I have used WW in numerous classic cars and have not seen any temp change. I always use an accurate digital temp gun and working car gauges to check out my coolant temps.
Redline Water Wetter and Royal Purple Purple Ice
- Thread starter adreed24
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Earlier in my career prior to heading the design group at Honeywell Flight Control System, I was a manager at Honeywell Home Automation here in Phoenix which design, build, and patent home thermostat. The last count on that thermostat design and its derivatives is over 2 million units built and sold worldwide.
If I buy one of these thermostats and sit it on my dining room table, how will it control my home temperature ?
Or does it need fancy heat exchangers, pumps, compressors and all that junk ?
Earlier in my career prior to heading the design group at Honeywell Flight Control System, I was a manager at Honeywell Home Automation here in Phoenix which design, build, and patent home thermostat. The last count on that thermostat design and its derivatives is over 2 million units built and sold worldwide.
If I buy one of these thermostats and sit it on my dining room table, how will it control my home temperature ?
Or does it need fancy heat exchangers, pumps, compressors and all that junk ?
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
BigMike there's nothing wrong with that. But this other guy is claiming that WW is objectively proven to increase cooling significantly and to be a good corrosion inhibitor when it really hasn't been. That's the difference.
I'm not sure that anyone, other than subjective recurring tests, could prove that WW works as anything other than a surfactant. We can all probably agree that a surfactant is scientifically proven to help a cooling system, but by how much?
I think WW has its place and I also think it is a risk to try it in a 50/50 mix of water/antifreeze. Some people here have had trouble with it. A question would be, for those cases, is why? Was it negligence, poor antifreeze quality, vehicle usage, or something else that caused the problems?
According to Redline:
* Reduces or eliminates bubbles or vapor barrier that form on hot metal surfaces to reduce coolant temperatures by up to 20°
* Superior heat transfer properties compared to glycol-based antifreeze
* Compatible with new or used antifreeze (including DEX-COOL and long-life versions) to improve the heat transfer of ethylene and propylene glycol systems
* Improves heat transfer and reduces cylinder head temperature
* Designed for use with all modern aluminum, cast iron, copper, brass and bronze cooling systems
* Cleans and lubricates water pump seals
* Reduces cavitation and complexes with hard water to reduce scaling
* Does not lower cooling system below the thermostatically-controlled temperature
In my truck, I had debated on going to a lower degree thermostat to take advantage (if there was any) of the lowering of the overall temperature. I decided against it, thankfully, mainly due to that there are advantages in keeping the OEM.
I think the point of debate now would not be "does it work" but more of "does it work at reducing scale, lubricating seals, and the water pump?" If so, how? Would this be an inhibitor or an additive?
BigMike there's nothing wrong with that. But this other guy is claiming that WW is objectively proven to increase cooling significantly and to be a good corrosion inhibitor when it really hasn't been. That's the difference.
I'm not sure that anyone, other than subjective recurring tests, could prove that WW works as anything other than a surfactant. We can all probably agree that a surfactant is scientifically proven to help a cooling system, but by how much?
I think WW has its place and I also think it is a risk to try it in a 50/50 mix of water/antifreeze. Some people here have had trouble with it. A question would be, for those cases, is why? Was it negligence, poor antifreeze quality, vehicle usage, or something else that caused the problems?
According to Redline:
* Reduces or eliminates bubbles or vapor barrier that form on hot metal surfaces to reduce coolant temperatures by up to 20°
* Superior heat transfer properties compared to glycol-based antifreeze
* Compatible with new or used antifreeze (including DEX-COOL and long-life versions) to improve the heat transfer of ethylene and propylene glycol systems
* Improves heat transfer and reduces cylinder head temperature
* Designed for use with all modern aluminum, cast iron, copper, brass and bronze cooling systems
* Cleans and lubricates water pump seals
* Reduces cavitation and complexes with hard water to reduce scaling
* Does not lower cooling system below the thermostatically-controlled temperature
In my truck, I had debated on going to a lower degree thermostat to take advantage (if there was any) of the lowering of the overall temperature. I decided against it, thankfully, mainly due to that there are advantages in keeping the OEM.
I think the point of debate now would not be "does it work" but more of "does it work at reducing scale, lubricating seals, and the water pump?" If so, how? Would this be an inhibitor or an additive?
