[elky] Re: Even more curiouser

  • From: Robert Adams <elcam84@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: elky@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:05:56 -0500

                 Yeah I'd love to have something that I could use to
calibrate temp gauges. You can only compare it to itself....

                         As for engine temp well the manufacturers have been
slowly going away from the overheated engines. When I picked up Mike Bs SRT8
Magnum in Houston and drove it to Ok for him in the summer even under heavy
use :) :) it never went over 190. It was almost 180 all the time. And many
others even regular cars are heading back to 180 as like we all know lower
temps are better in many ways. A few benefits of hotter temps but way too
many bad trade offs.


                      Robert Adams

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Ray Buck <rbuck@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  To answer your question about the accuracy of the car's temp gauge, it's
> about as accurate as I'm gonna get it.  It's an aftermarket mechanical
> gauge, and like all of 'em, they're only good for relative temperatures:
>
>
>
> This was last week.  Now it runs at a pretty steady 190.  I think there
> were a several contributing factors.  First was manual control over the
> fan.  The ECU doesn't turn it on until 220.  That's just plain stupid.  I
> don't care HOW much of a reduction in emissions they got from it, that's
> just too hot to run a motor, especially with a radiator that has plastic end
> tanks.  Dumber than shit, as a matter of fact.
>
> The other factors were flushing the cooling system twice with chemical
> flush, then back-flushing it with clear water...which is what's in the
> radiator now.  Finally, the 180 t-stat is a lot better than a 195, IMNSHO.
> According to the 3rd Gen F-body forums, this doesn't affect the ECU
> operation at all.
>
> Ok.  I gotta go get the battery box securely mounted in the race car.
>
> r
>
>
>
>
> On 7/24/2011 3:49 PM, Mary McCarthy wrote:
>
> uhh - dumb question - all this fussing with the thermostat, is the car's
> gauge accurate?
>
> Mary
>
> That's exactly what I did.  And in the driveway, it never got over an
> indicated 170.  Who knows?  I'm gonna take it for a drive a bit later.
> Right now the idea of a ride in a car w/o A/C and black interior isn't all
> that attractive.  :)  Besides...I got busted knuckles all the way up to my
> elbows.  I need a break.
>
> r
>
>
> On 7/24/2011 1:07 PM, Dann Keller wrote:
>
>  I think I'd start with the 180* stat.  At least it opened at some boiling
> level.
>
> Dan
>
>  ------------------------------
> Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 12:21:05 -0600
> From: rbuck@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: elky@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [elky] Even more curiouser
>
> I guess there's something wrong with my testing methods.  First, at 4300 ft
> (approximately) water boils at 204F.
>
> Here's a shot of a brand-new 180F thermostat just starting to open at an
> indicated 200F as the water begins to boil.
>
>
>
> It was fully opened as the water hit about 204, a rolling boil.
>
> Then I tried a 195F thermostat that I had on hand:
>
>
>
> The temp is as high as I can get it with an open pan and the t-stat hasn't
> even begun to open.
>
> Conclusion?  The one marked 180 opens at a lower temperature...whatever
> that might be.  The water temp indicated by the thermometer seems to be
> accurate...so it would seem.  But neither t-stat seems to open at its stated
> temperature...or even 10 degrees above it.  Beats the shit outta me.  I'm
> gonna go put the damned thing in the car and see what it does as indicated
> by the temp gauge.  I won't be surprised if it runs at 190 or so.
>
> r
>
>
>
>
>

JPEG image

Other related posts: