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.
jschindler and a few others are right on the money. The lower temp thermostats just allow the coolant to start flowing into the block at a lower temp. So it takes longer to heat the coolant to get to the temperature where the motor needs to run. Often we buy mods and then get pissed off when we have only bought into the advertisement. The bottom line is, is that the motor will always make more power at or in its warmed up state, not cold state, and not hot state. Too Cold is bad as is too hot. I have spoken with numerous tuners about this and they have indicated no benefit and a couple of them said it was useless. A cooler thermostat is not the same as a bigger radiator. My car always made more power on the 2nd and 3rd runs. About 7-10 more RWHP each time. Everything should be at optimum temps, that goes for water and oil. I would suggest water wetter or 40 below before a 160 thermo any day. :cool:
OK here is a really dumb question.Water Wetter install...do I pour it in the radiator? Thanks....oh 1 or 2 bottles?
I used a $1.50 turkey baster to pull out an equal amount of coolant from the high side tank on my LT1 before pouring in a1 bottle of Redline Water Wetter. Even, then most of drained into the overflow reservoir :cuss
I haven't seen mucb difference in coolant temps from it...
If you are trying to keep your engine in the 190's, it does not matter which thermostat you use. It's when the fans come on that counts. You only need a lower thermostat if you want the temp to stay below the temp of the stock thermostat.
Well, yes.. but the tstat type will effect the amount of time your fans run, givven that you are programming the fans to activate at the same temp for both tstats. The fans would have to run more with a 180 tstat than a 160, for instance. Which means more wear on the fan, more wear on the alternator, more drag on the engine (negligible, really) from the alternator pulling more current.
If you are trying to keep your engine in the 190's, it does not matter which thermostat you use. It's when the fans come on that counts. You only need a lower thermostat if you want the temp to stay below the temp of the stock thermostat.
Well, yes.. but the tstat type will effect the amount of time your fans run, givven that you are programming the fans to activate at the same temp for both tstats. The fans would have to run more with a 180 tstat than a 160, for instance, to maintain coolant temps in the low 190's. Which means more wear on the fan, more wear on the alternator, more drag on the engine (negligible, really) from the alternator pulling more current.
If you are trying to keep your engine in the 190's, it does not matter which thermostat you use. It's when the fans come on that counts. You only need a lower thermostat if you want the temp to stay below the temp of the stock thermostat.
Well, yes.. but the tstat type will effect the amount of time your fans run, givven that you are programming the fans to activate at the same temp for both tstats. The fans would have to run more with a 180 tstat than a 160, for instance, to maintain coolant temps in the low 190's. Which means more wear on the fan, more wear on the alternator, more drag on the engine (negligible, really) from the alternator pulling more current.
I don't agree with this. If you are trying to maintain a temperature above the higher temp thermostat, it will not matter whether you have a 190, 180, 172, or 160. If, per your example, you want the fans to keep it at 190, they won't come on until the engine temp reachs 190, right? It would only make a difference if you set the fans to come on below 190. Maybe I'm missing something - if so, please let me know. I'm no expert, just trying to understand. Thanks
The difference comes when driving down the road. The 160 tstat will maintain a coolant temp of, say, 178F in motion on average. The 180 will maintain 194F on average in motion. If you have the fans, say, set to come on at 190 then they're always running with the 180 tstat, even when cruising down the road. Whereas they would kick off for the 160 tstat when the temp drops below the mark while moving, so you're not running the fans to death 24/7.
I don't agree with this. If you are trying to maintain a temperature above the higher temp thermostat, it will not matter whether you have a 190, 180, 172, or 160. If, per your example, you want the fans to keep it at 190, they won't come on until the engine temp reachs 190, right? It would only make a difference if you set the fans to come on below 190. Maybe I'm missing something - if so, please let me know. I'm no expert, just trying to understand. Thanks
The difference comes when driving down the road. The 160 tstat will maintain a coolant temp of, say, 178F in motion on average. The 180 will maintain 194F on average in motion. If you have the fans, say, set to come on at 190 then they're always running with the 180 tstat, even when cruising down the road. Whereas they would kick off for the 160 tstat when the temp drops below the mark while moving, so you're not running the fans to death 24/7.
