|
|
Russell Duffy wrote:
Yeah, I thought Tracy and yourself were using the smaller hoses with the pretty AN fittings, Hi Todd, If I'm not mistaken, Tracy is just using high quality automotive hose. That's what I'll be using on the next project, because these dang AN hoses are just too expensive, and seem pretty silly when you're running 0 psi on the cooling system. I'm also convinced that AN fittings have more evil leaks than I've ever seen on standard hose with clamps. Seems like I'm always fiddling with some tiny little leak. and there is no doubt that Tracy at least has been successful (and I'm sure you'll be right behind him :-), If I have to be right behind someone, at least Tracy is a good choice :-)
but I still stand by my theory that if the automakers use no less than 1.25" hoses, then why would should we when we have a higher heat rejection requirement. Certainly a good argument, but if it's clear that you don't need the larger hoses, then I'm really confused why they do it. This is about the point were Al will appear to do some math for us :-)
Cheers,
Rusty (bring on the green beer)
Bob says "If nothing changes, nothing changes."
Could it be a corollary? How about "If things change, things change."
One speculation about the reason for electric pumps working is that the mech. pump is grossly oversized to flow enough in 100 degree weather idling at the stoplight. Might the same logic be applied to the plumbing size?
Finally, a valid use for the domino theory.
Charlie
|
|