View Single Post
Old 05-06-2009, 09:11 PM   #7
Lil bastard
Registered User
 
Lil bastard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Du Monde
Posts: 2,199
I've read both Jake's and Charles explanations and remain somewhat skeptical, no offense guys.

I get it that the t'stat opens sooner. I get that the gauge is both inaccurate and not indicative of temps in the engine's hot spots.

What I'm unconvinced about (though am ready to be) is whether or not the OEM t'stat actually cycles, that is, opens/closes within the normal temp swings of the engine and within the difference between it and the low-temp t'stat. I'd like to see someone test one in a pan of hot-to-boiling water and accurately record the temps at which it opens and closes. Even if it does cycle, udner most operating conditions, it will nonetheless stabilize at some point.

While they report cooler operating temps, or at least temps lower than 186° (OEM t'stat) with the low temp unit, they have not reported the operating temps with the oem unit vs the lower temp one.

Nor has any info been posted as to how 'bad' this actual operating temp difference is to the engine and it's components. I mean we're talking about materials like steel and alloy, but temps of only between 160° and boiling (250° under pressure), well under any critical temps for these materials. Even the oil is resistant to such relatively low temps.

To me, it sounds like a belief in the concept that anything lowering temps is better. While theoretically this sounds good, it may have no practical effect, especially if the higher temp is not in itself destructive, or more destructive.

All t'stats pose some degree of flow restriction due to their outlet diameter and their size. Could it be that the low-temp t'stat has a larger outlet, or is a smaller unit allowing more flow?

I would think that switching to a waterless coolant, such as Evans NPG because of it's much higher boiling point, would provide much more protection and, because of reduced hot spots would also give a lower overall operating temp. Plus, it's rated to 500k mi., instead of the 5yr./150k mi. of the Porsche coolant argueably making it more economical.

Whatever, these are just some further questions I'd like to see answered. I do hope the debate continues and that more accurate info is passed along.

__________________
1990 Porsche 964 Carrera 4 Cabriolet
1976 BMW 2002
1990 BMW 325is
1999 Porsche Boxster
(gone, but not forgotten)
http://i933.photobucket.com/albums/a...smiley-003.gif

Never drive faster than your Guardian Angel can fly!

Last edited by Lil bastard; 05-06-2009 at 09:16 PM.
Lil bastard is offline   Reply With Quote