[DeTomaso] R.S. Thermo & restrictor plate ??

[B Hower]

Thanks Will,
 
I think I will check this out, that restrictor would sure control the bypass amount. It looks like one could use either Windsor or Cleveland thermostat with it. But it would actually perform the same either way.
 
Bud #3400

--- On Fri, 7/1/11, Will Kooiman <wkooiman at earthlink.net> wrote:


From: Will Kooiman <wkooiman at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] R.S. Thermo & restrictor plate ??
To: detomaso at realbig.com
Date: Friday, July 1, 2011, 2:35 PM


I agree, but just because they did it that way, that doesn't make it ideal.

It was Ford's solution for mass produced automobiles.

I'm not saying there's a better solution out there.  I don't really know.
All I'm saying is Ford had a different goal (making money) than we have
(perfection).

As has been mentioned before, the most obvious reason for the bypass is to
allow a more controlled warm-up.

But what about once the engine is warm?  Why does it still bypass?

One possible reason is to prevent blowing the hoses off when there's a
restriction in the radiator.  I had a 67 Mustang with a plugged radiator.
It would blow the water out the cap after about 30 or 45 minutes of idling.
I traced it to a radiator that was nearly 100% plugged with rust flakes.  I
didn't figure it out until I saw the upper hose ballooning.

Take a look at this blockoff plate:
http://www.ipsco.org/Pantera%20Parts/Thermostat%20block%20off%20plate.htm

It has a very small hole, which should allow more water to flow to the
radiator.  I have one in my car now (from Quella).  I am somewhat skeptical
about the warm-up bypass performance, but then I'm in Houston.  Over here,
by 10am everything is warmed up, without even starting the engines.

The plus with this bypass is it is brand new, readily available, and it
fits.  If I want the bypass larger, I can drill it out.  Dennis recommends
against drilling it out, though.

-----Original Message-----
From: detomaso-bounces at realbig.com [mailto:detomaso-bounces at realbig.com] On
Behalf Of MikeLDrew at aol.com
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 2:08 AM
To: b.hower3400 at yahoo.com; michael at michaelshortt.com
Cc: detomaso at realbig.com
Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] R.S. Thermo & restrictor plate ??


In a message dated 6/29/11 18 01 52, b.hower3400 at yahoo.com writes:


> Was Ford's original intent for the hat/foot to totally block off that 
> hole when the thermostat is open?
> 

For years, I thought so, but the answer is a definite 'no'.

If you look at the other Ford engines, they all have a bypass hose which 
routes a certain amount of water past the radiator--some water just flows
back 
into the water pump.

The 351C accomplishes this same thing by way of the 'hat' on the thermostat 
and the hole in the ring through which it passes.   John Christian did the 
math for me one day, comparing the total area of the opening in the bypass, 
with the total area of the hat which partially blocks it off.   Do the 
subtraction, and the remaining area is almost exactly the same as the area
of the 
bypass hose on a 289/302/351W, and the FE motors.

Clever chaps, those Ford engineers. :>)

Mike
_______________________________________________

Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA

Archive Search Engine Now Available at http://www.realbig.com/detomaso/

DeTomaso mailing list
DeTomaso at list.realbig.com
http://list.realbig.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso

_______________________________________________

Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA

Archive Search Engine Now Available at http://www.realbig.com/detomaso/

DeTomaso mailing list
DeTomaso at list.realbig.com
http://list.realbig.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso