Introduction

EK CoolStream XE 360mm Radiator Review

The intention of this write-up is to provide information and performance data about the EK XE 360mm Radiator for inclusion in the Extreme Rigs Rad Round Up 2015. I’ll be keeping the review section short and factual, focusing on presenting the performance data compiled through the numerous tests carried out. Firstly a big thanks to EK for providing the review sample of the XE 360mm!

 

Note: You may notice changes in the data presentation in this rad review as I’m now also including even more thermal testing data for both Push/Pull and Push Only fan installations.

What’s in the Box?

The XE sample arrived in full retail packaging – complete with plastic shrink.

EK XE (7)

The EK retail packaging is distinctive and their radiator range is always color coded with lime green. The band of radiator fins under the EK logo is a nice detail. Those grey blocks though…..maybe I’m missing something.

On the back we find some specs under the technical data and the included contents.

Additionally we find some marketing propaganda (multi-language) advising us that for best performance to use EK’s Vardar fans. As all testing to date is carried out with GT AP-15 fans, we need to continue using them for accurate comparisons.

Keep an out for the Extreme Rigs AP-15 Vs EK Vardar F3 shoot-out coming soon.

EK continue to state that no there is no need for flushing prior to use. I advise against this and believe that you should always flush your rads prior to installing in your system. I’ll go out of sequence here because it relates directly to this flushing statement by EK.

As it turned out, the sample EK sent was not brand new from the factory. EK confirmed that it had been used for in-house testing prior to it sending to me. I found this out after opening the box for inspection and there was water around the ports and down one side of the casing, along with some staining most likely from dried up coolant.

My point here, is that I decided to half fill the XE sample with distilled and give it a shake around. I expected it to be clean, however some particles were evident, even after whatever “testing” EK had done previously.
Therefore always flush your rads!

EK XE (10)

OK back to the unboxing – the XE360 has a sturdy protective cardboard box inside the retail sleeve:

EK XE (19)

Inside the XE had a bubble wrap sleeve which I always like to see:

EK XE (22)

The accessory bags were placed at one end with a cardboard divider between the bags and the rad, simple yet effective.

Extent of delivery as per the EK website.

Enclosed:
– EK-CoolStream XE series radiator /w two pre-installed G1/4 extenders
– Flat-head UNC 6-32 screws (l=30mm)
– Flat-head UNC 6-32 screws (l=5mm)
– Allen key 2,5mm
– Allen key 9mm
– Allen key 6mm

 

My measurement of the short screw length was more like 6.5mm.

Both screw lengths are black, hex-key, button head screws. As good as it gets in my opinion.

Also included was 3 allen keys…

  • 1 x 2.5mm allen key for the mounting screws.
  • 1 x 6mm allen key for the secondary port plugs which are pre-fitted. This allen key was a sloppy fit but did however work ok.
  • 1 x 9mm allen key is for nipping up the primary ports if they unscrew when removing fittings.

EK provided two port plugs which on my already tested sample were pre-fitted. Retail units will most likely have the port plugs supplied for the end user to install.

Onwards to technical specifications!

Technical Specifications

Technical Data – as listed on the XE packaging:

• 400mm x 128mm x 60mm (L x W x H)
• Weight: 1700g (3.75 lbs)
• For 3 x 120mm fans

Technical Data – as listed on the EK website:

Material:
– Copper fins
– 90% copper tubing (H90)
– Brass chambers
– Aluminum/Steel housing

Dimensions: 400 x 130 x 60mm (L x W x H)
Weight: 2,05kg
Liquid Capacity: ~370mL
FPI: 16
Port threads: 4x G1/4
Fan compatibility: any standard size 120x120x25mm fan; UNC 6-32 thread tapping
Pressure tested: 1bar(g)

Tech Drawing of the XE 360:

EK - XE Tech Drawing

Dimensions Measured on the Radiator Tested:

The (+5) is the measurement that the primary port fitting adapters sit up proud of the casing. The alternate ports are recessed same as the primary, so when the port plugs are fitted they are flush with the casing. The port plugs and G 1/4 fitting adapters are interchangeable and can be fitted to either side of the tank end.

Radiator Core Dimensions:

The core is made up of 3 rows of 14 tubes arranged in the standard U-Flow configuration. The fin arrangement is made of single louvered fins with a 15 FPI count. The medium/high fin count should equate to some decent results with a Push/Pull fan assembly, but might end up being a tab restrictive for Push Only set ups. We’ll find out that when we analyze the results later.

