That's very interesting. Today i'll switch to a 80 degree high flow and just leave that in there, if i ever have any dramas with higher than normal temps in the heat of our summer i'll increase the oil cooler size instead.
High quality 160* thermostat?
- Thread starter mkIIIman089
- Start date
IJ.;1477193 said:
Thanks Ian! I was a little worried i hadn't given enough thought to how the ecu sees the lower temp , thanks for the heads up.(once again)lol
We're limited by frontal area and engine location in the Mk3 Pete there's only so much rad you can squeeze in there, ANYTHING you can do to shift some thermal load will help but unless you can find a magic place for coolers adding more to the front of the car does little as they end up mounted in series.
Just started adding my large speco oil cooler this morning in front of the intercooler though, just behind the A duct. I see what you mean about mounting in series.
Would prefer not to block the intercooler at all but the size of the oil cooler stops me from doing that. Played around with the idea of making a alloy plate box for the cooler and a thermo fan instead and tucking it up under the front on its flat but at the moment don't have the time to spare.
Future project lol.
Would prefer not to block the intercooler at all but the size of the oil cooler stops me from doing that. Played around with the idea of making a alloy plate box for the cooler and a thermo fan instead and tucking it up under the front on its flat but at the moment don't have the time to spare.
Future project lol.
Welp, I drilled a couple too many holes in the Stant and rendered it incapable of restricting flow enough for the current, very low, ambient. Time to get another, LOL. D'oh!
T Stat's are proportional ie: Not Open/Shut, I'd run it stock and see what it does as resident time in the radiator is part of the equation as well.
Yes, I knew that... did it anyway, looking back it was probably not worth it. I was not going for "high flow", only matching it's valve surface area to OEM.
I can say that the fresh out of the box Stant seemed to react by opening farther, faster to water temp ~10* above its rating, while the new OEM was noticeably slower reacting and shorter throw in similar conditions. So you're right, it may just be part of it's design and they might actually be similar in actual operation. I will probably add a small hole to the Stant to supplement the lack of a jiggle valve, but nothing more
I can say that the fresh out of the box Stant seemed to react by opening farther, faster to water temp ~10* above its rating, while the new OEM was noticeably slower reacting and shorter throw in similar conditions. So you're right, it may just be part of it's design and they might actually be similar in actual operation. I will probably add a small hole to the Stant to supplement the lack of a jiggle valve, but nothing more
I'd just remove the Jiggle valve and run it as is, you have so much more overhead than stock at this HP level it makes any comparison null and void.
Well, it has no jiggle valve AT ALL out of the box... don't want to accidentally create an air lock in there when installing
All in good fun Ian!!
Still going to just to make myself feel better... even if its only a 1/16th hole.
Still going to just to make myself feel better... even if its only a 1/16th hole.
Got the #2 stat yesterday, checked it again for some kind of bypass/air passage and this one had nothing at all, so perhaps the notch in the last one was a tiny manufacturing defect of some sort... it was so small I could easily believe thats the case.
So, drilled the 1/16in hole and it has worked perfectly like that!
So, drilled the 1/16in hole and it has worked perfectly like that!