Date:         Sat, 26 May 2012 12:43:10 -0400
Reply-To:     Dennis Haynes <d23haynes57@HOTMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Dennis Haynes <d23haynes57@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: WAS Low Temp Radiator Thermo Switch "Better"?
Comments: To: Vanagon <camping.elliott@GMAIL.COM>
In-Reply-To:  <53374A0C-F548-4E38-9A03-3F00FA095269@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

If the cooling system can't keep up than there is no benefit to using a
lower temp stat in warmer weather. Using the lower temp stat also means
wider temperature fluctuations based on operating conditions and load. More
fluctuations means expansion-contraction cycles for various engine
components which may mean even more wear.  Use the proper t-stat and leave
it there. As for water wetter any diesel type antifreeze including G0-5 has
surfactants already.



Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf Of
Vanagon
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 12:02 PM
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Subject: Re: WAS Low Temp Radiator Thermo Switch "Better"?

It's too much of a pain to swap the thermo twice a year on a 1.9 for me to
do that.

Sent from my iPhone.

On May 25, 2012, at 10:39 PM, Scott Daniel - Turbovans
<scottdaniel@turbovans.com> wrote:

> here's what I like..
> the 87 C 'stat for winter, when you want better heater performance and the
engine running nicely warm  ( for better         fuel economy )
>
> and the 80 C in summer, with Water Wetter for when things want to run
hotter.
>
>>