Hi!
Bob Hutton explained to me how it's set up; it seems to me one of the things
this does is have improved coolent circulation, and also more even coolent
temperature by letting in short bursts of cool water, instead of the usual
way of having the cool water pass through the engine before it makes it's way
to the thermostat to cool it off. (the new way-short bursts of water spaced
close together; old way, longer bursts of cool water spacer farthur apart).
I think, between this and routing the water to the head first, the cylinder
walls would be a much more even temperature, and the rings/cyl walls probably
would last longer.
That, to me, would be one reason car manufacturers don't do it;
one, it costs more money,
two, it makes cars last longer, and I know for sure[but have little proof]
that if there is a way to make a car last longer past the warranty period,
they (at least US car makers) will not do so unless forced to by competition.
(that wasn't as true in the past, I feel, but it is now; look at Chrysler's
gas turbine engines in the 60's; there are now materials that would work
fantastically for gas turbine engines[ceramics], but nobody except jet engine
makers experiment with turbines, and they generally are going for huge
engines, not little ones for cars)
I had also earlier mentioned I thought the incoming air/fuel mixture would
not cool off the engine all that much, if at all; I realized, as I lay awake
one night, that I had been thinking about full throttle operation-not part
throttle where most cars operate. I suspect that the air/fuel mixture may
indeed cool the engine significantly at [very?] low throttle openings, but I
believe that this is no or little different for the new thermostat
positioning than it is for conventional cooling systems.
I would like to thank Bob Hutton (BobHutton@fox.vut.edu.au) for posting this
material. Scott M Ryan
|