TURBO-DIESEL-FREAK wrote:
Firstly, how are you measuring the valves, by the size of the port or by the size of the port the valve sits in or my the size of the valve discs themselves?
For the main valve I compared the seat diameters, I believe this is what you refer to as port. For the bypass I compared the disc. The OE housing seat is sized to this disc and given the disc is the exact same size on the Hemi I'm not sure what opportunity you would have to increase it in your design.
TURBO-DIESEL-FREAK wrote:
Secondly, you trying to measure the stroke of a valve by placing them both in hot water together and observing the stoke visually is a false measurement, for three reasons...
1) You must have removed the valve from the O.E. assembly in order to properly measure it, and then to observe it stroke out in the hot water. Stroke of any thermostat valve that is spring-loaded into an assembly - where the housing acts as a frame for the valve - can only be accurately measured in that spring loaded condition. This does not apply to the Hemi valve because it has it's own frame.
Correct, but the upper half of the housing
is the frame. With the OE thermostat element still installed in this frame you have the
exact same setup as the Hemi thermostat and can make a direct one to one comparison. The housing doesn't need to be closed to do this.
TURBO-DIESEL-FREAK wrote:
2) The valve you took out of the O.E. housing was likely a failed unit, and you are likely comparing it to a new Hemi valve. There are inaccuracies here as well.
3) The O.E. valve and the Hemi valve have two different opening temperatures. More inaccuracies.
Correct again but I don't think state of functionality or different operating temperature are relevant when measuring the extent of travel. We are simply measuring the physical bounds and the Hemi is physically more bounded than the OE thermostat, period. And because it's more bounded you must leave less clearance, or opening, on the bypass than the OE thermostat has. Because of this physical restriction your design is unable to provide any more clearance than a Hemi thermostat correctly positioned in the OE housing using any other implementation. At the end of the day you can make the bypass cavity and port out of the housing the size of a cathedral but you're still restricted by the valve seat diameter and how far it can open.
TURBO-DIESEL-FREAK wrote:
One - 1 - Hemi thermostat valve is universally used in all versions and years of the Hemi V-8 gasoline engines, from 2003 to the present day. This valve controls temperature of an engine that produces anywhere from 375 horsepower to 707 horsepower, with similar figures for torque. With that kind of power comes serious heat, and serious demands on the cooling system. Do you REALLY think that a diesel engine producing less than 200 horsepower and less than 300 ft-lbs of torque uses a thermostat valve that is the same size, and flows a similar amount of coolant?!? Give your head a shake, Ceearedeedriver.
You keep repeating this but don't put any numbers on what our engine requires, what the OE housing can support or what your housing can support. Your whole argument is based around
your speculation that the OE housing is too small. Sure, it might be but you provide zero evidence to support this. And sure you can throw around HP and torque numbers but it's pretty meaningless when comparing two very different systems and in the total absence of any understanding about the differences in these two systems e.g. efficiency or actual flow or actual cooling requirements.
No I don't think our engine requires the same cooling that the Hemi does but I
never suggested it did. You are just twisting my words as usual. Just because the thermostat in the OE housing is capable of flowing more than the Hemi doesn't mean that it ever does under normal operating conditions. It is you that keeps telling us that our cooling system requires a larger thermostat housing because the OE one is too restrictive. But the fact that a broken OE thermostat does not allow the engine to reach design operating temperature confirms that the OE housing is indeed capable of providing more than enough coolant flow.
TURBO-DIESEL-FREAK wrote:
I DID NOT SPEAK TO A SALES REPRESENTATIVE AT STANT CORPORATION, I CONSULTED WITH ONE OF THEIR ENGINEERS. You wonder why I am angry with members such as yourself; stop trying to change the story here.
So did you actually consult with him in a professional capacity, i.e. one where he takes payment for his services and ultimately signs off on your design or was this simply an off the record discussion? Hint - there is no way a professional engineer would provide a design or stamp your design without fully understanding the requirements of the system that it is going to be used in. Neither you or he are privy to this information.
TURBO-DIESEL-FREAK wrote:
I did not need to measure the cylinder head coolant flow, it is understood in engine design the you do not make the pinch point for coolant flow in either the block or the cylinder head.
So why did you ask it of NapaBavarian then?
BTW, I'm still waiting for you to provide a quote where I said that Sarge's mod is as good as your housing. You could at least have the decency to admit that I never said this.