To: | michael king <michael.s.king@gmail.com> |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: [Tigers] Reduced diameter water pump pulley |
From: | Owain Lloyd <owain.lloyd@gmail.com> |
Date: | Tue, 8 Oct 2013 01:35:00 +0200 |
Cc: | "tigers@autox.team.net" <tigers@autox.team.net> |
Delivered-to: | mharc@autox.team.net |
Delivered-to: | tigers@autox.team.net |
References: | <2023150851.3795923.1381129502710.JavaMail.root@sz0058a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net> <88B547A3616D485DBAEA6BD0A7B84CB6@ronpc1> <CANE47iRMuLVZ9R-K8z-ZvuoNbNpbk5fDbVdr6yvf8zcNgRKrXA@mail.gmail.com> <CAET8snWMSRv7fqM3nuayBSqrK4Fj4Sq6FqOuzxB4WOovp35cYA@mail.gmail.com> |
Seems like a poor fix given the compromise. A shroud and a sealed cross member gap should be sufficient. On Tuesday, October 8, 2013, michael king wrote: > > > > On 8 October 2013 08:44, Owain Lloyd <owain.lloyd@gmail.com<javascript:_e({}, > 'cvml', 'owain.lloyd@gmail.com');> > > wrote: > >> Hi Gene, >> >> What's the motivation? I could understand _increased_ diameter for high >> revving engines, but why smaller? More water flow is unlikely to aid >> cooling and could make it worse. >> >> The reduced pulley increases the fan speed at idle (well across all.. but > idle is the focus) which increases the amount of air moved through the > radiator at that problem point when the car is stationary. > > > > -- > Regards > > Michael King _______________________________________________ tigers@autox.team.net Archive: http://www.team.net/archive Unsubscribe: http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/tigers/mharc@autox.team.net |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | [Tigers] Ian Spencer, James Pickard |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [Tigers] Reduced diameter water pump pulley, michael king |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [Tigers] Reduced diameter water pump pulley, michael king |
Next by Thread: | Re: [Tigers] Reduced diameter water pump pulley, michael king |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |