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.
I consider myself a half-way decent handyman, and if i can't figure it out Google hasn't failed me...until now. I recently bought a '96 LT4 and in the process of making sure everything is operating to the best of it's ability I was flushing the coolant system. When I opened up where I thought the thermostat was, I found nothing. Searching the internet has yielded no help. Did the previous owner neglect to have one in there, or i just not looking in the right place? The car wasn't running hot. Thank you in advance.
Yes that is where it belongs. Get a good quality stat and put it in. They are specific to the LT motors, so don't let the part store guy sell you one for an older car. It will have an extra disc on the bottom that seats on the hole in the bottom of that cavity. Good choice of project cars!
Thank you everybody. I auto zone is getting a 160 degree thermostat for me tomorrow. I just needed to make sure I wasn't taking crazy pills.
IMHO, a 160 'stat is too cold. The LT engines are designed to have be a 180 or maybe a 195 'stat. That helps with faster warmup and to reduce emissions.
Last edited by c4cruiser; Oct 20, 2016 at 09:24 AM.
IMHO, a 160 'stat is too cold. The LT engines are designed to have be a 180 or maybe a 195 'stat. That helps with faster warmup and to reduce emissions.
The stock T-stat for an LT1 is a 180 degree, get what you want, I was just pointing that out if you did not know.
The stock T-stat for an LT1 is a 180 degree, get what you want, I was just pointing that out if you did not know.
I appreciate all input. I opted for the 160 because I live in the desert where temps get up in the 110-120 F range. Went for a lower temp so it opens sooner. I believe that will keep the motor running about the 180-190 range during those hot days. I'd love to hear thoughts on this. Like I said "half-way decent handyman". hahahha
I appreciate all input. I opted for the 160 because I live in the desert where temps get up in the 110-120 F range. Went for a lower temp so it opens sooner. I believe that will keep the motor running about the 180-190 range during those hot days. I'd love to hear thoughts on this. Like I said "half-way decent handyman". hahahha
I have read that if your engine runs at 160 it will wear faster. I had a car I switched from a 180 to 160 degree thermostat and saw 2 things, the A/C worked better and the heat didn't work as well. For you the trade off could be a good one regarding better A/C performance as you likely do not use the heat much. I eventually switched back to a 180 degree thermostat on that car. We will likely hear from some boating enthusiasts that boat motors run cooler than 160.
I have read that if your engine runs at 160 it will wear faster.
We will likely hear from some boating enthusiasts that boat motors run cooler than 160.
Where did you read that? I've "read that" (for years) too...unfortunately I've only "read that" on web forums -in spite of a good bit of searching the topic. Never seen anything that would be what we call, a "credible source". I think it's lore and I readily welcome some real, objective documentation on the matter. Otherwise, we're just regurgitating BS from a previous web poster's opinion.
I'm that "boat guy"...what's wrong with that used as an example? It's a domestic pushrod V8 engine that works very hard all the time, runs "too cold"...yet some how, they last "long enough". Seems like a point/example worth sharing for some perspective, to the 160* alarmists.
Where did you read that? I've "read that" (for years) too...unfortunately I've only "read that" on web forums -in spite of a good bit of searching the topic. Never seen anything that would be what we call, a "credible source". I think it's lore and I readily welcome some real, objective documentation on the matter. Otherwise, we're just regurgitating BS from a previous web poster's opinion.
I'm that "boat guy"...what's wrong with that used as an example? It's a domestic pushrod V8 engine that works very hard all the time, runs "too cold"...yet some how, they last "long enough". Seems like a point/example worth sharing for some perspective, to the 160* alarmists.
I know I read this in either Hot Rod or a similar magazine some years ago. The thing I don't know is how applicable that might be to modern engines and modern oil. The original article I read looked like this one. Also the fifth paragraph here.
One reason I don't think you can compare boat motors is they run at a much higher percent at 100% throttle which increases cylinder and cylinder wall temperatures more relative to coolant temps.
Last edited by JimLentz; Oct 20, 2016 at 12:01 PM.
