Separate names with a comma.
What do you think would be more effective auxiliary electric fan, a 14” @1800cfm or 16” @1600cfm?
More surface area. Jake
Neither, because they are both a POS fan if that's all they move. It's been said on this and every opther forum a hundred or more times you need up around 4k, that's FOUR THOUSAND CFM to cool an engine.
And hence why I stick with ether the OE units or the MP Viscous set up which is like a freaking Tornado underneath the hood!
Depending on what your doing with the car would be the decision on electric or belt driven.
Yes it is and no matter how much you preach it you just cannot tell people a thing. All they do is get the "cheapest thing".
Or the latest and the greatest new thing in print.
I'm not sure even, how these companies pretend to rate fan airflow. Way too many variables, not the least of which is the construction of the radiator tubes and fins which present restriction to that airflow. and manufacturers/ relabelers/ resellers can claim ANYTHING in print. This is made clear by things like winch ratings (not true line pull lifting ability) compressor CFM (sometimes rated at suction/ intake instead of at operating pressure, output), or electric motors HP rated not by actual mechanical shaft horsepower, but rather falsely represented by the LINE POWER they draw.
Confirm you are adding this to an existing mechanical fan set-up? Is your car overheating with the stock set-up? Are these pusher fans mounted to the front of the radiator? Both those CFM ratings are pretty low, but the stock electrical system could probably handle them if you use relays.
If the CFM was real and from the same mfg, then the more cfm the better! But I suspect you have two different companies using 2 different ways to rate the cfm because apples to apples, the 16" will pull a lot more air than a 14". The only real way to tell which is better is to use a cfm meter through the radiator and that's not very practical.