About Us

Formulabruce · 06-27-2011, 11:22 AM

Draws hot water out the back on both sides together, making the flow and pressure in each more even. DS rear head is 15 degrees hotter than pass side many times I checked
This isnt the fix all, or end all, just a small help.

Fat Cat · 10:59 PM

Grandville-

Are you using full sweep or short sweep gauges? I am currently trying to figure out the same situation with my motor. Gauge is showing 215, but I have reason to believe the actual temps should be reading lower. If Autometer gave you a chart for the resistance for the FULL sweep gauges, can you tell me what the gauge should read with the sender at 820 ohms....? Thanks.

Fat Cat · 07-17-2011, 11:04 PM

NM. I did some digging and found the chart. Turns out that my gauge is in fact reading too hot. 820 ohms should correlate to 203 - 205 degrees. That's with a 195 stat.

Formulabruce · 07-18-2011, 12:44 AM

203-205 ? bet it gets to 220 in traffic on a hot day. Not good, but you like the 195
I wouldnt want to be the tranny though...
put an IR gun on the head, on the T stat?

grandville455 · 07-18-2011, 07:28 AM

I run the short sweep gauge, and checked its operation against the ohms and was pretty close, also checked with a gun. FWIW yesterday it was 110 index and 93 degrees and 79 dew point and with my mark 8 fan on high driving home from track it was about 205 most the way that was going 65@ 3100 rpms most the way til i got off the highway then it was 50 ,by the time i got home going thru town it was 185-190, that is with a 4 core harrison i picked up and I also drilled three small holes in my shaw high flow 160 stat.

1967Tempest · 07-18-2011, 08:36 AM

I run a short sweep electrical and I am ALWAYS thinking that it is around 10* off.

I also am going to a full sweep because my gauge has only 5 major lines and 4 minor lines. So from 150 to 180, I have to say 30* between the two, divided by 2 is 15. So 150 plus 15 is 165*. So 165* is in the middle. BIG, BIG gap. so it needs to be dead nuts to be right.

So I am going to a full sweep so it will be a little more accurate.

grandville455 · 07-18-2011, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1967Tempest

I run a short sweep electrical and I am ALWAYS thinking that it is around 10* off.

I also am going to a full sweep because my gauge has only 5 major lines and 4 minor lines. So from 150 to 180, I have to say 30* between the two, divided by 2 is 15. So 150 plus 15 is 165*. So 165* is in the middle. BIG, BIG gap. so it needs to be dead nuts to be right.

So I am going to a full sweep so it will be a little more accurate.

When u switching Dave?

1967Tempest · 07-18-2011, 01:24 PM

Hopefully soon....

grandville455 · 07-18-2011, 07:05 PM

Are u thinking the short sweeps aren't very accurate? Interesting to see if there is any difference!

1967Tempest · 07-18-2011, 09:19 PM

Well, not that they are not very accurate, but the gauge has not a lot of detail in display.

So on a full sweep, I can see that I am right at 176* with the short I have to round up after adding 15* to 150 * then making sure that I am looking straight on to the gauge etc..

More numbers,plus full sweep means more accurate. If they weren't why the HUGE difference in price? PLus I have to get a different type since they don't make a trad chrome...

Short sweep,( currently own)
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/ATM-2532/

Full sweep, (my soon to be replacement)
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/ATM-6155/

Fat Cat · 07-18-2011, 11:07 PM

Dave - I switched to the full sweep gauges and am very happy with the upgrade. No more trying to diagnose my readings. Contrary to what you believe, the full sweeps are more expensive due to the electronics. They use a better sending unit that has its own ground in the harness instead of relying on the ground through the sender. Also every time you turn the car on, the gauges will calibrate themselves to zero which you will notice with a 'full sweep' with ignition on.

Fat Cat · 07-18-2011, 11:09 PM

I contacted Autometer today and they verified what I was getting for a result. Looks like I will be sending it in for calibration. Also before I do, I am going to swap the harness onto my trans temp gauge since it's the EXACT same gauge and see what it reads.

Fat Cat · 07-18-2011, 11:13 PM

Bruce - I do not like running that warm, matter of fact I will go back to the 180 stat. But when the gauge was reading 200 with the 180 stat it lead me to believe maybe if I was running that warm the tstat was wide open all the time and not giving the coolant enough time in the radiator so I switched to the factory 195. Doing this and running the car yielded a temp reading of 215.... exactly 15 degrees higher than before and still 20* higher than the thermostat rating. It just didn't seem right, so that's why I went through the troubleshooting to come up with the results I did.

Formulabruce · 07-20-2011, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat Cat

Bruce - I do not like running that warm, matter of fact I will go back to the 180 stat. But when the gauge was reading 200 with the 180 stat it lead me to believe maybe if I was running that warm the tstat was wide open all the time and not giving the coolant enough time in the radiator so I switched to the factory 195. Doing this and running the car yielded a temp reading of 215.... exactly 15 degrees higher than before and still 20* higher than the thermostat rating. It just didn't seem right, so that's why I went through the troubleshooting to come up with the results I did.

Gotcha, the coolant time in the radiator method... well, keep in mind, when open all the T stats got about the same flow

Also, as been mentioned the alcohol in the gas, even 10% adds about 10 degrees to a slight performance engine. It seems with more CR and alcohol the affect is even greater.

Menu

About Us