Electric fans

[Bob Ayers]

That's exactly my point. They are designed with different needs, just like F-150's and Super Dutys are designed with different needs. Neither your example of heavy duty trucks, or my example of high performance race machines really applies here to this conversation, because they are vastly different from Rangers. I was just trying to show that there are examples elsewhere in the automotive world that can be used to support both sides of this discussion, but the only examples that truly apply here are those speaking specifically about Ranger's with e-fans.
To that end, those of us that have personal experience with e-fans on our Rangers seem to be pretty happy with them. The only people here that are screaming about how bad they are, are the same people who have never used them on a Ranger. If you had used one, and had a bad experience, then your argument would hold a lot more water, but as it stands, you're only shouting theory, while there are many very happy e-fan users with first hand experience.

Bottom line, for higher cooling capabilities mechanical fans are used. If an e-fan had the same cooling capability as the
mechanical fan/clutch, Ford would be using an e-fan on the
F-250, like the F-150.

As an engineer, I understand the deficiencies of e-fans, and it's stupid to compromise the cooling system of a vehicle designed with a mechanical fan by replacing it with an e-fan.

My Mercedes diesel is designed with a mechanical fan/clutch AND an e-fan.

 

[Bob Ayers]

Amen. Big Jim hasn't replied yet on whether or not he has tested these products, we know that Bob hasn't--I suspect Jim hasn't either.

I'll state it again. Who's spreading false information, people with REAL world experience or someone that never tried the product but insists it's a waste of money based on his opinion.

Still waiting on your 12 threads (you said dozens, but I'll give you a break with 12) where people are happy with e-fans.............

 

[GregH.]

The bottom line is, Ford Motor Company wants each of its owners to enjoy their product to the fullest extent – and that includes performance vehicles. But dealer service technicians have seen, and continue to see, that modifications may cause the original design to fail. The addition of aftermarket parts is a risk that each and every vehicle owner must evaluate for themselves. All that's needed is a reasonable dose of common sense. When and if you modify your vehicle, please consider whether the modification may cause another component to fail – and if it does, recognize that warranty coverage for that failure or damage will likely be denied. "[/I][/B]

Use some common sense and read the article in context. The main reason they put these statements out is to PROTECT THEIR OWN ASS from lawsuits and people deliberately guinea piggin' their vehicles and then trying to blame Ford for it. Its obvious youre well versed in your field but get off you high horse and listen to reason. If the pulleys were so awful we wouldnt see people running around with them on these forums(if you think no one has them READ signatures).

Also, its obvious ALL MODIFICATIONS COME WITH RISKS.

 

[Bob Ayers]

Use some common sense and read the article in context. The main reason they put these statements out is to PROTECT THEIR OWN ASS from lawsuits and people deliberately guinea piggin' their vehicles and then trying to blame Ford for it. Its obvious youre well versed in your field but get off you high horse and listen to reason. If the pulleys were so awful we wouldnt see people running around with them on these forums(if you think no one has them READ signatures).

Also, its obvious ALL MODIFICATIONS COME WITH RISKS.

UD pulleys are used as an example of the problems that can result in using them. Specific technical reasons are given.

You see GM products on the road too, and I would not buy
one of those either!!

 

[Big Jim M]

I thought I had!

Amen. Big Jim hasn't replied yet on whether or not he has tested these products, we know that Bob hasn't--I suspect Jim hasn't either.

I'll state it again. Who's spreading false information, people with REAL world experience or someone that never tried the product but insists it's a waste of money based on his opinion.

Froggie, I OWN a 1/2 ton GMC that has lectric fans. I also own a 3/4 ton Chevy with a mechanical fan. Both are 2008 stended cab models.
The difference in milage is about ONE MILE per gallon between the two. If one takes into consideration the WEIGHT, cubic inches and overall performance of the two vehicles, the 3/4 ton WINS!
For the one mile per gallon I have lots and lots more ability in the larger, heavier truck.

Now if the lectric fans ARE getting more milage out of the 1/2 ton, then the lighter weight and smaller engine are having NO EFFECT on the milage. Cause it is ONLY getting bout one mile per gallon better!

I will say again.. I FIRMLY believe the lectric fans on new vehicles is simply to get the milage sticker in the window looking better. SOMEHOW when taking the test the lectric fans make a bit better milage... PERHAPS the test is of such a duration that RECHARGING the battery doesn't come into play.

