[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [New Search]

Re: [T3] Chrome or not to chrome? (engine)


<x-flowed>At 06:13 AM 10/25/01 -0400, DGaries808@aol.com wrote:
>I wouldn't chrome parts, just because I've heard that (and seen) VW's with
>chrome parts always having cooling problems afterward. It results in having
>to lift the decklid out of place for more cooling. Maybe you've seen those
>type VWs. Next time you see one with the raised decklid, check it for chrome
>under the decklid.

Not always, and even if there's no chrome, it may not be for looks.  There 
was a large debate on one of the forums I read a few months back about 
standoffs and such.  A bit of a consensus came of it, though the 
explanation is rather involved and purely T1 related, but I'll sum it up as 
best I can.

 From the factory, all sedans to M.Y. 1971 had the "early" cooling 
system.  Oil cooler in the shroud, narrow fan.  The cooling air came 
through the slots under the rear window, which was sufficient.

In '71 they re-vamped with the "doghouse" system.  Offset oil cooler, and a 
wider fan.  What's most important to note is that the doghouse system ducts 
the used air from the cooler directly out of the engine tin, which 
increases the system's "appetite" for air.  The slots under the window are 
insufficient for the amount of air required by the cooling system, hence 
the additional slots in the decklid.

Where it gets interesting is when you install the later "doghouse" system 
into an earlier car without the slots...  see where this is 
leading?  Personally, I have the lower edge of the decklid propped 
outwards, which drops my oil temperature (measured at the pressure sender) 
20F compared to the non-propped lid.

Greg is going to smack me for this one...


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Search old messages on the Web!  Visit http://www.vwtype3.org/list/

</x-flowed>

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [New Search]