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.