Board logo

who likes 3D puzzles?
02GF74 - 16/1/10 at 03:37 PM

with vraious bits of shaped silicone hose, I have at least 3 possible thermostat to radiator layouts, as below.

I will attach picture with each posst - there are 3 so be patient until you have seen them all before making commments.

this one is my favourite. Rescued attachment DSC05826.JPG
Rescued attachment DSC05826.JPG

02GF74 - 16/1/10 at 03:39 PM

next one is this one; since it rises a bit, it may not have enough clearance under the bonnet ... but may since the pieces can be cut further to shorten them. Rescued attachment DSC05825.JPG
Rescued attachment DSC05825.JPG

02GF74 - 16/1/10 at 03:41 PM

and finally. this one uses original thermostat whereas the 2 above use a modified one; so there should be no issues of 'stat failure.

not liking this one since the hoses sit over the exhaust. Rescued attachment DSC05823.JPG
Rescued attachment DSC05823.JPG

02GF74 - 16/1/10 at 03:43 PM

so which do you reckon is best and why?

all three layouts should give enough flex between engine and radiator.

dlatch - 16/1/10 at 03:45 PM

i would go for 2 as it just looks the most right

iank - 16/1/10 at 03:46 PM

2 looks best to me as well. should lose a couple of inches out of the loop when it's cut down.

mookaloid - 16/1/10 at 03:49 PM

For no really good reason I think I like no 2 best -it looks neater

02GF74 - 16/1/10 at 03:50 PM

1 would block off more air flow at teh rear.

with 2, there seems to eb a lot of clearance between the 2 hoses, hmmm, not sure that is right since radiator is able to mave as well as the thermostat not being bolted down but looking at them, I am favouring 2.

prelude1980 - 16/1/10 at 04:08 PM

just a question as i can't really tell the difference between connection but can't you just use a 90 deg reducing elbow?

cliftyhanger - 16/1/10 at 04:20 PM

quote:
Originally posted by prelude1980
just a question as i can't really tell the difference between connection but can't you just use a 90 deg reducing elbow?

it may be possible, but it would not be a good idea as there would not be enough hose to allow for engine movement. So fairly soon stress fractures in the rad etc.

Oh, and I too like second one, keeps hoses away from belts, easier to do up hose clips etc.

mistergrumpy - 16/1/10 at 04:32 PM

2 too

prelude1980 - 16/1/10 at 04:42 PM

quote:
Originally posted by cliftyhanger
quote:
Originally posted by prelude1980
just a question as i can't really tell the difference between connection but can't you just use a 90 deg reducing elbow?

it may be possible, but it would not be a good idea as there would not be enough hose to allow for engine movement. So fairly soon stress fractures in the rad etc.

Oh, and I too like second one, keeps hoses away from belts, easier to do up hose clips etc.


Ah didn't think of stress cracks

In that case no.2

ReMan - 16/1/10 at 04:49 PM

2 4 me

speedyxjs - 16/1/10 at 04:57 PM

2

02GF74 - 16/1/10 at 05:13 PM

quote:
Originally posted by prelude1980
just a question as i can't really tell the difference between connection but can't you just use a 90 deg reducing elbow?


I had suggested that a while back but the hosed would be very short; it would not allow much give for any engine movement.

connections are:
1. stat -> 38mm/32mm 90 deg reducer - 32mm U - 32 mm 90 deg
2. stat -> 38mm/32mm reducer - 32mm U - 32 mm 90 deg
3. stat -> 38mm/32mm reducer - 32mm U - 32 mm 45 deg

Chippy - 16/1/10 at 05:51 PM

I would go for 2 as well, just for the looks, but reduce the lengths of the hoses just a bit. Although for best articulation I think 1 would be the best, as it allows for more movement. Cheers Ray