When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Remember that the mounting points are the seams where the end tanks attach to the core, and these fit into the upper and lower saddles, which have rubber inserts.
I have easily fit a number of non-application specific radiators into my car over the years. These radiators fit in the lower saddles, then the top plate was tightened and held the radiator securely in place.
As Kenneth correctly pointed out and I attempted to suggest, it isn't necessarily the overall width at select points. It's the mounting points where the radiator must fit into the top plate and bottom plate saddles. If the radiator mounting points fit correctly into the upper plate saddles and the lower plate saddles you "should" be golden. I'd measure and examine the distance between each mounting point and the ability of the radiator to fit into the lower plate bracket correctly (in particular), because if it does not, the radiator could be much higher as a result of not fitting into the lower plate saddles.
Gotcha... here's the distance between tanks on the 165.
now the 351...
... will 1/8" make that much of a difference?
Norm's referring to 'critical dimensions.' The car really doesn't care how big the radiator itself is, it cares about how long the mounting points are front to back, how wide they are left to right, how much space there is between them left and right, and how tall they are in total from one to the other. The sides of the tanks sit in open air and can be a half inch off.
Here are your top mount points for each radiator. The mount points should be of similar depth & width to fit in each mount point top plate saddle and bottom plate saddle. Additionally, the distance between the mount points must be very similar to the top plate saddles and the bottom plate saddles. If they are, the radiator should slide in.
Ok Norm here's are a couple"apples to apples" pics...the 351 on top and the 165 is on the bottom..
High of ~52° mild winds, sunny. You're working outdoors if I'm not mistaken? Shouldn't take you long, hopefully all goes well, Dave.
Yessir... outside work. So now that we seemed to have established fitment, here's another question. Amazon has the 351 for 245.00 shipped...I can get it from a local parts store for 328 with a lifetime warranty. Would you spend the extra 80 bones?
It may cool just fine, maybe has a more modern core design. Do you have A/C? Please report back on how well it cools. Someone installed this rad in a 71 Cutlass with a 350, even has pics in the Amazon review. Only issue was the rad was two wide for the 3 core saddles but obviously made it fit and work.
Last edited by olds 307 and 403; Jan 10, 2021 at 06:09 AM.
The lower brackets are spot welded in. I have read that folks have drilled out the welds and bolted new brackets in place.
Back in the later 80s I temporarily installed a 4 row radiator from my brother-in-law's car. I just flattened the brackets so the wider radiator fit into the saddles. The rubber insulators and the clamping force of the top plate held it in place quite securely.
As for the shims, I have used washers and at one time squares of cut up heater hose with a hole drilled in the center. They aren't visible so no one will know what was used.
Be aware that it is possible with no shims to pull the shroud upwards enough to distort the fan opening, and have the fan contact the shroud. I had that happen, which is why I used the various shims mentioned above.
The lower brackets are spot welded in. I have read that folks have drilled out the welds and bolted new brackets in place.
Back in the later 80s I temporarily installed a 4 row radiator from my brother-in-law's car. I just flattened the brackets so the wider radiator fit into the saddles. The rubber insulators and the clamping force of the top plate held it in place quite securely.
As for the shims, I have used washers and at one time squares of cut up heater hose with a hole drilled in the center. They aren't visible so no one will know what was used.
Be aware that it is possible with no shims to pull the shroud upwards enough to distort the fan opening, and have the fan contact the shroud. I had that happen, which is why I used the various shims mentioned above.
Washers or heater hose...good idea😀. As far as clearance, wouldn't it also be possible to push the top of the shroud down to far with shims?
It's been debated in this thread about the cooling efficiency of an aftermarket copper/brass 2 row vs an aluminum 2 row. If the radiator has an internal trans cooler, wouldn't that decrease the overall efficiency? Conversely if the internal cooler was not hooked up, wouldn't that improve the overall efficiency? Point being, if I use a 2 row copper/brass and don't use the internal trans cooler, then would I not gain the efficiency similar to an aluminum 2 row?
Washers or heater hose...good idea😀. As far as clearance, wouldn't it also be possible to push the top of the shroud down to far with shims?
Yes. The shims need to take up the gap between the shroud and the top plate. Too few and the shroud is pulled upwards, too many and it is pushed downwards. Ideally the gap between the shroud and top plate would be measured after bolting the plate to the core support, then the proper thickness of shims would be inserted to take up that space so the upper shroud mounting bolts can be tightened without distorting the shroud.
It's been debated in this thread about the cooling efficiency of an aftermarket copper/brass 2 row vs an aluminum 2 row. If the radiator has an internal trans cooler, wouldn't that decrease the overall efficiency? Conversely if the internal cooler was not hooked up, wouldn't that improve the overall efficiency? Point being, if I use a 2 row copper/brass and don't use the internal trans cooler, then would I not gain the efficiency similar to an aluminum 2 row?
No, the 2 row aluminum radiator will have much more heat dissipating capacity than the 2 row copper/brass radiator. Most 2 row aluminum radiators are comparable to the 4 row copper/brass radiators.
