs 175-185 cruising, 190-195 in traffic. 160 degree thermostat. If you can get a 4-row core for the factory radiator, I would go that route. The 3-row HE should be sufficient, but I prefer 4-rows.

Copy what you have in your Sport Satellite. If it works then just duplicate it.

Copper and brass will, if in good shape, transfer more heat into the air stream than aluminum will.
I went through this with my old pump gas car, the new aluminum cooled better for one summer and then did worse the next summer
I had put 50% anti freeze in both but the aluminum lost it ability to shed heat into the air stream over the winter
I took it to a radiator shop and they did something to make it work for that summer and it did the same thing the next winter
I will only buy copper and brass now

I agree with seaBee but you can make the alum almost as efficient as brass by running a mild flush through it every couple of months ... plus the alum is lighter

The textbooks say differently.

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-metals-d_858.html

I do have a handheld infrared temp gun to check the temps . . . will have to do that . . . I ask the question, cause I have "heard" that a 2 row AL would be better than a 3row brass/copper rad . . . personally I would lean towards the 3row brass/copper rad first . . .but, just wanted to get a consensus from the "board"members. . . I have always had good luck with going with the "factory" cooling, including 195deg stat, fan/fan shroud, rad . . . etc . . .

This is going to be part of the springtime, bring the car back on the road . . .right now tucked away for winter . . . uh, car is 64 Ford Falcon convertible with 200 CID 6banger (all stock). . .

A Furd FailCoon on a mopar site ! .. this is blasphemy!

If memory serves, Falcon 6s had pretty small radiators.
And they were working pretty hard at highway speeds.
It's very similar to a Mustang, and you can buy dang near a whole Mustang from a catalog.
So, I'd check the various Mustang resto-parts outfits & see what's available.

Did you look at that chart?
I think shedding 392 K at 127 F with copper is way better than shedding 240 K at 127 F with aluminum
I'm not the smartest guy on this site so if I'm reading that chart wrong please help me by correcting my thoughts on this

I think you are mis interpreting the chart. The chart is showing IMO thermal conductivity changes at different "'K", or absolute temp. Its not overly clear. For our interests and temps the last column is useful enough, thermal conductivity, and brass alloy is noticeably less rated then alum, that surprised me because pure copper is much higher then alum.

I also am far from the smartest guy here and somebody else is welcome to take this discussion farther or correct as needed.

Fins in a radiator are copper, not brass. the tubes are brass.

copper/brass is better at heat transfer than aluminum. Though that level of better is limited by the lead solder connecting the fins to the tubes but even with that limitation it is still better than aluminum and the design of the fin tube interface can ameliorate the silder issue.

https://www.hotrodhotline.com/content/aluminum-vs-copper-brass-article-us-radiator#.XjJI8Yh7mM8

I spent 33 yrs in the telephone industry working on the lines and outside plant equipment and finally managing the inside and outside equipment departments providing service to our customers. We always used copper instead of aluminum lines for its better conductivity, the power companies switch to aluminum and increase the size of their lines due to cheaper costs of the lines. Copper does conduct both heat and electricity way always better than aluminum is what our design engineers preached when it came to buying lines or components, gold being the best conductor

Good article, but I read there tests were done in 1999, I wonder if the current Al. radiators have improved and wonder if the testing has as well?

[quote=topside]If memory serves, Falcon 6s had pretty small radiators.
And they were working pretty hard at highway speeds.
It's very similar to a Mustang, and you can buy dang near a whole Mustang from a catalog.
So, I'd check the various Mustang resto-parts outfits & see what's available.
[/quote

Totally correct - amazing the number of parts available, and how cheap they are !!! . . . I can get complete new rad (brass/copper or alum) from local mustang shop - brass/copper 3row, about $125 less than 2 or 3 row Alum . . .

And so true about that little 200CID, 6cyl, working hard at highway speed - only Ford would make a head with an integral intake manifold for ONLY one tiny carb !!! . . . UGGHHH . . .

You might also want to pull the thermostat & flush the cooling system.
Check the thermostat opening temp in a pot of water on the stove with a meat thermometer.
Water (I like distilled) cools better than anti-freeze; if you can do 70% water where you live, that helps.

Plus, there are some aero tricks:
1. Cover holes & gaps in the rad support so all the air goes through the radiator.
2. Put an air dam under the rad support to force more air up through the radiator.
3. Vent underhood heat, but it really won't look stock.

$125 for a stock-looking 3-row is a pretty smokin' deal, actually better than I thought.
We should be so fortunate in the Mopar world...

Alum. more prone to corrosion then brass/copper in rads. Also with any/most alum. parts exposed to gases/liquids/contaminants in a cooling system. Alum. oxide is a notorious corrosion to deal with in general. Could it be inside had "some" corrosion that hindered heat transfer & shop "flushed" out that corrosion?

as per link:

"The thermal conductivity or heat transfer rate of copper is 92% versus aluminum which is approximately 49%. However, the copper fin bonded to the tubes, or water passages, using lead solder is very inefficient and slows the heat transfer rate to just slightly better than that of aluminum."

Doesn't address directly the issue of the lower conductivity of the brass tubes vs/alum.

Explain the method of ameliorating the copper/brass interface to any significant degree in this situation.

I'm also wondering, what exactly does "92%" and "49%" referenced to, pure water?