Quote:
Originally Posted by Pazuzu
The underbelly condenser stays, the car had frighteningly cold air the first summer I owned it, but a mistake with the fitting on the compressor blew all of the freon out one day. Hasn't worked since, haven't put any effort into making it work.
The setup now involves loading the underbelly first, which will take heat soaking away from the engine bay, but involves probably 10 extra feet of hose. Not a huge deal, but something to think about. I daily drive the car, but i'm on surface streets in basic 30mph traffic, not stuck in gridlock. I know the underbelly is worthless when sitting still in Houston, but that rarely happens to me.
Do i need a new fender condenser? no, but if that could/would allow me to remove the decklid one, then it's probably well worth it. I have seen people mention running a fender system and removing the decklid stuff, but no actual reports of anything doing that (as a retrofit on an older car, of course).
Currently the underbelly has basically no protection(well 2 1/8th in straps that hold it in place). The fins are thick and after 10-12 years show no damage. Car is at Euro height.
I will probably stick with current route (belly-decklid-front). It's not the shortest run, but the routing is there now to follow, and any strain taken off of the engine temps is worth it.
Oh, I'll likely toss a fan in the decklid, because there's room and it won't hurt.
|
Given that the "first in line" belly condenser obviously works so well for you I wouldn't hesitate adding a condenser/fan in the front(***) of the rear wheelwell and remove the rear lid condenser once the new configuration has proven itself.
On the other hand if you should add the fender mounted condenser/fan it might be wisest to make the new, more efficient (forced air cooling)condenser/fan "first in line".
Short hose runs to boot.
*** The radiant heat from the exhaust/engine/catalyst may well be so minimal that it only has a 5-10% negative effect but why bother since the alternative is readily available.