I've been looking at oil coolers for my M695. It seems a main difference between the kits is that one comes with a valve cover with mounts for the cooler, while the other comes with a thin metal plate that appears to be a mounting bracket. I can't really tell how the metal plate is affixed, though. Are there any advantages/disadvantages to one over the other? Also wondered how hard it is to scavenge all the parts --I've seen coolers and lines on e-bay, but the other bits I'm not so sure where to find.
As you are pondering, I had similar questions regarding the coolers with my 2011 696. I opted not to install one for reasons I'll discuss later.
The oil cooler kit for the 695 appears to be a Setrab/Mocal 8.25 inch 10 row cooler (I could be wrong on the number of rows but it appears 3 inches in height, thus 10 rows). The parts are EASY to source and AN-6 is the fitting size for your application. The engine nipples are 14Mx1.5 and are easily found as well. There is an excellent article written by a Ducati owner at:
http://www.ducatimonster.org/forums/upgrades-performance-mods/190920-diy-100-custom-m696-oil-cooler.html (http://www.ducatimonster.org/forums/upgrades-performance-mods/190920-diy-100-custom-m696-oil-cooler.html)
Although this is specific to a 696, it gives you some idea of what can be done.
Here is a link to the H-Comp prototype on a 695:
http://www.ducatimonsterforum.org/index.php?topic=22449.0 (http://www.ducatimonsterforum.org/index.php?topic=22449.0)
Link for coolers and accessories/mounts:
http://www.anplumbing.com/ (http://www.anplumbing.com/)
I would be very wary of using BOTH the engine AND frame for mounting due to torsional stresses during normal operation (I am not a mechanical engineer by trade so no flames, please, and yes, I am aware of the engine being part of the frame). The stock Ducati cooler for 2011 utilizes the frame for mounting and you could do the same.
If you peruse the boards and use Google, you will find a great deal of information to help your project and save money, which is in short supply for all of us as of late...
I would personally use the frame for mounting but do not see any real issue with engine mounting...
Last, and most importantly, do you really need a cooler? I do not own a 695 but the engine is likely very similar to my 696 with few, if any, major differences. Remember, adding a cooler adds complexity and thus gives you additional points of failure, particularly in the area of leaking cooling lines, etc. In many of the postings I have read, there seems to be a VERY significant misunderstanding about our engines. Your 695, like mine, is air cooled. The head temps ARE SUPPOSED to be high. The oil can be much COOLER than the head temp. I debated this for a month with my bike, torn between forking out over $400.00 for a cooler or throwing together my own kit for much less. After much research I discovered I was trying to solve a problem that did not exist for me, and mind you, I live in North Texas, where we have had over 11 straight days of 100+ temps.
The bottom line is with a reasonable quality synthetic oil, you are unlikely to observe a heat related failure with your Monster. I've read some well written articles which document a 10 - 15 degree reduction in head temperature with a cooler and were backed with numbers (ie, not "the head seemed cooler after installation") but in my case, I could not support the effort and resources necessary to implement a cooler given the slight reduction in head temperatures.
By the way, the only major American air cooled automotive engine effort, the Corvair, experienced head temps around 450 degrees fahrenheit (the turbocharged model could exceed 600 degrees!), and remember, this is before our SUPER DUPER HYPED $13.00 a quart synthetic motorcycle specific oil was available! Aircraft engines (Lycoming, etc.) consider over 400 degrees NORMAL for the head temperature with a corresponding oil temperature in the low 200's (in fahrenheit).
In my opinion, if the Ducati engineers felt one were necessary, it would have come with a cooler stock...
elgallo: Thanks for the info and the links. I'll definitely look them over. I understand from other posts in the forums that the 695's have a tendency to run hotter than other models. Mine has hit 290 with light riding on stretches of county roads and a bit of stop and go --and that's only in 83 degree weather and cooler. Fortunately, it's been cooler here this summer, but I imagine that commuting on an 89 degree afternoon will cause temps to hit 300+, which I don't feel will be healthy over the long run. I am running synthetic oil, but still...
I actually took it to the Ducati dealer here in CO. They said the temp sensor was faulty and replaced it. I haven't noticed any difference, so either the new one is faulty also, or they were *guessing* it was the sensor.
Some here recommended a new ECU, open airbox and termi's to drop the temps, but that's a serious investment compared to an oil cooler.
Thanks again for the info.
Arguments can be made for/against the need for an oil cooler on the 695. I went through the same process and opted to install the Ducati retrofit kit. The average running temp will come down, but you will also reduce the magnitude of the "spikes" when you hit a few red lights, etc. In the first few weeks/months of use my 695 saw temps near 300 with slow riding, but then it seemed to come down after the motor settled in with some miles. With the current cooler (and other changes) my typical temp is about 220F. Part of my initial motivation was because of the melting head paint. Remember that the 695 was allegedly the "highest output per cc" in the Ducati lineup, so the design was pushed pretty hard, and as the entry/budget model steps were taken to keep the price point down. Also, I believe the 695 temps are OIL temps and not HEAD temps, FWIW. Whether or not you NEED a cooler on the 695 is up to you, but regardless use a synthetic oil and change it often.
