I have to agree with Bernd on this one -- "No detrimental effects at
all". I have a 2000 4.7L and have toyed with the same theory. After running
a 180* for the last 57,000+ miles all is well with the motor. But would a
180* T-stat with the plunger that partially (or better yet fully) blocks the
engine bypass port help the motor even more. I would rather see more of the
hot coolant get cooled in the radiator then running back thur the bypass
port. For those of you not familiar with the 4.7L T-stat configuration,
There's a photo essay about it on my web site. www.y2kota.us Its listed in
the modification page.
-- *------------------------------Y2KOTA------------------------------* Don Mallett Y2K QC 4.7L Auto SLT+ 4x2 http://www.y2kota.us *---------------Dodge, Different by a country mile!!!---------------*
- -----Original Message-----
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 19:17:26 -0600 From: "Bernd D. Ratsch" <fasstdak@hotmail.com> Subject: DML: RE: Thermostats for 4.7
No detrimental effects at all. However, drill a small (1/8") hole in the plate to prevent any air from getting stuck in the system.
- - Bernd
- -----Original Message----- From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net [mailto:owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net] On Behalf Of Aajaynefour@cs.com Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 12:05 PM To: aol@dakota-truck.net Subject: DML: Thermostats for 4.7
Sorry to revisit this once again but.....
Are there any issues with the use of an aftermarket thermostat (180*) that does not have the plunger (stub shaft according to the manual) that partially blocks the engine bypass port? This question arose when reading up on the procedure for a cleaning and flush of the system.
Thanks Andrew
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 01 2004 - 16:29:48 EST