I had drilled 6 3/16 holes in circumference of my thermostat for bypass when using CSR electric water pump . I have went back to factory belt driven manufacture by Edelbrock . Will these holes be sufficient to eliminate factory bypass hose ?

lol forgot to edit this post

I think it would depend on several factors, such as the pump itself, (aftermarket high-volume, or std/OEM), the pulleys being used, and probably most importantly, the max RPM.
I would be inclined to keep the bypass hose. Thinking that it might be asking for problems if you are spinning it high RPM, and the drilled holes are a restriction point. Water does not compress, so you may push a gasket out at the water neck, pump body backing plate, pump to block interface, etc. Which could be bad news going down-track at speed...

Thermostat is still functional. I'm good too go found another doing same thing .

quote:

Originally posted by blasttime:
I had drilled 6 3/16 holes in circumference of my thermostat for bypass when using CSR electric water pump . I have went back to factory belt driven manufacture by Edelbrock . Will these holes be sufficient to eliminate factory bypass hose ?

Why do you want to eliminate the bypass hose with a mechanical water pump?

I've always run the bypass hose on both my 468 and 522 with a mechanical/belt driven water pump and no thermostat in my former Chevelle...

I too am curious why you would want to eliminate the bypass hose.
And with that many holes of that size, your thermostat is not really going to be very functional at all, almost more like one of the restrictor washers Moroso sells for non-stat setups. Back when I was tinkering with some ideas for improving consistency, I drilled four 1/8" holes in a stat, and had real trouble getting that BBC up to temp. For my setup, 3 holes of .060" worked out best. (With the bypass hose in place). Still warmed up quickly, but once warm, it maintained a more steady coolant temp, in any weather.

Thanks .............. I put it on .