[DeTomaso] 160 degree thermostat vs 180 degree thermostat

Tomas Gunnarsson guson at home.se
Wed May 20 10:36:27 EDT 2015


Well, if it had been a drop in replacement it would have been a great
alternative to the stock type that goes into the restrictor plate as it
probably does a better job at blocking the bypass. If it has to be
altered mechanically to fit it's another deal. It took us this long to
find the last part out though! :-)

Tomas

<-----Ursprungligt Meddelande----->

 	  	 From: Mike Drew [MikeLDrew at aol.com]
Sent: 20/5/2015 2:07:35 AM
To: steve at snclocks.com
Cc: guson at home.se;detomaso at poca.com
Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] 160 degree thermostat vs 180 degree thermostat 

Somebody remind me again why we aren't just buying a readily available
$8 thermostat for a 351C and installing it? :) 

Mike 

Sent from my iPhone 

On May 19, 2015, at 13:24, "Stephen" <steve at snclocks.com> wrote: 

> I agree. In that case I would probably end up making a new blocking
plate out of a piece of soft brass using a punch and sockets to shape
the top hat. 
> 
> Sorry for the confusion on this - I had forgotten having to flip the
blocking plate. 
> 
> Stephen Nelson 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: DeTomaso [mailto:detomaso-bounces at poca.com] On Behalf Of Tomas
Gunnarsson 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 1:05 PM 
> To: detomaso at poca.com 
> Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] 160 degree thermostat vs 180 degree thermostat
> 
> Stephen, 
> 
> Looking at your first pic of the three variations it looks like not
all of them would be possible to modify as you describe. One plate looks
pretty flat to me. 
> 
> Tomas 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Stephen" <steve at snclocks.com> 
> To: "'Mike Drew'" <MikeLDrew at aol.com>; "'Tomas Gunnarsson'"
<guson at home.se> 
> Cc: <detomaso at poca.com> 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 9:54 PM 
> Subject: RE: [DeTomaso] 160 degree thermostat vs 180 degree thermostat
> 
> 
> Good comments Tomas and Mike - which reminded me that yes, it stuck up
from the block. At which point it realized it was a not fit. The
attached picture shows the duplicate to the one I put in. The distance
from the bottom of the blocking plate to the bottom of the thermostat
housing is 33 mm, as per Thomas reference drawings. The distance from
the bottom of the groove for the thermostat in the block to the
restrictor plate is 26.5 mm. So, interference of 6.5 mm. I popped off
the bottom plate by supporting the restrictor plate and tapping out the
riveted copper holding it to the plunger inside of the spring. In
popping it off I increased its 'top hat' from the 4 mm original height
to a bit over 5 mm. I then flipped it over and re-riveted it to the
copper plunger (bent the rim of copper I had bent to remove it back to
where it was. When done, the distance from the bottom of the thermostat
housing to the bottom of the blocking plate was around 24 mm, giving
just under 1/8 inch of clearance between the blocking plate and the
restrictor. Then I tested the thermostat on the stove to confirm its
operation. 
> 
> Playing with the one in the picture I also note that the blocking
plate is a loose fit to the copper plunger. I tried to maintain this
loose fit when I re-riveted on the plate. 
> 
> This explains why this thermostat is no longer listed for the 351C.
But, at least the one I played with was able to be made to fit. 
> 
> 
> Stephen Nelson 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Mike Drew [mailto:MikeLDrew at aol.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 12:04 PM 
> To: Tomas Gunnarsson 
> Cc: Stephen; detomaso at poca.com 
> Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] 160 degree thermostat vs 180 degree thermostat
> 
> Yes, the Ford scheme only partially blocks the orifice; this is by
design to allow a small amount of water through the bypass. All other
Ford V8s accomplish by having a permanent open bypass whose whose area
is about the same as that of the 351C bypass when it is partially
blocked by the thermostat. 
> 
> It seems to me that this Murray unit is so tall that it might be in
compression all the time and prevent the thermostat from even opening? 
> 
> Must investigate further..... 
> 
> Mike 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 
> 
