<VV> testing Tom's cooling system

[Padgett]

>The casual Corvair user is led to believe that the stock system is somehow 
>defective while it is not, that an electric fan would be superior, etc., 
>and, in my opinion, the magnesium fan is very sufficient for street and 
>highway use.

Not at all, just if it is using 6 hp to go 70 mph just to drive the fan, I 
sense an opportunity. I have a passion for competition automotive in any 
shape or form so long as there is a sporting chance at winning. Before I 
was old enough for an SCCA competition license, this took the form of 
rallys, autocrosses, and economy runs. This last could bear a bit of 
expansion in two vingettes:
1) Did you know that if an economy run is measured in ton-miles per gallon, 
little can beat a cement truck
2) Have a first place trophy from one of the Federal Energy Authority 
(forerunner of DOE) "Fuel Economy Challenge" event that the film version 
showed being won by a family in a station wagon because they did not feel 
that my wife and I in a Buick Electra 225 gave the proper image.

Consequently when I hear things like "under 20 mpg typical" , 3500 rpm at 
70, premium gas required, and 6 hp for the fan alone from a 164 cid engine 
when our 231 CID *van* gets almost 25 on a 1,000 mile interstate run in the 
left lane (and not holding anyone up) and not driving for economy on 87, I 
think wellll.

The issue is that my itch says that a Corvair should get 30+ mpg on regular 
gas and one of the first issues is that to move the necessary air should 
require less than 2 hp, 2.5 with losses. So when I hear that an electric 
fan pulling 20 amps at 12v is working, that sounds about right.

Next issue is that 3500 rpm at 70 which is at least 1,000 rpm too high is 
another so I am going to do some playing there, with tires initially, once 
I have a car. Reinforcing that is the note that the 3.08 ratio was 
developed for the Pure Oil trials. For this, after studying the torque 
curves in Bob's book (yes, I do buy books - has nothing to do with my 
posting on the web) it appears that the 110 hp engine is best suited for this.

Not at all sure where this is going to wind up but will note that the 
2.8/3.1 Chev 6 cyl used in cars in the 80s (just got out of Fieros) 
produces almost identical torque (170 lb-ft ) and gave 30 mpg. True carbs 
are "poorly controlled leaks" but with the right tools can do quite a bit 
there also.

With gas passing $2.50/gallon, I suspect a few might be interested. Did 
IECO make a single carb manifold for the dual carb engines ? Anyone have 
one they could spare ?

Padgett