<VV> A Tale of Two Fans

[James Davis]

I need all the cooling I can get.  No angular ring here. The reason 
for the early fan was to limit air reversion around the top shroud 
inlet.  I had beat my top shroud down as close to the fan as I dared 
to eliminate the reversion as much as I could.  I could still feel 
the air with my hand at 3,000 fan rpm.  The 61 setup eliminates this 
problem.  I believe (no data) that the 61 fan uses less energy to 
produce the same air pressure as the late model fan.  GM  figures on 
air flow and pressure from dyno test show the fans are nearly equal 
in air flow and pressure developed (at least to 4,000 rpm).  Of 
secondary importance is the 61 fan catches shop rags and paper towels 
where as the late model fans eat them spitting them out on the 
cylinder heads and oil cooler.
Jim Davis





At 03:17 AM 8/5/2007, Chris & Bill Strickland wrote:
>We have an interesting situation here with differing reports from 
>different individuals -
>
>Tony says, "Anyway, it's wearing a mag fan now which, sorry as it 
>is, still cools better than that '60 fan did."
>
>Jim says, "Replaced the 65 fan and top shroud with a 61 radial blade 
>(24 blade) steel fan and matching shroud - 280-320 F cylinder head 
>temps on 90 degree day @ 3,600 rpm full throttle for 30 minutes."
>
>Now, assuming that the 24 blade fan is the same unit that didn't 
>cool Tony's car, and it should be as the 24 blade fan was oem for 
>the 1960 and some early 1961's, what gives?  What is different?  Is 
>Jim running the thermostatically controlled annular ring of the 1960 design?
>
>Yes, Jim has data, but Tony has empirical results -- Jim is happy 
>with 24 blades and Tony is happy with 11 blades, and each removed 
>the other one from their engines seeking better cooling.
>
>Confused,
>
>Bill Strickland