Ceearedeedriver wrote:
As WWDiesel points out there is more to it than outlet size. I'm not even going to speculate which path will allow more coolant flow if the OE housing is gutted. Suffice to say, a longer and more torturous path would offer more reistance and would require a larger outlet to compensate just to get equivalent flow.
Despite what anyone around here may claim, the OE solution is the only one that has been designed around a proper analysis of coolant flow through the system.
This is a false argument, and is of little help to the discussion. In the context of designing upgrade parts or assemblies, further analysis of coolant flow is ONLY necessary if you are making changes to the design and function of any given cooling system. The H.D.S. Model 001 is functionally the same as the O.E. thermostat assembly, and further laboratory analysis and engineering of the cooling system is therefore unnecessary. Field testing with a prototype? Sure, to make absolutely certain mistakes are not present in the parts themselves. Field testing was most certainly performed extensively when developing the Model 001, and it is why the Model 001 functions so well and is a vast improvement over the O.E. assembly.
What are you trying to say here? That the O.E. thermostat assembly is the only PROPER choice? I think we already know from our own experience as CRD owners that the O.E. thermostat is terrible, for a number of reasons. That is why CRD owners have been trying to upgrade the thermostat assembly for years now. Ceearedeedriver, even you have modified O.E. thermostat.