Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pberku
From your attachment, it is obvious that in order to lower the Fan's engagement temperature, Mercedes did indeed at some point change the VFC design for the 500E/E500.
|
Yes, they did and that was (has been) one of my points since the 'discussion' started.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pberku
I am curious however as to why they found it necessary to change the design of the VFC housing, and its the cover. For a much smaller cost, they could have just substituted a lower temperature rated bms into the existing VFC design, but for some reason Mercedes concluded that they needed to do more than just change the bms.
|
The term for what you describe is called a "design deficiency" and a team of engineers, electrical and mechanical, tackle this problem from a number of aspects to find a reliable and hopefully, low cost solution to the this deficiency.
When many changes are made, it's because the data from the many engineering tests, show that
ALL of the improvements were needed. Companies don't spend money redesigning 'stuff' that's not needed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pberku
I am speculating that there was an airflow problem around the bms. Something in the original design may have prevented ambient air from adequately circulating around the bms, causing the bms to bend and engage the VFC at a much higher temperature than desired.
Phil
|
I believe I made that point a number of times in this post: and that testing in WATER is MUCH more condusive than testing in air especially in situ.
If the VFC/bms doesn't work in WATER, you can bet it needs to get much 'hotter' in air to engage. Now you are starting to see the light.