I want to install a ECT gauge (since the OEM can't be trusted) and it seems to me that the easy place to put it is in the upper radiator hose.
However I need a hose adapter to fit a 1.8" I.D. hose (or 44.72mm) and of course so far it sems that nobody has them that big http://www.*************.com/forums/images/smilies/frown.gif

So what have you guys done to mount the sender?


I could go to a machine shop and get something made up but I don't want to put that kind of money in it--at least not now.

Any one have any good ideas on how to mount it! http://www.*************.com/forums/images/smilies/confused.gif

All this is on a 04.5 D/A CC 3500

thanks

I want to install a ECT gauge (since the OEM can't be trusted) and it seems to me that the easy place to put it is in the upper radiator hose.
However I need a hose adapter to fit a 1.8" I.D. hose (or 44.72mm) and of course so far it sems that nobody has them that big http://www.*************.com/forums/images/smilies/frown.gif

So what have you guys done to mount the sender?


I could go to a machine shop and get something made up but I don't want to put that kind of money in it--at least not now.

Any one have any good ideas on how to mount it! http://www.*************.com/forums/images/smilies/confused.gif

All this is on a 04.5 D/A CC 3500

thanks

I just got an Auto Enginuity scan tool for the PC kit. Its not an independent gauge but I don't think anybody reproted that the truck's sensor is wrong. I hope to record the false ECT gauge reading vs whats "in" the ECM.

I just got an Auto Enginuity scan tool for the PC kit. Its not an independent gauge but I don't think anybody reproted that the truck's sensor is wrong. I hope to record the false ECT gauge reading vs whats "in" the ECM.

The temperature as reported by the computer is and is not accurate at the same time. Due to the slow sampling rate of the truck computer, the temperature as read by the computer of the truck displays a "stair stepping" of the temperature as it continues to see updated information. Without fail I have seen the actual temperature exceed what the computer sees because the temperature moves faster than the sampling rate of the computer itself. This generally has the effect of removing the actual peak temp reached and then it tends to drag out the temperature decline longer than it really is. Often the computer nearly misses the impact of the fan, or at best sees a very shallow bowl when graphed out when in fact there was a healthy drop.

I found it to be commonplace for the ECM to never see 5*-6* when the temperature was fast on the climb, in other words if the computer last reported 225* when the hill ends and the load is removed then actual engine temp usually had reached 230*-231* :exactly: This is different from the gauge telling lies, it does that out of choice from mother GM, this is an actual hardware deficiency I am talking about.


It matters not what scan tool you use, they will all fall victim to this.


I have known about this for a very long time, but now that some of you are talking about monitoring temps via external gauges or via a scan tool of some sort or even a combination of both, I thought you might should know about the difference in actual temps compared to even that of what the computer reports so that you will not think your gauge or whatever is faulty or incorrect. :ro)

.