Originally Posted By: bigmike
According to Redline:
* Reduces or eliminates bubbles or vapor barrier that form on hot metal surfaces to reduce coolant temperatures by up to 20°
* Superior heat transfer properties compared to glycol-based antifreeze
* Compatible with new or used antifreeze (including DEX-COOL and long-life versions) to improve the heat transfer of ethylene and propylene glycol systems
* Improves heat transfer and reduces cylinder head temperature
* Designed for use with all modern aluminum, cast iron, copper, brass and bronze cooling systems
* Cleans and lubricates water pump seals
* Reduces cavitation and complexes with hard water to reduce scaling
* Does not lower cooling system below the thermostatically-controlled temperature
The two claims I highlighted in bold are pretty much exactly what some of us have been saying. And given that most antifreezes have surfactants and cavitation inhibitors already, I doubt WW or PI even lowers head temperature when used with antifreeze.
According to Redline:
* Reduces or eliminates bubbles or vapor barrier that form on hot metal surfaces to reduce coolant temperatures by up to 20°
* Superior heat transfer properties compared to glycol-based antifreeze
* Compatible with new or used antifreeze (including DEX-COOL and long-life versions) to improve the heat transfer of ethylene and propylene glycol systems
* Improves heat transfer and reduces cylinder head temperature
* Designed for use with all modern aluminum, cast iron, copper, brass and bronze cooling systems
* Cleans and lubricates water pump seals
* Reduces cavitation and complexes with hard water to reduce scaling
* Does not lower cooling system below the thermostatically-controlled temperature
The two claims I highlighted in bold are pretty much exactly what some of us have been saying. And given that most antifreezes have surfactants and cavitation inhibitors already, I doubt WW or PI even lowers head temperature when used with antifreeze.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: bigmike
According to Redline:
* Reduces or eliminates bubbles or vapor barrier that form on hot metal surfaces to reduce coolant temperatures by up to 20°
* Superior heat transfer properties compared to glycol-based antifreeze
* Compatible with new or used antifreeze (including DEX-COOL and long-life versions) to improve the heat transfer of ethylene and propylene glycol systems
* Improves heat transfer and reduces cylinder head temperature
* Designed for use with all modern aluminum, cast iron, copper, brass and bronze cooling systems
* Cleans and lubricates water pump seals
* Reduces cavitation and complexes with hard water to reduce scaling
* Does not lower cooling system below the thermostatically-controlled temperature
The two claims I highlighted in bold are pretty much exactly what some of us have been saying. And given that most antifreezes have surfactants and cavitation inhibitors already, I doubt WW or PI even lowers head temperature when used with antifreeze.
Oh.. See, I thought when I posted over 1 full vertical page that people quit posting to the thread.
Originally Posted By: bigmike
According to Redline:
* Reduces or eliminates bubbles or vapor barrier that form on hot metal surfaces to reduce coolant temperatures by up to 20°
* Superior heat transfer properties compared to glycol-based antifreeze
* Compatible with new or used antifreeze (including DEX-COOL and long-life versions) to improve the heat transfer of ethylene and propylene glycol systems
* Improves heat transfer and reduces cylinder head temperature
* Designed for use with all modern aluminum, cast iron, copper, brass and bronze cooling systems
* Cleans and lubricates water pump seals
* Reduces cavitation and complexes with hard water to reduce scaling
* Does not lower cooling system below the thermostatically-controlled temperature
The two claims I highlighted in bold are pretty much exactly what some of us have been saying. And given that most antifreezes have surfactants and cavitation inhibitors already, I doubt WW or PI even lowers head temperature when used with antifreeze.
Oh.. See, I thought when I posted over 1 full vertical page that people quit posting to the thread.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: bigmike
According to Redline:
* Reduces or eliminates bubbles or vapor barrier that form on hot metal surfaces to reduce coolant temperatures by up to 20°
* Superior heat transfer properties compared to glycol-based antifreeze
* Compatible with new or used antifreeze (including DEX-COOL and long-life versions) to improve the heat transfer of ethylene and propylene glycol systems
* Improves heat transfer and reduces cylinder head temperature
* Designed for use with all modern aluminum, cast iron, copper, brass and bronze cooling systems
* Cleans and lubricates water pump seals
* Reduces cavitation and complexes with hard water to reduce scaling
* Does not lower cooling system below the thermostatically-controlled temperature
The two claims I highlighted in bold are pretty much exactly what some of us have been saying. And given that most antifreezes have surfactants and cavitation inhibitors already, I doubt WW or PI even lowers head temperature when used with antifreeze.