This core configuration is quite different from the CoolStream PE 360s core which has less tubes, a denser split fin arrangement and is obviously much thinner.

This picture is a reference which shows a typical U-Flow coolant flow path, where the coolant travels up all the tubes on one side (left in pic) of the rad and then returns down the other side. U-Flow is most easily recognized when the port end has 2 separate tanks, unlike the XE which has a boxed cover over the tanks.

cool8

cool7The XE can be easily dis-assembled allowing for custom painting of the panels. Once the casing is removed we can see the two end tanks for the U-Flow path.

EK XE 360 (16)

Interesting that EK have chosen to completely paint the XE’s hidden parts, while on the thinner PE version only the visible face of the core was painted. The XE is not fitted with the  rubber pads which the PE has to keep the casing appropriately spaced from the core.

One other difference noticed is that the fitting adapters on the XE are nickle plated, where as on the PE they were brass.

EK PE disassembled - Lr + B&W-1

The XE’s single louvered fins are spaced pretty evenly between the tubes. The Fin count varied between 15 and 16 FPI, with the majority of the measurements taken being 15 FPI.

Finish and Features

The XE has a fantastic satin Black finish. I usually prefer a matte black but this finish is excellent and looks great:

All visible joins look good and the panels fit together well with no gaps. The side panels do feel just a bit flimsy and a thicker material might have been a better option here. It’s a minor issue I know, but it somehow detracts a bit from the overall quality.

At the non-port end is the seemingly mandatory branding we find on more and more of our gear. At least it’s in an inconspicuous spot and tastefully done.

The fan mount spacing is the standard 15mm.

There are no protection plates fitted under the mounting holes. Care must be taken if you need to use custom length screws due to your mounting needs as while the holes don’t appear directly over the tubes, the actual screws could create issues. Just be sure to check your screw lengths. Hopefully the omission of protection plates is something EK will rectify by including them in future revisions.

The XE360 comes equipped with 4 ports in total, 2 each for inlet and outlet to choose from. I hope EK plans to revise the PE series to also include the additional ports that some other radiators have.

These extra ports give potential options for dedicated fill or drain ports depending on the installation orientation. We love multi-port rads!

The port cut-outs measure 16mm across on both sides, so the ports/plugs are interchangeable. Handy if you don’t want the distraction of the EK logo right next to your fittings.

EK XE 360 (18)

EK XE 360 (2)

EK XE 360 (1)

Unfortunately there is no dedicated fill/bleeder port on the return end tank. This is a feature that the XTX (which the XE replaces) did have. The core and design are obviously different, but it would have been great if EK could have kept the dedicated port.

So what do we have? A thick rad with a medium/high FPI count that is sporting an additional set of ports. The finish is excellent as is the overall build quality. So far so good.

EK XE 360 (10)

Let’s see how it performs…

Flow Rate Testing

The Data

As all the testing in this round-up was performed with the exact same equipment, using the exact same methods I have decided to keep each radiators page uncluttered by posting our testing methodology, test set-ups and equipment used in a single location. To see exactly how the tests were carried out, details of the test set ups and equipment used, please head back to the RRU Test Setup page.

Restriction Test

It’s generally agreed that radiators are one of, if not the least restrictive components in the water cooling loop. There are some exceptions however, so this must still be verified through testing:

cool13

The above photo is for referencing the restriction test bench The XE is not loaded so please disregard the data in the picture as it does not relate to the its test results.

Here is the raw data at the tested flow rates, displaying the measured Differential Pressure across the radiator as flow rate was increased.
The table numbers indicate that the XE 360 is a medium restriction radiator. However numbers in isolation can only tell half the story. By plotting against other components it more easily shows the whole story.

I have decided to use a HeatKiller 3.0 CPU block as the reference in these plots for two reasons. Firstly there is no chance of the plot being cluttered by curves overlapping and secondly it gives a reference point against a fairly common loop component of average restriction.

As with all the radiator restriction plots I have limited the maximum flow rate displayed to 2.0 GPM as I suspect there are very few systems that operate above 2.0 GPM. For more information on how to read a restriction plot check out our guide.

XE - Restriction Chart
This plot confirms the XE as a low restriction loop component. lets see how if fares against the other radiators in the test group.

The next three plots show the XE’s restriction level relative to other radiators in the test group. Previously I have only shown just the 1.0 gpm plot, but I have now decided to show 3 different flow rates for you to see how the rad’s restriction levels compare against each other at different flow rates.

XE - Restriction Comparison 0.5
XE - Restriction Comparison 1.0

XE - Restriction Comparison 1.5

From these plots I think it a fair assessment to call the XE360 a medium restriction radiator.  While higher than some it’s not at a level that needs to be worried about.

Onwards to Thermal Performance!

Thermal Testing

The Thermal Data

Moving on from the restriction test bench the CoolStream XE 360 was loaded into the thermal test chamber for a series of tests – consisting of 3 flow rates, each having 3 different fan rpm rates tested. I felt the thermal test data was most important and which you as the reader would be most interested in.

Below is the final data results gathered from at least 2 data logging runs at each flow rate and fan rpm combination. The most stable 15 minute period from each logging run was used and then averaged with the other runs to obtain the data for the table below. A total of 16 temperature sensors were used in the thermal test chamber (8 air in, 2 air out, 3 water in, 3 water out) each take a reading every second and logged via a CrystalFontz unit. The data in the table below is the averaged results of the logging runs which has then been used to create all the plots and tables there-after.

XE - Thermal Data Table
The performance metric of critical importance is the delta between the warm coolant temperature in and the cold ambient air temperature in to the radiator. Given that the system is well insulated and in equilibrium and we know the heat input to the system then we can also calculate a very important number – that is the amount of power required to raise the coolant temperature 1C (or 10C which is more useful reference point).

Let’s take a look at the Delta T results from the tests, in bar chart form first:

XE - Delta Bars
I’m not too concerned about the actual delta numbers here, more so if a trend pattern between fan speeds is occurring. Most noticeable here is the lack of variation between 1.0 and 1.5 gpm at the different fan speeds. Additionally it’s interesting to see the Push Only dropping so significantly as the fan speeds increase.

Delta T results (as above) is not always helpful when thinking about how many radiators you would need to cool your system. Instead it’s more useful to know the delta/W, or more usefully, the inverse metric of W/delta C. The metric plotted below tells us how many watts are dissipated by the radiator when the coolant rises 10C above ambient temperatures. (W/10 Delta T):


As expected increasing airflow through the radiator is the primary determinant in changing the radiators performance.

The unusual looking Push/Pull result at 0.5gpm 750rpm was re-tested twice, with the same (very similar) outcome. It is an unexpected result and doesn’t really make sense. With hindsight, I probably should have retested the 1.0 & 1.5 gpm 750 rpm data points again.  However we’ll be averaging these flow rates later and that should help squash any error.

Notice that we are not seeing much performance gain at each fan speed as the flow rate is increased. This could prove interesting in the comparisons later on. Are the XE’s low flow results very good, or are the high flow gains lower than we would normally see?

This data can now be plotted as a pretty curve so that an end user can interpolate their own fan speed. Note again that the extrapolation of the curve is much more sensitive to error than in between the tested range. Let’s exclude the push data for now and come back to it:

XE - W10DT Curves
Evidence again that increasing flow rate is yielding very little benefit in performance as the fan speed is increased. Note also the trajectory of the curve – this is a radiator that has “room to grow” with higher fan speeds and hasn’t ran out of breath.

If we now come back to the push data it’s good to compare the Push Only and Push/Pull data in an “apples to apples” fashion by only looking at the 1GPM data:

XE - P Vs PP

Push only gives around 87% (averaged) of the performance of the Push/Pull 1.0 gpm test results on this radiator. This is interesting as to date it seems to be the better performing radiators which have straighter lines like this with less curvature. It could be a promising sign for the XE.

In this next plot all three Push/Pull results at each flow rate were averaged to produce one curve and we compared the results against one of the best and worst performers from the first test group. Averaging reduces test error of course so this helps further to be sure of our data and is more useful therefore for comparing to other radiators.

XE - Avg'd PP Vs
As you can see the XE clearly is beating both the reference rads at low fan speeds and only begins to taper off against the higher FPI Koolance rad once high fan speeds are reached.

Now let’s analyze that data some more…

Data Analysis

This first table shows the XE’s Watts/10 Delta Temp numbers in a quick glance chart format.

