Well I measured some before and after power results. Overall I'm supprised to not see any gains! The DA was nearly identical and both pulls were made within a hour and a half of each other too. (I took the fan off and went again) I would NOT conclude a power loss based on the data shown below. Even though I went on the same drive and made the pulls in the same part of the freeway.. this small of a power difference can be attributed to temps of the air and temps of the motor.
I did do two pulls each time to gain some background info... I just conclude that I did NOT gain any power from removing the fan.

My seat of the pants impression BEFORE analizing the data was that there wasn't any power gains. The only power increase that I thought I could feel was just tooling along at 35-45 mph. Seemed like tip in is a little better.

Smoothness - This I did notice! It's smoother at idle, quieter at idle, and in the elevated rpms (like 4500+) it's definately smoother. Shoot.. on my last run I took it up to 6200rpms and it was as smooth as silk.


Anyway, here is what I measured.

Regards, Rich










And here is a handy tool I made a few years ago for removing ford fans. You take a 2" fence pole/pipe, flatten it, then cut a piece of cardboard to match the water pumps mounting holes. Make it slightly clear the fans large hex then transfer that shape to the pipe. Works beautifuly. Cheap too.

 

sweet that good to know

 

This is to be expected the power gains come into play when the fan is running. I would love to see this same thing done on my truck. My mechanical fan runs constantly. THE POWER SUCKS there is none I feel like I have a 4cyl engine.

I know the power will be better with a fixed fan becuase recently my tensioner pulley broke and I was left with the no belt turning the fan. THE POWER WAS AMAZING once the fan was no longer turning.

 

Nice data!

 

thanks you made my mind up.. stock fan it is! its stronger too!

 

The thing about looking at facts vs popular opinion is that often times they don't match.

I did this same thing on a 1987 MCSS. It's mech fan was costing it around 20hp! I guess these newer cars have the science of a mech fan down pat.

In the overall scheme of 150k miles (which I plan on driving this truck) it's got to save me some gas money. Just the fact that your not accelerating as much mass means less power is consumed. That and.. I had this e-fan w/controller just laying around not being used...

Rich

 

The test did not show a difference in acceleration because the thermo-viscous fan clutch was allowing the fan to more or less freewheel. Try the comparison again after a long idle on a hot day when the the mechanical fan clutch is actually driving the fan. It is noticeable on any Ranger, even more so with the 3.0 and 4 cylinder.

 

That is just brilliant! Seriously. Great job.

 

On the dyno, I have suspected that. There will be a different reading when the stock fan would normally be "on" vs when it would normally be "off".

This time of year some guys in the right part of the country can simply take the stock fan off and run nothing. I would make sure I have a real temp gauge before I did it. And keep the stock fan handy (in the truck).

 

Yes Bob.. as a veteran automotive cooling engineer I concur.

I would think that everyone understands how a mechanical fan works? Maybe not? Well.. this test was a very good one imo. It proves that simply reducing the mass off the end of the water pump did not show an appreciable gain. Having done this exact same type of test on a older car..(in similar conditions) my presumption was that I'd see a some measure of gain on a modern one. Instead of presuming the outcome.. I went and collected hard data. Did my homework so to speak.. where as so many on forums just throw conjecture around and accept it as fact.

Rich

 

Your statements throughout this thread seem to imply that there is no advantage in acceleration when an electric fan replaces a FEAD-driven fan. It appears to me that you tested the two configurations in conditions where neither would be likely to be active and then noted that the results were, as one might expect, comparable.

If i were a veteran automotive cooling engineer, I think I would run the comparison tests in all operating modes before writing the efan off as a popular myth. I'd like to see the same test run again except in conditions where both fans were known to be active.

Having driven many Ford trucks with clutched, FEAD-driven fans in summer conditions in the desert southwest and at higher altitudes, I have experienced a marked reduction of acceleration when the fan clutch is "engaged". The Rangers I have owned behaved similarly in hot weather.

 

Like I mentioned earlier my Mechanical fan runs constantly since my clutch is ceased.

My acceleration sucks. And my gas mileage sucks. When that fan is running it is robbing power lots of it too.

 

If your clutch fan is working properly, the fan will only spin so many rpm's (free wheeling) when you hit the throttle. It's not like it is permanently attached causing HP loose. IMO installing an EFan is a waste of time, and money. I believe Rich proved that in this thread.

 

I would rather run an Efan over a mechanical fan any day.

just driving mine and the difference i feel from mechanical to electric i would rather have. i could careless if there was any power gained. just how smooth and how quiet the engine is over all with the Efan is enough for me.

 

 

Run both tests with Engine coolant @ 200-205 Deg.F. Until then the test is useless to me, I know damn well in the summer the stock fan both in my F-150 & Ranger was definetely a drag on the engine. You could hear & feel it.

