fan clutch? - Page 8 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

LeaUK · #**106** 05-01-2005, 04:13 AM

Test post by using the Quote button.... This text was entered before the quote tag ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeaUK

Jim

Ok, we've gone way off topic here - but I don't understand why you fail to see my point about using the 'Post Reply' button and Title field usage. No-one (or maybe VERY few people) use 'Title' for their first line and it causes problems. I was only trying to point this out as you are obviously unaware. It's true not fiction and to try and assist I placed attached a grab to attempt to convince, but you still refuse to accept this is what's happening. I can do no more.

More importantly, I want to get the thread back online for all of us, so forget my comments about the Title edit field - we'll just put up with it.

Back to Vfc, tstat and cooling of 119 engines.

I've been wondering, has the W140 the same size rad as the R129. Remember that my engine is the 119.972 where yours is a 119.970 or 980. I'll check the part numbers...

BTW - I've asked several skilled mechanics over the weekend here in the UK about warm-up times of UK cars and all agree from 10-15 minutes is the average. So I cannot understand how yours heats in 2

Lea

This text after the quote tag....

LeaUK · #**107** 05-01-2005, 04:16 AM

This text was placed before the Quote tag...

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeaUK

Test post by using the Quote button....

This text was entered before the quote tag ....

This text after the quote tag....

This text after the Quote tag...

LeaUK · #**108** 05-01-2005, 04:20 AM

Jim

Use the Post Reply Button to make a post (not the Quote button), scroll down and see the problem - please attach a screen grab of what you see. If you can indeed see the Title text then I need to investigate my php settings.

Apologies, but I just couldn't resist finding our what's really happening..

Back to Vfcs..... slap my wrists

Seems like the rad isn't effected by either the 070 or 080 engine as is model sensitive rather than engine. So your rad is a A 140 500 14 03 and is shared across the 042,043,050,051,063 range only.

The R129.067 rad is: 129 500 01 03 and so probably different.

So are we comparing chalk with cheese. Can we compare different cooling systems simply based on similar engine numbers. I guess not.

I may start a poll in the SL forum to see what others attain, but there aren't many GB members, however it still may be of some interest!

Lea

JimF · #**109** 05-01-2005, 06:58 PM

I needed to test one of the VFC assy that I been using to see if mounting the bms into the vfc frame would cause to bend at a different temperature than just the bms itself.

If you refer to MENU#21 on my page, you see that I tested a brand new Sachs VFC (119 200 01 22) bms alone in water. The bms bent at 98-100C enough so that the clutch would engage and lock up the fan.

Today, I decided to test the complete assy using the "119 200 00 22" with the bms mounted as it is when mounted on the car. Possibly, there could be a compounding effect that would cause the bms to bend at a lower temperature than it would just by itself.

From the theoretical standpoint, that is impossible since a bms is a ‘closed system’ and as such it must respond to temperature by bending based on the metallic expansion of each metal used in the steel/brass amalgam. It will always respond the same to applied temperature based on the coefficient of expansion (COE) of each metal in the amalgam. It will follow the thermodynamic laws that govern it.

Of course, the VFC frame could be an influencing factor in that if it were a ‘bms’ of the right metals and direction, it could cause the primary bms to effectively bend at a lower temperature than it would. So with that in mind, I tested the complete VFC assy in water. You should note that the water test is more likely to induce the bms to bend because the water temperature is more homgeneous than it can be when the VFC assy is mounted in the car. The air temp forced from the input side will always tend to lower the temperature seen at the VFC assy.

The three (3) pictures show the results of the test. One taken at the start; water at 140F (60C), one taken midway, water at 170F (77C) and the final at 194C (90C). My assistant (the 'boss') holds the thermometer in the last picture. As suspected, the bms did not BEND at 90C. This proves that the frame that holds the bms is not another bms in itself and the bms ‘obeys’ its COE for the metals involved. Also the findings were the same as my standalone ‘bms’ water test made in 2001 (in Menu#21).