I know I read this in either Hot Rod or a similar magazine some years ago. The thing I don't know is how applicable that might be to modern engines and modern oil. The original article I read looked like this one.
One reason I don't think you can compare boat motors is they run at a much higher percent at 100% throttle which increases cylinder and cylinder wall temperatures more relative to coolant temps.
Well that link is something. Thanks for posting. Did you notice that the area of the graph is where the curve has almost flattened out? So what would that diff in wear mean, in real life? Probably not nearly as much as other factors such as PM regiment. Where did he get his data? The graph? Years of research"? I know you don't know, it's a rhetorical question b/c what I'd really like to see is the actual data from these or any tests.
You make an interesting point about boat cylinder temps... but I've ran cars at "too low temps" too...and they lasted longer than long enough.
Well that link is something. Thanks for posting. Did you notice that the area of the graph is where the curve has almost flattened out? So what would that diff in wear mean, in real life? Probably not nearly as much as other factors such as PM regiment. Where did he get his data? The graph? Years of research"? I know you don't know, it's a rhetorical question b/c what I'd really like to see is the actual data from these or any tests.
You make an interesting point about boat cylinder temps... but I've ran cars at "too low temps" too...and they lasted longer than long enough.
I've heard that the wear rate is twice as much at 160 than at 180, the missing piece is twice as much of what. So if running at 160 degrees provides only 200K miles of cylinder wear and 180 allowed 400K miles most people wouldn't care. I wish we had more definitive numbers.
I've heard that the wear rate is twice as much at 160 than at 180, the missing piece is twice as much of what.
Totally. That is one BIG question. What is the real meaning of the claims?
Originally Posted by JimLentz
So if running at 160 degrees provides only 200K miles of cylinder wear and 180 allowed 400K miles most people wouldn't care. I wish we had more definitive numbers.
I agree 100%. I question that very thing, when ever this is brought up and (besides my boat) here is a reason why; One of my "cool running cars", I sold it at 200,000 miles to a friend who drove it to 245k where it finally blew a head gasket. I lost track of the car beyond that, but a head gasket failure wasn't "worn bores", rings, etc. and when I sold it, no oil burning, good gas mileage, etc... So if those bores were wearing at "twice the rate"...then my take away would be that the wear rate is SO LOW...it really doesn't matter. Thanks for providing that link though. It is weird that for as many claims are made about the topic, such little concrete documentation is readily available.
Totally. That is one BIG question. What is the real meaning of the claims?
I agree 100%. I question that very thing, when ever this is brought up and (besides my boat) here is a reason why; One of my "cool running cars", I sold it at 200,000 miles to a friend who drove it to 245k where it finally blew a head gasket. I lost track of the car beyond that, but a head gasket failure wasn't "worn bores", rings, etc. and when I sold it, no oil burning, good gas mileage, etc... So if those bores were wearing at "twice the rate"...then my take away would be that the wear rate is SO LOW...it really doesn't matter. Thanks for providing that link though. It is weird that for as many claims are made about the topic, such little concrete documentation is readily available.
Page 53 here is interesting, but the wear rate seems way too high to me. 160 degrees looks to be around .001 inches in 60 hours, which I find suspect, of course there is a lot of information missing. Were these new engines or what state were they in?
Last edited by JimLentz; Oct 20, 2016 at 01:33 PM.
Reason: Wrong page number
Page 53 here is interesting, but the wear rate seems way too high to me. 160 degrees looks to be around .001 inches in 60 hours, which I find suspect, of course there is a lot of information missing. Were these new engines or what state were they in?
If the cylinder wall lost .001'' in diameter per every 60 hours, averaging 60 mph, it would wear 0.020'' in 72,000 miles. That is an insanely high amount. There is no way that is true.
If the cylinder wall lost .001'' in diameter per every 60 hours, averaging 60 mph, it would wear 0.020'' in 72,000 miles. That is an insanely high amount. There is no way that is true.
Am I dumb, or is something wrong?