> On May 19, 2015, at 13:48, "Tomas Gunnarsson" <guson at home.se> wrote: 
> 
>> The Ford unit hat is small enough to pass through the restrictor
plate hole. It must be as it's secured to the moving part of the
thermostat. The Jag unit has a spring suspended plate that's supposed to
cover the hole excessively like when you put your hand over the neck of
a bottle. 
>> 
>> Tomas 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Mike Drew" <MikeLDrew at aol.com> 
>> To: "Stephen" <steve at snclocks.com> 
>> Cc: "Tomas Gunnarsson" <guson at home.se>; <detomaso at poca.com> 
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 8:37 PM 
>> Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] 160 degree thermostat vs 180 degree
thermostat 
>> 
>> 
>> Hmm. Looking at the photos the height looks all wrong, as well as the
size and shape of the hat. Maybe this alternative might work? I would
want to test-fit one on a bare block to be sure. 
>> 
>> Check out the images and part numbers here. This is what the Ford 
>> units look like. I actually had an original 1972 Ford unit in my
hands 
>> a few months back when i was helping a guy change it out (it no
longer 
>> worked) and meant to keep it for reference but it went in the trash 
>> instead. :( 
>> 
>> Mike 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone 
>> 
>> On May 19, 2015, at 13:27, "Stephen" <steve at snclocks.com> wrote: 
>> 
>>> Well heck, tried to attach pictures to the original posting - I
think they are there, but here they are again. 
>>> 
>>> There was a time that O'Reilly's listed this thermostat for the 351C
- back in 2008 to be more specific. 
>>> 
>>> Stephen Nelson 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message----- 
>>> From: Mike Drew [mailto:MikeLDrew at aol.com] 
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 11:01 AM 
>>> To: Tomas Gunnarsson 
>>> Cc: Stephen; detomaso at poca.com 
>>> Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] 160 degree thermostat vs 180 degree 
>>> thermostat 
>>> 
>>> Fwiw I just looked at the image on the website and it shows a
non-351C unit, no hat. Mifht be just a generic stock image? The
application chart lists a bunch of weird Ford Diesel engines, Mazda,
Isuzu etc. and no 351C. I know of no other engine besides the C/M family
of Fords that use our thermostat. 
>>> 
>>> I think this is a swing and a miss? Stephen--do you actually have
photos of this thing? 
>>> 
>>> I have found the various Stant 351C units at O'Reilly easily enough,
>>> armed in advance with the proper part numbers thanks to Garth 
>>> Roderick's excellent research. I strongly going to his website and 
>>> following the trail he blazed so well...I fear you may be in the 
>>> wilderness, and few things suck as much as an overheating Pantera
due 
>>> to an improper thermostat. :( 
>>> 
>>> Mike 
>>> 
>>> Mike 
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone 
>>> 
>>> On May 19, 2015, at 12:18, "Tomas Gunnarsson" <guson at home.se> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Thanks Stephen, this is excellent info! I went to O'Reilley's site
and they list a number of veicles for which this is a match. Among them
is a Volvo model which should make it easy to find a local supplier here
in Sweden. 
>>>> 
>>>> Tomas 
>>>> 
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>> From: "Stephen" <steve at snclocks.com> 
>>>> To: "'Tomas Gunnarsson'" <guson at home.se> 
>>>> Cc: <detomaso at poca.com> 
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 5:49 PM 
>>>> Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] 160 degree thermostat vs 180 degree 
>>>> thermostat 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Funny story that - went to a number of auto parts houses, all came 
>>>> up with standard thermostats (with no blocking plate) for '73 
>>>> mustang 351C. Then I recalled that I had gotten a thermostat for my
>>>> '70 XKE a few years ago from O'Reilly's - and that it is the same
as 
>>>> for the Stangs. So, off to my spares collection and found a spare 
>>>> thermostat that I bought in 2008. In as much as O'Reilly's didn't 
>>>> list for the Jag I had asked for a thermostat for a '73 Mustang. 
>>>> Funniest part is that I then went back to O'Reilly's with the part 
>>>> number and bought 2 more for spares. Also checked with them - there