BK
One important note: where is the sensor located for your 695? Mine is located on the vertical cylinder and is thus measuring head temperature. Mine runs at over 300 degrees with the heat we are experiencing without issue. 290 does not sound bad at all...
Additionally, please note during your research the DIFFERENCE between OIL temperature and HEAD temperature... Your head temperature can be 320 degrees yet the oil may be 220 degrees! If 450 degrees is "healthy" for a lycoming engine or a corvair, 300 is not likely a problem at all in your situation. Your temps look pretty normal to me (if you are observing head temperature)... I have read of the heat issues (related to a faulty coil design?) for the 695 and would correct that before adding an oil cooler, if it is an issue in your case.
I've seen the recommendations on installing an ECU with airbox mods, pipes, etc. and for me, they seem a waste of time and money... Some folks seem to like them for the difference in sound, which is fine if you have the cash lying around, but $1,000 for a difference in sound does not a good bargain make, in my opinion...
What CAN lower head temps (and consequently engine temperatures) would be richening the fuel mixture via software in the ECU, which in my understanding is quite lean from the factory.
You may want to look at a map which differs from the factory lean version and can be programmed into your ECU. The ideal stoichiometric air-fuel ration is 14.7-1 and is somewhat lean in practice. Ideally, you would dyno your bike and create a custom map which would yield the best fuel-air mixture taking into account a series of environmental parameters, tailored towards lower engine temperatures, a rather expensive and time consuming endeavour in and of itself...
The flipside of this being, "there is no such thing as a free lunch", in other words, richening the mixture can give you unwanted side effects, such as carbon deposits, poor fuel economy, increased emissions, etc...
Interestingly enough, pilots employ exactly this technique to manage air cooled engines in aircraft, utilizing fuel mixture to compensate for cylinder head temperature. Our bikes (the air cooled ones, anyways) utilize the exact same indicator (cylinder head temperature) as aircraft which employ air cooled engines, the only caveat being that we cannot manually modify our mixture to compensate for heat. I am not sure if the stock ECU and map utilize CHT (cylinder head temperature) to modify the mixture, maybe an expert here can shed some light on this... Given that the heat our engines experience is much lower than that of an aircraft, this is not likely a serious issue.
It is my understanding that the lean maps from the factory are employed to comply with stricter emissions standards (as a matter of fact, the European spec models utilize a catalytic converter). Water cooling has the benefit of maintaining temperatures in the head to much closer range and thus tolerances can be made tighter, thus lending to greater efficiency.
My last street bike was a 1995 Suzuki GSX600F which employed the "SACS" (Suzuki Advanced Cooling System) and utilized an oil cooler. Water cooling lends additional complexity to our bikes and I wonder why (there must be some reason) some sort of additional oil cooling via greater number of channels in the cylinder head, etc. cannot be employed to achieve similar efficiency (of course water has much better thermal transfer ability than oil) as water cooled bikes...
UPDATE: Not sure what year your 695 is, but the 2008 695 shows the sensor in the horizontal cylinder head. This differs enough from my bike (2011 696, sensor located on vertical cylinder) that I am unsure how much of an issue 290 degrees would be (vertical cylinder would likely be much hotter than the horizontal cylinder). It would appear to measure oil temperature in the head. A cooler could be a recommended mod in this case, but of course I could be wrong...
Quote from: elgallo73 on July 14, 2011, 09:22:42 AM
One important note: where is the sensor located for your 695? Mine is located on the vertical sensor and is thus measuring head temperature. Mine runs at over 300 degrees with the heat we are experiencing without issue. 290 does not sound bad at all...
....
UPDATE: Not sure what year your 695 is, but the 2008 695 shows the sensor in the horizontal cylinder head. This differs enough from my bike (2011 696, sensor located on vertical cylinder) that I am unsure how much of an issue 290 degrees would be (vertical cylinder would likely be much hotter than the horizontal cylinder). It would appear to measure oil temperature in the head. A cooler could be a recommended mod in this case, but of course I could be wrong...
The M695 has three sensors related to the oil. The oil pressure switch is located on the clutch cover near the fill plug. This activates the idiot light below a threshold value. The oil temperature sensor (for the gauge) is located on the sump, as part of the pre-filter, and therefore measures bulk oil temp. Another temperature sensor is located on the cover of the horizontal cylinder head and this is used for engine management purposes (i.e., ECU input only) and measures oil temperature. Someone will correct me if I have the two temp sensors reversed!
One other advantage of the Termi kit is that it ditches the oxygen sensor and the associated closed-loop operation. With proper adjustment you get a richer mixture that tends to reduce operating temps a bit.
elgallo73 makes a lot of good points for consideration.
BK
I'm nearly certain that both the 696 and 695 sensors are giving you oil temp, not head temps. Your CHTs will be much higher. Fit a vapor with the spark plug temp ring for kicks. imo oil ideally should be between 180-230F for maximum performance and longevity, but of course these things are durable enough and oil good enough that nothing horrible happens if you go way over this. Head temps aren't really a concern on a NA moto engine.