WHat I DO KNOW, for sure, is that one cannot take one sort of HP and make another power and then take that second power and do what the first HP COULD have done, and do it as good! There WILL BE A HORSEPOWER LOSS when changing back and forth. That HP loss in the case of a vehicle will show up as a MILAGE LOSS.. There simply ain't no other way about it!

I'll give an example: A gasoline engine turns an alternator.. The alternator charges a battery... the battery then powers a fan and the alternator recharges it.. All this takes more FUEL than simply turning the fan by the engine.. IT'S gotta happen like that! If there were no loss we would have finally invented a perpetual motion machine!

What I haven't read on here is the fact that after startup the mechanical fan is inert! It takes absolutely no HP as it FREE WHEELS when the engine doesn't need it. In fact the air moving thru the radiator actually TURNS the blades, NOT the engine. THAT is what the fan clutch is for.
Big Jim

 

[Bob Ayers]

Froggie, I OWN a 1/2 ton GMC that has lectric fans. I also own a 3/4 ton Chevy with a mechanical fan. Both are 2008 stended cab models.
The difference in milage is about ONE MILE per gallon between the two. If one takes into consideration the WEIGHT, cubic inches and overall performance of the two vehicles, the 3/4 ton WINS!
For the one mile per gallon I have lots and lots more ability in the larger, heavier truck.

Big Jim, it sounds like GM had the same result as Ford. The e-fan couldn't properly cool the 3/4 ton, so a mechanical fan had to be used.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Big Jim, it sounds like GM had the same result as Ford. The e-fan couldn't properly cool the 3/4 ton, so a mechanical fan had to be used.

3/4 tons can have a lot of coolers, but they also seem to trail behind the half tons for devopments a couple years... so who knows what the future holds for them. I don't really see why they don't make them with e-fans too, people put them on and get along fine with them.

They make motors that have enough power to match a belt, so there is no real reason they don't except that it takes more power than a belt... so far.

Any way you wan't to hack it, a F-150 or GM 1500 has a lot more going on to keep cool than a Ranger and they still feel comfortable enough with a E-Fan to produce a truck with it.

And at low speed, it does take power to turn a mechanical fan. Even freewheeling they still move quite a bit of air.

 

[Bob Ayers]

3/4 tons can have a lot of coolers, but they also seem to trail behind the half tons for devopments a couple years... so who knows what the future holds for them. I don't really see why they don't make them with e-fans too, people put them on and get along fine with them.

They make motors that have enough power to match a belt, so there is no real reason they don't except that it takes more power than a belt... so far.

Any way you wan't to hack it, a F-150 or GM 1500 has a lot more going on to keep cool than a Ranger and they still feel comfortable enough with a E-Fan to produce a truck with it.

And at low speed, it does take power to turn a mechanical fan. Even freewheeling they still move quite a bit of air.

Once again, the reason 3/4 ton trucks don't have e-fans, the e-fans don't have the cooling capacity of a mechanical fan, which is needed for the larger towing capacity of
the 3/4 ton.

You are missing a few important points!! There is a huge difference in a vehicle that has a cooling system designed
with an e-fan, and a vehicle that has a cooling system designed with a mechanical fan/clutch. There are other
considerations like the capacity of the radiator itself.
There is no way the e-fan on a F-150 will fit the radiator on
a Ranger, so just because the F-150 has an e-fan, doesn't mean an aftermarket e-fan on the Ranger will have sufficient cooling capacity.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

No but with proper research you can find a aftermarket e-fan that will cool a Ranger... or anything else for that matter. People use them on V8 Rangers all the time so there is absolutly no reason that a properly sized one will not keep a little v6 or four banger cool.

They do have the capacity, there is no questioning that. The question is if they draw more power than they save with a mechanical fan. I do think in the next few years they will start showing up on 3/4+ trucks. Aside from the very aged Ranger there are few other strongholds left still packing a mechanical fan in the four wheel vehicle market.

F-150's have pretty good sized radiators to start with, I doubt much changed that way between '08 and '09 when they went to a E-fan. 3/4 tons have no real relevance to this conversation anyway, I mentioned to the F-150 to qualm fears about reliabilty just because there isn't a belt turning the fan.

 

[Big Jim M]

I guess you guys missed my POINT!

My point in making that post was to allow as how there is a REASON the compamies are installing lectric fans on light duty rides.. SO FAR we do NOT have a clue as to why they are doing that.. I THINK it is to somehow manipulate the milage TEST and glorify their milage in the window sticker..
FOR DAMN SURE it isn't because the lectric ones cool BETTER! Cool is just cool! No matter how it got there.

