I would suggest that if you found a bigger sensor that was wired correctly, the system would work in the sense that it would still give you a warning when the flow was "low". The definition of low would be a little bit different however.
If you could not find a larger sensor with the appropriate wiring, you could install some circuitry (a relay for example) to reverse the logic.
If you are determined to not lose flow and you cannot find a larger sensor that is wired right, you could install a bypass around the sensor to let the missing 7% through the system.
Both of these latter two ideas would make the whole system a bit more complex and therefore introduce more potential failure points.
You may also be able to restore flow rate by changing fittings and/or hose sizes in your cooling system. I have no doubt that some clever engineer will be able to tell us what changing from a 1/2" to a 5/8" hose would do to flow rate.
You do not mention if you are using a thermostat. if you are, unless the reduction of flow leads to the thermostat not being able to regulate the temperature, i think your engine will run at the same temperature with or without the sensor. The thermostat will adjust to get things to the same temperature.
It is true you will have lost a little "reserve" cooling capacity that you might notice under extreme conditions - running into a stiff headwind in warm seas might get your thermostat to the end of its travel.
As for the MMI pump, there are other advantages to such a pump other than its increased flow rate. Bearings versus bushings so no regular greasing required being the most attractive for me.
I guess at the end of the day it is a case of the design process being a situation that requires balancing one thing against the other. The flow rate sensor, I have the impression, was already in use with the existing Cole-Hersee system and presumably Neil determined that any advantages of going to a different sensor were outweighed by the disadvantages of changing sensors - upgrading to the EWDS would not involve buying a new sensor if you already had the Cole-Hersee system for example.
He clearly considered the flow rate issue and in his estimation it was not of sufficient concern to warrant a change. A different designer might have made a different decision but at the end of the day, it is quite likely that both systems would have ended up with an engine running at the same temperature under normal operating conditions with similar, but not identical, reserve cooling capacity.
Phew, hope that is not too much! More so, hope it is useful.
Peter
If you could not find a larger sensor with the appropriate wiring, you could install some circuitry (a relay for example) to reverse the logic.
If you are determined to not lose flow and you cannot find a larger sensor that is wired right, you could install a bypass around the sensor to let the missing 7% through the system.
Both of these latter two ideas would make the whole system a bit more complex and therefore introduce more potential failure points.
You may also be able to restore flow rate by changing fittings and/or hose sizes in your cooling system. I have no doubt that some clever engineer will be able to tell us what changing from a 1/2" to a 5/8" hose would do to flow rate.
You do not mention if you are using a thermostat. if you are, unless the reduction of flow leads to the thermostat not being able to regulate the temperature, i think your engine will run at the same temperature with or without the sensor. The thermostat will adjust to get things to the same temperature.
It is true you will have lost a little "reserve" cooling capacity that you might notice under extreme conditions - running into a stiff headwind in warm seas might get your thermostat to the end of its travel.
As for the MMI pump, there are other advantages to such a pump other than its increased flow rate. Bearings versus bushings so no regular greasing required being the most attractive for me.
I guess at the end of the day it is a case of the design process being a situation that requires balancing one thing against the other. The flow rate sensor, I have the impression, was already in use with the existing Cole-Hersee system and presumably Neil determined that any advantages of going to a different sensor were outweighed by the disadvantages of changing sensors - upgrading to the EWDS would not involve buying a new sensor if you already had the Cole-Hersee system for example.
He clearly considered the flow rate issue and in his estimation it was not of sufficient concern to warrant a change. A different designer might have made a different decision but at the end of the day, it is quite likely that both systems would have ended up with an engine running at the same temperature under normal operating conditions with similar, but not identical, reserve cooling capacity.
Phew, hope that is not too much! More so, hope it is useful.
Peter
Comment