Stock fan specs

[engdept]

An e-fan doesn't have the pulling power of a mechanical fan, mainly due to the smaller blade area.

You obviously haven't had any experiences with the Taurus or Sable efan compared to the stock efan.

And another warning from Flex-a-lite. Even with their dual 15" 6200CFM(claimed) e-fan setup for Ford PSD, they still recommend the OEM mechanical fan for heavy towing applications:

Did you read the bottom note on that? It says for any CGVW over 18,000 pounds. To reach that you would be almost at the max payload capacity for a Dodge 3500 (payload capacity is 16,350#, CGVW is 24,000#). A Ford greatly depends on axle ratio and body style, but it is up to 25,000#. A Chevy is at 23,500#.

You need to specify what you or Flex-A-Lite says (since you seem to know everything) heavy towing is.

 

[JoshMcMadMac]

That statement is rather obviously unverified.

...and one example of a Toyota is verification?

 

[MAKG]

...and one example of a Toyota is verification?

Do you REALLY want a catalog of all makes and models for the last 100 years?

You first.

I gave one counterexample. You gave zero.

And a Corolla is hardly a rare vehicle.

 

[engdept]

Do you REALLY want a catalog of all makes and models for the last 100 years?

You first.

I gave one counterexample. You gave zero.

And a Corolla is hardly a rare vehicle.

A friend of mine has a '93 Legacy with a H-4 that only has a 1 core radiator. It is a front wheel drive with the engine in the vehicle the CORRECT way (the transmission runs out to the rear, not the side) and it still has an electric fan.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Did you read the bottom note on that? It says for any CGVW over 18,000 pounds. To reach that you would be almost at the max payload capacity for a Dodge 3500 (payload capacity is 16,350#, CGVW is 24,000#). A Ford greatly depends on axle ratio and body style, but it is up to 25,000#. A Chevy is at 23,500#.

You need to specify what you or Flex-A-Lite says (since you seem to know everything) heavy towing is.

Did you read the caption either? Take a run-of-the-mill 3/4 ton truck rated at 15k, put a 4k pound gooseneck trailer on it and you are over the fan's recomended rating before you even put anything on the trailer.

Note: Electric fans are not recomended for primary diesel engine cooling when the combinded gross vehicle weight (CGVW) exceeds 18,000 pounds (Truck, Trailer & Load)

I must admit I have no aftermarket electric fan experiance, it is I road I have never felt I needed to go down since the stock fan does a beautiful job of keeping my trucks cool.

 

[MAKG]

A friend of mine has a '93 Legacy with a H-4 that only has a 1 core radiator. It is a front wheel drive with the engine in the vehicle the CORRECT way (the transmission runs out to the rear, not the side) and it still has an electric fan.

And a quick look at radiatorbarn.com shows that it's a 373 square inch radiator, which is STILL bigger than the stock RBV 1-row. For an engine just over half as big.

So it has an electric fan and a huge radiator.

 

[Bob Ayers]

And a quick look at radiatorbarn.com shows that it's a 373 square inch radiator, which is STILL bigger than the stock RBV 1-row. For an engine just over half as big.

So it has an electric fan and a huge radiator.

That's two for you now Mike, and nothing from Josh or Maurice!

What's funny, I looked the Subaru up also on a radiator website, and got the
same radiator dimensions that you did!!

 

[Karlton694u]

okay, you guys can stop posting. i have kinda given up on the e fan












there we go ^^^^

 

[shadetree]

The poor guy asked a simple question, and here again it turns into a pissing match. Pete

It always happens in these kinds of threads. The original question goes by the wayside as those with no actual experience, and know everything there is to know about everything, chime in with their negativity.

If you can't help the guy, don't post. If you do have a suggestion, comment make it civil. Examples: posts 1 thru 5.shady

 

[engdept]

And a quick look at radiatorbarn.com shows that it's a 373 square inch radiator, which is STILL bigger than the stock RBV 1-row. For an engine just over half as big.

Your math sucks.

You need to measure a radiator in cubic inches since it isn't just a single flat plain, but a 3D surface area that cools.

The '97 Ranger 4.0 1 row radiator has a dimension of 17.25"x21.5x1 (370.875 sq. in. or 370.875 cu. in.).

