Low Temp Thermostat

[Frodo]

Well, having successfully done the front wheel bearing replacement, I had just a week to fully enjoy the Box and the nice weather...but then the inevitable occurred. With 57K on the odometer, I had expected that it might happen, though I had planned on addressing this in a preventative maintenance fashion prior to actual failure.

What was it that went, you might ask? Well, it was the water pump. I started, day before yesterday, to smell something hot after a drive. Nothing too drastic...smelled like someone had left a hot iron on a T-shirt a little too long. Then yesterday, went for a drive (to, amongst other missions, push 'whatever' a little closer to failure, to aid in diagnosis). Could hear a vague clattering or whining sound from behind me when I sat at idle and blipped the throttle. Got home, looked under the car, saw a few drops hittin' the driveway. Pulled forward a few feet to look...it's coolant. I'm pretty much thinking w/p at this point.

Removed the engine cover inside the car and the belt, while largely intact, had started to peel off into a few thin strands. Removed the belt. Everything turns fine (pulley-wise), but there is some wobble to the w/p wheel. So, I think I got my diagnosis.

I know this has been talked about ad nauseum, but I'm still wondering about the low temp thermostat. I've had one or two (un-named) sources suggesting that the switch isn't really particularly necessary. From the threads I've read (here, largely) many suggest the switch as a good thing, and a few say, while it may not be necessary, switching to a low temp t-stat can't hurt. Cost, to some extent, is an issue.

My question: Is there anybody out there who'd argue AGAINST switching to a low temp t-stat? If so, what's your reasoning?

My second question: I plan on doing the front motor mount at the same time. While it may become obvious as I proceed, I'm wondering whether it makes more sense to do the water pump (+/- the thermostat) first or to do the motor mount first?