Losing coolant

[Don Bradner]

I took my 13 lb cap to an Autozone 30 miles away today (rain, rain, rain,
nothing better to do!) and had it tested. Appeared to work OK; there was a
slight bleed down, but the guy thought it was his tester.

I planned to get a new cap regardless, and ended up getting a 7 lb. Choices were
7, 13, 16, 18, and 20. The new 7 showed about the same slow bleed down, so he
was probably right about his tester.

Went to a nearby NAPA next because I needed more coolant and Autozone didn't
have any heavy-duty stuff. While I was there I asked if they had a 9 lb, and was
told, no, 7 and 13 but no 9.

Tomorrow will be the test.

On 10/24/2008 at 2:57 PM Pete Masterson wrote:

>I suspect that 13-15 psi caps are more common. A 7 psi cap might
>actually prove to be hard to find. (I've never had a vehicle with
>such a low pressure cap, except for a Model A Ford (with original
>engine) I had years ago... that I don't think was pressurized at all.
>
>Pete Masterson
>'95 Blue Bird Wanderlodge WBDA 42
>aeonix1@...
>On the road at Max Meadows, VA
>
>
>
>On Oct 23, 2008, at 10:05 PM, Don Bradner wrote:
>
>> The parts book that came with this coach calls for a 7 lb. I have
>> no idea when this one was changed to a 13 lb.
>>
>> There is a thread back in March of 2007 starting with post 20947
>> where Curt Sprenger said:
>>
>> "Coolant Pressure Control Cap...the 92 series manual recommends all
>> series 92 on-highway vehicle engines use a minimum 9 psi control cap.
>> My radiator cap is a 7 psi. Is this a Bluebird change? What are others
>> using? Should I be concerned? The engine temperature runs at about 185
>> to 195."
>>
>> That thread ended up being more about alarmstats, misters, etc. but
>> besides you (Leroy) mentioning that you had a 13, Pete posted in
>> that thread that the shop that did his radiator replaced with a 15.
>>
>> I'm going to guess that a higher one gets used precisely because
>> the 7 lb, as it loses strength, tends to let more slop out.
>>
>> If you think about it, a 7 lb with a boiling point somewhere above
>> 230 degrees is into temperatures where the engine would be in real
>> trouble anyway. Increasing the cap pressure to 13 takes boiling to
>> 250, but does that really matter?
>>
>> I'm thinking I will go looking for a new cap tomorrow as an easy
>> "maybe fix", and I will look for one around the same 13 lbs.
>>
>> On 10/23/2008 at 6:17 PM Leroy Eckert wrote:
>>
>>> I have a 13lb cap also and it is old. Same year.
>>> Leroy Eckert
>>> 1990 WB-40 Smoke N Mirrors
>>> Dahlonega, GA
>>> Royale Conversion
>>>
>>> --- On Thu, 10/23/08, Joyce and Richard Hayden
>>> wrote:
>>> From: Joyce and Richard Hayden
>>> Subject: Re: [WanderlodgeForum] Losing coolant
>>> To: WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com
>>> Date: Thursday, October 23, 2008, 8:32 PM
>>>
>>> Don, I would wonder why someone has put a 13 # cap on your cooling
>>> system. The standard for these engines have been 7#. I haven't
>>> heard
>>> of very many with anything above that.
>>>
>>> Dick Hayden - '87 PT 38 - Lake Stevens, WA - still in Medford, OR
>>> but on
>>> the road again tomorrow after the tranny is fixed.
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[Gregory OConnor]

I looked at my radiator fill point today (94/8v92)and concluded that
it is no puke tank. when the buss chucks, it does not save the
fluids passed thru the cap in a tank. the
puke/chuck /ExpandedRadFluid goes out the neck of the cap holder
thru a small rubber line and down the streetside bumper onto the
ground.

the Stainless steel tank atop the engine bay is simply a remote
extension of the radiator top tank!!!!! I am thinking the Detroit
design of 7 psi is for an application where the coach builder
actually uses a recovery tank.

(My 525hp cummins has a 4.5 lb cap and recovery puke tank) I like
recovery systems with lower psi because there is no air in the
system like must be in the stainless steel tank to accomindate the
expansion of r fluids?????

there is a small line from the ss tank to the top of the actual
radiator who's purpose is to pass trapped air from rad to
sstank????? (what do you think Leroy)
we need a new name for the 'puke tank',,, "Remote radiator fill
tank"?