Rick

 

It's a bit narrow minded to throw out a test report just because it's not **all inclusive** to your pre-concieved idea. This test REPORTS findings on just *one part* of the entire power/cooling taking place. I'm not equipped to do all inclusive tests. And I seriously doubt anyone on these boards is either? I don't know about you.. but it takes effort to do this sort of thing in my free time. To discount someones work just because you don't have a grasp on basic scientific principals is offensive to anyone who is objective minded.

IMO it should be a basic understanding of a gear head, that when the mech fan is locked (or mostly locked due to heat) ... that **YES** it will consume more torque than a fan that's not there. Duh if you want that kind of info.. well then please post up **your** measured results.

Speaking of narrow minded and uninformed mindsets.. do you have any idea of how much time your mechanical fan is in a locked or mostly locked state? As a FEAD and cooling engineer for 6 years (in Ford) I do. You?

In reality my test report has FOR MORE value for the average R-F member than would a test showing a locked mechanical fan vs no fan. Reason is that for 90% of the population doesn't tow with thier rangers. And that's the only reason why Ford mandates a mechanical fan to begin with. (low speed and high loads) btw: 95% is the breakover point where we go with an e-fan. Case in point.. look at the 98+ crown vic.

Rick, I look foward to the measured results of your testing.

Rich

 

not to come off like a smart *** (which i am by the way)....but your test results are NOT more valueable than any joe blow on this board until you can prove were the test results were certified by a manufacture weither it be an efan company or an car manufacture.....

anyone with access to a dyno can do the test....and just because you claim to have "x" number of years in the auto cooling industry doesn't make you the auto cooling industry god on this board...if i had a dyno and the software i could perform the same test and come up with a different number.....

to get an accurate measurement of the pro's and con's of any mod you have to test it in EVERY situation that the modification will be used it....this includes cold start up, hot start up, hot highway driving, hot traffic driving, cold highway driving, cold traffic driving, and any other climate condition and strain the mod could see......then take the averages to get the precise results of the modification.....MOST manufactures of aftermarket products DO these test before they release the product.......

As far as towing with an e-fan, it doesn't matter what type of fan you have, just as long as there is something that can produce enough air flow to cool the antifreeze in the radiator down....an e-fan is usually better in a Ranger because it will produce more CFM than the stock....

SO inconclusion:

Your test are just a small part of actual testS that need to be done to say if a mod is worth it or not...






My experience with an e-fan:
I can tell a difference in my 4.0 OHV with the efan...the engine runs smoother, runs quieter, the a/c is much colder because the fan moves more air than the stock mechanicl fan, and the e-fan cools BETTER than the stock mechanical fan....the truck warms up faster in cold weather....

i love my e-fan....i will have an e-fan on ANYTHING i own from now on......i acutally am going to buy one for my mom's Explorer here shortly...

 

You have NO IDEA & I'll leave it @ that.
To run a test when the Stock fan is not engaged is doing what??????
Yea..pretty much the same as not having the fan @ all which is worthless.

Rick

 

exactly.....to run a test without the stock fan clutch engaged is like have an e-fan......since there is no strain on the engine.....well just a weeee bit since the fan is still turning.........

and btw.....how is it that they fan clutch knows when to engage and disengage? there is no wires going to it......i would guess an efan would be more accurate since it actually has a temp probe...

 

I think the point here is how much is the stock fan clutch engaged in normal driving? It would be nice to doccument that if it is possible. That would let us make the decision as to weither or not the EFan is cost effective. IMHO, the EFAN is a definite power mod that can be effective at cooling IF SIZED PROPERLY, but it not sized properly and if not reliable then it can just cause more trouble than it is worth. On a non-daily driver then I say go for it, but if you are worried about reliability, then the Mech. fan is the way to go. Sure they can fail, but it is less likely. I agree that if the test was done a little different, then definite gains would have been seen, maybe not much, but gains nonetheless. Now is it worth it? Well, knowing how long the Mech fan is dragging (% of daily use) the engine would help. Can this be tested though?

 

While it may not be good for this particular product because of the variables, it will be good for other products. Let's not discourage the work he is doing. I may be stingy, but I'd like to see more items tested from Rich.

Cold air intakes are something I have always wondered about. On most dyno's the hood is up and a large fan is blowing air across the truck. To me, this would give an exaggerated gain with the intakes because of the fresh supply of cold air. A heatshield becomes irrelevant in that situation, but close the hood and it does. This method of calculating may bring the truth out on some advertised gains for these things because it IS real world.

 

I agree. I like Rich's tests. Nice real-world stuff. Sure this test could have been different, but it did demonstrate that a properly working clutch fan is not a drag on power in certian conditions.

 

I know this is the 4.0 board, but I'll Chime in.....the 4.0 has torque. My 2.3 Does not! I just installed an fan last night and there is a difference like night and day! So much better pick up and I can actually stay at a speed on the highway with out down shifting.

Sound wise I love it, all I hear is the Engine.

the 4.0 has so much TQ that turning a clutch fan like that is nothing.........