> Hmmmm . . . does a rear-mounted fan do a better job of "sucking"
> air through
> the radiator than the same fan "blowing" air when front-mounted?
Odds are, it works better blowing than sucking. What I was talking about
was what happens at higher vehicle speeds, which require more air than the
fan has any hope of moving and thus have to rely on the "ram air" effect to
keep the engine cool.
> If someone has done actual testing to show that one method does a superior
> job of cooling the water flowing through a Triumph radiator at low speeds
> and high temperatures (which is when it's needed), I'd love to see the
> results.
If you don't plan to ever drive your car over 30 mph, then by all means only
optimize this case.
But consider, somewhere around 100mph sustained, the engine is putting out
around 100 hp, which means about that much heat also has to be removed from
the radiator. At 30 mph, we're talking under 10 hp, so less than 1/10 as
much heat needs to be removed from the radiator.
Randall
|