XE - TT - W10DT

Using the data compiled from the XE thermal testing I have compiled the following tables in an attempt to show other ways of how its performance varies against itself at the flow rates and fan speeds tested. Effectively these show percentage gains relative to a reference point. It’s an interesting way to show gains/losses while changing a variable.

First let’s focus on 1300 RPM as our reference and see how much gain or loss in performance we get by changing fan speed.

XE - TT - 1300The high percentage changes from 1300 rpm to 750 rpm indicates the XE had a significant boost in performance with this fan speed range. In the next plot we focus on changing the flow rate with 1.0 GPM as the base line.

XE - TT - 1.0
With only slight percentage changes when changing the flow rate this could mean a couple of things. The flow rate is not a determining factor for performance on the XE or that the core is extremely well tuned for a low flow rate and little performance gains are made with increasing flow rates. I tend to favor the later as being the most likely explanation.

Normally here the 0.5gpm 750rpm table is shown, but due to the odd result at that data point lets look at the XE in reverse fashion by by using the 1.5 gpm and 1850 rpm as our reference points:

XE - TT - 1.5 1850
This shows us performance percentage losses as either or both of the two references are changed.  Clearly the airflow change is the dominant factor at play.

Lastly, we change the reference and choose our center 1300 RPM and 1.0 GPM as our reference point to show both effects concurrently:

XE - TT - 1.0 1300

So from the data above we can get a very good idea of how the XE 360 radiator performs relative to itself. But there is a large selection of 360mm radiator models to choose from, released from numerous manufacturers. So, we need to start comparing performance between them. To see how the XE performed against the other radiators tested, I have included the averaged flow rate comparison charts from the Round Up. We’ve seen that the flow rate has little impact on thermal performance so averaging of the 3 flow rate results gives us a good look at head to head performance at the rpm speeds tested at with even less error.

Push Only Data vs Competition

Let’s focus on the Push Only results for now and come back to the Push/Pull data later. While for Push/Pull we tested three flow rates, the Push Only testing was conducted only at 1GPM in order to save time.

Let’s start with 750 RPM and see how it compares to the competition:

XE - W10DT 1.0 750 P

The XE places in the middle of the pack in the low speed Push Only rankings. Not a surprising result given it’s medium/high FPI and thick core.

How does the XE do at 1300 rpm?

Pretty darn well actually:

XE - W10DT 1.0 1300 P
Jumping up and into first place first by a clear margin, ~4.5% ahead of the nearest rival (ironically EK’s own XTX which the XE replaces). I think we’ll find the XE really starting to hit it’s strides as the air flow is increased:

XE - W10DT 1.0 1850 P
At 1850 Push Only the XE again takes first place, now 5.5% clear of the now superseded XTX. At the time of writing the XTX has become EOL, even prior to the XE being released.

So the XE was average at low fan speeds in Push Only (as expected given the medium PFI count), but WOW did it perform with medium and high speed fans. One could reasonably expect this dominance to continue when we add more fans and test with a Push/Pull assembly.

Let’s find out…

Push/Pull Data vs. Competition

Let’s now look at the Push/Pull results and see how the XE 360 compares. For Push/Pull we have averaged the results from the 3 flow rates at which we tested.

XE - W10DT Avg 750 PPThe XE 360 continues it’s winning streak taking another first place. Of the three individual flow rates making up the averaged result, the XE placed first in only the 750 rpm category, but was top 5 and close enough in the other to give it the winning overall average.

Let’s move to the 1300 rpm then:

XE - W10DT Avg 1300 PP

In the 1300 rpm category the XE was again the top performer. It dominated the medium fan speed category taking first place in each of the 3 flow rate tests.

The averaged 1850 rpm results:

XE - W10DT Avg 1850 PP
At 1850 Push/Pull the XE360 dropped to 3rd place, ~4.5% behind the category winner. Both the rads above it are dense FPI rads and tuned specifically for high speed fans. The XE has done exceptionally well to beat all other comers

So the XE gets 4 out of 6 category wins plus a 3rd place. This is pretty amazing that EK have come up with a core that performs so well in nearly every scenario.  Finally we have a radiator that is well tuned for almost all usage scenarios.

Let’s now combine both the push data and the push/pull data – this can help to clarify which option may be more beneficial if looking to upgrade performance for a Push Only installation – to spend money on extra fans or a different radiator.

