At 7:22 PM 6/21/96, James Cohen wrote:
>Gene Berg and Bill Fischer warn against the sump sender.  It gives a false
>too cool reading.  The dipstick is better.  Just my 2cents.

...and to that I say, baloney!  :-)

Porsche mounted it in the sump (albeit with a different plate).  If it's
good enough for Porsche, it's good enough for this bus owner.  Besides
that, I think Berg and Fischer made a big boo-boo.  Here's why I think
that.

Did you know that the tip of the dipstick is less than an inch from where
the sender would be if it were mounted in the sump plate?  It's true.  If
you remove the sump plate and look up in there, you will see the tip of the
dipstick.  It's right there ('72 - '82 air cooled type IV engines).

The Porsche sump plate positions the sender a little higher in the case and
at an angle, when compared to the bus sump plate with a hole drilled in it.
When I installed the Porsche sump plate, I had to cut the bottom of my
dipstick off because it hit the sender.  After that experience, I don't
think there is anything that could convince me that the dipstick sender is
any better.  Plus, I don't like having wires dangling around in my engine
compartment.

-David

============================================================================
David Schwarze                   '73 VW Safare Custom Camper       (Da Boat)
Dallas, Texas, USA               '73 Capri GT 2800                (Da Beast)
e-mail: ddes@anet-dfw.com        '87 Mustang Lx 5.0          (13.986@100.81)
http://www.anet-dfw.com/~ddes    '93 Weber WG-50                  (Da Piano)
============================================================================