I completely agree. Dexcool and OAT can lower surface temperature of metal because they create a thinner protective film but that doesn't mean I'm going to necessarily use them either.
Originally Posted By: bigmike
According to Redline:
* Reduces or eliminates bubbles or vapor barrier that form on hot metal surfaces to reduce coolant temperatures by up to 20°
* Superior heat transfer properties compared to glycol-based antifreeze
* Compatible with new or used antifreeze (including DEX-COOL and long-life versions) to improve the heat transfer of ethylene and propylene glycol systems
* Improves heat transfer and reduces cylinder head temperature
* Designed for use with all modern aluminum, cast iron, copper, brass and bronze cooling systems
* Cleans and lubricates water pump seals
* Reduces cavitation and complexes with hard water to reduce scaling
* Does not lower cooling system below the thermostatically-controlled temperature
The two claims I highlighted in bold are pretty much exactly what some of us have been saying. And given that most antifreezes have surfactants and cavitation inhibitors already, I doubt WW or PI even lowers head temperature when used with antifreeze.
I completely agree. Dexcool and OAT can lower surface temperature of metal because they create a thinner protective film but that doesn't mean I'm going to necessarily use them either.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Because different engine manufacturers at different times have wanted to set the operating temperature of their engines to those values, for reasons such as reducing unburned HC emisisons (helped by running hotter) or reducing the probability of detonation (helped by running cooler). Normally its a balancing act between competing goals like those two to get the best operating temp for a given engine.
I could turn the question around... if, as you say, the thermostat doesn't actually control the temperature of the engine, then why do they even put a temperature marking on them? Why do they make different values?? Of COURSE the thermostat sets the operating temperature of the engine! That's exactly why different values (settings) are manufactured. Your very question moots your whole point.
No "car manufacturers" in the world use the 160F thermostat, it is an after market product. Marine usage is different for a reason and some of the answer is below.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Why is it that you can remove the thermostat from any new vehicle and it still run fine (hence the word useless)?
It WON'T run fine. If you try to run any modern vehicle without a thermostat (and its actually moving enough to generate ram-air flow through the radiator so that the electric fan won't take over and control things completely), the computer will never go into closed-loop operation and you'll eventually get an error code and fail emissions testing. Not to mention suffer excessive fuel dilution in the oil and excessive cylinder wall wear from sub-optimal ring and cylinder wall temperatures.
Failing emission does not mean that the engine is not running fine. There are thousands of products out there that let you bypass the emission system to get better mileage and performance. One of those products is a cooler thermostat. You have been brainwashed by the EPA. Emission control is one of the reason why there is a thermostat in your car.
Because different engine manufacturers at different times have wanted to set the operating temperature of their engines to those values, for reasons such as reducing unburned HC emisisons (helped by running hotter) or reducing the probability of detonation (helped by running cooler). Normally its a balancing act between competing goals like those two to get the best operating temp for a given engine.
I could turn the question around... if, as you say, the thermostat doesn't actually control the temperature of the engine, then why do they even put a temperature marking on them? Why do they make different values?? Of COURSE the thermostat sets the operating temperature of the engine! That's exactly why different values (settings) are manufactured. Your very question moots your whole point.
No "car manufacturers" in the world use the 160F thermostat, it is an after market product. Marine usage is different for a reason and some of the answer is below.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Why is it that you can remove the thermostat from any new vehicle and it still run fine (hence the word useless)?
It WON'T run fine. If you try to run any modern vehicle without a thermostat (and its actually moving enough to generate ram-air flow through the radiator so that the electric fan won't take over and control things completely), the computer will never go into closed-loop operation and you'll eventually get an error code and fail emissions testing. Not to mention suffer excessive fuel dilution in the oil and excessive cylinder wall wear from sub-optimal ring and cylinder wall temperatures.