So what it comes down to is the factory ones are tested and KNOWN to work.. milage or no milage! But for anyone of us to go to the JR and pick one up? WE have no idea what we are doing..

I did give the example of the 1/2 and the 3/4 ton milage to show that the lectric fan ACTUALLY does NOT get more milage over time. Perhaps in the time it takes to get the government test for milage it does work... BUT in actual driving for tens of thousands of miles...NOPE! no milage gains.

No one has responded to my point that converting gasoline to lectric and then lectric to air movement costs more gasoline than simply using gasoline to move the air.. THIS IS A KNOWN FACT!
Big JIm

 

[bobbywalter]

My point in making that post was to allow as how there is a REASON the compamies are installing lectric fans on light duty rides.. SO FAR we do NOT have a clue as to why they are doing that.. I THINK it is to somehow manipulate the milage TEST and glorify their milage in the window sticker..
FOR DAMN SURE it isn't because the lectric ones cool BETTER! Cool is just cool! No matter how it got there.

So what it comes down to is the factory ones are tested and KNOWN to work.. milage or no milage! But for anyone of us to go to the JR and pick one up? WE have no idea what we are doing..

I did give the example of the 1/2 and the 3/4 ton milage to show that the lectric fan ACTUALLY does NOT get more milage over time. Perhaps in the time it takes to get the government test for milage it does work... BUT in actual driving for tens of thousands of miles...NOPE! no milage gains.

No one has responded to my point that converting gasoline to lectric and then lectric to air movement costs more gasoline than simply using gasoline to move the air.. THIS IS A KNOWN FACT!
Big JIm

the density of you two is astounding.

so, when 3/4 tons and 1 tons have electric cooling fans, what then?

your gm trucks are definitely tuned different from each other. and you may or may not have a mpg improvement with the electric fans depending on use. you will not have a chance with a mech fan where an electric will provide improvement in the same given situation.

as to the recharge situation....and electric conversion losses..they pale in comparison to 5-12 pounds spinning on the engine..even fully disengaged...which is 10-20 percent lockup... a mech fan draws about the same power as a average e fan.

i can disconnect my battery and drive around all day long with my fans manually turned on high....28 amps


my direct comparison with the 150 is the situation of extreme overkill by way of comparison to the needs of the ranger. and the 150 fan certainly will work on the ranger. with an investment of a tuner you can totally incorporate and control the fan with the factory ecm as well and tune around all of the other mods one wants to do. if one wants to do that.


the electric fan is the most efficient way to cool these types of machines. how can it not be? it only works when needed. uses less power then a mech fan when a mech fan is effectivly off...

going into power loss by electrical conversion ect is pathetic at this level of consumption, and its only due to preconceived notions that refuse to believe that it takes more then one hp to run a mechanical fan at nearly any point in its operation. why choose to ignore the difference in weight of the two objects that perform the same task.

what takes more energy to move 1000 feet. 1000 pounds or 6000 pounds?



what if a guy wants to retrofit a current electric fan from a stock ranger to his old ranger of the same powertrain lineup?




recharge the batteries....set it up so it dont run when the engine is off and you wont have to worry about it



you show me a guy that cant cool his truck or car with e fans....and i will show you a guy that is not using the right setup.

 

[bobbywalter]

what about my truck?


why is it working like it does?



my ranger weighs 6000 pounds and can get over 20 mpg with 35 inch tires.


with 2.5 liters of displacement increase over the largest offering in a ranger


can safely tow 10000 pounds.

but it does not have a mechanical fan to cool it so i can only drive it 5 minutes at a time

 

[Bob Ayers]

i can disconnect my battery and drive around all day long with my fans manually turned on high....28 amps

Battery?

You don't have a clue about the voltage spikes the alternator puts out without a battery connected!!

Once again, you are showing your technical ability (or lack of).

 

[Hahnsb2]

No one has responded to my point that converting gasoline to lectric and then lectric to air movement costs more gasoline than simply using gasoline to move the air.. THIS IS A KNOWN FACT!

On hot days in my truck when the clutch fan starts to lock up, it sucks up a ton of power, I'm not kidding when I say it feels like 20hp has been thrown away, it makes the truck feel like a turd.

The highest amp electric fans I can find on Summit are around 30 amps. That's 360 watts at 12 volts. There are around 750 watts in 1 horespower. So it takes about 1/2 horsepower to spin that fan.

 

[corrond56]

man, since I have a mechanical fan on my truck, my subwoofers must be the reason why my ranger gets shitty gas mileage by making the alternator work so hard! Finally I figured it out...