Date:         Thu, 24 May 2012 20:36:40 -0400
Reply-To:     pickle vanagon <greenvanagon@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         pickle vanagon <greenvanagon@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: WAS Low Temp Radiator Thermo Switch "Better"?
Comments: To: Rocket J Squirrel <camping.elliott@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To:  <4FBECDA4.8050406@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

87 is the stock ("higher") temp thermostat.

I believe the engine runs better with the stock thermostat.  In particular,
for example, you should get better gas mileage with the stock 87 thermostat.

Advocates for the lower temp thermostat have said that if you put the van
in an extreme situation, having the lower temp thermostat means you have
more time before you overheat (because the coolant starts out a few degrees
cooler).  This may be true, but I think the amount of time it buys you is
very minimal.  In any case, if you do ever overheat, both thermostats are
open all the way so it doesn't affect anything from that standpoint.

It may be if you take a van with a marginal cooling system that overheats
at traffic lights and things like that the lower thermostat will reduce how
often that happens.  But you're addressing the wrong problem.  You could
have also removed the thermostat altogether to reduce how often it happens
and that would also be bad for the engine.

I second the advice other people have given regarding radiators.  If
there's one thing I would replace on every vanagon where its an unknown
quantity its the radiator.  A lot of these vans have 25 year old radiators
that are the major weak point in the cooling system because of all the
blockage.  After you replace the radiator, apart from a well-functioning
cooling system you'll be especially pleased by how easy it gets to bleed
the system.





On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Rocket J Squirrel <
camping.elliott@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks, Mark.
>
> On 05/24/2012 05:07 PM, mark drillock wrote:
>
>> Same 87 degree thermostat.
>>
>
> So is that the high or low temp version?
>