Failing emission does not mean that the engine is not running fine. There are thousands of products out there that let you bypass the emission system to get better mileage and performance. One of those products is a cooler thermostat. You have been brainwashed by the EPA. Emission control is one of the reason why there is a thermostat in your car.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Boss302fan
I have used WW in numerous classic cars and have not seen any temp change. I always use an accurate digital temp gun and working car gauges to check out my coolant temps.
You can not get an accurate temperature reading with a digital temp gun because it only measures the temperature outside of the engine. A working car gauges is useless, you need a coolant thermometer. If the factory car gauges are accurate normal drivers would freak out because the needles would continuously jumping around.
I have used WW in numerous classic cars and have not seen any temp change. I always use an accurate digital temp gun and working car gauges to check out my coolant temps.
You can not get an accurate temperature reading with a digital temp gun because it only measures the temperature outside of the engine. A working car gauges is useless, you need a coolant thermometer. If the factory car gauges are accurate normal drivers would freak out because the needles would continuously jumping around.
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
No "car manufacturers" in the world use the 160F thermostat, it is an after market product. Marine usage is different for a reason and some of the answer is below.
Not at present, but 160F stats are not "aftermarket." They were original equipment on millions of cars through the years, and are therefore the correct replacement part for such vehicles. Among the vehicles I currently own, one requires a 160F thermostat, 2 recommend a 180F stat and allow a 160 stat for "severe usage," 1 requires a 195F stat, and one requires a 210F stat.
Today in 2010, OEM stats run the gamut from 180F on up. Even one manufacturer may use different setpoints in different engines.
So tell me... why don't they all just use 180F, or 200F stats if the stat doesn't "control" the temperature as you erroneously claim? The answer is, of course, that they want te engine temperature to stay within a particular range for a combination of reasons, and they use a specific thermostat to CONTROL that temperature range.
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
It WON'T run fine. If you try to run any modern vehicle without a thermostat (and its actually moving enough to generate ram-air flow through the radiator so that the electric fan won't take over and control things completely), the computer will never go into closed-loop operation and you'll eventually get an error code and fail emissions testing. Not to mention suffer excessive fuel dilution in the oil and excessive cylinder wall wear from sub-optimal ring and cylinder wall temperatures.
Failing emission does not mean that the engine is not running fine.
Oh for the love of...
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
There are thousands of products out there that let you bypass the emission system to get better mileage and performance. One of those products is a cooler thermostat. You have been brainwashed by the EPA. Emission control is one of the reason why there is a thermostat in your car.
Failing to switch to closed-loop mode does *not* constitute "running fine." Failing emissions and setting an OBD-II error code does not constitute "running fine." Diluting the oil with excessive fuel does not constitue "running fine." Wearing the cylinder walls excessively because the rings and cylinder walls are too cool is not "fine." Bypassing emissions systems DOES NOT improve efficiency. You are living in 1978 if you actually believe that. When people put a cooler thermostat in a post-OBDII vehicle, they have to be *very* careful about how much lower than stock they go, or they have to also re-program the fuel map and other parameters. Yes, running the thermostat cooler *can* allow higher power output by allowing a more aggressive spark timing map, but it does so at the cost of efficiency and (in some cases) longevity.
But I'm glad to see that you finally acknowledge that installing a cooler thermostat will, in fact, cause an engine to run cooler as I have been saying in every post. After all, it does regulate the engine temperature. Thank you. I'm done.
No "car manufacturers" in the world use the 160F thermostat, it is an after market product. Marine usage is different for a reason and some of the answer is below.
Not at present, but 160F stats are not "aftermarket." They were original equipment on millions of cars through the years, and are therefore the correct replacement part for such vehicles. Among the vehicles I currently own, one requires a 160F thermostat, 2 recommend a 180F stat and allow a 160 stat for "severe usage," 1 requires a 195F stat, and one requires a 210F stat.
Today in 2010, OEM stats run the gamut from 180F on up. Even one manufacturer may use different setpoints in different engines.
So tell me... why don't they all just use 180F, or 200F stats if the stat doesn't "control" the temperature as you erroneously claim? The answer is, of course, that they want te engine temperature to stay within a particular range for a combination of reasons, and they use a specific thermostat to CONTROL that temperature range.