Again the 750 rpm first:

XE - W10DT 1.0 750 P_PP
The 750 rpm tests were the XE360s weakest results in comparison to the others. Again this can be attributed to the medium FPI core. It still does very well in Push/Pull and while the Push only result looks to be well behind the leader, it is only ~9% behind the Push Only winner.

At 1300 rpm:
XE - W10DT 1.0 1300 P_PPThe EK XE 360 donimates in both Push Only and Push/Pull. Notice how many Push/Pull results that the XE’s Push Only has beaten, over half of them – unbelievable!

At 1850RPM the trend continues with 1st place in Push Only and 3rd at Push/Pull:

XE - W10DT 1.0 1850 P_PP
From all of test results we created “Average Performance Factor” charts for both Push and Push/Pull and then a combined plot called the “Master Performance Factor”. The radiator with the best cooling ability (W/10ΔT) at each gpm/rpm combo was awarded a score of 100, and each other radiators W/10ΔT result was scored as percentage of the top performer.

This way of looking at the comparison takes away any advantages that a radiator may have at higher or lower fan speeds and looks at an overall average. While this appears fair it does tend to favor those radiators that are all-rounders and those radiators which do very well at high RPM. Most users should be more focused on their specific use case. Check in the Round Up for performance comparisons at every gpm/rpm combo for even more details and cross comparison results.

Here is the XE 360’s Push/Pull percentage scores at each data point that thermal tests were conducted at and additionally the 1.0 gpm Push Only percentages relative to the winner at each fan speed.

XE - TT - PF ALL

An impressive result table to say the least, with 6 out of 12 category first places, 5 out of 6 less than 5% behind the winner and the other less than 10 %. The XE 360 has proven to be a dominant all-round performer. Stating the obvious, it is by far the best set of results of the test group.

Then we started averaging the percentage scores to give us the Averaged Performance Factors of each radiator.

Firstly – the Push Only APF:

XE - APF P b

The XE gets 1st place edging out the SR2 which is seemingly better tuned for low speed fans and had swept the floor with it’s results when we tested it. The XE has blown me and most of the competition away.

Now the Push/Pull APF:

XE - APF All

The XE360 also gets 1st place in the Push/Pull also.  With a score of 98.1 is the first time that any rad will be awarded a 5/5 for Push/Pull performance using our scoring system.

Finally we created the Master Performance Factor which is calculated from the averaged results of all the thermal tests, Push and Push/Pull at all flow rates and all fan speeds:

XE - APF All b

In the Master Performance Factor comparisons the XE 360 finishes in first place! The XE 360 relentlessly pumps out high results across all the test data points and so the XE will become our latest “Best of the Bunch” award winner when we revise the performance awards after testing is complete.

I really didn’t expect the XE to perform so well across the board, particularly at the lower fan speeds, but it did. The XE’s core does appear tuned best for medium to high fan speeds, but it is extremely versatile, also outperforming virtually every other rad of the test group in the low fan speeds tests. In two words then – outstanding performance!

Next up – Summary!

 

Summary

Thermal Performance

Thermal Performance scores are derived from the relevant Performance Factor scores. We set this scale with 75% and below as the 0 mark, with each 2.5% increase from 75% in relative performance adding 0.5 to the awarded performance score.

Push Only Thermal Performance – 4.5/5

The XE 360 set a new benchmark with it’s Push Only thermal performance. Its result was average at low fan speeds but placed first in the medium and high speed categories giving it a 97.1 comparative performance factor which equates to a 4.5/5 score.

Push/Pull Thermal Performance – 5/5

Another category, another first place and another new benchmark for the XE radiator. The 98.1 APF translates to a 5/5 score awarded for Push/Pull thermal performance. To say this is a dominant performance would be an understatement:

Overall Thermal Performance – 5/5

With the Push Only and Push/Pull category wins it would be quite amazing if the XE didn’t place first in the overall results.  It’s results put it well clear of the nearest competitor and it’s 97.6 Master Performance Factor score means that another perfect 5/5 score is going to the XE and makes it the current overall thermal performance winner!

XE - APF All b

Features & Quality – 4.0/5

The CoolStream PE 360mm from EK has a great satin black finish and overall the build quality is excellent. My only criticism is that the side material of the casing is a bit thin for the length and as such leaves it feeling a bit flimsy when handling the rad. At 65mm including the ports it is a thick rad, so it won’t be suitable for all installation scenarios.

