Good electric fans to use

[BlackBII]

A 16" fan from Spal or Flex a lite and this shroud from Ebay has been working great on my Ranger, zero trouble keeping things cool

Aluminum 16" Electric Fan Shroud - Universal Fits 22" Crossflow Radiators | eBay

For Sale - new aluminum fan shroud. 16 1/2" x 18 1/2" overall. 1/2" wide mounting flanges with 18" center to center pre-drilled holes. Universal Type - Fits 22" x 19" Crossflow Radiators. Shroud has pre-drilled mounting holes along two flanges and in the center to mount most 16" electric...

www.ebay.com

 

[Shran]

Spend the money on a quality relay setup. I've gone through several that cost up to about $60 and they were just pieces of crap. Failed almost right away. The latest one has lasted a bit longer, I think it was a Derale but the temperature probe no longer works, the relay took a shit about a year in and now I have to have the bypass switch on all the time or it never runs.

 

[00t444e]

the only thing about a clutch fan that is efficient....is that is is already there......

Not true at all, a clutch fan is more efficent because you are using straight mechanical energy from the engine to turn it. With an electric fan you are taking mechaincal energy and converting in to electrical energy through the alternator then converting it back to mechanical energy with an electric motor, efficiency is lost everytime you convert energy from one form to another. E fans don't pull as many CFMs as a mechinacal fan which is why people think they are more efficent, if you had an e fan setup that could flow as many CFMs as the clutch fan it wouldn't fit behind the radiator and would use more power to turn, it would just be going to the alternator instead.

 

[Josh B]

Radiator Cooling Fan Controller Water oil Temp Volt Gauge

ADD W1 LCD Digital Monitor Electric Fan Controller With Water & Oil Temperature & Volt Gauge !!!Introduces High Precision Fan Controller with Water & Oil Temperature & Volt Gauge. This unit includes a unique High Precision Water Temperature Sensor that connects to the upper radiator hose, giving...

www.addw1.com

Amazon.com

Amazon.com

i looked at this one. my ranger is a v8 diesel...its IDI so it can make prodigious amounts of heat.

12 v guy has cool stuff for great prices as well...



these are popular....

Derale Cooling Products 16759 Derale Deluxe Adjustable Fan Controllers with Radiator Probes | Summit Racing

Free Shipping - Derale Deluxe Adjustable Fan Controllers with Radiator Probes with qualifying orders of $109. Shop Fan Switches at Summit Racing.

www.summitracing.com

i just run a sender in my coolant jacket with the lincoln relays and a manual bypass.....with lincoln intech fans.

they are massive...and work great. but my radiator needs to be replaced....its from 95 and beat to shit.






with selecting a few parts from what is posted here and a trip to the junkyard.......for 40 to 60 bux you can build a ridiculously efficient cooling system.

Will the 95 take the wider size of the 96 Explorer core? I have one that measures around 29" (not exact measurement, just close)

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Not true at all, a clutch fan is more efficent because you are using straight mechanical energy from the engine to turn it. With an electric fan you are taking mechaincal energy and converting in to electrical energy through the alternator then converting it back to mechanical energy with an electric motor, efficiency is lost everytime you convert energy from one form to another. E fans don't pull as many CFMs as a mechinacal fan which is why people think they are more efficent, if you had an e fan setup that could flow as many CFMs as the clutch fan it wouldn't fit behind the radiator and would use more power to turn, it would just be going to the alternator instead.

But with a mechanical fan when you don't need a fan... you are still spinning a fan.

Also more stress on your water pump.

efan is more efficient which is why hardly anything has a mechanical fan anymore.

 

[bobbywalter]

Not true at all, a clutch fan is more efficent because you are using straight mechanical energy from the engine to turn it. With an electric fan you are taking mechaincal energy and converting in to electrical energy through the alternator then converting it back to mechanical energy with an electric motor, efficiency is lost everytime you convert energy from one form to another. E fans don't pull as many CFMs as a mechinacal fan which is why people think they are more efficent, if you had an e fan setup that could flow as many CFMs as the clutch fan it wouldn't fit behind the radiator and would use more power to turn, it would just be going to the alternator instead.

absolutely not. a stock ...one in particular application i have worked with for instance... 95 150 hd fan....pulls 12 ish hp....at the wheel. the 95 mark 8 fan pulls sub 2 hp at max power....the mark fan is right at par with the 150 fan in cfm.. only in theory as the vis clutch only can 100 when it fails...


so ....this is not debatable. people try to debate it... but is is patently and physically measureable. i have no way to understand how one can think otherwise.