I had no idea the 695 employed (2) temperature sensors and your information illuminated one important fact: the ECU does likely use head temperature in determining mixture (which is somewhat comforting). I guess the Termi kit might not be a bad idea to lower temps, although I am still too cheap to buy it :)...
Regarding bikepilot's post, it may very well be measuring oil temp, but it would appear from a technical stand point that the sensor on the 695 (the one located in the head) is measuring a combination of head temperature and oil temperature. The engine during normal operation will not have an even temperature distribution, and for that matter, neither will the oil.
On my 696, the sensor is shown as bolting into the rear portion of the vertical cylinder. Whether it is measuring return oil I cannot say as I have not removed it (someone here likely has the answer). In the case of the 695, it is measuring the oil temperature in the head, which will (or at least SHOULD) differ considerably from the temp in the sump.
Ideally, the cooler oil from the sump is pumped into the head, removing additional heat which the surface area from the fins cannot remove efficiently. Once the return oil reaches the sump, the heat is released and then convected/conducted to the case where it is transferred to the air via convective means. The oil in our air cooled bikes must, for a short duration, be exposed to head temperatures likely in excess of 280-320 degrees fahrenheit before it can be cooled again in the sump.
From my reading, it seems there are two serious areas of concern and one minor issue with regards to our air cooled motorcycles with regards to thermal failure:
1) The heads saturate with heat due to lack of air movement and/or failure in the lubrication system, leading to early wear and/or seizure. (One of the more common failures if there is a problem)
2) As a consequence of operating in a harsh environment (ie, high ambient air temperature), the oil in the sump saturates with waste heat which it cannot efficiently transfer to the case and consequently the air, leading to thermal breakdown of the oil. (Not a very common issue, unless you regularly ride in an oven)
3) Last, but not least, as a consequence of high head temperatures, the oil which is circulated through the head breaks down until engine failure occurs (the use of synthetic or dino oil with a high flash point mitigates this). (Not necessarily a common problem, but we change our oil frequently enough to hopefully ensure our engine oil is not reduced to the consistency of water)
From an engineering stand point, it is likely that the Ducati engineers considered operation of the engine in a variety of environments (limited of course, after all, we live on planet Earth...) and designed the cooling area of the heads accordingly. In other words, there is an upper limit and lower limit to the temperatures which the engine can reliably operate. I doubt we will exceed those here, and if we do, we may have other things to worry about than our motorcycle engines ;)...
Here is a link to an article written by a Norton owner regarding head temperature and thermal break down of the oil (very informative and highly suggestive of frequent oil changes):
http://www.nortonclub.com/docs/OilTemp.pdf (http://www.nortonclub.com/docs/OilTemp.pdf)
Test of oil cooler on Royal Enfield bike in India (yes, they still make them there) with numbers:
http://www.indiancarsbikes.in/automotive-technology/royal-enfield-avl-engine-oil-cooler-update-real-world-data-4175/ (http://www.indiancarsbikes.in/automotive-technology/royal-enfield-avl-engine-oil-cooler-update-real-world-data-4175/)
Interestingly enough, the last article shows a cooling of 24% with oil cooler over stock (wonderful, now after reading it again I am re-considering the addition of an oil cooler to my 696, thanks guys...). Keep in mind, however, that a Royal Enfield engine is designed differently than our Ducati L-twins, thus that number may not hold... The average I have seen from the research is maybe a 10-15 degree difference ON AVERAGE, in other words, you mileage will vary.
Just to make things more interesting, here is an article refuting the previous gains on the data from the Indian article:
http://www.royalenfields.com/2010/02/royal-enfield-oil-cooler-works-but-so.html (http://www.royalenfields.com/2010/02/royal-enfield-oil-cooler-works-but-so.html)
The oil cooler kit offered by Ducati is EXPENSIVE for what it is, in my opinion. The H-Comp kit is nice but EXPENSIVE as well considering the parts make up and lack of HARD DATA (the necessity for titanium fittings is questionable, I've always found stainless steel to be more than adequate). It becomes easier to shell out $400.00 for an oil cooler when a series of tests are performed with real numbers in a controlled environment. Marketing statements as "it may" or "it seems" or "possibly" do not work for me. The DIY $100.00 option is a useful mod for the investment required, in my humble opinion. In other words, most of the work has been done for you, all you have to do is put together the pieces, which are relatively inexpesive... For the lack of hard data on my year and model, I do not find an oil cooler to be a necessary option and have opted to go with frequent oil changes coupled with a high quality synthetic oil...
Isn't this fun? One step forward, two steps back!!!
The sensor that was replaced was the oil temp sensor and all it does is read the temp and display it on the tach guage. It is this reading that will cause the bike to shut off if it gets too high (at least on my '07 model).
The shop folks felt that 300 was getting into the "not good" range and 305-310 was definitely something to avoid.
