John Sessoms wrote: >From: eckinator >> 2010/1/27 Ken Waller <[email protected]>: >>> > My understanding was that air cooling was limiting engine output - heat >>> > dissapation. >> >> well air cools just like water - the more you move it the better it >> cools - you need good airflow, good oil flow, i.e. massive oil pump, >> large oil cooler surface, good case material with proper cooling fins >> and so on - the 993 was good proof that it can be done =) >> >> I think they all made the move because water cooling is cheaper for >> the same thermal waste output > >I may be wrong ... won't be the first time ... even in this thread ... >but I understood the reason for the change to water cooling was to make >it easier for them to implement exhaust emissions controls, or less >costly to do. > >Didn't the EU enact exhaust emissions standards even stricter than the >US when they finally got around to it?
Emissions laws were certainly part of it, but probably could have been met simply with computerized fuel injection and ignition if it were not for the ever-increasing expectations for power per cubic centimeter of engine displacement: This inevitably leads to more heat to dissipate for any given engine size. Horsepower was the overwhelming incentive, with noise and emissions regulations playing a secondary role. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