It shows that for this VFC assy, despite contrary any claims made for the VFC, that this VFC does not operate until 100C, meaning that the coolant in the radiator must be AT LEAST 110C (but probably more) before 100C can be reflected into the bms to cause it bend, thus engaging the clutch.

Furthermore, any bms that has the markings of the bms tested, you can be assured that it will not bend until the temperature is around 100C. The markings are “TB 1577A -GE”. It’s also imprinted with the MB PN 119 200 00 22.

In summary, it is now apparent that:
1) VFCs with PN 119 200 00 22 do NOT lock up until 100C at the bms
2) VFCs with PN 119 200 01 22 do NOT lock up until 100C at the bms.
3) The replacement VFC, 119 200 02 22 also made with the "TB 1577A -GE" will not lock up until 100C at the bms.

Note that the 119 200 00 22 is specified for use on "S' class Mercedes specifically the W140 and C140 as well as the 'E' class Mercedes, W210 (including the 'E500'), and 'SL' class, R129.

The bottom line conclusion is "ALL VFC assys made with the bms marked as "TB 1577A -GE" will NOT lock up until 100C[/b] at the bms.

pcmaher · #**110** 05-01-2005, 09:08 PM

mmmm! One of my favourites...Viscous Clutch Soup! Looks delicious Jim

pberku · #**111** 05-02-2005, 01:43 AM

Jim,

I am trying to account for the discrepancies between our test results, and subsequent conclusions. The result of my tests, as described in thread No: 71 were significantly different than yours. My vcf behaved exactly as specified by Mercedes for my particular model -'95 E300D.

Do you have the Mercedes' specs for your model? The specs for your model may be different than for my model. Additionally, my vcf was an original Mercedes unit, manufactured for Mercedes by "Behr", Your vcfs are manufactured by "Sachs"

I am not familiar with "Sachs" vcfs. I am assuming however that they are not supplied by Mercedes, but are after-market units. If so, perhaps "Sachs" vcfs don't meet Mercedes' specifications, but "Behr" does

Phil

JimF · #**112** 05-02-2005, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pcmaher

mmmm! One of my favourites...Viscous Clutch Soup! Looks delicious Jim

It's awful bitter! But served w/ a good wine. it's almost palatable!

JimF · #**113** 05-02-2005, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pberku

I am trying to account for the discrepancies between our test results, and subsequent conclusions. The result of my tests, as described in thread No: 71 were significantly different than yours. My vcf behaved exactly as specified by Mercedes for my particular model -'95 E300D.

Unless the 'behr' version has a dual frame (that's functions as a second bms), it can't bend at two different temps. Your conclusions are not valid. But I told you that before. The BMS can NOT bend at two different temperatures.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pberku

The specs for your model may be different than for my model. Additionally, my vcf was an original Mercedes unit, manufactured for Mercedes by "Behr", Your vcfs are manufactured by "Sachs". I am not familiar with "Sachs" vcfs. I am assuming however that they are not supplied by Mercedes, but are after-market units. If so, perhaps "Sachs" vcfs don't meet Mercedes' specifications, but "Behr" does.

Check out MENU#20 and look at the pic toward the bottom of the page (pic with the adjusting screw mounted to the bms), you will see the Mercedes part number clearly marked onto the bms, 119 200 00 22. So it must be a valid MB part. It came from the local MB dealer!

It certainly could be that some other suppliers VFCs work at a more reasonable cut-in temperature but these from Sachs with the as-marked bms, do not.

As I started out in this thread, there are (hopefully) some VFCs that work at a reasonable (95C) temperature. We know that MB made a "tropics" VFC version (BongC36 thread) that locks at 90C and it's a "Sachs"! But the Sachs VFCs for MB autos that use the 119 200 00 22 VFC, this version operates at a much higher temperature and almost makes it useless.

In one of LeaUK posts: "Coolant Temp Max 130C". MB said that "driving the (W140) in severe operating conditions such as stop-and-go city traffic, the coolant temperature may rise to close to the red marking. This is ok but it should never go into the 'red'".

So using that logic, then if the "sachs" vfc cut-in at 120C (coolant temp), it's still "OK" (for somebody else but not me!). In that circumstance the vfc still "works" and serves a function. But I think that's really pushing it.

pberku · #**114** 05-02-2005, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimF

................It certainly could be that some other suppliers VFCs work at a more reasonable cut-in temperature but these from Sachs with the as-marked bms, do not..

Jim,

Let's at least agree that your "Sachs" VFCs, do not function as per Mercedes Specifications, and that my "Behr" VFCs do comply.

It s really not worth getting too excited over this. There are more important things in Life.

Try and keep your cool. (Pun intended).

Phil

pberku · #**115** 05-02-2005, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimF

Unless the 'behr' version has a dual frame (that's functions as a second bms), it can't bend at two different temps. Your conclusions are not valid. But I told you that before. The BMS can NOT bend at two different temperatures.

Check out MENU#20 and look at the pic toward the bottom of the page (pic with the adjusting screw mounted to the bms), you will see the Mercedes part number clearly marked onto the bms, 119 200 00 22. So it must be a valid MB part. It came from the local MB dealer!

It certainly could be that some other suppliers VFCs work at a more reasonable cut-in temperature but these from Sachs with the as-marked bms, do not.

As I started out in this thread, there are (hopefully) some VFCs that work at a reasonable (95C) temperature. We know that MB made a "tropics" VFC version (BongC36 thread) that locks at 90C and it's a "Sachs"! But the Sachs VFCs for MB autos that use the 119 200 00 22 VFC, this version operates at a much higher temperature and almost makes it useless.

In one of LeaUK posts: "Coolant Temp Max 130C". MB said that "driving the (W140) in severe operating conditions such as stop-and-go city traffic, the coolant temperature may rise to close to the red marking. This is ok but it should never go into the 'red'".

So using that logic, then if the "sachs" vfc cut-in at 120C (coolant temp), it's still "OK" (for somebody else but not me!). In that circumstance the vfc still "works" and serves a function. But I think that's really pushing it.

Jim,

Let's at least agree on the fact that for whatever reason, the VCFs that you tested, - "Sachs", do not comply to Mercedes Specifications, and that the VCFs that I tested - "Behr" do comply. It's really not worth getting too excited over this. There are more important things in Life.

Try and keep your cool. (Pun intended).

Phil

JimF · #**116** 05-02-2005, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pberku

Let's at least agree on the fact that for whatever reason, the VCFs that you tested, - "Sachs", do not comply to Mercedes Specifications, and that the VCFs that I tested - "Behr" do comply. It's really not worth getting too excited over this. There are more important things in Life.

Try and keep your cool. (Pun intended).

Phil

I'll agree if you agree to 'promulgate' your unique law!

It goes something like this: When expansion measurements are made on a metal amalgam, the expansion of each metal will obey the law of linear expansion precisely using the coefficient of expansion. This law is well defined and works for all observeable tests.

But there is a unique application of this law. One such was discovered by pberku and is called the Biased Measurement Syndrome, B.M.S. Using his B.M.S., the above laws need not be validated and, in fact, he can use whatever factors needed (normally called fudge-factors) so that he can make his argument. So when the B.M.S. is employed, his data is made to fit the initial assumptions that were made going in to the test. But be aware, that this can only be invoked by pberku. Others do not have the expertise to do so. So you are forewarned!

How's that for cool??

pberku · #**117** 05-02-2005, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimF

I'll agree if you agree to 'promulgate' your unique law!

It goes something like this: When expansion measurements are made on a metal amalgam, the expansion of each metal will obey the law of linear expansion precisely using the coefficient of expansion. This law is well defined and works for all observeable tests.

But there is a unique application of this law. One such was discovered by pberku and is called the Biased Measurement Syndrome, B.M.S. Using his B.M.S., the above laws need not be validated and, in fact, he can use whatever factors needed (normally called fudge-factors) so that he can make his argument. So when the B.M.S. is employed, his data is made to fit the initial assumptions that were made going in to the test. But be aware, that this can only be invoked by pberku. Others do not have the expertise to do so. So you are forewarned!

How's that for cool??

Jim,

You are overheating, and approaching the red zone. In your current agitated state, you don't need to use hot water for your vfc experiments. All you need do is breathe on your bms', and they would immediately bend.

Jim, You really should cool down, and get out of the house a bit more.

Phil.

LeaUK · #**118** 05-03-2005, 05:14 AM

So it's been getting quite 'heated' whilst I've been away - had a little gastroenteritis so I couldn't make much time for keyboard tapping over the last couple of days!

Quote:

1) VFCs with PN 119 200 00 22 do NOT lock up until 100C at the bms

How about this for the melting pot, Jim in your opinion how much upwards movement of the bms does the clutch require to achieve lock?

Are you assuming that you need to physically see the movement with the naked eye to achieve lock? Did you take a picture of the bms at 100C - or when you think it looks bent enough?

What was the difference in movement across your tests?

Assuming the information on your web site is correct stating that only 0.07" (1.79mm) is required for lock do we believe this can actually be seen underwater considering the refractive index?

I still cannot understand the difference in these two tests. No matter what the 'laws of physics' are (which you often repeat), one unit operates correctly, the other doesn't and this cannot be disputed.

However at least we have moved away from saying that ALL MB designed vfcs fail to lock correctly, just because one Sachs part fails we cannot assume that all vfcs fail. As this statement is by far to sweeping.

Have we got the data sheet on the bms itself? Maybe a clue to be found here?

Phil
What's the part number of your bms?

Maybe I ask far too many questions and so this is a good point to thank Jim and Phil for actively taking part - thanks chaps. Right, I'm off to find a mirror and torch to decipher my bms number (I removed the silly black plastic housing on my fist silicone refill). If it's the same as yours Jim, how do we explain this?

Lea

pberku · #**119** 05-03-2005, 10:05 AM

Hi Lea,

Following my own tests, I did some additional destructive testing on both the individual bmss as well as the complete Clutch assembly, consequently I don't have the parts anymore. Referring to my notes however, I see that the part no that was stamped on the bms' was 1901. The clutch fan unit itself was a "Behr". There were two Part No's on it: A) 603-200-00-22 2 B) 65.306.00.000.

I also remember that Mercedes in their Technical Bulletin stated that there are 3 possible bmss, and refereed to them by color, rather than part no's. They did not elaborate as to what the differences between the different colored bmss were.

I should also mention that when I conducted my tests, I rigged-up a contact above each bms so that when it bend, it would touch that contact, complete an electrical circuit, which then activated an LED. Otherwise, I would not have been able to determine when they bend. They where submerged in water, consequently I had no visual access from the sides, and very limited visual access from the top.

I used a spark-plug feeler gauge, to insure that the distance between the bms' and the contact was identical in all cases.

Regards,

Phil

LeaUK · #**120** 05-03-2005, 10:37 AM

Hi Phil

Shame about the destructive testing, I take it that you carried out your tests way before this debate started?

So, if my vfc were a Behr then we could all give up and conclude. However, guess what, after visual inspection 10 minutes ago, mine is a Sachs. bms part number 119 200 00 22 92M 111 6021 XXX 13001 TB1577 (can't make much else out)

The Sachs stamp is on the rear. Here are a couple of grabs...

This image has been mirrored so that the part number can be read:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
replaced fan clutch - is new clutch defective?	janko	Tech Help	13	07-08-2005 01:05 PM
Can you remove fan clutch bracket with fan clutch still attached?	brewtoo	Tech Help	4	01-30-2005 11:44 PM
DIY Notes may help people: Radiator, Fan Clutch, Temp Sensors, Fuel Pump, Temp Gauge	ericgr	Mercedes-Benz SL Discussion Forum	3	09-24-2004 01:40 AM
Any reason to leave a fan with a dead clutch installed?	The Warden	Diesel Discussion	17	12-22-2003 07:28 AM
Auxiliary Fan Question	JBoggs	Tech Help	9	07-30-2003 10:07 PM