Dan Masters wrote:
>That's very interesting. That implies that the alternator is more than
>100%
>efficient. In other words, it produces more energy that it takes to
>run it.
>Assuming, of course, that you are getting the same cooling with the
>electric
>fan that you got with the mechanical unit.
Dan,
I thought the main reason of going to an electric fan is that
it would be thermostatically controlled, and would switch off when there
is sufficient air running through the radiator, ie at speed. Nominally
the electric fan should switch on at idle and "stuck in traffic"
situations.
If this is the case, then most of the hp consumed by the mechanical
fan should be available to the car when an electric fan is fitted and
there is sufficient airflow through the radiator. The claim of 18bhp
seems a tad optimistic. I would have thought 1-3 bhp.
I've seen some ads for shrouded electric fans that can pull up
to 900 cubic feet/minute (cfm). Does anyone know what the specs are for the
mechanical fan? More air has to be better!
Finally, I've heard that sucker fans are better than pusher fans; the
pusher fans mounted in front do impede air flow, create vortices, etc.
But then again this is not really an issue when the car is idling and needs the
fan the most.
Cheers,
Shane Ingate in San Diego
|