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
It WON'T run fine. If you try to run any modern vehicle without a thermostat (and its actually moving enough to generate ram-air flow through the radiator so that the electric fan won't take over and control things completely), the computer will never go into closed-loop operation and you'll eventually get an error code and fail emissions testing. Not to mention suffer excessive fuel dilution in the oil and excessive cylinder wall wear from sub-optimal ring and cylinder wall temperatures.
Failing emission does not mean that the engine is not running fine.
Oh for the love of...
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
There are thousands of products out there that let you bypass the emission system to get better mileage and performance. One of those products is a cooler thermostat. You have been brainwashed by the EPA. Emission control is one of the reason why there is a thermostat in your car.
Failing to switch to closed-loop mode does *not* constitute "running fine." Failing emissions and setting an OBD-II error code does not constitute "running fine." Diluting the oil with excessive fuel does not constitue "running fine." Wearing the cylinder walls excessively because the rings and cylinder walls are too cool is not "fine." Bypassing emissions systems DOES NOT improve efficiency. You are living in 1978 if you actually believe that. When people put a cooler thermostat in a post-OBDII vehicle, they have to be *very* careful about how much lower than stock they go, or they have to also re-program the fuel map and other parameters. Yes, running the thermostat cooler *can* allow higher power output by allowing a more aggressive spark timing map, but it does so at the cost of efficiency and (in some cases) longevity.
But I'm glad to see that you finally acknowledge that installing a cooler thermostat will, in fact, cause an engine to run cooler as I have been saying in every post. After all, it does regulate the engine temperature. Thank you. I'm done.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
If I buy one of these thermostats and sit it on my dining room table, how will it control my home temperature ?
Or does it need fancy heat exchangers, pumps, compressors and all that junk ?
A home thermostat sitting on your dining room table is the same as a car thermostat sitting on the hood of your car, nothing will happen. A properly installed home thermostat controls a furnace or an air conditioning system. The furnace or the air condition system controls the temperature. Keep in mind that car thermostat and home thermostat have different functions. One you can do without and the other, no.
If I buy one of these thermostats and sit it on my dining room table, how will it control my home temperature ?
Or does it need fancy heat exchangers, pumps, compressors and all that junk ?
A home thermostat sitting on your dining room table is the same as a car thermostat sitting on the hood of your car, nothing will happen. A properly installed home thermostat controls a furnace or an air conditioning system. The furnace or the air condition system controls the temperature. Keep in mind that car thermostat and home thermostat have different functions. One you can do without and the other, no.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
There are thousands of products out there that let you bypass the emission system to get better mileage and performance. One of those products is a cooler thermostat. You have been brainwashed by the EPA. Emission control is one of the reason why there is a thermostat in your car.
Failing to switch to closed-loop mode does *not* constitute "running fine." Failing emissions and setting an OBD-II error code does not constitute "running fine." Diluting the oil with excessive fuel does not constitue "running fine." Wearing the cylinder walls excessively because the rings and cylinder walls are too cool is not "fine." Bypassing emissions systems DOES NOT improve efficiency. You are living in 1978 if you actually believe that. When people put a cooler thermostat in a post-OBDII vehicle, they have to be *very* careful about how much lower than stock they go, or they have to also re-program the fuel map and other parameters. Yes, running the thermostat cooler *can* allow higher power output by allowing a more aggressive spark timing map, but it does so at the cost of efficiency and (in some cases) longevity.
But I'm glad to see that you finally acknowledge that installing a cooler thermostat will, in fact, cause an engine to run cooler as I have been saying in every post. After all, it does regulate the engine temperature. Thank you. I'm done.
You also have reading comprehension problem. Emission is something that is mandated by the EPA. It is not something that car manufacturers want or need. Emission system reduces the engine performance and this is why race cars don't have them. I never said bypassing emission improve efficiency, it improves mileage and performance. This is why non-California cars have better performance and mileage than new cars that are sold in California. I never said installing a cooler thermostat will cause an engine to run cooler, only that it is used to bypass emission control. Again, you have been brainwashed by the EPA and need a better reading skill.
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
There are thousands of products out there that let you bypass the emission system to get better mileage and performance. One of those products is a cooler thermostat. You have been brainwashed by the EPA. Emission control is one of the reason why there is a thermostat in your car.