[Pete Masterson]

Greg,

Your description fits what's in the DD Series 60 engine model as
well. The "fill tank" is pressurized and the overflow just goes out
via a tube onto the ground. There is a volume of air as headroom in
the tank. The sight glass is intended to be half-full when the water
level (cold) is correct. That leaves 3 or 4 inches above the water as
expansion space.

While BB didn't design a puke tank into the system, it wouldn't be
difficult to add one, if you should desire to, assuming you can find
a practical location that doesn't interfere with the other odds and
ends in the engine room.

Pete Masterson
'95 Blue Bird Wanderlodge WBDA 42
aeonix1@...
On the road at Max Meadows, VA



On Oct 24, 2008, at 5:21 PM, Gregory OConnor wrote:

> I looked at my radiator fill point today (94/8v92)and concluded that
> it is no puke tank. when the buss chucks, it does not save the
> fluids passed thru the cap in a tank. the
> puke/chuck /ExpandedRadFluid goes out the neck of the cap holder
> thru a small rubber line and down the streetside bumper onto the
> ground.
>
> the Stainless steel tank atop the engine bay is simply a remote
> extension of the radiator top tank!!!!! I am thinking the Detroit
> design of 7 psi is for an application where the coach builder
> actually uses a recovery tank.
>
> (My 525hp cummins has a 4.5 lb cap and recovery puke tank) I like
> recovery systems with lower psi because there is no air in the
> system like must be in the stainless steel tank to accomindate the
> expansion of r fluids?????
>
> there is a small line from the ss tank to the top of the actual
> radiator who's purpose is to pass trapped air from rad to
> sstank????? (what do you think Leroy)
> we need a new name for the 'puke tank',,, "Remote radiator fill
> tank"?
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[Don Bradner]

My parts list calls the tank a "Deaeration" tank. Presumably that's because any
air bubbles in the system will tend to eventually rise to the highest point and
depart from the fluid.

I would normally call it an expansion tank, as it has considerably more room for
fluid to expand into than the top of the radiator normally would.

As far as cap poundage goes, I would argue that the point in our engines is not
so much to do with raising boiling point, since the coolant is supposed to stay
well below even the boiling point of water, but rather just to keep the system
"closed" under normal circumstances.

On 10/24/2008 at 9:21 PM Gregory OConnor wrote:

>I looked at my radiator fill point today (94/8v92)and concluded that
>it is no puke tank. when the buss chucks, it does not save the
>fluids passed thru the cap in a tank. the
>puke/chuck /ExpandedRadFluid goes out the neck of the cap holder
>thru a small rubber line and down the streetside bumper onto the
>ground.
>
>the Stainless steel tank atop the engine bay is simply a remote
>extension of the radiator top tank!!!!! I am thinking the Detroit
>design of 7 psi is for an application where the coach builder
>actually uses a recovery tank.
>
>(My 525hp cummins has a 4.5 lb cap and recovery puke tank) I like
>recovery systems with lower psi because there is no air in the
>system like must be in the stainless steel tank to accomindate the
>expansion of r fluids?????
>
>there is a small line from the ss tank to the top of the actual
>radiator who's purpose is to pass trapped air from rad to
>sstank????? (what do you think Leroy)
>we need a new name for the 'puke tank',,, "Remote radiator fill
>tank"?
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[Fred Hulse]

Coolant overflow ,

tank

or

bottle

or

container

or device

Fred & Jeanne Hulse
Morristown Arizona
1997 Wanderlodge WLWB41

[Gregory OConnor]

On a puke recovery/refill system, fluids 'displace' and move the
spring in the cap to relieve the expanded fluids never more than
7psi. Air in the expansion tank compresses and packs energy. a quick
rush of expanded fluid could prove 300 psi???? while opening the 13#
valve unless the energy first blowes a hose or compramised liner
seal apart. I just think there is a larger issue here if there is
such large selection of such a small variable pressurecaps
avaliable. from 3 psi to 15 and some half units.????????????

I wonder if deaeration is a Bluebird term (maby one of the
engineeres had a dairy) or if de-airing would even be an issue (or
necessary realtime manitenance task of the cooling system)if the
system was all hydrolic with a true puke tank??????????