The '93 Legacy radiator has dimensions of 26.375"x14.125"x.6875" (372.55 sq. in. or 256.13 cu. in)


The difference is the Legacy radiator is SMALLER than the Ranger radiator and the Legacy STILL has efans with the engine sitting in the car the proper way (not the normal front wheel drive car).

That's two for you now Mike, and nothing from Josh or Maurice!

What's funny, I looked the Subaru up also on a radiator website, and got the
same radiator dimensions that you did!!

Read above Bob, I think your math sucks also.

Why is the Legacy engine use efans and SIT THE SAME WAY as a ranger.


Here is a picture for you Bob:

WOW I guess Bob and MAKG just got the bomb dropped on them. Sorry, but you are both wrong.

 

[shadetree]

The '97 Ranger 4.0 1 row radiator has a dimension of 17.25"x21.5x1 (370.875 sq. in. or 370.875 cu. in.).

Recheck your math on this one. I wouldn't think they can be the same.

Also, how did you arrive at the cubic inch figure?

Is there a table somewhere that converts area to volume? I couldn't find one.shady

 

[MAKG]

Actually, it's not too hard to look up the thickness. And it is about 1 inch thickness for the 1 row. I used surface area because that was the (rather silly) argument presented to me. The cooling rate is the core volume times the airflow rate (assuming a sensible fan shroud).

But first he conveniently cherry-picked the largest RBV radiator (earlier ones are smaller, even for the 4.0L), and second, IT IS STILL WELL OUT OF PROPORTION. That's a 2.2L engine in that Subaru. It should need barely HALF the radiator of the 4.0L. For the argument to be valid, the stock 1997 4.0L would need 500 or so cubic inches. The standard one-row is FAR short of that.

 

[gotmudd]

Actually, it's not too hard to look up the thickness. And it is about 1 inch thickness for the 1 row. I used surface area because that was the (rather silly) argument presented to me. The cooling rate is the core volume times the airflow rate (assuming a sensible fan shroud).

But first he conveniently cherry-picked the largest RBV radiator (earlier ones are smaller, even for the 4.0L), and second, IT IS STILL WELL OUT OF PROPORTION. That's a 2.2L engine in that Subaru. It should need barely HALF the radiator of the 4.0L. For the argument to be valid, the stock 1997 4.0L would need 500 or so cubic inches. The standard one-row is FAR short of that.

FWIW most chevy 350's in the mid 70's until the early 80's ran a 2 core radiator, [ should know, have drove quite a few] and i'll tell ya something else mr. california, unless ya seen a vehicle overheat at 25*below zero, ya ain't seen nothing. temperature outside don't mean two squirts of piss warm or cold if it ain't moving. FWIW i grew up in the mountains

 

[Bob Ayers]

okay, you guys can stop posting. i have kinda given up on the e fan


^^

The OP made the right decision, that is the important thing!!!!

 

[JoshMcMadMac]

Recheck your math on this one. I wouldn't think they can be the same.

Also, how did you arrive at the cubic inch figure?

Is there a table somewhere that converts area to volume? I couldn't find one.shady

The radiator in that example is 1 inch thick...what happens when you multiply a number by 1?

Actually, it's not too hard to look up the thickness. And it is about 1 inch thickness for the 1 row. I used surface area because that was the (rather silly) argument presented to me. The cooling rate is the core volume times the airflow rate (assuming a sensible fan shroud).

But first he conveniently cherry-picked the largest RBV radiator (earlier ones are smaller, even for the 4.0L), and second, IT IS STILL WELL OUT OF PROPORTION. That's a 2.2L engine in that Subaru. It should need barely HALF the radiator of the 4.0L. For the argument to be valid, the stock 1997 4.0L would need 500 or so cubic inches. The standard one-row is FAR short of that.

I only referenced surface area as I am mature enough not to throw "facts" into a matter that I do not have; I can see the surface area of most any radiator, but cannot always see the thickness. Your idea of proportions on engines is silly; just because one engine is of a particular size does not mean that it has a directly proportional cooling necessity as any other engine, especially when you consider that the little 2.2L is putting out the same horsepower as the 4.0L.