Given that I've nearly hit 300 on a short day of easy riding in 83 degree temps, I've determined it's best to do *something* to bring the temps down. I don't want to find out the hard way what will happen if I'm stuck in traffic on a 95 degree day. Of the options, the oil cooler seems the most practical and economical (despite the <gulp> $400 cost)
Quote from: D3vi@nt on July 14, 2011, 12:41:34 PM
[snip]
(despite the <gulp> $400 cost)
Just so's you know:
The previous-gen Ducati oil cooler is a KTM unit (seriously, mine has a KTM logo cast into the bottom of it) and can be sourced from them for significantly less than the IDENTICAL unit from a Ducati parts catalog.
Lines can be ordered from various places. I got mine from PJ's Parts (http://www.pjsparts.com/). If you don't mind running one of the oil lines across the valve cover, as is standard, you can order the lines for any previous-gen Monster. If you'd rather run both lines under the engine and up the left side, just order the line kit for a HyperMotard.
I could be very wrong, but 300 degrees fahrenheit for a head temperature does not sound bad for an air cooled motor. Save yourself the $400.00 and do what this fellow Ducati owner did:
http://www.ducatimonster.org/forums/upgrades-performance-mods/190920-diy-100-custom-m696-oil-cooler.html (http://www.ducatimonster.org/forums/upgrades-performance-mods/190920-diy-100-custom-m696-oil-cooler.html)
The cooler alone is less than $70.00...
EDIT: Bucketheads pointer looks like it could save you some money as well (posted after he did).
Quote from: elgallo73 on July 14, 2011, 01:01:06 PM
I could be very wrong, but 300 degrees fahrenheit for a head temperature does not sound bad for an air cooled motor. ...
If his M695 is reading 300F on the instrument gauge then that's the temp of the bulk liquid oil in the sump at the pre-filter screen....
BK
Quote from: elgallo73 on July 14, 2011, 11:52:12 AM
Interestingly enough, the last article shows a cooling of 24% with oil cooler over stock (wonderful, now after reading it again I am re-considering the addition of an oil cooler to my 696, thanks guys...). Keep in mind, however, that a Royal Enfield engine is designed differently than our Ducati L-twins, thus that number may not hold... The average I have seen from the research is maybe a 10-15 degree difference ON AVERAGE, in other words, you mileage will vary.
It'll be about -15% in temp by adding a OEM oil cooler to a 620/695.
That's advertised and real world numbers.
QuoteIf his M695 is reading 300F on the instrument gauge then that's the temp of the bulk liquid oil in the sump at the pre-filter screen....
BK
In line with Bikepilot's post, 300 degrees fahrenheit in the sump is VERY BAD (for the conditions he listed)... I would, at the very least, get one of those thermometer guns (~$20.00-$30.00) and begin taking some readings. If you have a friend with a similar bike (good working condition) you could at least compare readings. I would take readings at the head, cylinder base, and sump at the minimum following a test ride in "real world conditions".
~15% reduction in oil temperature is not bad, provided that is the average and not an "ideal". Even so, if he is reading 290 degrees fahrenheit with LIGHT riding, he will only see a reduction of 43.5 degrees (assuming a perfect 15% reduction in temperature via the cooler), thus leaving him with a temperature in the sump of 246.5 degrees fahrenheit assuming the cooler works EXACTLY as advertised and he continues a very MILD riding style, which in my opinion is still HIGH.
At some point I will have to pick one up myself and check my readings just for interest, but I would be VERY concerned if the sump temperature were that high. Furthermore, if the sump temperature is nearly 300 degrees, God only knows how high the head temperature is.
I just checked the manual for the 2007 695 and the temperature is listed as low at 122 degrees fahrenheit and high at 338 degrees fahrenheit. Most of the time all I prove is what I don't know but something sounds very wrong here, if your dealer diagnosed a bad sensor and replaced it yet you are still getting high readings, it is time to download a workshop manual and start poking around... The silver lining to the cloud is that given you are working on an air cooled motor, you can disregard water pumps, thermostats, etc.
I would check your intake for leaks, exhaust gaskets/seals, timing, even the ECU for potential issues. I assume you have had the bike for some time? Historically, what have the readings been for your environmental conditions this time of year? Did the high temps occur following a modification or some other change?
If an oil cooler in your situation drops temps by 10%-15%, that would be an improvement, but don't just go after the symptoms, look for a cause. I cannot believe a stock 695 would run nearly 300 degrees in normal driving conditions.
The average temp I have seen in the postings for the 695 appears to be 235 - 245, and not with LIGHT riding... Any 695 owners here care to chime in?
By the way, from my research on the web, an oil cooler DOES appear to be a recommended mod for the 695, but it does not have to be an EXPENSIVE mod...
One more thing, when was the last time the VALVE CLEARANCE WAS CHECKED?!?!?!?!?!?
Quote from: elgallo73 on July 14, 2011, 03:50:09 PM
I would check your intake for leaks, exhaust gaskets/seals, timing, even the ECU for potential issues. I assume you have had the bike for some time? Historically, what have the readings been for your environmental conditions this time of year? Did the high temps occur following a modification or some other change?
One more thing, when was the last time the VALVE CLEARANCE WAS CHECKED?!?!?!?!?!?
The bike is new to me, bought it at the end of May with 5800 miles on it. It was immaculate with no mods. It now has 6400 miles and is still completely stock. I have no historical data and I'm new to the Duc-world, so I have little to go on besides the knowledge in these forums.
