

| Subject: | Re: Low Temp Radiator Thermo Switch "Better"? |
| From: | David Beierl |
| Date: | Thu, 24 May 2012 18:42:24 -0400 |
At 05:10 PM 5/24/2012, neil n wrote: >Van-cafe appears to sell only the "low temp" switch (judging by colour of >plastic): > >http://www.van-cafe.com/home/van/page_552_670/fan_switch.html The part number they reference is for the stock switch for later model Vanagons, same as Bus Depot is calling the stock switch. There's an earlier switch with a completely different p/n that initially triggers "on" at 95C instead of 87C. >Is it the general opinion that the lower temp switch is better? I don't >have AC. It's going to run the fan more in traffic. I personally don't *think* it makes a great difference in the cooling capacity of the system (whereas changing out an old radiator might make a very large difference). However there are at least two points of view on this. Unlike the cooler thermostat which I think can be actively harmful to the engine, I believe any issue with this one would be the nuisance value of having the fan run more often. The cooling system has quirks and way too many hoses, but it seems massively overbuilt. The radiator (to me) seems sized for a much larger engine than it is actually cooling. I don't think the people putting in 3-litre Subaru engines or turbo Bostigs have problems with cooling capacity. I really think that most cooling issues arise from gummed-up radiators that are overdue for replacement. All that said I don't drive in the Western mountains with enormous long grades...but I still think so. Yours, David
Have something to add on this topic today? Revive this thread in the forum »