YES! You did read something I wrote! Of course they do, never claimed otherwise. The dyno test is pushing them way outside of their efficiency curve and using gobs of hp unneccessarily.Mechanical fans push more air at higher RPM, but they reach a point of capacity where they overrun themselves and overtax the engine
Again, this is what I wrote above, no argument.Electric fans may not push as much at the higher RPMs and they to reach a point of limitation
No, 60a worth of fans costs ~2.5 hp. There's no free lunch. Sure, 2.5 is better than the 20+ by pushing a mechanical way outside of its efficiency curve but that's not what the argument should be here.but they do not creat drag on the power plant or generate the resistance on the engine, or heat from drag.
Maybe this is our disconnect, we're not even agreeing on the point being argued.
Did @sikryd want the absolute most electrically/mechanically efficient way to move cfm through the rad? No! He's got an overheating car because the 2730cfm of his dual Spal setup can't keep up.
The question is on cooling the car, moving the most cfms through the rad and therefore shedding the most BTUs to the air.
The question is not 'how can I get 20 more hp at high rpm".
I fully acknowledge that switching to mechanical fans will cost some power, especially up top where the mechanical fan of fixed pitch is being pushed outside of the rpm range it runs most efficiently at. That's not up for debate.
@sikryd is trying to solve a heating issue. I'm suggesting moving a lot more cfm through the small tri-five rad. I'm not saying those cfm will not cost power.
You're just misunderstanding my conclusion. I never claimed you couldn't save fuel/power with electrics. I love electric fans! If you're trying to move air though, crappy old mechanical fans move more air, at a cost.You're not totally incorrect, but you have flaws in the end result of your conclusions.