Failing to switch to closed-loop mode does *not* constitute "running fine." Failing emissions and setting an OBD-II error code does not constitute "running fine." Diluting the oil with excessive fuel does not constitue "running fine." Wearing the cylinder walls excessively because the rings and cylinder walls are too cool is not "fine." Bypassing emissions systems DOES NOT improve efficiency. You are living in 1978 if you actually believe that. When people put a cooler thermostat in a post-OBDII vehicle, they have to be *very* careful about how much lower than stock they go, or they have to also re-program the fuel map and other parameters. Yes, running the thermostat cooler *can* allow higher power output by allowing a more aggressive spark timing map, but it does so at the cost of efficiency and (in some cases) longevity.
But I'm glad to see that you finally acknowledge that installing a cooler thermostat will, in fact, cause an engine to run cooler as I have been saying in every post. After all, it does regulate the engine temperature. Thank you. I'm done.
You also have reading comprehension problem. Emission is something that is mandated by the EPA. It is not something that car manufacturers want or need. Emission system reduces the engine performance and this is why race cars don't have them. I never said bypassing emission improve efficiency, it improves mileage and performance. This is why non-California cars have better performance and mileage than new cars that are sold in California. I never said installing a cooler thermostat will cause an engine to run cooler, only that it is used to bypass emission control. Again, you have been brainwashed by the EPA and need a better reading skill.
Dedicated race vehicles (or off-road vehicles) do not have emission control and most do not have a thermostat (or replaced by a restrictor plate), do you know why?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
And given that most antifreezes have surfactants and cavitation inhibitors already, I doubt WW or PI even lowers head temperature when used with antifreeze.
Do you have any proof to backup your doubt or is it just gut feeling? Have you even attempted any test of your own with precision equipments? Just installing a coolant thermometer alone in my vehicles have shown that Water Wetter is working as advertised, even with 50/50 solution.
And given that most antifreezes have surfactants and cavitation inhibitors already, I doubt WW or PI even lowers head temperature when used with antifreeze.
Do you have any proof to backup your doubt or is it just gut feeling? Have you even attempted any test of your own with precision equipments? Just installing a coolant thermometer alone in my vehicles have shown that Water Wetter is working as advertised, even with 50/50 solution.
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
A home thermostat sitting on your dining room table is the same as a car thermostat sitting on the hood of your car, nothing will happen. A properly installed home thermostat controls a furnace or an air conditioning system. The furnace or the air condition system controls the temperature. Keep in mind that car thermostat and home thermostat have different functions. One you can do without and the other, no.
You can bypass the thermostat, and your air con can run just fine, limited by heat transfer to the environment...you remove the CONTROL element.
A home thermostat sitting on your dining room table is the same as a car thermostat sitting on the hood of your car, nothing will happen. A properly installed home thermostat controls a furnace or an air conditioning system. The furnace or the air condition system controls the temperature. Keep in mind that car thermostat and home thermostat have different functions. One you can do without and the other, no.
You can bypass the thermostat, and your air con can run just fine, limited by heat transfer to the environment...you remove the CONTROL element.
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Dedicated race vehicles (or off-road vehicles) do not have emission control and most do not have a thermostat (or replaced by a restrictor plate), do you know why?
I know why they're set up that way. Do you understand why street vehicles aren't set up that way (hint: its got nothing at all to do with the EPA, since thermostats existed decades before that agency appeared during the Nixon administration).
And by the way- I said I was done, and I mean it. Everyone reading this thread has seen enough to draw their own conclusions. Have a good day.
Dedicated race vehicles (or off-road vehicles) do not have emission control and most do not have a thermostat (or replaced by a restrictor plate), do you know why?
I know why they're set up that way. Do you understand why street vehicles aren't set up that way (hint: its got nothing at all to do with the EPA, since thermostats existed decades before that agency appeared during the Nixon administration).
And by the way- I said I was done, and I mean it. Everyone reading this thread has seen enough to draw their own conclusions. Have a good day.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Dedicated race vehicles (or off-road vehicles) do not have emission control and most do not have a thermostat (or replaced by a restrictor plate), do you know why?
I know why they're set up that way. Do you understand why street vehicles aren't set up that way (hint: its got nothing at all to do with the EPA, since thermostats existed decades before that agency appeared during the Nixon administration).