are lots more at other locations. 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Murray 3398 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Interestingly, the three I have all have different actuators, but 
>>>> overall the same dimensions. 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hope that helps. 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Stephen Nelson 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> From: Tomas Gunnarsson [mailto:guson at home.se] 
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 4:09 AM 
>>>> To: steve at snclocks.com 
>>>> Cc: detomaso at poca.com 
>>>> Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] 160 degree thermostat vs 180 degree 
>>>> thermostat 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Stephen, 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> What brand thermostat are you running? 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Tomas 
>>>> 
>>>> <-----Ursprungligt Meddelande-----> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> From: Stephen [steve at snclocks.com] 
>>>> Sent: 19/5/2015 6:03:18 AM 
>>>> To: detomaso at poca.com <mailto:detomaso at poca.com> 
>>>> Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] 160 degree thermostat vs 180 degree 
>>>> thermostat 
>>>> 
>>>> Interestingly thermodynamics suggests the higher the engine 
>>>> temperature (within limits) the higher the efficiency. And, as 
>>>> pointed out, less risk of washing oil off the walls of the 
>>>> cylinders. I'm running a 190 F thermostat with spring-loaded plate 
>>>> to block off the bypass when the thermostat is open. 
>>>> 
>>>> Stephen Nelson 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message----- 
>>>> From: DeTomaso [mailto:detomaso-bounces at poca.com] On Behalf Of B 
>>>> Hower via DeTomaso 
>>>> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 5:58 PM 
>>>> To: Rob Pulsifer; detomaso at poca.com <mailto:detomaso at poca.com> 
>>>> Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] 160 degree thermostat vs 180 degree 
>>>> thermostat 
>>>> 
>>>> They claim that the metal of the cylinder walls wear less at higher
>>>> temperatures starting at around 170°. I have no printed reference. 
>>>> This is just from my memory. Bud #3400 ( Drive it like there is no 
>>>> tomorrow -- for there may not be ! ) 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> From: Rob Pulsifer via DeTomaso <detomaso at poca.com 
>>>> <mailto:detomaso at poca.com> > 
>>>> To: detomaso at poca.com <mailto:detomaso at poca.com> 
>>>> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 7:27 PM 
>>>> Subject: [DeTomaso] 160 degree thermostat vs 180 degree thermostat 
>>>> 
>>>> I am currently running a 160 degree thermostat, the engine will
hold 
>>>> that temperature while on the hwy. I drove over 50 miles, when I 
>>>> stopped I found that I had left the cap of the swirl tank. The 
>>>> engine didn't over heat, only loss 2 cups of water. The car came 
>>>> stock with a 
>>>> 160 degree thermostat. I now understand that the 180 degree 
>>>> thermostat is better. Outside of the temperature will be more 
>>>> constant, I really don't see the advantage of a 180 degree
thermostat. 
>>>> 
>>>> Robert Pulsifer 
>>>> -------------------------------------------- 
>>>> On Sun, 5/17/15, detomaso-request at poca.com 
>>>> <mailto:detomaso-request at poca.com> <detomaso-request at poca.com 
>>>> <mailto:detomaso-request at poca.com> > wrote: 
>>>> 
>>>> Subject: DeTomaso Digest, Vol 131, Issue 20 
>>>> To: detomaso at poca.com <mailto:detomaso at poca.com> 
>>>> Date: Sunday, May 17, 2015, 12:00 PM 
>>>> 
>>>> Send DeTomaso mailing list 
>>>> submissions to 
>>>> detomaso at poca.com <mailto:detomaso at poca.com> 
>>>> 
>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit 
>>>> http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com 
>>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' 
>>>> to 
>>>> detomaso-request at poca.com <mailto:detomaso-request at poca.com> 
>>>> 
>>>> You can reach the person managing the list at 
>>>> detomaso-owner at poca.com <mailto:detomaso-owner at poca.com> 
>>>> 
>>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>>> than 
>>>> "Re: Contents of DeTomaso digest..." 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Daily Detomaso List Digest 
>>>> 
>>>> Today's Topics: 
>>>> 
>>>> 1. Re: Alden Shock Repair (jderyke at aol.com <mailto:jderyke at aol.com>
>>>> ) 2. Re: NPT Hydrogen powered Toyota (Ro

