- Thread starter
- #1,301
Test two,
I’ve been reading that too much "antifreeze" ethylene glycol can be less efficient at cooling than straight water.
Quote from article,
“Now if you've ever poured the stuff into a radiator, you no doubt observed that it is much “syrup-i-er” than water. That is, it has a much higher viscosity. This means that it will not flow as fast through the system as water, and the cooling effect will be less.
Further, the specific heat of antifreeze is less than that of water. This means that for a given temperature change, the antifreeze will carry less heat each time it circulates from engine to radiator and back. So, if the mix is too rich, the cooling efficiency will be reduced because (1) the flow rate is less, and (2) less heat is transferred per cycle of the coolant.
But a 50/50 mix does not give the best cooling. For improved cooling in hot weather, we should use less antifreeze and more water, perhaps going to a 25/75 or a 20/80 mix ratio.”
I had been running a 50/50 mix of antifreeze and water maybe a little more antifreeze after topping off with straight antifreeze a few times but I’m guessing still pretty close to 50/50. I drained the system and mixed 20/80 ratio of antifreeze and soft water then added 16oz of Lucas Super Coolant additive “water wetter” and drove my test road with the grill reinstalled.
With this mixture the temps ran very similar to the 50/50 mix and no grill about a 10° to 15° decrease in temp driving in similar conditions, to be confident in these results I would need to go back and forth with the two mixtures something I’m not willing to do but at this point the 20/80 ratio of antifreeze and soft water would appear to cool better than the 50/50 mixture.
Thank you!
I have read so much conflicting information concerning the Ford fans I’m just taking my best guess at this point which may only be one step above a complete shot in the dark.
This is what I think I know, the guy in this test DIY fan test chamber - Dodge Cummins Diesel Forum built a testing fixture to test the early/late Volvo fans versus the Ford Taurus fan and he reports Late Volvo post 97 High Speed 3349 CFM, Early Volvo pre 96 S-Blade type blades High Speed 3099 CFM and the Taurus High Speed 3438 CFM all on the same fixture. The Volvo fans are much easier to mount as the fans mount much like the aftermarket fans and are removable form the shroud.
Test three,
I had a Spal 16” fan and switched to a 16” Flex–O–lite fan both in the 2200/2500 CFM advertised range and although they both worked well for normal driving 65/70 MPH neither would keep the temps from climbing over 220° if pushing 75/80 MPH with A/C on going up steep inclines. Taking what I think I know I opted for the late Volvo fan ($15.00 from my local pick and pull) and made a quick spacer to mount it to my existing fan shroud and wired it to high speed only, initial testing show a significant reduction in temps but I still need to spend more time testing before I’m convinced to make this permanent. All testing before switching to the Volvo fan was done on 98° to 100° days, the day I tested the Volvo fan our temps where around 88° and I wasn’t able to get the engine temps above 198° regardless of how I drove, A/C on 88MPH up a fairly long steep hill EGT’s close to 1300° 198° max engine temp and came back down quickly as soon as I reached the top and leveled back out.
Next I’ll make a proper shroud and wire the two speed relay.
Picture of the redneck wood spacer,
I’ve been reading that too much "antifreeze" ethylene glycol can be less efficient at cooling than straight water.
Quote from article,
“Now if you've ever poured the stuff into a radiator, you no doubt observed that it is much “syrup-i-er” than water. That is, it has a much higher viscosity. This means that it will not flow as fast through the system as water, and the cooling effect will be less.
Further, the specific heat of antifreeze is less than that of water. This means that for a given temperature change, the antifreeze will carry less heat each time it circulates from engine to radiator and back. So, if the mix is too rich, the cooling efficiency will be reduced because (1) the flow rate is less, and (2) less heat is transferred per cycle of the coolant.
But a 50/50 mix does not give the best cooling. For improved cooling in hot weather, we should use less antifreeze and more water, perhaps going to a 25/75 or a 20/80 mix ratio.”
I had been running a 50/50 mix of antifreeze and water maybe a little more antifreeze after topping off with straight antifreeze a few times but I’m guessing still pretty close to 50/50. I drained the system and mixed 20/80 ratio of antifreeze and soft water then added 16oz of Lucas Super Coolant additive “water wetter” and drove my test road with the grill reinstalled.
With this mixture the temps ran very similar to the 50/50 mix and no grill about a 10° to 15° decrease in temp driving in similar conditions, to be confident in these results I would need to go back and forth with the two mixtures something I’m not willing to do but at this point the 20/80 ratio of antifreeze and soft water would appear to cool better than the 50/50 mixture.
Not sure if it was mentioned, but have you looked Into ford Taurus fans. They run a two speed fan, 2800cfm on low 5600 cfm on high. It's a popular choice for import cars that are modded. And best yet, can be had cheap and plentiful.
After looking there is some different info on high speed cfm. Either way it's somewh were between 4500 and 5600. If you can make it fit it should do the trick. Btw. 3 wire fan is the one you want. Comes out of a 90-95 Taurus with a 3.8.
Thank you!
I have read so much conflicting information concerning the Ford fans I’m just taking my best guess at this point which may only be one step above a complete shot in the dark.
This is what I think I know, the guy in this test DIY fan test chamber - Dodge Cummins Diesel Forum built a testing fixture to test the early/late Volvo fans versus the Ford Taurus fan and he reports Late Volvo post 97 High Speed 3349 CFM, Early Volvo pre 96 S-Blade type blades High Speed 3099 CFM and the Taurus High Speed 3438 CFM all on the same fixture. The Volvo fans are much easier to mount as the fans mount much like the aftermarket fans and are removable form the shroud.
Test three,
I had a Spal 16” fan and switched to a 16” Flex–O–lite fan both in the 2200/2500 CFM advertised range and although they both worked well for normal driving 65/70 MPH neither would keep the temps from climbing over 220° if pushing 75/80 MPH with A/C on going up steep inclines. Taking what I think I know I opted for the late Volvo fan ($15.00 from my local pick and pull) and made a quick spacer to mount it to my existing fan shroud and wired it to high speed only, initial testing show a significant reduction in temps but I still need to spend more time testing before I’m convinced to make this permanent. All testing before switching to the Volvo fan was done on 98° to 100° days, the day I tested the Volvo fan our temps where around 88° and I wasn’t able to get the engine temps above 198° regardless of how I drove, A/C on 88MPH up a fairly long steep hill EGT’s close to 1300° 198° max engine temp and came back down quickly as soon as I reached the top and leveled back out.
Next I’ll make a proper shroud and wire the two speed relay.
Picture of the redneck wood spacer,
Last edited: