. . . . smaller radiators etc.PhillipM wrote:In which case you'd just use less water . . . .
Perhaps they have a secondary cooling system ? That's a very wild stab in the dark.Chuckjr wrote:I think there's more to the story. You can't run that many laps without any pressure. The Merc is a great power unit yes, but it's not outside the realm of physics.
Without pressure, does not mean without coolant at all. There was still coolant, just not pressurized, so less cooling capacity.Chuckjr wrote:I think there's more to the story. You can't run that many laps without any pressure. The Merc is a great power unit yes, but it's not outside the realm of physics.
Surely the pressure measured in liquid cooling is the difference of flow vs return from the pump?NL_Fer wrote:Without pressure, does not mean without coolant at all. There was still coolant, just not pressurized, so less cooling capacity.
I think it had to be a sensor problem. A 1.5 litre engine even if running in "safe mode" probably has around 600hp. That's still a considerable amount of heat to reject. I don't think sloshing water can take care of that at all.taperoo2k wrote:The motion of the car might have kept the coolant sloshing around even without any pressure.
It depends on how the coolant piping is routed of course.
No, probably just the system pressure from the valve in the header tank that was lost if it was a hairline fracture (which we can assume it was, since the car didn't loose much water), so you would just drop the boiling point.avatar wrote:Surely the pressure measured in liquid cooling is the difference of flow vs return from the pump?NL_Fer wrote:Without pressure, does not mean without coolant at all. There was still coolant, just not pressurized, so less cooling capacity.
If so, it follows that no pressure=no circulation?