No, the 2 row aluminum radiator will have much more heat dissipating capacity than the 2 row copper/brass radiator. Most 2 row aluminum radiators are comparable to the 4 row copper/brass radiators.
But if an aftermarket copper/brass 2 row made by Spectra Premium is designed to replace an OEM copper/brass 4 row, then why wouldn't it be the same?🤔
You're asking a valid question and honestly, it depends on the design of the radiator.
This radiator has one "core". It's not a two core or a four core radiator. The core is the assembly which comprises the fins and the tubes located between the headers. Automotive parts supply houses don't even get this term correct - instead, advertising a two core versus a four core, etc. There are two core, three core, four core radiators on the market, but I've never seen anything other than a single (one) core radiator in a street automobile. You'll find some very fine two core, three core and four core radiators in a locomotive, a Caterpillar tractor, a power plant generator, etc. The term "core" apparently and incorrectly has replaced the term "tube". If any term is closer to replacing the term core, it would be the term "row". Yet, even the term row could be incorrect since you could and can in fact, have a radiator made of many rows which have more or fewer tubes than rows - depending on the "design" of the radiator. So, much like a drive shaft has replaced the name propeller shaft & the term proportioning valve has replaced the term combination valve, this radiator has one "core". The design of its core could contain many rows, which may or may not be the same as the number of tubes contained w/in the radiator depending on its core "design".
The efficiency of a radiator to dissipate (transfer) heat is the number of fins:tubes (fin-to-tube) contact points contained w/in the core. Copper is actually a better "metal" to transfer heat than aluminum ever will be based upon specific heat capacity of each substance. One only needs to examine the delta in specific heat capacity of Cu versus Al to know Cu is a better material to transfer heat than Al. In simple terms - it requires more heat to change the temperature of Al than Cu; or, more simply Cu loses heat faster than Al & Al retains its heat longer than Cu. Therefore, it takes less heat to either raise or lower the temperature of Cu than Al. When anyone refers to an Aluminum core versus a Copper core, it depends on the core design because if two radiators were built and deigned identically (one Cu the other Al), Cu will always be a better performer for transferring heat.
Place an empty iron (Fe) pan, an aluminum (Al) pan & a copper (Cu) pan (all of the exact same size and mass) onto a stove until each metal pan reaches the exact same temperature. Fe will hold its heat the longest (takes longer to lose heat), Al will hold its heat longer than Cu and Cu will lose its heat more rapidly than either Fe or Al. Copper (Cu) is a better metal to transfer heat than aluminum (Al) - end of story.
Look at it this way. Water (pure H20) has the highest specific heat capacity of any common substance on this planet. It takes more heat (energy) to heat water than any other common substance on this planet. The specific heat of water = 1.00
Water will take longer to lose its heat than any other common substance on this planet. From my table below, which will take longer to lose its heat - Cu or Al? Cu, will always win.
In terms of a radiator....hopefully you get the point.
Specific Heat Capacity (Calorie/gram °C)
H20 = 1.00
Al = 0.220
Cu = 0.092
I measured the core thickness of the radiator in the car, and it's 2 inches thick. Just a reminder, it's a 3 row copper/brass. I also measured the thickness of the CU351...1 7/8". Also, I was wrong about the 351 being a 2 row...it's actually a 3 row...also copper/brass. So, knowing that it's pretty much the same thickness and that it's a 3 row, it should work, right?
So, knowing that it's pretty much the same thickness and that it's a 3 row, it should work, right?
It depends. Count the number or tubes in each row, and measure the number of cooling fins-per-inch. Some aftermarket radiators have fewer number of tubes per row and fewer fin-per-inch count, which means lower cooling capacity. Folks here have had worse overheating issues with an aftermarket 3 row radiator than they did with the factory 2 row radiator due to those differences.
It depends. Count the number or tubes in each row, and measure the number of cooling fins-per-inch. Some aftermarket radiators have fewer number of tubes per row and fewer fin-per-inch count, which means lower cooling capacity. Folks here have had worse overheating issues with an aftermarket 3 row radiator than they did with the factory 2 row radiator due to those differences.
This will be the 120th post in this thread. It has gone on longer than it took to write bible. For pity's sake, get a radiator, stick it in the car, and drive the damn thing!
Will the difference in the inlet and outlet headers be an issue?
What will be more of an issue for you is the size of the inlet and outlet ports. This is why I just re-cored my old radiator. But yeah, time to make a decision and try it out. For the amount of driving you'll do I'd go with the 3 row copper/brass and be done. That's what your car should have come with from the factory since it had AC.
What will be more of an issue for you is the size of the inlet and outlet ports. This is why I just re-cored my old radiator. But yeah, time to make a decision and try it out. For the amount of driving you'll do I'd go with the 3 row copper/brass and be done. That's what your car should have come with from the factory since it had AC.
Hoses fit good...I just happened to have a spare upper and lower in my garage so I "test fitted" them before I closed the sale,😀
