"Tony Cellana" <acellan1@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
: Not compared to a FIXED fan like we had in the old days. Those were power
: robbers.
: TonyC
Precisely. I haven't seen the listing for the fan in the Mopar
Performance catalog - are they saying it is a power improvement for
a Dakota? That wouldn't make much sense - seeing as how they come
stock with a clutch fan.
I've got a Mopar Performance fan sitting on a shelf about ten
feet away, actually. :-) Ordered one a little while back for the
Cuda to replace the suicide device the previous owner had installed
(flex fan). The viscous device lets it slip, unlike a fixed fan
which is just the fan mounted directly to the water pump pulley.
(really drags down the engine at high rpms)
As far as HP goes, from robbing the most to the least, the
progression is generally fixed fan, clutch/viscous fan, electric
fan. If I'm not mistaken, a clutch fan is better than a flex fan
as far as power goes, which makes me wonder why someone would
want to install one of those things in the first place. :-)
Anyway, IMHO, aftermarket electric fans are problematic, and it
would cost me a heck of a lot more money than a viscous fan to
cool down my 440. Throw a 30 year old 60 amp electrical system
into the mix, and you can see why you don't find many electric
fans on muscle cars. :-)
The MP fan is a good unit, certainly better than a fixed fan,
safer than a flex fan, more reliable and generally less hassle
than an electric fan, but save your money - your Dak already has
one. :-) AFAIK, it is intended for older applications - if they
are marketing to the Dakota crowd, well, I'm not sure what to
think! That'd be strange.
---Jon-
.---- Jon Steiger ------ jon@dakota-truck.net or jon@jonsteiger.com -----. | I'm the: AOPA, DoD, EAA, NMA, NRA, SPA, USUA. Rec & UL Pilot - SEL | | '70 Barracuda, '92 Ram 4x4, '96 Dakota, '96 Intruder 1400, '96 FireFly | `----------------------------------------- http://www.jonsteiger.com ----'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:05:07 EDT