When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
From: Beyonce > Taylor Swift - Welcome to the good life!
St. Jude Donor '07
160 stat?
Im picking up a 160 stat from a forum member for just the price of shipping. I drive a 1990 Vert A4. If i install it what kind of differences would it make? If any?
it won't much of anything except take a bit longer for the coolant to reach operating temp during cold days. it won't be useful at all unless you also have the fans come on sooner. i don't know where "NOVA" is, but generally speaking if you live in a really warm climate than a 160* is fine, otherwise i would opt for a 180* t-stat and fans re-programmed to come on/off around that opening temp rating.
by the way, if you have a sister named kim, i still think she's hot so please send her my way
Last edited by Red Tornado; Mar 20, 2006 at 10:23 AM.
I lost about 2-miles per gallon in fuel consumption when I put in a 160 and zero difference in drag strip performance. :o I assume the loss of mileage is primarily in the much longer warm up time for the engine on cool mornings commuting. But I also lost mileage on long higheay drives too. Our L98's are designed to run hot because of emissions. I think the 160 is a big mistake. I did not do it again in my new engine.
I lost about 2-miles per gallon in fuel consumption when I put in a 160 and zero difference in drag strip performance. :o I assume the loss of mileage is primarily in the much longer warm up time for the engine on cool mornings commuting. But I also lost mileage on long higheay drives too. Our L98's are designed to run hot because of emissions. I think the 160 is a big mistake. I did not do it again in my new engine.
Well ain't that the berries. I was the first person on the forum to state that a 160 stat won't allow the engine to run at lower temps except in the winter at low outside temps and I have been defending that position ever since. Over the years, a number of members have claimed more hp from a lowered temp using the 160 stat, however 2 have tried a 160 stat during their dyno runs and found no difference. Now I have another source to quote, thanks.
Also, I have quoted a Continental Motors test with engines run at different coolant temps and they found by actual practice that the engines made more hp, had lower specific fuel consumption (more mpg) at higher temps and upon tear down had more cylinder wall wear with lower operating temps. Some wanted to argue this point. I'll be quoting your post.
Yup.. I live 13 miles out in a rural area from where I work. The engine ran fine after the 160 but I was always apprehensive about the quite low operating temp because engine oil was cooler too.
Then I started noticing I was filling up on fuel a bit sooner than I had been in normal driving around (usually once a week). So the next time I drove down the Interstate to Sacramento, about 200 miles, I checked fuel consumption (both ways) by filling to the brim as I left, and then diving into the first station I come to at the end so no "stop and go" got into the mileage. Highway went from 27 to 25. During this time the average engine temp was 175 rather than 195. I was on cruise control all the time in both directions so the human factor was eliminated (I-5 is dead flat between Redding and Sac)
I feel like the 160stat makes a big difference in how my car performes. I noticed it after along drive over 1 hr and then getting on it with stock stat, it was as if the car was tired of the heat and didnt want to respond as well as it could. The 160 stat eliminated that and my ride feels fresh all times. I agree its not good for the car or emmissions and it hurts fuel economy but I wont be going back to stock any time soon.