When I took it to the dealer, they checked everything, put on new belts, tightened the chain and replaced the sensor. Everything else checked out. Valve check is on the list for the 7500 mile maintenance.
@Buckethead: thanks for the KTM tip. I will definitely look into that.
QuoteFrom an engineering stand point, it is likely that the Ducati engineers considered operation of the engine in a variety of environments (limited of course, after all, we live on planet Earth...) and designed the cooling area of the heads accordingly. In other words, there is an upper limit and lower limit to the temperatures which the engine can reliably operate. I doubt we will exceed those here, and if we do, we may have other things to worry about than our motorcycle engines ...
EXCEPT one thing...
Although the bike will run in those ranges, the lack of an oil cooler stock is likely a financial decision- not an engineering one. The question here, I think, is will having an oil cooler lower overall temps and thus increase the longevity of the engine/ reliability of bike.
The answer is YES. Whether or not the cost of your install is "worth it" is up to how old your bike is now and/or how long you intend to keep and ride it.
Figuring Ducati makes 30k or so Monsters a year and the cost to them to add an oil cooler is ~$100- they would almost certainly opt to produce the engine "on the line" so to speak in terms of temperature than add the cooler...as it would save them $3,000,000 a year...
Just a thought...
Also you have to consider over-cooling which is as bad, if not worse, than running too hot. If you ride in cold weather consider whether the little monster motor will make enough heat to stay reasonably warm on the cold days with the cooler installed. If not, then you get into the situation of blocking off the cooler, installing an oil t-stat etc.
fwiw, my wife's 620 seems to do pretty well without a cooler - even on the hotter days it has stayed <260F and its usually around 200-230 which is pretty near ideal.
Bikepilot brings up an excellent point, I found some posts regarding this when considering a cooler for my bike. Here is an example:
http://www.hdforums.com/forum/touring-models/449680-oil-running-too-cool-140-degrees-wtf.html (http://www.hdforums.com/forum/touring-models/449680-oil-running-too-cool-140-degrees-wtf.html)
And this is with a THERMOSTAT AND COOLER, granted, it is specific to Harley Davidson, but gives you some idea of the challenges associated with air cooled engines.
An excellent point made from the previous URL:
QuoteThere's really no way to run an aircooled engine within tight oil temperature ranges, even with an oil cooler. I suggest relaxing and riding more . . . H-D oil is intended to run over a wide operating range and so's the engine.
Although cost was possibly somewhat of a factor with the 695/695 in the decision to NOT implement an oil cooler, I find it highly unlikely it was that SIGNIFICANT of a factor... Furthermore, a company has to consider class action suits, brand reliability, etc. I don't have much information on the inner working of the Ducati leadership, but I find it hard to believe that Ducati would risk their brand to save what is honestly a small amount of money (may not seem small to the casual reader here, but $3,000,000 is not as much as one might think it is, and definitely not worth ruining a company name for). Ducati is well aware of how information disseminates on these boards and in general, I highly doubt the company would risk having a reputation for overheating motorcycles...
Adding or removing any component, while driven by cost, is an engineering task. The addition of an oil cooler also lends to COMPLEXITY, hence COST and RELIABILITY. There is always a trade off involved. I'd love to see what software the engineers use to model the engines, particularly in the area of thermodynamics...
One more note with Ducati, the brand has been around for some time, thus, I am inclined to believe that long term thinking can be ascribed to the company. If I recall correctly, I recently read an article where American management was brought in an advisory capacity with the company (someone please correct me here if I am wrong), thus, their intent is brand reputation. I'll trust their engineers on this one, although if I am riding in Rub' al Khali, maybe an oil cooler would be a welcome addition on my bike (although my Honda did fine, so maybe not)...
I cannot speak for the 695, but the 696 is not an overly stressed engine, having a relatively average compression ratio and power output. Although advertised at 79.5hp @ 9,000 rpm (somewhere thereabouts), in practice, my bike RARELY comes close to 9,000 rpm (I'm not much of "hot dogger" with my bike).
Additionally, note the following: automotive/motorcycle engines typically spend 20% of their time near top rated output and 80% of their time "cruising", in other words using very little of what the engine is capable of producing, thus not producing as much heat...
My bike seems to fall into the same category as the 620 owned by Bikepilot's wife. Since this board comprises a diverse array of Ducati owners in disparate locations, it would be interesting to see a poll regarding this...
What I found interesting in the information provided by the 695 owner is that the bike had an oil temp of nearly 300 degrees fahrenheit in 83 degree ambient air temperature with low stress riding. In his situation, seems to me even a cooler would not likely solve his problem...
(Background: I am an aerospace systems engineer specializing in propulsion systems)
Monster 620 is less HP/L, so I would expect it to run cooler.
The more power you make, the more heat it's going to generate. This is a result of those immutable laws of thermodynamics (darn them!). Otto cycle automotive-type engines are typically around 35% thermodynamic efficiency... so every 3.5 HP you make at the crank results in ~6.5 HP (= 4850 W = 16500 BTU/hr) of waste heat that has to go somewhere. Now compare the power difference between a 620 and a 695... 63 vs 73 HP... 10 HP mechanical difference... assuming 35% efficiency, we're talking about 18.8 HP (= 14000 W = 47835 BTU/hr) of additional waste energy... that's a lotta extra heat!