it is measureable. where you are fawking up is load. the fan that the crank is turning is 30 times heavier then the electric fan blade....it takes more power to pull 30000 pounds up a hill then 1000 pounds...... real simple. it is the reason the e fan wins over all. less load at ALL times. efficiency truth.

people will go through electrical loss calculations thinking it applies and not consider that the max power consumed is what a hi cap fan uses full bore....which is 20 percent of the mechanicals....so its never not more efficient....and the ASSUMPTION....is the mechanical fan is pulling more air. certainly this can be the case....not always..just SOMETIMES ..... for the ranger it is not true. the taurus outflows any of the ranger mechanical fans. measurably. under load.

i am using the 95 large truck model i mentioned....because i thought there was no way the electric fan could cool the 351 towing. the mark 7 fan under load 30 mph pulling a 3600 pound camaro on a trailer with all gear was around 8400 pounds... up slade never had any issues...and the ac was much colder in stop and go traffic creeping and the engine much cooler. it was setup to on/off in tow haul to stay on to 50 mph at first. that did cause a temperature spike and oscillation of temperature from cruise airflow...and almost always does. so from there 45 mph was the shut off, and the on was decreased to 195 from 200 and off 190.


regardless...


the minimum loss on a clutch...vis clutch fan is generally 1 hp roule of thumb sort of deal......that is FULLY in its OFF mode. the typical oem electric fan as mentioned here fan draws one horsepower running balls out.....and it only runs when required....unless you leave it on all the time. which...is par for a vis-clutch fan that is off....and for certain....out cfms the stock ranger mechanical fan.

that said....the vis clutch fan is the cheapest and most cost effective solution generally in a north south configuration until you are putting all possible emissions and economy on the table for mass manufacture....and is the only reason for the use through the 90's. electric fans cost more at that point.


today....not so much...

with medium duty truck use...the scenario changes.

but....now they have very high dollar on off mechanisms. they can actually be off like an electric fan and use variable power like a vis-clutch.....so they are a hybrid and are the best solution.... again...complexity and expense will keep me from using them...even know they are the best solution.


efficiency....electric fan is miles ahead. actual use will dictate actual results. its simply the weight of the blades. no free lunch. even with flex fans you lose.

as said before.....te 4.0 i will not take the time to evict....anything less in power....e fan all day every day.

engine swaps....whatever is easier and more cost effective.

 

[00t444e]

absolutely not. a stock ...one in particular application i have worked with for instance... 95 150 hd fan....pulls 12 ish hp....at the wheel. the 95 mark 8 fan pulls sub 2 hp at max power....the mark fan is right at par with the 150 fan in cfm.. only in theory as the vis clutch only can 100 when it fails...


so ....this is not debatable. people try to debate it... but is is patently and physically measureable. i have no way to understand how one can think otherwise.

it is measureable. where you are fawking up is load. the fan that the crank is turning is 30 times heavier then the electric fan blade....it takes more power to pull 30000 pounds up a hill then 1000 pounds...... real simple. it is the reason the e fan wins over all. less load at ALL times. efficiency truth.

people will go through electrical loss calculations thinking it applies and not consider that the max power consumed is what a hi cap fan uses full bore....which is 20 percent of the mechanicals....so its never not more efficient....and the ASSUMPTION....is the mechanical fan is pulling more air. certainly this can be the case....not always..just SOMETIMES ..... for the ranger it is not true. the taurus outflows any of the ranger mechanical fans. measurably. under load.

i am using the 95 large truck model i mentioned....because i thought there was no way the electric fan could cool the 351 towing. the mark 7 fan under load 30 mph pulling a 3600 pound camaro on a trailer with all gear was around 8400 pounds... up slade never had any issues...and the ac was much colder in stop and go traffic creeping and the engine much cooler. it was setup to on/off in tow haul to stay on to 50 mph at first. that did cause a temperature spike and oscillation of temperature from cruise airflow...and almost always does. so from there 45 mph was the shut off, and the on was decreased to 195 from 200 and off 190.


regardless...


the minimum loss on a clutch...vis clutch fan is generally 1 hp roule of thumb sort of deal......that is FULLY in its OFF mode. the typical oem electric fan as mentioned here fan draws one horsepower running balls out.....and it only runs when required....unless you leave it on all the time. which...is par for a vis-clutch fan that is off....and for certain....out cfms the stock ranger mechanical fan.

that said....the vis clutch fan is the cheapest and most cost effective solution generally in a north south configuration until you are putting all possible emissions and economy on the table for mass manufacture....and is the only reason for the use through the 90's. electric fans cost more at that point.


today....not so much...

with medium duty truck use...the scenario changes.

but....now they have very high dollar on off mechanisms. they can actually be off like an electric fan and use variable power like a vis-clutch.....so they are a hybrid and are the best solution.... again...complexity and expense will keep me from using them...even know they are the best solution.


efficiency....electric fan is miles ahead. actual use will dictate actual results. its simply the weight of the blades. no free lunch. even with flex fans you lose.

as said before.....te 4.0 i will not take the time to evict....anything less in power....e fan all day every day.

engine swaps....whatever is easier and more cost effective.

