> That may be true for some gauges, but certainly not all of them. The
> TR2/3/(early 4 ?) Fahrenheit gauge reads to 230F, while the Centigrade one
> reads to 110C. I also have an NOS aftermarket Smiths that reads to 230F.
The gauges I'm looking at are all flat glass TR4 gauges.
> > Does anyone know why the metric temperature gauge
> > is scaled like it is?
>
> Sorry, no idea unless perhaps it was targeted for a cool climate. Are you
> sure you're looking at an original TR4 gauge ? I see the drawing in the
> SPC, but they aren't always accurate. And my TR4 handbook only has a
photo
> of the F gauge.
I have no idea... one of the metric gauges is my own. It only goes up to
100C. The "Original Triumph" shows TR4's with both the metric gauge (like
mine) and the 185/250F gauge.
> > It would seem to me that a running
> > temperature of 70C
> > would be a little on the cool side (158F), yet it's the midpoint on the
> > gauge, and one would typically assume that the midpoint on a temperature
> > gauge is the target operating temperature of the vehicle.
>
> I agree. Even more worrisome, one would expect the top of the scale to
> cover at least the boiling point of the cooling system. Even with no
> antifreeze, the radiator cap will raise the boiling point above 100C.
>
> Randall
I think I'm going to try to check the calibration of mine. The metric
temperature gauge I have has what I presume to be normal operating range
marks close to and on either side of the 70C mid mark (I'd guess the space
between the two marks represents about a fourth of the entire range of the
dial). My car typically runs halfway between the middle mark and the upper
middle range mark, and on occasion (when winding up the hill to my house in
2nd and 3rd gear) it rises to the upper middle range mark. If the scale on
my gauge is correct, this would be somewhere around 78C or 172F. Seems a
little cool to me.
Does anyone else have a metric gauge?
Kurtis J.
Russellville, Arkansas
1963 TR4
CT19389L
www.geocities.com/tr4_1963
|