A compromise has been made when EK decided on the 4 ports that the XE is fitted with. The XE’s 4 ports are 2 more than it’s new stable mate the PE which has only 2, but is less than the 5 which the XTX had. (XTX being replaced by the XE).  It’s also less than the 7 that some of the competition have.

Tube protection plates are not fitted under the fan mounting holes and the tubes are located in very close proximity to the screw holes. Take extra care if using custom mounting hardware.

The core of the XE is slightly biased towards medium and high speed fans, but still performs extremely well with lower fan speeds.

With a medium/high FPI count the XE will need some cleaning time allocated every now and then to keep it at peak performance.  If you are worried about dust build up then a lower FPI rad like the SR2 will still give great performance.

The XE’s medium restriction level will not cause any additional concern when planning the required pump set-up for your loop.

Summary – 4.5/5

The EK CoolStream XE 360mm is an excellent thermal performing radiator with both Push Only and Push/Pull fan assemblies. It placed first in both categories as well as taking the overall best performing radiator award out of a huge group of 26 radiators.  This is no mean feat!

The boxy design is unique to the CoolStream “E” series and should blend seamlessly into any build without drawing attention to itself.

The XE 360 really has no drawbacks, and deserves to be placed on your short list to choose from if looking for a top performing rad and you have the available space to accommodate it thickness

At the time of writing the XE360 was due to hit shelves at any moment and is rumored to have a retail price of around $100.

Once released we’ll update the pricing and provide the EK Webshop Link. I hope EK have a whole heap of these available as I believe they’ll be flying off the shelves!

Where to buy: EK e-shop $99.99 + shipping from Europe

9 COMMENTS

  1. Another great review of a great rad. Excellent work Fast Fate and EK.

    Will have a couple of these on their way as soon as I can.

  2. On your analysis page when comparing the average GPM @ 750/1300/1850 P/P your graph for this review differs from say the coolgate G2 review analysis numbers. Power dissipated on the G2 review page at AVE GPM 1850 P/P is 497.7 and in this review it shows the G2 @ 461. This discrepancy is across all radiators and fan speeds in your group A reviews, the power dissipated is much lower in this review.

    I know you changed your temp reading set-up to get better accuracy but I never found anything referencing the change in Power dissipated due to that. Its confusing, could you please explain why the numbers changed.

    BTY, always great reviews…..thank you!!

    • Good catch! Yes this is because for Group A we were using averaged power dissipation numbers across all of Group A. After publishing Group A and continuing analyzing numbers with Group B we found that repeatability was increased by using calculated power dissipation from each run rather than the average over all tests. Therefore all later numbers are processed using this method. Soon we will be going back and editing all the results to be consistent in the methodology 🙂

  3. Thanks for the review.

    This seems like close to the “ultimate” radiator it would seem.

    Basically, this thing needs 2 things as you’ve noted:
    – Screw protectors (this I think is a big oversight and would not be hard to integrate at all)
    – A fill/bleed at the end (this I think is less important)

    Otherwise, this is basically the ultimate radiator. I suspect that an 85mm version thick “Monster” variant of this would be able to outperform even the HWLabs GTX Black Ice.

    Do you think that the louvered fins and higher tube count (14) are responsible for this radiator’s all around good performance?

  4. Not sure if my commented posted earlier, but this is a repost.

    It would seem that the ultimate radiator then would be a thicker variant of the XE 360mm. It’s interesting to note that this fan, despite it’s medium fin density, keeps up with all other radiators across the board.

    Why?
    – Perhaps the louvered single fin design is superior?
    – I also note that it has 14 tubes, rather than the typical 12 tubes.

    I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on that.

    I would guess that a “Monster” radiator thickness (say 85mm or perhaps even 100mm) would be probably the ultimate radiator, especially if they could fit more tubes in.

    I hope that in the future, EK will add screw protectors. That I think is a big oversight.

    Anyways, thanks for the review.

  5. […] So EK have confirmed that dents will not turn into leaks – so if you have dents then feel free to carry on with your life.  I am confused about the statement that only the 480 radiator is affected given that we’ve seen dents on other sizes.  Still there is an option to RMA if you’re at all concerned.  Hopefully this is the last we see of the issue because the XE is a great performing radiator! […]

Comments are closed.