swedishmeatball wrote:
I always found the ~92 degree tstat made my old 240 run on the warmer side- why not go with an 87 anyway?
I was led to believe that in a colder climate a 92 was preferred? That being said, with a 240's heater you're probably right, but then why do they stock a 92?
swedishmeatball wrote:
I'm sure Matt or one of the smart guys will correct me, but I think maybe you still have a barely working rad. With no thermostat, the engine could (and probably should) actually run quite cool- well below mid-way on the gauge. A fully open thermostat will never flow as much as NO thermostat, so if it's still getting above 9 oclock, or right around there without any cooling system restrictions...putting in even a properly working thermostat will slow the coolant down and the temps will go up.
Now that you mention this I was thinking the same thing after I got back from my roadtest, never having tried this before I dismissed it, but what you're saying makes perfect sense. I may need to have the rad looked at after all.
swedishmeatball wrote:
There's a limit, of course, which may or may not apply here- the coolant still needs time to absorb and shed heat, so too MUCH flow could lead to reduced performance. I found this out with the BMW oil system- oil temps would actually DROP by using thicker oil, because it flowed slower and allowed more heat transfer than lower weight. Again, this may be a moo point (something a cow would say) for the Volvo cooling system.
This makes sense as well, the rad has less contact time to do it's thing as it's over-circulating? Also, wouldn't the backpressure held back by the T'stat raise the boiling point of the coolant? Maybe someone with a better grasp of Thermodynamics can wade in to that one. Lastly, it's a Volvo so consulting a cow would be a waste of time, a Moose however...