=== message truncated ===	
-------------- next part --------------
   Well, if it had been a drop in replacement it would have been a great
   alternative to the stock type that goes into the restrictor plate as it
   probably does a better job at blocking the bypass. If it has to be
   altered mechanically to fit it's another deal. It took us this long to
   find the last part out though! :-)

   Tomas

   <-----Ursprungligt Meddelande----->

       From: Mike Drew [MikeLDrew at aol.com]
   Sent: 20/5/2015 2:07:35 AM
   To: steve at snclocks.com
   Cc: guson at home.se;detomaso at poca.com
   Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] 160 degree thermostat vs 180 degree thermostat
   Somebody remind me again why we aren't just buying a readily available
   $8 thermostat for a 351C and installing it? :)
   Mike
   Sent from my iPhone
   On May 19, 2015, at 13:24, "Stephen" <steve at snclocks.com> wrote:
   > I agree. In that case I would probably end up making a new blocking
   plate out of a piece of soft brass using a punch and sockets to shape
   the top hat.
   >
   > Sorry for the confusion on this - I had forgotten having to flip the
   blocking plate.
   >
   > Stephen Nelson
   >
   > -----Original Message-----
   > From: DeTomaso [mailto:detomaso-bounces at poca.com] On Behalf Of Tomas
   Gunnarsson
   > Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 1:05 PM
   > To: detomaso at poca.com
   > Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] 160 degree thermostat vs 180 degree
   thermostat
   >
   > Stephen,
   >
   > Looking at your first pic of the three variations it looks like not
   all of them would be possible to modify as you describe. One plate
   looks pretty flat to me.
   >
   > Tomas
   >
   > ----- Original Message -----
   > From: "Stephen" <steve at snclocks.com>
   > To: "'Mike Drew'" <MikeLDrew at aol.com>; "'Tomas Gunnarsson'"
   <guson at home.se>
   > Cc: <detomaso at poca.com>
   > Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 9:54 PM
   > Subject: RE: [DeTomaso] 160 degree thermostat vs 180 degree
   thermostat
   >
   >
   > Good comments Tomas and Mike - which reminded me that yes, it stuck
   up from the block. At which point it realized it was a not fit. The
   attached picture shows the duplicate to the one I put in. The distance
   from the bottom of the blocking plate to the bottom of the thermostat
   housing is 33 mm, as per Thomas reference drawings. The distance from
   the bottom of the groove for the thermostat in the block to the
   restrictor plate is 26.5 mm. So, interference of 6.5 mm. I popped off
   the bottom plate by supporting the restrictor plate and tapping out the
   riveted copper holding it to the plunger inside of the spring. In
   popping it off I increased its 'top hat' from the 4 mm original height
   to a bit over 5 mm. I then flipped it over and re-riveted it to the
   copper plunger (bent the rim of copper I had bent to remove it back to
   where it was. When done, the distance from the bottom of the thermostat
   housing to the bottom of the blocking plate was around 24 mm, giving
   just under 1/8 inch of clearance between the blocking plate and the
   restrictor. Then I tested the thermostat on the stove to confirm its
   operation.
   >
   > Playing with the one in the picture I also note that the blocking
   plate is a loose fit to the copper plunger. I tried to maintain this
   loose fit when I re-riveted on the plate.
   >
   > This explains why this thermostat is no longer listed for the 351C.
   But, at least the one I played with was able to be made to fit.
   >
   >
   > Stephen Nelson
   >
   >
   > -----Original Message-----
   > From: Mike Drew [mailto:MikeLDrew at aol.com]
   > Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 12:04 PM
   > To: Tomas Gunnarsson
   > Cc: Stephen; detomaso at poca.com
   > Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] 160 degree thermostat vs 180 degree
   thermostat
   >
   > Yes, the Ford scheme only partially blocks the orifice; this is by
   design to allow a small amount of water through the bypass. All other
   Ford V8s accomplish by having a permanent open bypass whose whose area
   is about the same as that of the 351C bypass when it is partially
   blocked by the thermostat.
   >
   > It seems to me that this Murray unit is so tall that it might be in
   compression all the time and prevent the thermostat from even opening?
   >
   > Must investigate further.....
   >