The gages on everything before the 696 get their values from bulk oil temp, so a reading of 300*F is what's in the sump... that's not a healthy temperature. Low to mid 200's are healthy bulk oil temps. 300 should be the reading on a hot day after working the motor hard. I don't know where the "oil temp" reading is taken on the newer bikes.
If you're getting readings of 300 degrees with mild riding and the sensor has been replaced, it's time for an oil cooler. The 695 should have come with one anyway, just because of the power density. Cobble together the parts yourself if you need to save a buck or two, but get thineself an oil cooler. Also, the extra oil capacity you're adding to the engine also helps, because you have more oil for the heat to distribute through. This is one of the reasons bigger oil sumps are typically used on race engines.
Ducati, as most mfr's would have, made a bean-counter decision to leave the oil cooler off the 695... that wasn't a sound engineering decision. Very few if any auto or moto companies actually let the engineers do everything they say is needed for something to work properly and safely for a long time. Hell, even NASA ignores their engineers when management sees fit, and they've lost two shuttles because of it. Anyway, the very slight additional complexity of an oil cooler is going to be more than offset by the increase in reliability and longevity. Ducati's bean counters probably looked at the sales figures, then looked at how many miles MOST of their bikes see, how long most owners keep them, and determined that the drop in longevity would not be a significant problem. As a somewhat extreme example, Ford decided it was cheaper to pay off a few wrongful death lawsuits than fix the suspension on the Explorer. Do not overestimate the morality of the beancounter, nor underestimate the power of money.
As an aside... comparing cyl head temps on a Lycoming to a Corvair or a Ducati is like comparing apples and oranges. We have no data on what materials are used, what the tolerances are on wear surfaces, etc. Aircraft engines are built completely differently from car or bike engines, because they're designed to run at 100% power for takeoff and climbout, then cruise at anywhere from 60%-80% power for hours on end. Street motorcycles and cars use 100% power for less than a minute at a time, and cruise at much less than 50% power. Race vehicles use 100% power for a longer period of time, but race car or motorcycle engines don't go 2000+ hours between inspections and overhaul like aircraft engines do. And in my engineering judgement, the Corvair is not the best example of acceptable anything. Neat cars, but they weren't common enough nor reliable enough to be used as a solid example of allowable temps, tolerances, or materials.
Quote from: elgallo73 on July 15, 2011, 11:48:20 AM
Although cost was possibly somewhat of a factor with the 695/695 in the decision to NOT implement an oil cooler, I find it highly unlikely it was that SIGNIFICANT of a factor... Furthermore, a company has to consider class action suits, brand reliability, etc. I don't have much information on the inner working of the Ducati leadership, but I find it hard to believe that Ducati would risk their brand to save what is honestly a small amount of money (may not seem small to the casual reader here, but $3,000,000 is not as much as one might think it is, and definitely not worth ruining a company name for). Ducati is well aware of how information disseminates on these boards and in general, I highly doubt the company would risk having a reputation for overheating motorcycles......etc...
I disagree and as duc_fan said, it isn't always an engineering decision.
The difference we are talking about is between oil cooler/ no oil cooler and centers around longevity and long term reliablity of the motorcycles in question. These bikes WILL last, but the oil cooler is difference between 5 years on the road and 10 years, or premature bearing/valve seal failure (after thousands of miles)- neither of these things is going to damage reputation or leave Ducati vulnerable to litigation. (And some may argue, but when I think "Ducati", I think of alot of things- the first of which isn't usually reliable...)
$3,000,000 IS alot of money, even for Ducati. For a relatively small company who is only doing ~40k units a year, thats HUGE. Think of all the areas you don't typically associate with costs savings that they have shed dollars (regulators/rectifiers, clutch components, bearings,etc)... I remember reading about how bikes from the 70s and early 80s typically last "forever"- it was with regards to how companies rate the "uses" of individual components like switches in hundreds of thousands of uses. In the mid eighties, companies realized that they could shave lots of money by incorporating components rated in the tens of thousands of uses... as an example.
Just curious, does hp/liter matter for a given % power production provided that actual power produced by both is equal to or less than the maximum power of the less powerful motor? For example, lets say you ride a 695 and 620 down the freeway at 80mph, same rider etc. The power required from both motors is the same, the fact that the 695 could make more peak power, I would think, doesn't result in any extra heat being produced as compared to the 620 untill its asked to make more hp/cc than the 620 is capable of.
Also, IIRC about the same time they went from 620 to 695 they went from rear wheel to crank hp. Diff might not be as big as we think, but I could also be totally off on that.
Anyway, max heat production at peak power might have less to do with the issue than heat production for a given level of fairly low power output. Maybe the 695 with its short stroke, arguably higher state of tune and leaner mixture makes more heat for a given fairly low power output than a 620.
