Re: Fan blade?
[Re: AZ_A12_BEE]
#1572886
02/02/14 02:36 PM
02/02/14 02:36 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 355
68gtx
OP
enthusiast
|
OP
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 355
|
|
|
|
Re: Fan blade?
[Re: 62maxwgn]
#1572890
02/02/14 04:01 PM
02/02/14 04:01 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,783 Ontario, Canada
mccannix
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,783
Ontario, Canada
|
Quote:
There all one size,depends on how it's measured.
That would be incorrect. They are in fact different as 18" is the 215 blade fan for 68-69. 216 is the 18.5 for 70-71. The 18 and 18.5 blade ends are cut differently
|
|
|
Re: Fan blade?
[Re: 68gtx]
#1572893
02/02/14 04:12 PM
02/02/14 04:12 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 17,515 Las Vegas, NV
6bblgt
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 17,515
Las Vegas, NV
|
The ONLY 1968 b-body "RB" combination that received the 2863216 fan is the 440HP w/auto & A/C. 1968 b-bodies with 440HP & 4-speed (& HEMI w/4-speed and HEMI w/automatic) all used the 28632 15 7-blade fan and 28060 70 torque drive clutch unit.
|
|
|
Re: Fan blade?
[Re: AZ_A12_BEE]
#1572894
02/02/14 04:42 PM
02/02/14 04:42 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 17,515 Las Vegas, NV
6bblgt
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 17,515
Las Vegas, NV
|
Quote:
Wrong, A12s used 216 as well as any other car with max cooling 054 rad
This statement is incorrect as well. "MAX COOLING" is a "red herring" it is NOT an orderable OPTION certain combinations have it others do not. A 1969 b-body with a "054" radiator does not equal "MAX COOLING" nor mandate a "216" fan.
|
|
|
Re: Fan blade?
[Re: 6bblgt]
#1572898
02/02/14 06:33 PM
02/02/14 06:33 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 54 Downey, CA.
BB14404SPD
member
|
member
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 54
Downey, CA.
|
Quote:
The ONLY 1968 b-body "RB" combination that received the 2863216 fan is the 440HP w/auto & A/C.
1968 b-bodies with 440HP & 4-speed (& HEMI w/4-speed and HEMI w/automatic) all used the 2863215 7-blade fan and 2806070 torque drive clutch unit.
My 68 440 4 speed has the 215 fan and 070 clutch fan with the 047 rad. The only thing is that the 68 had the inked stamp version. The stamped version were 70 and up.
|
|
|
Re: Fan blade?
[Re: 6bblgt]
#1572901
02/04/14 07:37 PM
02/04/14 07:37 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 330 Washington, MO
hemigeno
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 330
Washington, MO
|
Quote:
Quote:
Wrong, A12s used 216 as well as any other car with max cooling 054 rad
This statement is incorrect as well. "MAX COOLING" is a "red herring" it is NOT an orderable OPTION certain combinations have it others do not. A 1969 b-body with a "054" radiator does not equal "MAX COOLING" nor mandate a "216" fan.
While I agree that Build Code N51 was not orderable as a stand-alone option (it was included on a car based on other selected options/package), I've seen multiple engineering graphics and other documents which refer to Build Code N51 as "Max Cooling Pkg Less Fan". On all of the 1969 Broadcast Sheets I've physically seen so far with B/C N51, they have all coded the 054 radiator. The engineering graphics also indicate the 054 radiator was to be installed on N51 Max Cool cars. As such, I would say that 1969 Max Cooling cars should all have the 054 radiator (barring the usual assembly line error factor).
Radiator fans are a totally different story, as there's a range of fan and/or fan spacers installed on cars coded for N51 MaxCool. For example... '69 Hemi B-bodies - both auto and manual trans - should have B/C N51 (and as a result, the 054 radiator), but are equipped with the 18" 215 fan. All 440 Manual Trans cars were also supposed to get the 215 fan, but A34-equipped (4.10 ratio) cars would also have been given the N51 MaxCool treatment with the 054 radiator just like the Hemi's. It's quite correct to say there is no mandate for a 216 fan on B/C N51 "Max Cooling" cars, since there are a large number of real-world examples proving the disconnect. With research help from Doug Hammer, attached is a chart which walks through some of the main variables that dictated B/C N51 MaxCool and that option package's Fan and Drive/Spacer. Between Doug and myself, almost all of these have been observed on original Broadcast Sheets (indicated as 'verified'), and the remaining ones are based on an interpretation of the engineering graphics. I'm certainly open to correction if there's empirical examples of Broadcast Sheets which differ from those two line-item predictions... but I have some degree of confidence in the info or I wouldn't have put my proverbial neck on the Moparts chopping block...
|
|
|
Re: Fan blade?
[Re: hemigeno]
#1572902
02/04/14 07:48 PM
02/04/14 07:48 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,039 INDIANA
Paul Jacobs
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,039
INDIANA
|
Gene Stick your neck here, I have the axe ready for you! I would not fret too much over the 215/216 issue on your car, as either would work. With that being said, I have run into at least four original cars in twenty years that have the "incorrect" fan on them, though all the clutch units were the 070. I would say that it's not that uncommon, as they both were a size that would have fit & the cooling difference would have been minimal. After all, it's not like they were gonna stop the line to do something right back then!
|
|
|
Re: Fan blade?
[Re: Paul Jacobs]
#1572903
02/04/14 08:14 PM
02/04/14 08:14 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 330 Washington, MO
hemigeno
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 330
Washington, MO
|
Quote:
Gene Stick your neck here, I have the ax ready for you! I would not fret too much over the 215/216 issue on your car, as either would work. With that being said, I have run into at least four original cars in twenty years that have the "incorrect" fan on them, though all the clutch units were the 070. I would say that it's not that uncommon, as they both were a size that would have fit & the cooling difference would have been minimal. After all, it's not like they were gonna stop the line to do something right back then!
Hi Paul
Just as you say, the differences between the fans are pretty minimal... the 216 is 1/2" bigger (18.5" vs. 18.0") and has 1/4" greater pitch (2.5" vs. 2.25", measured by laying the fan flat and checking its height) than the 215. Both were used on the 26" radiator options, would fit the 070 torque drive spacer, and used the same shroud (not sure how they would fit a 22" radiator/shroud though). I've seen at least one unrestored car coded for 055 that got a 3-core 054, and there could be an example out there somewhere going the other way on radiator size too... which is exactly why I tacked on the "usual assembly line error" qualifier earlier.
|
|
|
|
|