> Bruce,
>
> Now you've got me worried. Some authorities (such as Bob Schaller in "More
> BS About TR's") say to close off the bypass hose completely, and that's
> what I recently did. Is there a problem with that? Can it cause damage to
> the engine? What's the collective wisdom of the listers?
>
> Sumner Weisman
> 62 TR-3B
>
Okay, here comes the debate. Some people suggest that a small passage be
maintained through the bypass for two reasons:
1. To let a little water circulate during warm-up to eliminate hot spots caused
by stagnant water.
2. To allow air to get out of the waterpump housing when filling the system
with coolant.
Bob thought the above was, in his words, "bullsh*t". He never had a problem
blocking it completely while living in Phoenix, so he reasoned that nobody else
would either. It was simpler blocking the hose completely rather than
providing a small path for water, so why bother!
Others, most notably Ken Gillanders, continue to believe that the bypass is
required for proper engine warm-up and continue to advocate skirted thermostats
(if you can find them) or reduced bypass flow with non-skirted thermostats.
I have a functioning skirted thermostat, so the system is still "stock" in our
TR4. For several TR3s I've put together over the years I used a restricted
bypass simply because I had 1/4" fender washers that fit inside the bypass hose
perfectly. I've never totally blocked the bypass since the original designers
put it there for a purpose, and who am I to second-guess them? Small flows
through the bypass won't hurt (the skirt doesn't totally block the bypass,
there still is a little flow through the system when warm).
Are you in trouble, naw, I don't think so. Go drive the car and have fun.
Of course, I have to add that the above in my opinion, and I'm not
telling/advocating/pushing anyone to do anything - yadda, yadda, yadda...
Bruce Clough
|