160 degree thermostat
Al T
Thanks for the info and the article. Am continuing to resolve the dilemma that has affected the 383. Almost the entire air pump assembly i.e.,switching and check valves have been replaced. This helped the integrator numbers however the BLM numbers continue to show a lean mixture. Will get in touch in the near future.
Rich
Behind the alt between 1&3 is a switch(sensor) in the head between the 2 plugs - that is the one that 65Z01 was referring to -
I have on the is supposed to be 200 on 185 off - my gauge shows it comes on at 185 and off just below 170 -
I have a 180 stat - the fan switch could be seeing the 200 but the temp sensor is giving me 185 reading - and it is consistant.
Thinking that you only have the one fan, wothout looking at the helms -
If you have the fan switch by #1&3 I would think the guy had put it in to lower the fan temp, and not have the chip changing the temp.
That fan switch was intended for the aux fan and the main fan was controlled by the prom chip.
62k
Thanks
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts
Quote from the linked article above:
"There is a range where both optimum performance as well as minimal wear share similar characteristics. That number lies in the 175-180 degree range as shown by the overlap in the chart which correspondingly requires a 180 degree thermostat. "
When warmed up with a 160 degree thermostat, the lowest "block" temperature (in the winter) my LT1 runs is 172 degrees. Most of the time my LT1 block temperature in Florida is about 185 degrees with a 160 degree thermostat due to reverse flow. The heads, however, are lower in temperature.
So, according to the article, I am very close to the "optimum performance with minimal wear" area with a 160 degree thermostat.
In addition, I should point out I have AFR heads. And, I noticed a higher temperature with AFR heads vs stock heads. So, I am not sure how this would affect "block" temperature with OEM heads....it may be too cool.
But, for my application, the 160 degree thermostat is almost ideal.
Tom Piper
Last edited by Tom Piper; Oct 11, 2005 at 07:14 AM.
[IMG]
http://www.carnut.com/ramblin/img212.gif[/IMG]
Despite the many statements that the danger of using a 160 stat is well documented I am still skeptical.........
One real problem is if you don't go into closed loop operation......oil viscosity could be, but my opinion is that is not a factor with high quality synthetic.....
OK crucify me, I expressed an opinion rather than documented fact...
But for now I am sticking with a 160 stat, but will always





Only the auxiliary is directly controlled from a switch, it is in front of the radiator.
i still may be new to this, however i do not see any reason why the factory settings and running 215-220 or 230 in traffic is so wrong for the car. i have had no problems whatsoever.
Last edited by dndrsn; Oct 11, 2005 at 02:06 PM.
177 degrees is the coldest i've seen in a LT1 steady state with w 160 thermostat. I do alot of datamaster datalog reading from across the country.
177 coolant temp in a LT1 is probally around 185-190 oil temp





The only time I recall having the coolant remain near 160 was on a short trip on the hwy in 25F temps. The thermostat was constantly opening and closing. Oil still got to 180 on that trip. I rarely drive the car when its that cold outside anyway. In Louisiana I'm in the same situation you have in Florida.
Last edited by vader86; Oct 11, 2005 at 02:18 PM.
I would really like to know what is best for my engine, if 160 is wrong I would certainly change to the best.......
________________________________________ ____________________
The thermostat that GM put in it. Except in winter, your 160 stat is wide open all the time, you might as well not even have one in it.
I would really like to know what is best for my engine, if 160 is wrong I would certainly change to the best.......
________________________________________ ____________________
The thermostat that GM put in it. Except in winter, your 160 stat is wide open all the time, you might as well not even have one in it.
I have a 160 'stat in my '94 LT1. The coolest it ever runs (open road, cool day) is 171 to 174, which is right about the "ideal" temp (from a cylinder wall wear standpoint) that was cited in the article at the link that appears in another post earlier in this thread. If I ran mine in the dead of winter (I live in Maryland), it might be a different story, but I don't.
If the ambient temp is hot, the engine runs in the 180 to 185*F range on the open road.
At idle, the temps will run up to at least the kick-on temps of my fans (which I've had reprogrammed to 190 primary, 195 secondary).
Considering all of this, it seems to me I'm doing just fine with the 160 'stat.
I also now enjoy much more headroom in my typical running temps before Really Bad Things happen. If I see my ECT rising above 210*F, I'll watch it like a hawk because that probably means something's going wrong, and I can get off the road before a meltdown occurs. I also think the soft parts under my hood (belts, hoses, gaskets, seals, etc) will last longer as the underhood temps are significantly lowered.
My oil temps typically run 10-20*F hotter than the ECT, so I don't worry about moisture accumulation in the oil. I just changed my oil, and saw zero evidence of sludging, foaming, etc of the oil that came out of the crankcase after thousands of miles. Remember, you don't have to boil water to make it evaporate.
I simply can't imagine that I'm causing significant premature wear on my cylinder walls by operating the engine at minimum ECT of 171-174*F, and I plan to stick with the current setup indefinitely.
YMMV, and it's your car. Do with it as you wish.
Be well,
SJW
Last edited by SJW; Oct 11, 2005 at 05:28 PM.
