FWIW light aircraft engines are able to run fairly high CHTs in part because the rate of change in temp is very slow. You don't chop the throttle on an airplane in normal use and most of the time you are not supposed to at all. I know that our glider tow plane pilots were instructed to level off and gradually reduce power rather than cutting power and getting back down ASAP because doing so cracked the heads in short order (I would know, me and another guy changed one on a Saturday night).
QuoteFor example, lets say you ride a 695 and 620 down the freeway at 80mph, same rider etc. The power required from both motors is the same, the fact that the 695 could make more peak power, I would think, doesn't result in any extra heat being produced as compared to the 620 untill its asked to make more hp/cc than the 620 is capable of.
EXACTLY! A "real world" example that factors a dynamic system rather than a static comparison of maximum horsepower for each motor... I am NOT an aerospace engineer specializing in propulsion systems, but I have worked around enough gas turbines and reciprocating engines to have some idea of what I am talking about, this is actually fairly simple stuff.
I also argue the 620 would have to work "harder" than the 695 to maintain the same velocity and thus would produce MORE heat at the same speed (in the form of engine friction as a consequence of a higher RPM, thus higher oil temperature).
If you check www.gearingcommander.com (http://www.gearingcommander.com), you will note a nearly 600 rpm increase for the 620 to maintain a given speed over the 695 with stock gearing...
Quote from: elgallo73 on July 15, 2011, 05:32:06 PM
EXACTLY! A "real world" example that factors a dynamic system rather than a static comparison of maximum horsepower for each motor... I am NOT an aerospace engineer specializing in propulsion systems, but I have worked around enough gas turbines and reciprocating engines to have some idea of what I am talking about, this is actually fairly simple stuff.
I also argue the 620 would have to work "harder" than the 695 to maintain the same velocity and thus would produce MORE heat at the same speed (in the form of engine friction as a consequence of a higher RPM, thus higher oil temperature).
If you check www.gearingcommander.com (http://www.gearingcommander.com), you will note a nearly 600 rpm increase for the 620 to maintain a given speed over the 695 with stock gearing...
I'm not sure if you both are suggesting that a 620 motor would more likely need an oil cooler over a 695... :-\
More or less that is exactly what we are arguing, but interestingly enough, from various postings, to include the one made by Bikepilot regarding the fact that the 620 owned by his wife runs relatively cool (without a cooler), we would expect the 620 to run hotter given the same amount of work compared to the 695.
I am a newcomer to Ducati ownership, but it would seem the 695 was a sort of "test bed" for a higher output motor. The issues may have been ironed out and thus we have the 696, for example, which in my opinion runs relatively well, even in hot temperatures, without an oil cooler (at least mine does, and during a heat wave in Texas, no less...)
The argument made by Bikepilot is simply that although an engine may be CAPABLE of producing a given amount of horsepower, it may NEVER see that amount. For example, factory specs state that my 696 should put out around 79 hp@9000 rpm, in "real world" conditions, my bike has never seen this. I'm sure some folks around here might push their bikes to the limit, but for an hour? Having spent time in 26 countries, I have seen VERY FEW where you could get away with running a bike at 125 miles per hour, for an hour! (nor 8,000 rpm in any other gear for an hour) This makes some of the arguments regarding BTU dissipation moot, as those who ride their bikes in this manner may only do so for a VERY SHORT period of time.
When we consider the operation of our bikes, off the track, anyways, we have to take "slices" or "snapshots" of the machine during various stages of a trip. This will involve stops, slow speed operation (around town or city streets), high speed operation (freeway), etc. Once we SUM these slices we get an AVERAGE of what our bikes see during a given period of operation.
I believe Bikepilot may have hit it on the head with:
QuoteAnyway, max heat production at peak power might have less to do with the issue than heat production for a given level of fairly low power output. Maybe the 695 with its short stroke, arguably higher state of tune and leaner mixture makes more heat for a given fairly low power output than a 620.
We have drawn this discussion way out, D3vi@nt, I hope any of this helps, but likely only has further confused you...
One more note, and this ties in engine size to other areas of study. There is likely some marketing "ideal" with regards to horsepower for a motorcycle engine. In other words, the limiting factor for engine power and consequently speed being the infrastructure (read: roads) and the human body. Get too small an engine, and it has to work too hard to keep up with other traffic. Too large an engine, and you have your "speed racer" who did not realize that a liter bike can kill you very fast...
When I was much younger (and not that long ago, but long enough for most folks on these boards), 500cc was considered a "big bike". I started riding when the switch from air cooling to water cooling was in it's infancy and the power output now is incredible compared to those years. My 696 is the largest bike I have owned and this is considered A STARTER BIKE!
Go overseas and observe that many cars have displacements smaller than this (or did for the period I was there)!
Quote from: elgallo73 on July 15, 2011, 07:31:50 PM
One more note, and this ties in engine size to other areas of study. There is likely some marketing "ideal" with regards to horsepower for a motorcycle engine. In other words, the limiting factor for engine power and consequently speed being the infrastructure (read: roads) and the human body. Get too small an engine, and it has to work too hard to keep up with other traffic. Too large an engine, and you have your "speed racer" who did not realize that a liter bike can kill you very fast...