I don't agree with this. If you are trying to maintain a temperature above the higher temp thermostat, it will not matter whether you have a 190, 180, 172, or 160. If, per your example, you want the fans to keep it at 190, they won't come on until the engine temp reachs 190, right? It would only make a difference if you set the fans to come on below 190. Maybe I'm missing something - if so, please let me know. I'm no expert, just trying to understand. Thanks
Do you actually have experience with this? I have a 160 in my Tahoe. When moving, its sits dead on 160!
You know, I was told a long time ago that a lower temp stat would be a good idea here in Texas (told by Speedworks). I have not yet made the decision, but after reading this thread I am so thoroughly confused that I've decided to forget the whole idea. This thread is truly useless for the owner with average driving patterns.
Thanks for trying...too much conflicting information here. Don't get me wrong, this is still the best forum I have ever been associated with.
You know, I was told a long time ago that a lower temp stat would be a good idea here in Texas (told by Speedworks). I have not yet made the decision, but after reading this thread I am so thoroughly confused that I've decided to forget the whole idea. This thread is truly useless for the owner with average driving patterns.
Thanks for trying...too much conflicting information here. Don't get me wrong, this is still the best forum I have ever been associated with.
Amen, brother. I have found this to be true on all the thermostat posts. That's why I don't have one in my Corvette.
I have one in my Tahoe because I put a Hypertech on it only because I figured if it could be re-tuned for premium fuel, I would pick up something. When I put it on, there was no difference. A call to Hypertech, and they told me the real gains were to be had with a colder thermostat as it would allow more timing advance to go with the premium fuel. That's my story.
By the way, I have drag raced my car serveral times and I am extremely consistent driver. I find that even on serveral runs in close time frame (five to ten minuetes apart), with my temps at the starting line around 230, I still run just as fast. If anyone does not believe this, I have all the time slips and will post them as proof.
I have a 160 in my Tahoe. When moving, its sits dead on 160!
Keep in mind that the frontal air intake area on a tahoe as well as the radiator is very large. A great big clutch fan spins (at low speeds) to cool too. I had a 98 Yukon (same thing as a Tahoe) years ago. The cooling system on that vehicle was the last thing you needed to worry about. :)
...but after reading this thread I am so thoroughly confused that I've decided to forget the whole idea. This thread is truly useless for the owner with average driving patterns.
Thanks for trying...too much conflicting information here...
I just got a 180 degree thermostat and throttle body bypass. My car consistently runs at 190 degrees on the highway but gets hot in slow or stalled traffic sometimes. However, after reading these posts and the ones about air locks, etc. (let alone the fact that I can't even find the radiator drain plug!), I have decided to send both of them back. I'd like more horsepower but I don't race at the strip and am starting to realize that most of the mods I put on are fairly useless and just advertising hype.
The worst thing is, I knew ahead of time what a thermostat does so why did I buy it? And the TBB...gees, I knew that so much air was running through the throttle body so fast, how could it possibly get heated up? But the mod was cheap...enough said.
I guess that I'm tired of looking at mods and saying "Well, it's not too expensive and can't hurt." Maybe I'll just trust that GM and their highly-paid engineers did a good enough job in the beginning and leave it at that.
[QUOTEI guess that I'm tired of looking at mods and saying "Well, it's not too expensive and can't hurt." Maybe I'll just trust that GM and their highly-paid engineers did a good enough job in the beginning and leave it at that.
[/QUOTE]
It used to be easy and fairly inexpensive to gain significant HP increases, but I've seen too many people who've spent over $1000 to gain 4 HP to ever go for such stuff. Even Dyno runs can be deceptive, since variability of peak HP runs can often be sizable (10HP from 1st to 2nd runs in my case) for no apparent reason.
Here is my take on it, in as clear a way as I can from real world experience with my Z06. The car get's quicker et's between 174-185 at 185 it starts to slow down, the hotter it get's the more it slowes my car. Now if runing a few hundreth's slower doesen't bother you, stay with a higher temp ts. Clear enough? Ric
Designer Imagines A Corvette That Looks More Like a Corvette Than the Corvette
Slideshow: A Jaguar designer's personal project imagines what a modern front-engined Corvette might look like if Chevrolet revisited the golden age of the Stingray.