I run the on 200 off 185 switch, with both fans coming on together, coupled with a 180 stat. I'm very happy with the results and have ran it like that for at least 4 years.

with CFI on this, there have been way to many arguments over it. Companies have spent thousands of dollars testing and publishing their results just to have some backyard mechanic refute or suggest the test may not have truley been done...to that I say

You guys can run what you like....but I think the general had a pretty good handle on it and he never installed a 160 thermostat. Not in the 265,283,305,327 or 350.

 

The one chart that I have saved says at the top "data compiled in part from Hayden, flex-a-lite, derale, perma-cool, B&M, TCI, and trans-go engineering divisions". It would be nice to know more about the tests and data.

 

And the chart I posted...several times seems to make biglee sick, some times truth does that to a person! You accused CFI-EFI of not providing facts, but when someone does provide proof you refute their tests based on your backyard experience and accuse companies of falsely publishing data for our benefit. Lets see some of your test results and I don't mean tales of "your experience".

 

It's advice not advise. Advise is a verb.

 

yes, that would be interesting to see...

 

The reason I did not address the issue should be obvious; we have already covered this topic. I have noticed that you correct others on their grammar and punctuation. So I thought I would correct you. I see you don't like it either.

PEACE

 

Thank you, my error.

 

 

ah yes... the infamous "mystery" temp/wear chart....

lets see, who did that test again? when? what were the test conditions??? what engines were used????
say, if i were anonomously post a graph that inverted that one, and showed more wear from higher temps, what would you think then? or would you be in too much turmoil over which to believe, to take sides?

according to that chart, every engine out there with 100K of daily driving, with a couple of cold starts a day, should be so badly worn out that its incapable of running...

surely the engines i`ve torn into that i KNOW were operated cool long term should have bored themselves .100"+ oversize....
but they werent....

gosh, all those dirt track engines (coundnt begin to couny how many)
i helped tear down and rebuild, some that had several
long hard seasons of racing on them, most of which never had a thermostat, that had surprisingly good good condition bores...

i used to believe those graphs too, until first hand experience showed me that the wear rates in those graphs, werent anywhere near accurate....

but, hey. what the hell do i know, right? i`m just some "backyard" type of guy, that has personally seen lots of engines that have somehow defied the "laws" of your mystery internet charts say cant possibly exist...

like i said, when you have PERSONAL EXPERIENCE with cool operated engines, instead of what others tell you, with charts from who knos where, come back and talk then...

maybe cool engines do wear cylinders/pistons/rings at a slightly faster rate than warm engines... but it damn sure doesnt occur at the rates shown in that graph shown on here... i`d say the difference is quite small...

common sense should tell anyone that... but why use common sense, or think for yourself, when you have a graph from somewhere on the internet???

but many other components tend to last longer at lower temps. headgaskets, valvestem seals, external engine plastic parts, such as wiring, wire loom, electrical connectors, various other gaskets, O-rings, ect., ect....

 

I provided a place for you to look and inform yourself. I said I wasn't going to argue the point and therefore, yes, I provided no solid evidence, and I proved nothing. I STILL am not going to argue the point. Those arguments are in the archives. If you don't care to seek out the knowledge, it's your loss. It is going to be awfully tough for someone, with all your back yard experience, that knows everything, to learn ANYTHING.



And when the engineers of the world start breaking down your door for your superior thermal knowledge, I will come back and talk to you. In the meantime, good luck operating in that fog of fantasy you have created for yourself.

RACE ON!!!

 

In which case you should not have posted in this thread. You have yet to point out where I failed to heed my own ADVISE (sic)



I don't mind. Did I act as if I took offense? I do admit to being somewhat intolerant of illiteracy, but I don't jump on every misspelled word or typo that pops up. Also, if I do comment, it is in addition to the subject at hand, and not an attack out of the clear blue. You had no thoughts on this subject before or since your off the subject post.

And now that you have hijacked the thread:You should take some of your own "ADVISE" Pot calling the kettle, black??? Glass houses, etc.