The E fan only uses less power becuse it is flowing less CFM. Less CFM= less work being done = less power. The E fan isn't more efficent it just uses less power becuse it does less work.

 

[bobbywalter]

The E fan only uses less power becuse it is flowing less CFM. Less CFM= less work being done = less power. The E fan isn't more efficent it just uses less power becuse it does less work.

the e fan blade weighs significantly less....it does not need to be nearly as robust because it is intermittent and on a fixed rpm range.... it weighs 10 to 30 times less or more generally. so it can be pitched and actually move more air, and will take less energy.

its has magnitudes less mass because it does not have to ride the water pump and work at all different engine rpms all the time. the blade on a vis clutch fan is a compromise of all conditions and from inception is no where near maximum efficiency as far as performing its function.....pulling ait through the radiator...it is separate from the core support and radiator so moves with the engine...so can not be maximally effective with shrouding...but more then adequate.

in the case of say a mustang electrical unit verse the oem ranger mechanical...it is insanely more efficient....

it moves MORE air with LESS power because the blade weighs 10 ounces and not 7 pounds.

not only does it do less work due to less rotatable mass for the task at hand....the blades are tuned entirely different due to its operating windows that are fixed. its shrouding is also maximal....everything is dialed to, efficiency.....

and it only uses one horsepower max...where that mechanical fan at its maximum ability is pulling at least 7 plus hp...up to 12 hp....moving less air even if the engine is turning 5 k rpm.... and at minimum....the mechanical fan, it draws 1 hp all of the time the engine runs. the electric fan may not turn on for months at a time depending on drive cycle and time of year.


efficient....efficiency.


the ratio of the useful work performed by a machine or in a process to the total energy expended or heat taken in.

 

[RustRatz]

I did find this one.
Not sure if it’ll work with my truck

ASI Performance Electric Fan

it does say 2.9, 3.0, and 4.0

 

[bobbywalter]

looks like a decent package. that is essentially what i use for controller. just runs lincoln intech fans.

 

[00t444e]

the e fan blade weighs significantly less....it does not need to be nearly as robust because it is intermittent and on a fixed rpm range.... it weighs 10 to 30 times less or more generally. so it can be pitched and actually move more air, and will take less energy.

its has magnitudes less mass because it does not have to ride the water pump and work at all different engine rpms all the time. the blade on a vis clutch fan is a compromise of all conditions and from inception is no where near maximum efficiency as far as performing its function.....pulling ait through the radiator...it is separate from the core support and radiator so moves with the engine...so can not be maximally effective with shrouding...but more then adequate.

in the case of say a mustang electrical unit verse the oem ranger mechanical...it is insanely more efficient....

it moves MORE air with LESS power because the blade weighs 10 ounces and not 7 pounds.

not only does it do less work due to less rotatable mass for the task at hand....the blades are tuned entirely different due to its operating windows that are fixed. its shrouding is also maximal....everything is dialed to, efficiency.....

and it only uses one horsepower max...where that mechanical fan at its maximum ability is pulling at least 7 plus hp...up to 12 hp....moving less air even if the engine is turning 5 k rpm.... and at minimum....the mechanical fan, it draws 1 hp all of the time the engine runs. the electric fan may not turn on for months at a time depending on drive cycle and time of year.


efficient....efficiency.


the ratio of the useful work performed by a machine or in a process to the total energy expended or heat taken in.

The weight of the fan doesn't make that much difference once it is spinning, and what makes you think it takes 12 hp to spin, have you dynoed it? A Mustang E fan doesn't flow more CFM than a Mechanical fan about half at best.

 

[bobbywalter]

there is never a steady state with a viscous clutch fan.

it will always take more energy to sustain an f350 at 60 mph then a smart car.





yes i have dynoed it. initially on accident. mustang gt setup. no belt. and belt. accessories not live...no electrical load and no hydraulic load (beside water pump) just installing the belt and removing it...was a solid 12 hp. accessories idle.


it uhhhh....uninstalled itself and we didnt notice until it started heating up under load.... it had two giant squirrel fans blowing on it and the hood up but the pump not moving water really got it hot in a hurry.

we never drained the water and run it with the hose flowing the system to keep it cool...no water pump pumping, and attributed the water pump driving fluid as the majority of the losses when hooked up and just estimated that to 70 percent or more of the 12 hp.......and...just a SWAG......

