Date:         Thu, 24 May 2012 18:42:24 -0400
Reply-To:     David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Subject:      Re: Low Temp Radiator Thermo Switch "Better"?
Comments: To: neil n <musomuso@GMAIL.COM>
In-Reply-To:  <CAB2RwfjkC81iVMHVMVhfhFGB760MDnikZ-cOEhNU5+mwpTDZnQ@mail.g
              mail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

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