tigers
[Top] [All Lists]

Manifold /temp sender question

To: tigers@autox.team.net
Subject: Manifold /temp sender question
From: FrizBMG@aol.com
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 20:44:59 EST
Hi .
 Mr Peterson  wrote the following email to the list almost 2 years ago. I am 
about to face the same problem in fitting a 4 bbl manifold to a built 302 for 
my Tiger. I tried to send the email direct,but it bounced back from the 
target server as undeliverable(daemon) mail. I am forwarding it to the entire 
list for the Tiger community's feedback.
 

<<Mailing List: Sunbeam Tiger Owners 
Back to Index   Next MessageDate: 31-Mar-1997 03:39:30 
From:  
Subject: Temp Senders  

     
     When putting a new motor in my Mark 1 Tiger one of the other changes 
     which  I wanted to make was the upgrade to a 4 BBL carb and manifold. 
     Since I had  COBRA manifold laying around I decided  it would be a 
     good  match to the new cam being used. One of the problems encountered 
     however,  was the Tiger temp sensor would not fit into the smaller 
     sensor hole used on the COBRA intake. After having no luck finding a 
     suitable adapter for the sensor,  I found a temp sensor used on other 
ensor hole.  Taking a resistance 
     measurement of both sensors at room temperature however showed a 
     difference in the resistance measurements so a check would need to be 
     made of the temp gauge readings vs actual temps to understand if the 
     sensor was giving incorrect readings while in use. Using a Type K 
     thermocouple and an Omega temperature readout the following data was 
     obtained. 
     
     T/C location- inside upper radiator hose at radiator connection (ie 
     after the thermostat)
     Engine at idle
     160 F thermostat used  GAUGE READING                        T/C READING  
    
           
     START              ----                                    66          
                        120                                     88          
                        140 (60C)                               102         
                        155                                     118         
                        170                                     166         
                        176 (80C)                               172         
                        185                                     179         
                        194 (90C)                               190         
                        200                                     196         
                        212 (100C)                              212         
                        225                                     223         
                
     
     As can be seen by the data, the sensor is fairly accurate at the upper 
     ranges and the thermostat not being opened  could account for the 
     deviation at the lower ranges. It appears that the above temp sender 
     is an acceptable replacement for the "real" Tiger sensor, at least on 
     a Mark 1, when a smaller sensor is needed.  However, (time for the 
     disclaimer), I only tested 1 sensor and while it is probably 
     indicative of the lot, this has not been tested. If anyone has any 
     questions or wants to point out errors in my testing let me know. 
     
     A final note; I obtained the sensor from JAE in Santa Barbara 805 
     967-5767. They are Lotus specialists, but carry many British parts 
     that can be used on Tigers, (ie clutch and brake cylinders, SU fuel 
     pumps, oil gauge lines, fittings, sensors, etc), and are very 
     reasonable in price.
     
     Jay Peterson>>>
 
I have three questions
1) The temp sender hole on the COBRA  manifold,is that the same size that is 
common to american cars  Ford performance manifolds or was it an oddball size 
from a real Cobra?
2)You described the placement of the themocouple. I assume that this device 
adjusts the voltage the sensor sends  and is somehow wired into the harness.
3)Is there a generic temperature sender that can be located in the same 
manner  as the thermocouple and completely assume the function of the sender 
and enable the manifold hole to be blocked off? Would this be desirable?
Thanks for your input
 Tony Frisbey


 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>