[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [New Search]
On 20 Sep 2004 at 22:25, fess wrote: > now, in the archives there was a lot of talk about all these various places. > but I was under the impression, that the sump was not generally considered a > good place to put the sensor. something about a more stagnant base of oil. I don't think "stagnant" would be a reasonable description of the sump at any time when you might be concerned about oil temp, but I always worry about the vulnerability of wires on the underside of the engine. > I also got the impression that where you measured your oil temp, might not > make any difference. You may get a different reading at different points, but > as long as you're learning your base line readings, and what's abnormal > that's what really counts. I think that's exactly right. The only thing wrong with this approach is that it doesn't let you compare data with other people. OTOH, since the calibration of the gauges is so poor, such comparisons are usually useless anyway. > So, is where to put it still a highly debated point? or is there a > consensus? You're right, there's no consensus. I agree with Russ that the spark plug hole is too vulnerable, too. If I were designing an oil temp sensor I'd make it a long probe that sticks down into the oil cooler. The sensor element should be ALL THE WAY DOWN into the moving oil in the cooler. That would tell you the temp of the oil, after cooling, as it is sent out into the engine. So far, I've not seen any sensor made to work that way with our cars, but they are commonly available like this for industrial applications. -- Jim Adney jadney@vwtype3.org Madison, WI 53711-3054 USA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List info at http://www.vwtype3.org/list | mailto:gregm@vwtype3.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~