RACE ON!!!

 

Here it is again bigLee, see if you can open your mind and get the true concept......http://performanceunlimited.com/illu...ermostats.html

couple that with CFIs suggested reading and search these archives.

I know I'm old bigLee (63), so forgive me if I can't recount all the engines I've built for the strip or just because they were due! But I'm still learning.

 

Here we go again! According to the wesite link above:http://performanceunlimited.com/illu...ermostats.html "However, there is a "middle ground" where both optimum performance as well as minimal wear share similar characteristics. That "magic" number lies in the 175-180 degree range, which requires a 180 degree thermostat" So according to the so called emperical evidence submitted, a cooler running engine will have increased longevity. Did I spell that correctly?
P.S. It seems to me according to the experts; An engine that is constantly running in the range of 175 to 180 dgrees will have optimal engine longevity. Am I being taught and expected to believe that if I run a 160 thermostat my engine will run cooler than 175 degrees? Some of you think you are running some kind of automotive school here but that is not true. Look up the definition of forum.

 

And you STILL haven't pointed out where I failed to follow my own "ADVISE (sic). I stated when I said that this subject had been over discussed and I was called out by a do gooder with no comment on the subject, up to that point, for my error in spelling. Said do gooder, but the way, who proved his superior(?) intellect by misusing the word "advise". That I would not argue the, over argued, subject. One big reason is that there are too many people that have personally preferences that are not based on fact. As such, I shall continue to not discuss the subject and re-refer the holdouts to the previous named sources of information.

RACE ON!!!

 

Ouch! temp seems to be a nasty topic around here!

Since I just can't resist putting my 2 cents in, and since I have temp on the brain today...

180 is considered optimum.

160 is too cold.

Anyone have any idea how to get my LT1 anything close to those temps with the a/c on?

 

It really doesn't make much difference. Keep it between 160 and 220. Even if your Vette hits 230 on occasion it shouldn't cause trouble. That's normal. Your engine temps will change depending on different driving conditions and outside temp. Your engine will not crumble if your temps are not within the so called optimim range.

 

This is ridiculous. I don't give a damn what anyone's experience is on here, whether it's based on backyard experience, or just their two cents, or their name is Robert Shaw.

If any of you think you know better than the engineers who designed it, the burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders, not the other way around, not on those using the factory stuff.

So if you think GM is wrong about the operating temps, PROVE IT. If you think they run higher operating temps for emissions at the sake of performance or longevity, PROVE IT.

I'm not implying that the GM engineers are all-knowing. They have apparently screwed up plenty of designs. But if you think you know better and want to tell everyone about it...

...PROVE IT.

 

Kool88vette, I can tell by your comments you obviously didn't read the entire article with the graph..........and no one said it was emperical, but theres been too many tests done to confirm the proper engine temperature for the small block chevies to refute! I'm going to quote what you obviously skipped!

"Tests have proven that by simply opening the thermostat precisely at the same temperature over and over again, the engine remains cooler on the average." " This results in longer engine wear and consequently longer engine life"

You got this right! " That "magic" number is 175-180 degree range, which requires a 180 degree thermostat."


"The all to commonly used 160 degree thermostat is way too low to be considered for performance or engine longevity."

I just don't understand why the personal attacks on people who provide statistical data, graphs and additional resources for inquisitive minds by some who believe their limited experience proves the multitude and professionals wrong?

 

Some people would rather call the sky green then open their mind and learn.



Here's some more pertinent info, not an answer though... courtesy of the people that think for a living so you don't have to (engineers).

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.c...=176339&page=7

(and yes, that damn temp/wear graph got posted also )

 

Who cares? As long as your not over heating and your engine is somewhere between cold and hot everything should be OK. Don't be so obsessed with coolant temps. I don't care what the GM engineers think. Everyone has an opinion. I believe that GM had to run the engines hot for emissions. Everyone else is free to believe whatever they like.