When I was much younger (and not that long ago, but long enough for most folks on these boards), 500cc was considered a "big bike". I started riding when the switch from air cooling to water cooling was in it's infancy and the power output now is incredible compared to those years. My 696 is the largest bike I have owned and this is considered A STARTER BIKE!
Go overseas and observe that many cars have displacements smaller than this (or did for the period I was there)!
...And since this thread has now been hijacked...
I think this was more an issue related to value added taxes associated with larger displacement vehicles (in countries such as Japan) as they are a "luxury" as opposed to a relationship to efficiency. The US had a similar import tax in the 80s related to displacement.
Also, regarding your post before this-
The irony regarding an oil cooler (or even radiator for that matter) is that when a bike is more likely to be working harder is at acceleration/ initial cruising or racing through the twisties and going through the gears- this though is the time that the bike receives the most convection cooling across the engine.
Conversly, while at idle (the most likely time for the engine to heat up- stoplight, etc.) is when there is the least amount of convective cooling and also lower oil pressure means that there isn't really much oil if any moving through the cooler anyways...
I assume "hijacking" implies moving the thread in a different direction than originally intended and for that I apologize, once my mind starts moving it is sometimes difficult to "rein it back in"... Enjoyed the discussion, learned a few things...
Quote from: elgallo73 on July 15, 2011, 08:11:15 PM
Enjoyed the discussion, learned a few things...
Agreed. ;)
QuoteConversly, while at idle (the most likely time for the engine to heat up- stoplight, etc.) is when there is the least amount of convective cooling and also lower oil pressure means that there isn't really much oil if any moving through the cooler anyways...
I had not even thought about that...
This is an interesting discussion. All I can contribute is that an oil cooler is on my must buy in 2011 list. My 696 gets upwards of 6-7 bars during the summer depending on how long and what type riding i have done. I don't really like to see such high temps. This 100* heat is a killer.
There are many factors that enter into oil temperature. Cylinder wall thickness and fins, compression ratio and fuel ratio are just a few. 695s run much hotter than 620s because they run leaner. Put a DP ECU or equivalent and temperatures come down significantly.
Unless your oil temperature gets hot enough to overheat the oil, which, with modern synthetics, is well over 300oF too cold is more of a problem since moisture is not boiled out of the oil.
So when I went to give the bike it's first bath today, what I thought was just road grime turned out to be the brownish stikcy goo on the heads that other 695 owners have complained about. I wasn't able to wash it off with soap or degreaser, so will have to start exploring cleaning options. At the same time, I notice a few bubbles in the tank, which I hope isn't an indication of swelling [bang]. My first Duc and I'm starting to feel like I got a lemon. :-[
Funny thing is, when I bought it, it was immaculate. The previous owner must've had it steam cleaned or something. I swear you could eat off it. His garage and his other bike was the same, so it seemed normal to me.
Quote from: howie on July 15, 2011, 09:38:32 PM
Unless your oil temperature gets hot enough to overheat the oil, which, with modern synthetics, is well over 300oF too cold is more of a problem since moisture is not boiled out of the oil.
Part of the problem is the reading. If it hits 340 (IIRC), the bike will shut off, whether the oil can take it, or not. I hope to ride in cold temps, so you raise a good point there. I think I'm going to take your advice on the DP ECU and go from there. Hopefully that will drop temps enough that an oil cooler won't be necessary.
Thanks again for all the comments -it turned into an interesting discussion. [thumbsup]
would it be better to use -6 or -8 lines?
i'm going to be using a Setrab core. should i get the 10 or 13 row. 10row is 3in high. the 13 row is 4in high
AN-6 will be your fitting size, as for which size of cooler to use, that is dependent on several factors... What environment will you be operating in? Do you take the bike to the track? In my very humble opinion, if an oil cooler is warranted at all, I would go with the 10 row. I am basing this on the fact that the bike will likely be operated in a variety of temperatures and you must consider over cooling the oil (oil that is too hot is bad, oil that is too cool could be even worse).
Granted, you could cover the cooler in the winter, but the idea is to minimize user intervention...
Setrab makes some nice coolers, just remember that even the standard Earl cooler would be fine. I know that in this day and age we are sold on titanium fittings, super duper $15.00 a quart motorcycle oil, and oil filters which will last 100,000 miles, but the Earl cooler is somewhat less expensive than the Setrab and will likely work fine. For the fittings, don't be afraid of your local hydraulic shop or http://www.anplumbing.com (http://www.anplumbing.com).
If you are removing the shrouds (air channels), then fitting the cooler is simple in a horizontal fashion. If not, then the 4 inch version may take some "adjustment" (I know the 3 inch will fit vertically, the 4 inch should as well but you may be cramped for room). Don't take this as fact, just from my research it may well be the case.
If you do this modification, please let us know how it works out. My 696 survived fine in the heat wave we had in Northern Texas this year. Head temps rarely exceeded 4 bars unless in heavy traffic. My gut feeling tells me that an oil cooler would not have made much of a difference, but your mileage may vary and we would love the benefit of your experience.
An infrared thermometer gun would also help in determining how much of a benefit the install is in addition to giving you an indication if a problem currently exists...