   > Mike
   >
   > Sent from my iPhone
   >
   > On May 19, 2015, at 13:48, "Tomas Gunnarsson" <guson at home.se> wrote:
   >
   >> The Ford unit hat is small enough to pass through the restrictor
   plate hole. It must be as it's secured to the moving part of the
   thermostat. The Jag unit has a spring suspended plate that's supposed
   to cover the hole excessively like when you put your hand over the neck
   of a bottle.
   >>
   >> Tomas
   >>
   >> ----- Original Message -----
   >> From: "Mike Drew" <MikeLDrew at aol.com>
   >> To: "Stephen" <steve at snclocks.com>
   >> Cc: "Tomas Gunnarsson" <guson at home.se>; <detomaso at poca.com>
   >> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 8:37 PM
   >> Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] 160 degree thermostat vs 180 degree
   thermostat
   >>
   >>
   >> Hmm. Looking at the photos the height looks all wrong, as well as
   the size and shape of the hat. Maybe this alternative might work? I
   would want to test-fit one on a bare block to be sure.
   >>
   >> Check out the images and part numbers here. This is what the Ford
   >> units look like. I actually had an original 1972 Ford unit in my
   hands
   >> a few months back when i was helping a guy change it out (it no
   longer
   >> worked) and meant to keep it for reference but it went in the trash
   >> instead. :(
   >>
   >> Mike
   >>
   >> Sent from my iPhone
   >>
   >> On May 19, 2015, at 13:27, "Stephen" <steve at snclocks.com> wrote:
   >>
   >>> Well heck, tried to attach pictures to the original posting - I
   think they are there, but here they are again.
   >>>
   >>> There was a time that O'Reilly's listed this thermostat for the
   351C - back in 2008 to be more specific.
   >>>
   >>> Stephen Nelson
   >>>
   >>>
   >>> -----Original Message-----
   >>> From: Mike Drew [mailto:MikeLDrew at aol.com]
   >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 11:01 AM
   >>> To: Tomas Gunnarsson
   >>> Cc: Stephen; detomaso at poca.com
   >>> Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] 160 degree thermostat vs 180 degree
   >>> thermostat
   >>>
   >>> Fwiw I just looked at the image on the website and it shows a
   non-351C unit, no hat. Mifht be just a generic stock image? The
   application chart lists a bunch of weird Ford Diesel engines, Mazda,
   Isuzu etc. and no 351C. I know of no other engine besides the C/M
   family of Fords that use our thermostat.
   >>>
   >>> I think this is a swing and a miss? Stephen--do you actually have
   photos of this thing?
   >>>
   >>> I have found the various Stant 351C units at O'Reilly easily
   enough,
   >>> armed in advance with the proper part numbers thanks to Garth
   >>> Roderick's excellent research. I strongly going to his website and
   >>> following the trail he blazed so well...I fear you may be in the
   >>> wilderness, and few things suck as much as an overheating Pantera
   due
   >>> to an improper thermostat. :(
   >>>
   >>> Mike
   >>>
   >>> Mike
   >>>
   >>> Sent from my iPhone
   >>>
   >>> On May 19, 2015, at 12:18, "Tomas Gunnarsson" <guson at home.se>
   wrote:
   >>>
   >>>> Thanks Stephen, this is excellent info! I went to O'Reilley's site
   and they list a number of veicles for which this is a match. Among them
   is a Volvo model which should make it easy to find a local supplier
   here in Sweden.
   >>>>
   >>>> Tomas
   >>>>
   >>>> ----- Original Message -----
   >>>> From: "Stephen" <steve at snclocks.com>
   >>>> To: "'Tomas Gunnarsson'" <guson at home.se>
   >>>> Cc: <detomaso at poca.com>
   >>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 5:49 PM
   >>>> Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] 160 degree thermostat vs 180 degree
   >>>> thermostat
   >>>>
   >>>>
   >>>> Funny story that - went to a number of auto parts houses, all came
   >>>> up with standard thermostats (with no blocking plate) for '73
   >>>> mustang 351C. Then I recalled that I had gotten a thermostat for
   my
   >>>> '70 XKE a few years ago from O'Reilly's - and that it is the same
   as
   >>>> for the Stangs. So, off to my spares collection and found a spare
   >>>> thermostat that I bought in 2008. In as much as O'Reilly's didn't
   >>>> list for the Jag I had asked for a thermostat for a '73 Mustang.
   >>>> Funniest part is that I then went back to O'Reilly's with the part
   >>>> number and bought 2 more for spares. Also checked with them -
   there are lots more at other locations.
   >>>>
