What's the difference between a same size Vintage Air multi flow condensor at $180 and one from Rennair, keloggas, Griffith or anyone else?

Other than $$$ my guess would be not much. Except in the case of the front condensor in which case I have yet to see an aftermarket one without a serious design flaw.

Another wild goose chase. a WWEST strategy since he doesnt have a grasp of the topics being discussed.

The research would say otherwise.

Yes, in the lab, "bench testing" one would have to be a fool or an idiot not to have cooling air flowing in the most optimal direction.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1372259893.jpg

This is from Retroaire's website. Whether you claim an individual company is selling snake oil or not. There is scientific evidence that shows that there are differences. So for you to claim there are no differences shows how little you actually know.

Sacoffee -- I think you need to look at the technology being used in what you are buying. There are of course, pros and cons to every product in every application. Just because one is more efficient doesnt mean in our application it will work better. For example, the orientation is important. Some work better in a certain orientation (vertical vs Horizontal). well that narrows down your choices since our front condenser is horizontal only. There are alot of posts on here that address these issues. Id do a search and read. While WWEST asks some interesting questions, his interest is to destroy Griffiths, because Griff discounted his SPAL fan theory. WWEST stated as such in another thread. Id be happy to post his quote here. So his interest is not you having the best and coldest AC. So i wouldnt trust anything he tells you.

I've never said that they're weren't differences, differences that improved the RAW condensing capability over the OEM condensor even.

But one only needs to look at the aftermarket front condensor design to see that it actually OBSTRUCTS front to back cooling airflow arising from roadway speed. So yes, it undoubtedly has some gain for cooling with the blower. But is that enough to justify the upgrade cost.?

I would say not.

Even you have often taken the position that improving the rear lid condensing capability is much of a "wild goose chase". Absent a way of increasing the airflow cooling volume then improvements in RAW condensing capability will yeild only relativlye meager gains.

Just as you have so often pointed out, absent improving the airflow volume, the proper direction to go in this case would be the addition of a fender mounted condensor/fan assembly. The latter element controlled 24/7 by the Red Dot trinary pressure switch, of course.

"..500 FPM FACE velocity..."

'Nuff said.....

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1372261488.jpg

You're right about that. I guess my whole point that the 964 is less efficient, with regard to engine cooling, than the 80s era 911s and 930s due to the fan design and under engine sound blocking panels (the fan's shortcomings even being just recently proven by a poster on this forum), has somehow gotten muddled up by all of the "did Porsche and/or Bruce Anderson misrepresent the testing data" stuff. Oh well . . .

Worthy of a read.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/porsche-911-technical-forum/755964-964-fan-3-2-a.html

I'm very familiar with that thread - I've referred to it here several times and even posted in it at least twice . . .the OP of that thread validates what even Porsche reported about the 964 fan, as even after he made extensive mods to the 964 fan setup, it still moved a significantly less air than the 911 fan.

My glass is half full....

The mods he did would tend to reduce the 964 fan's air movement capability, yet he measured only a 30 to 24 reduction ratio. IMO absent the "trim" they might well have been equal.

It's rather hard for me to accept a reduction of airflow from 1500 FPM (Turbo) to 1000 FPM(964) arising from more aerodynamic fan blade design, other parameters remaining roughly equal.

And obviously, even if fully valid, a 30 to 24 ratio does not "square" with the 1500 to 1000 ratio, not even close.

Now you are simply making yourself look silly - the facts don't fit your supposition that the 964 showed "improved cooling" so you deny the facts, as present by Porsche, and/or twist them to suit your needs - that's rich!

Even SPAL reports that straight blade fans provide maximum air movement (see the question-answer section at the bottom of the linked SPAL webpage) -

SPAL High Performance Cooling Fans

Why do you think they could get away with a 20% reduction in airflow and still have adequate cooling?

perhaps its because the condenser was moved out. which is why your, lets dump even more heat on the engine bay with SPAL fans and claim that doing so will not impact engine temps is so ridiculous.

the end game is to reduce heat, not add heat. with that completed you can afford to use less air volume and reduce noise and perhaps improve performance as well.

Exact wording:

"..The curved blade fans sacrifice a small amount of performance in return for amuch quieter fan...."

Sacrifice a SMALL amount of performance ....

1500 FPM vs 1000 FPM with all other parameters being roughly equal does not constitute a SMALL sacrifice in performance. 30:24 maybe, but quite possibly not even that low.

WWEST makes this up as he goes. You either have to accept his version, or you are a stupid naysayer. its a never ending subject change, theory change, etc.

There are so many examples... Its all quite entertaining..

Just because you dont think so... doesnt mean you know all and doesnt mean that it is false data. does it? or are you omniscient?

The reason SPAL says "small" is because their fans don't move much air compared to the 911 engine fans (so the change is "small"). Now put that in the context of a fan that moves a colossal amount of air and it is no longer a "small" change. Are you serious here - you don't understand that?

Very puzzling...Spal's own numbers.

It appears that Spal's "small sacrifice" rule does not apply in all cases.

30102041 pull/straight 1434 CFM 19.5 Amps

30102042 pull/curved 1864 CFM 17 Amps

30102055 push/straight 1333 CFM 19.5 Amps

30102056 push/curved 1841 CFM 17 Amps

More airflow PLUS lower power draw.

WWEST

Does a SPAL fan cool your 911?

Why do you so easily take a single case and use it to fit your theory about something else that is far from even similar.

Sounds like you need to do some testing before making assumptions.

After all, you really cant challenge the engineers at Porsche without some proof. can you?

Well, first of all I assume you agree that at least some of the information is patently WRONG. Secondarily no one knows for sure if this information had a factory origin.

Proof..? Doesn't the linked post do the job..?

....

Yes I saw post 734. and?

if there is conflicting info (seemingly) between some SPAL models where curved = less volume and on other models where it = more volume... wouldnt it make sense to find out why before making assuptions about the Porsche fan which is not even the same design as SPAL nor made by SPAL.

Here's more proof for you to refute -

Straight vs. Curved Fan Blades - Dispelling the Myth!

Note that with the 964 Porsche did exactly what is talked about as a negative in that linked webpage - curved the blades and kept the shroud struts straight = big loss in moved air volume.

Nice write up and research.

Of course WWEST will claim that anything tested on the bench isnt valid. LOL If he accepted this, he would need to accept Griffiths bench testing... and we couldnt have that. That blows up his whole purpose in life. LOL

he will also claim that its false and just snake oil because the research was done by someone selling something... to accept this would expose his double standard when it comes to GTI. of course those standards dont apply to SPAL since he bought their snake oil.

they are just selling snake oil.

cant trust that bench testing.

Thanks much, but I think I'll stick with Spal 's square vs curved blade "numbers", and their curved blade fans that includes those "winglets", or Ebay replicas thereof.

Oh, the naysaying..where is the power draw chart and/or relative RPM between the 2, for one vs the other..?

Why ? because you paid money for the snake oil?

SPAL could never lie. I own those. LOL so predictable WWEST.

Question - if the 964 curved blade fan moves more air, as wwest claims, why do you suppose Porsche put the straight blade fan on the 964 turbo which generates far more heat than the non-turbo 964? Do you think it was because Porsche wanted it to run hotter and thus promote even more frequent engine overhauls?

WWEST operates from a SPAL fan snake oil perspective. not one based in logic or fact. so doubt you will make him understand what you are saying... this stuff is just too complex for him to comprehend.

Right - it's not every day that your run across someone that ignores facts and/or logic simply because they are trying to save face in a discussion over something as simple as fan air volume.

truly unbelievable. you should see his posts over on another thread. just as crazy and insane. over there the entire premise is about engine heat. AC is secondary. the guy doesnt even have AC yet... turned the entire thread into a Spal fan and trinary switch discussion. LOL

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/porsche-911-technical-forum/757614-pre-ac-project-getting-cars-temp-down-3.html

pretty entertaining...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: A1 Electric <a1electric@a1electric.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:50:02 -0700
Subject: RE: A1 Electric Email Form
To: wwest

Yes, going by the current numbers that Spal has published, it appears that
the curved blades perform better.

A1 Electric Automotive Accessories
2301 W 205th St Ste 101
Torrance CA 90501

(888) 838-0506
(310) 328-8500

A1 Electric Automotive Accessories, Power windows, Power door locks, keyless entry systems, Window motors, Window regulators, Pop door kits




-----Original Message-----
From: wwest
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 11:10 AM
To: info@a1electric.com
Subject: A1 Electric Email Form

Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by
wwest on Wednesday, June 26, 2013 at 14:09:37
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: wwest

Vehicle: 1988 Porsche 911

Comments: Your FAQ answer "sacrifice a small performance level for/with
curved blade fans vs straight blade fan does not appear to hold true for the
clear majority of your products....







Very puzzling...Spal's own numbers.



It appears that Spal's "small sacrifice" rule does not apply in all cases.



30102041 pull/straight 1434 CFM 19.5 Amps



30102042 pull/curved 1864 CFM 17 Amps



30102055 push/straight 1333 CFM 19.5 Amps



30102056 push/curved 1841 CFM 17 Amps



More airflow PLUS lower power draw.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lol Snake oil. Sales pitch doesnt match their FAQ. Snake oil.

No one cares WWEST. This is a Porsche Forum not a SPAL forum! Put this with the lexus and ford references. as an aside... If the same thing happened on GTI site (like the hose argument you sited). you are all over it. whats with the double standard?

Back on topic - come on wwest, what say you? Do you think Porsche wanted to run the already much hotter 964 Turbo at an even higher temperature? Or maybe they are just all dip****s over there and couldn't see the logic in running the curved blade fan?

Ha ha - thanks, good read!

Okay, here is a naysayers DELITE!

I would suppose that with the higher efficiency of the curved blade fan spinning it at the speeds required to cool the turbo resulted in "compressor stall" or as some would say, "cavitation".

At what speed relative to the engine does the 964 turbo spin the fan..?

Note: "Stalled Condition"

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1372283365.jpg