And by the way- I said I was done, and I mean it. Everyone reading this thread has seen enough to draw their own conclusions. Have a good day.
Emission control has nothing with the EPA???? Hahahahaha, now I know why you are done. Here are some facts.
http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Dedicated race vehicles (or off-road vehicles) do not have emission control and most do not have a thermostat (or replaced by a restrictor plate), do you know why?
I know why they're set up that way. Do you understand why street vehicles aren't set up that way (hint: its got nothing at all to do with the EPA, since thermostats existed decades before that agency appeared during the Nixon administration).
And by the way- I said I was done, and I mean it. Everyone reading this thread has seen enough to draw their own conclusions. Have a good day.
Emission control has nothing with the EPA???? Hahahahaha, now I know why you are done. Here are some facts.
http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/
Originally Posted By: Shannow
You can bypass the thermostat, and your air con can run just fine, limited by heat transfer to the environment...you remove the CONTROL element.
There is a difference between bypassing a home thermostat and just removing the thermostat. When you are bypassing the home thermostat you are relying on something else as a controlling element when you re-wired it, otherwise it would not know whether to cool or heat or when to turn on. When you are removing a car thermostat there is no other modification necessary.
You can bypass the thermostat, and your air con can run just fine, limited by heat transfer to the environment...you remove the CONTROL element.
There is a difference between bypassing a home thermostat and just removing the thermostat. When you are bypassing the home thermostat you are relying on something else as a controlling element when you re-wired it, otherwise it would not know whether to cool or heat or when to turn on. When you are removing a car thermostat there is no other modification necessary.
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Emission control has nothing with the EPA????
Good GOD you're thick
I said THERMOSTATS have nothing to do with the EPA. I didn't say emissions regs had nothing to do with the EPA. Engineers recognized the need for thermostats irrespective of emissions, otherwise 1940s vehicles wouldn't have thermostats.
Emission control has nothing with the EPA????
Good GOD you're thick
I said THERMOSTATS have nothing to do with the EPA. I didn't say emissions regs had nothing to do with the EPA. Engineers recognized the need for thermostats irrespective of emissions, otherwise 1940s vehicles wouldn't have thermostats.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Emission control has nothing with the EPA????
I said THERMOSTATS have nothing to do with the EPA. I didn't say emissions regs had nothing to do with the EPA. Engineers recognized the need for thermostats irrespective of emissions, otherwise 1940s vehicles wouldn't have thermostats.
You were done so you come back as John Cleese???? Hahahaha, and you are wrong again. Running without a thermostat is a violation of EPA requirements regarding tampering with the emission control components. The engine thermostat is part of the upstream emission control system. You can check all the manufacturer emission control recalls involving just the thermostat from the EPA link above. Here is one from 2001:
http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P10000OW.txt
The first engine thermostat (I think back in 1938) has the same purpose as today thermostat. The engineers back then just did not think much about emission control, only efficiency. But the purpose of the thermostat remains the same and that is to regulate the flow of coolant to the radiator.
So, to stay on topic what is the cheapest way to lower the coolant temperature without messing with the factory cooling system? Just add a bottle of Water Wetter or equivalent to the coolant.
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Emission control has nothing with the EPA????
I said THERMOSTATS have nothing to do with the EPA. I didn't say emissions regs had nothing to do with the EPA. Engineers recognized the need for thermostats irrespective of emissions, otherwise 1940s vehicles wouldn't have thermostats.
You were done so you come back as John Cleese???? Hahahaha, and you are wrong again. Running without a thermostat is a violation of EPA requirements regarding tampering with the emission control components. The engine thermostat is part of the upstream emission control system. You can check all the manufacturer emission control recalls involving just the thermostat from the EPA link above. Here is one from 2001:
http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P10000OW.txt
The first engine thermostat (I think back in 1938) has the same purpose as today thermostat. The engineers back then just did not think much about emission control, only efficiency. But the purpose of the thermostat remains the same and that is to regulate the flow of coolant to the radiator.
So, to stay on topic what is the cheapest way to lower the coolant temperature without messing with the factory cooling system? Just add a bottle of Water Wetter or equivalent to the coolant.
- Status