   >>>>
   >>>>
   >>>> Murray 3398
   >>>>
   >>>>
   >>>>
   >>>> Interestingly, the three I have all have different actuators, but
   >>>> overall the same dimensions.
   >>>>
   >>>>
   >>>>
   >>>> Hope that helps.
   >>>>
   >>>>
   >>>>
   >>>> Stephen Nelson
   >>>>
   >>>>
   >>>>
   >>>>
   >>>>
   >>>> From: Tomas Gunnarsson [mailto:guson at home.se]
   >>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 4:09 AM
   >>>> To: steve at snclocks.com
   >>>> Cc: detomaso at poca.com
   >>>> Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] 160 degree thermostat vs 180 degree
   >>>> thermostat
   >>>>
   >>>>
   >>>>
   >>>> Stephen,
   >>>>
   >>>>
   >>>>
   >>>> What brand thermostat are you running?
   >>>>
   >>>>
   >>>>
   >>>> Tomas
   >>>>
   >>>> <-----Ursprungligt Meddelande----->
   >>>>
   >>>>
   >>>>
   >>>>
   >>>>
   >>>>
   >>>> From: Stephen [steve at snclocks.com]
   >>>> Sent: 19/5/2015 6:03:18 AM
   >>>> To: detomaso at poca.com <mailto:detomaso at poca.com>
   >>>> Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] 160 degree thermostat vs 180 degree
   >>>> thermostat
   >>>>
   >>>> Interestingly thermodynamics suggests the higher the engine
   >>>> temperature (within limits) the higher the efficiency. And, as
   >>>> pointed out, less risk of washing oil off the walls of the
   >>>> cylinders. I'm running a 190 F thermostat with spring-loaded plate
   >>>> to block off the bypass when the thermostat is open.
   >>>>
   >>>> Stephen Nelson
   >>>>
   >>>>
   >>>> -----Original Message-----
   >>>> From: DeTomaso [mailto:detomaso-bounces at poca.com] On Behalf Of B
   >>>> Hower via DeTomaso
   >>>> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 5:58 PM
   >>>> To: Rob Pulsifer; detomaso at poca.com <mailto:detomaso at poca.com>
   >>>> Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] 160 degree thermostat vs 180 degree
   >>>> thermostat
   >>>>
   >>>> They claim that the metal of the cylinder walls wear less at
   higher
   >>>> temperatures starting at around 170DEG. I have no printed
   reference.
   >>>> This is just from my memory. Bud #3400 ( Drive it like there is no
   >>>> tomorrow -- for there may not be ! )
   >>>>
   >>>>
   >>>>
   >>>> From: Rob Pulsifer via DeTomaso <detomaso at poca.com
   >>>> <mailto:detomaso at poca.com> >
   >>>> To: detomaso at poca.com <mailto:detomaso at poca.com>
   >>>> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 7:27 PM
   >>>> Subject: [DeTomaso] 160 degree thermostat vs 180 degree thermostat
   >>>>
   >>>> I am currently running a 160 degree thermostat, the engine will
   hold
   >>>> that temperature while on the hwy. I drove over 50 miles, when I
   >>>> stopped I found that I had left the cap of the swirl tank. The
   >>>> engine didn't over heat, only loss 2 cups of water. The car came
   >>>> stock with a
   >>>> 160 degree thermostat. I now understand that the 180 degree
   >>>> thermostat is better. Outside of the temperature will be more
   >>>> constant, I really don't see the advantage of a 180 degree
   thermostat.
   >>>>
   >>>> Robert Pulsifer
   >>>> --------------------------------------------
   >>>> On Sun, 5/17/15, detomaso-request at poca.com
   >>>> <mailto:detomaso-request at poca.com> <detomaso-request at poca.com
   >>>> <mailto:detomaso-request at poca.com> > wrote:
   >>>>
   >>>> Subject: DeTomaso Digest, Vol 131, Issue 20
   >>>> To: detomaso at poca.com <mailto:detomaso at poca.com>
   >>>> Date: Sunday, May 17, 2015, 12:00 PM
   >>>>
   >>>> Send DeTomaso mailing list
   >>>> submissions to
   >>>> detomaso at poca.com <mailto:detomaso at poca.com>
   >>>>
   >>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
   >>>> http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
   >>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help'
   >>>> to
   >>>> detomaso-request at poca.com <mailto:detomaso-request at poca.com>
   >>>>
   >>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
   >>>> detomaso-owner at poca.com <mailto:detomaso-owner at poca.com>
   >>>>
   >>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
   specific
   >>>> than
   >>>> "Re: Contents of DeTomaso digest..."
   >>>>
   >>>>
   >>>> Daily Detomaso List Digest
   >>>>
   >>>> Today's Topics:
   >>>>
   >>>> 1. Re: Alden Shock Repair (jderyke at aol.com
   <mailto:jderyke at aol.com>
   >>>> ) 2. Re: NPT Hydrogen powered Toyota (Ro
   === message truncated ===


More information about the DeTomaso mailing list