Greg94ptCa


--- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "Don Bradner"
wrote:
>
> My parts list calls the tank a "Deaeration" tank. Presumably
that's because any air bubbles in the system will tend to eventually
rise to the highest point and depart from the fluid.
>
> I would normally call it an expansion tank, as it has considerably
more room for fluid to expand into than the top of the radiator
normally would.
>
> As far as cap poundage goes, I would argue that the point in our
engines is not so much to do with raising boiling point, since the
coolant is supposed to stay well below even the boiling point of
water, but rather just to keep the system "closed" under normal
circumstances.
>
> On 10/24/2008 at 9:21 PM Gregory OConnor wrote:
>
> >I looked at my radiator fill point today (94/8v92)and concluded
that
> >it is no puke tank. when the buss chucks, it does not save the
> >fluids passed thru the cap in a tank. the
> >puke/chuck /ExpandedRadFluid goes out the neck of the cap holder
> >thru a small rubber line and down the streetside bumper onto the
> >ground.
> >
> >the Stainless steel tank atop the engine bay is simply a remote
> >extension of the radiator top tank!!!!! I am thinking the Detroit
> >design of 7 psi is for an application where the coach builder
> >actually uses a recovery tank.
> >
> >(My 525hp cummins has a 4.5 lb cap and recovery puke tank) I like
> >recovery systems with lower psi because there is no air in the
> >system like must be in the stainless steel tank to accomindate
the
> >expansion of r fluids?????
> >
> >there is a small line from the ss tank to the top of the actual
> >radiator who's purpose is to pass trapped air from rad to
> >sstank????? (what do you think Leroy)
> >we need a new name for the 'puke tank',,, "Remote radiator fill
> >tank"?
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

[Gregory OConnor]

Fred, 'heave tank' would be the only other allowable in this
idiom. 'Puke tank' need little explanation but the 8v92Wanderlodge
has not such a tank. I wanted a new name for the tank Don said is
labeled DeAir.... som'in.
Greg94ptCa


--- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "Fred Hulse"
wrote:
>
> Coolant overflow ,
> tank
> or
> bottle
> or
> container
> or device
>
> Fred & Jeanne Hulse
> Morristown Arizona
> 1997 Wanderlodge WLWB41
>

[Leroy Eckert]

I cannot trace the lines on mine now because it is cold and raining. If there is any puking it will hit the ground I know that for sure. So a recovery or holding tank is a misnomer. I think Greg is correct. It probably is what would be termed the outlet tank(cooled water) on an auto radiator. I looked in my BB manual and it is called a surge tank and states it should be filled to the top. That would prove Greg's analysis that it is in fact a part of the radiator. My genset coolant system is a mini version of this system. Recovery tanks are not pressurized. Leroy Eckert 1990 WB-40 Smoke N Mirrors Dahlonega, GA Royale Conversion --- On Fri, 10/24/08, Gregory OConnor wrote: From: Gregory OConnor Subject: [WanderlodgeForum] Re: Losing coolant To: WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, October 24, 2008, 5:21 PM I looked at my radiator fill point today (94/8v92)and concluded that it is no puke tank. when the buss chucks, it does not save the fluids passed thru the cap in a tank. the puke/chuck /ExpandedRadFluid goes out the neck of the cap holder thru a small rubber line and down the streetside bumper onto the ground. the Stainless steel tank atop the engine bay is simply a remote extension of the radiator top tank!!!!! I am thinking the Detroit design of 7 psi is for an application where the coach builder actually uses a recovery tank. (My 525hp cummins has a 4.5 lb cap and recovery puke tank) I like recovery systems with lower psi because there is no air in the system like must be in the stainless steel tank to accomindate the expansion of r fluids????? there is a small line from the ss tank to the top of the actual radiator who's purpose is to pass trapped air from rad to sstank????? (what do you think Leroy) we need a new name for the 'puke tank',,, "Remote radiator fill tank"?

[Fred Hulse]

You guys are right,I was not reading Greg's post correctly.

It seems to be a radiator tank that pukes or heaves.

Fred & Girls

[Don Bradner]

Leroy, would you double check that? The exact line in my manual reads (split
between front and back pages):

"Remove cap and fill radiator surge tank to the top of sight glass."

That is what I do, and is significantly different than "to the top."

There is a large air space above the top of sight glass, which in theory should
handle heat-induced expansion without overflow.

On 10/24/2008 at 4:19 PM Leroy Eckert wrote:

>I looked in my BB manual and it is called a surge tank and
>states it should be filled to the top.