so. on with the mechanical fan. that particular car never had a mechanical fan...but we installed one from my pile which was from a 90 mark 7..... installed it that just to see. initially there is nothing really...same as a e fan ...its nearly a undetectable margin.

when the fan was estimated full on... and we are not really 100 percent on that, just that it was a consistant 18-20 hp sans belt verse having the belt installed driving everything with the shop blowers off.....thats what it was doing...and it was running warm at 205plus...so power loss could have been exaggerated a point or two for sure..as opposed the the hose where it run 198-to just over 200.


very vivid lesson for me at that time frame...early 90's. most important thing i learned was that electric fans have no issues cooling a 500 hp car that just does burnouts......so that fear went away.




the ranger mechanical fan.....specifically ranger....does not flow more then a v8 mustang or crown victoria electric fan. that was information available for a period of time, and unfortunately..those pages dont work anymore.


there were several calculations for that.

and until very recently for rangers...the total available frontal area for a ranger puts it in a place where preferred design parameters exclude it from an electric fan cooling exclusively. that is just internal ford...a ford thing. i do not understand any of that math...just how it was broken down to me...by some actual people that make those decisions..





of course....you can test this in a myriad of ways.

start with actual ac temperature at idle.

do the rag test....at warm idle. say electric one holds 3 rags and the mechanical 2....then raise the rpm until it can hold three... this starts a viscious cycle that will most likely lead to an overheat.

one will overheat...the other will not. both are blocking themselves with three rags.


one is using a shitload more energy...then the other.


and that is something anyone can test for themselves.

 

[00t444e]

there is never a steady state with a viscous clutch fan.

it will always take more energy to sustain an f350 at 60 mph then a smart car.





yes i have dynoed it. initially on accident. mustang gt setup. no belt. and belt. accessories not live...no electrical load and no hydraulic load (beside water pump) just installing the belt and removing it...was a solid 12 hp. accessories idle.


it uhhhh....uninstalled itself and we didnt notice until it started heating up under load.... it had two giant squirrel fans blowing on it and the hood up but the pump not moving water really got it hot in a hurry.

we never drained the water and run it with the hose flowing the system to keep it cool...no water pump pumping, and attributed the water pump driving fluid as the majority of the losses when hooked up and just estimated that to 70 percent or more of the 12 hp.......and...just a SWAG......

so. on with the mechanical fan. that particular car never had a mechanical fan...but we installed one from my pile which was from a 90 mark 7..... installed it that just to see. initially there is nothing really...same as a e fan ...its nearly a undetectable margin.

when the fan was estimated full on... and we are not really 100 percent on that, just that it was a consistant 18-20 hp sans belt verse having the belt installed driving everything with the shop blowers off.....thats what it was doing...and it was running warm at 205plus...so power loss could have been exaggerated a point or two for sure..as opposed the the hose where it run 198-to just over 200.


very vivid lesson for me at that time frame...early 90's. most important thing i learned was that electric fans have no issues cooling a 500 hp car that just does burnouts......so that fear went away.




the ranger mechanical fan.....specifically ranger....does not flow more then a v8 mustang or crown victoria electric fan. that was information available for a period of time, and unfortunately..those pages dont work anymore.


there were several calculations for that.

and until very recently for rangers...the total available frontal area for a ranger puts it in a place where preferred design parameters exclude it from an electric fan cooling exclusively. that is just internal ford...a ford thing. i do not understand any of that math...just how it was broken down to me...by some actual people that make those decisions..





of course....you can test this in a myriad of ways.

start with actual ac temperature at idle.

do the rag test....at warm idle. say electric one holds 3 rags and the mechanical 2....then raise the rpm until it can hold three... this starts a viscious cycle that will most likely lead to an overheat.

one will overheat...the other will not. both are blocking themselves with three rags.


one is using a shitload more energy...then the other.


and that is something anyone can test for themselves.

With no belt you aren't spining an alternator, power steering pump, and water pump either so that accounts for your power loss.

 

[Blmpkn]

Omg.


E-fans always more efficient than mechanical fans.


Anyone who's ever hot rodded anything knows this.. it's pretty much a rule.

Switch to roller rockers? +10hp.

Electric water pump? +10hp

E-fan? +10hp

Forever and always.

 

[RustRatz]

Omg.


E-fans always more efficient than mechanical fans.


Anyone who's ever hot rodded anything knows this.. it's pretty much a rule.

Switch to roller rockers? +10hp.

Electric water pump? +10hp

E-fan? +10hp

Forever and always.

I’ve never actually seen an electric water pump in person. I’ve seen a couple in videos and such, but none in person.