RE: water cooled verses air cooled air charge

["Avi Meron" <avi@cosmoslink.net>]

>Since Porsche went to water cooled 911s, no one.

The way the list is going lately, I figured some "schnook" is going to come
up with something "ugly", as in "you forgot this....." so I said almost
all.....(to serve as an escape hatch)....
Avi






> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-quattro@coimbra.ans.net
> [mailto:owner-quattro@coimbra.ans.net]On Behalf Of Brett Dikeman
> Sent: Friday, July 03, 1998 10:16 AM
> To: Avi Meron
> Cc: quattro@coimbra.ans.net
> Subject: Re: water cooled verses air cooled air charge
>
>
> >Better, all other factors being equal, water cooled is far superior to
> >air.........
> >How many air cooled engines (automotive) are left?..........none...(OK
> >almost none..
> >Avi
> Since Porsche went to water cooled 911s, no one.
>
> Aviation piston aircraft are almost entirely air-cooled.  Much more
> reliable; no water pumps, radiators, coolant loss, etc. to worry about.
> They are, however, starting to make water-cooled piston aircraft engines.
>
> There doesn't seem to be much in weight savings; the new 911 engine is
> quite a bit lighter.
>
> I'd love to go to a water-cooled IC, but there are some questions to be
> answered, like where do you put the radiator on a car that already has 2
> radiators and an oil cooler?  I guess the answer is "in the big hole left
> by the air-air IC"?  I guess that would make for some shorter
> runs, and the
> water/air IC could be put between the metal pipe and the turbo,
> leaving the
> entire grille area wide open for the small radiator(and a fan!)  The fan
> would have the nice side effect of lowering underhood temps while at a
> standstill...
>
> Brett
> 91 200q 20v
>
> ------
> Brett Dikeman
> brett@pdikeman.ne.mediaone.net
> ~)-|
> Hostes alienigeni me abduxerunt.  Qui annus est?
> Te audire non possum.  Musa sapientum fixa est in aure.
> Ita, scio hunc 'sig file' veterem fieri.
> ------
>
>