Please produce a single example of a damaged engine from running it at 178 degrees. Please produce a single car that got lower performance when they swapped to the 160. Stop with the theory and produce real evidence.....an example of a car and a dyno sheet or track run that was worse.

You guys kill me with your exaggerations....the power loss is 1HP and the longevity loss is 1%. You guys make it seem like its 40hp and 1/2 the life of the engine gone from running it 20 degrees cooler. Guys in Texas see 220 everyday so why would it be ok for northern guys to run at 195 with the stock stat? Demographics alone vary temps in an engine 20 degrees.

Not a single tuner has ever seen lowered performance from a 160 stat even once on a dyno and in fact sees higher performacne every time. Every tuner I know of runs the 160 Lingenfelter, Cartek, ECS, ect. Since the LS engines are out in 1997, I have not heard of a single car with adverse effect so where is the car that lost performance or longevity?

The theory is based on jack sheet. You have no data to support what you say and are ignoring the facts of the PCM's interference with running the higher temps.

Running at 178 improves performance every time.

Posted were actual car examples that went to a track and got better trap speeds. Posted are PCM tuning facts that lower power from timing reductions. Posted are tuner observations from dyno results from real cars.

You post nothing but opinion based on an incomplete model.

Hey dont mod your car. Added power takes away from longevity. You dont want to hurt your wheel bearings or trans seals with 100 more HP. Piston rings will only last 240k miles instead of 287k miles with a 160 stat. You stock stat guys think its more like 40k miles out of an engine if you swap? I think the degree of loss is a bit exaggerated. I have seen 200k mile cars with 160 stats.

 

When I had my car dyno tuned last year my tuner told me to run a 160. I know I have a GTO but its still LSx based.

 

Spin is right; you aren't considering ALL of the factors. You're taking a FEW factors which you think you know about, and throwing them out as "ammunition" to your cause, but you clearly don't know what you're saying; what REAL effect the particular factor has. To wit:Pull-EEEZE
1. The oil won't circulate and lube properly?
2. The oil won't "burn off" (sic) contaminants (you mean, water?)?
3. The tolerances/temp will result in "excessive/concentrated wear"?

Are you for real here? Seriously. REALLY???

1. & 2. Do you know what oil temps run w/a factory T-stat? Do you know what OIL TEMPS run w/a 160 T-stat? Do you know what OIL TEMPS run when you start your engine when it's sitting all night and it's 10*F below zero? Or when your engine is up to temp (using facotry T-stat) and you're driving in 0*F weather?? (Hint: lower than summer use w/a 160* T-stat). Yet that is an "O.K. parameter for the OE". So why is it now suddenly not O.K. for Summer-only users in search of more power?

3. Speaking of more power, more power will result in
"excessive/concentrated wear", right? So you better not mod your car at all! But how much wear are we talking about here? Do you know or can you quantify how much "excessive/concentrated wear" is going to occur by dropping operating temps 15*F? (HINT: negligable at most). Don't you think that most people who opt for more power are willing to trade a little longevity for more power? Like, they'd probably be "O.K." with their engine lasting 300,000 mi instead of 302,538 mi. Know what I mean?

I mean it's a "red herring" argument you're making about longevity. No one here will notice the diff in engine life because either:
A. they're rich and they'll have 10 newer cars before that car (that they sold 9 cars ago and w/the cooler t-stat) is worn out, or
B. They're poor (like me) and they'll keep the car until it's paid off then MOD, and by then, it engine life won't matter b/c they'll be swapping motors so often longevity is a moot point.

Do you know anything about boats? The kind w/car engines in them? I have a Mastercraft Comp Ski boat that has a Ford V8 engine in it. I change the oil every 50 hours and that is the only maintenance the engine gets. It will run way past 3000 hours (has 800 on it now) with no issues at all, I assure you. It never runs over 160*F, as per the "factory installed" (Indmar/Mastercraft) T-Stat. Same pistons and same bores as are used in that engine in cars. Same "theory" should apply, right? The oil should be full of water, the cylinders should be worn from excessive clearances, right? Nothing works harder than a boat; it's always going "up hill". So how come boats run so cool, and don't suffer from longevity issues??

Because though there ARE differences in wear at different operating temps, and that is a FACT which you are posting your position on, another FACT is that the difference in wear (especially in the operating temp ranges that we're talking about here) is NOTHING. Not measurable. Not meaningful. Not worth worrying about. A "Red Herring" arguement for the fear mongers, and the nay-sayers.

Over the LIFE of a well maintained engine (300,000+ miles) there are SO many things that will have a much more dramatic effect on how long YOUR engine will last than that 15*-20*F. Most of which you can't control; initial build and break in, for one example. To worry about coolant temps as it relates to engine life, all while slapping a leaking Vararam on your car....

In short, your facts aren't debated (by me). Just the context that you're trying to use them. It's ridiculous.

Me too; I've owned one -245,000 actually. Is 200,000+ miles not enough? Are YOU really going to still have your C6 when it rolls over 200,000K? Come on now, be honest. If you ARE, then you're like me, and it will have had 4-5 motors in it by then; each more powerful than the last. Somehow though, I doubt that you're "that guy".

 

Wait a few months, and there will be another thread just like this one, and we can have all these same arguments with somebody else. Until then, I have the same suggestion that I give to CF members who ask for cam advice: ask your tuner or performance parts vendor. They will ALL tell you the same thing.

 

In the meantime everyone has homework.....put a pot and the stove and see if water evaporates out of the pot before it reaches 212 degrees. It takes longer but it still evaporates.

Your car tells you oil temps too and that always gets over 212 with a 160 stat.

 

Wow, you actually took a class in college? And that makes you the expert? lol

It's pretty simple, actually. You want to keep as much combustion heat(energy) in the chamber as possible. A colder engine leaches more heat/energy than a hotter running engine. That's simple physics.

Why do you think real race building companies coat the top of the pistons and chambers with ceramic? And future engines currently under development are being designed to have NO cooling system. I wonder why? lol

 

Here we go again. Believe it or not, GM isn't has ignorant as you want to believe and actually knows what they are doing some of the time. The "other criteria" that you are quick to dismiss (no doubt because you have no idea what it might be) has everything to do with maximizing efficiency of these engines. Which includes emissions, which are a direct result of an engines efficiency.

 

WINNER.

Though Spin does make the point about the practical state of tuning around the ecm, which I agree with.

 

I have to agree with both of your perspectives. While installing a 160 deg T stat is somewhat of a band aid masking a larger problem of iat heat soak and an inadequit cooling system. It is one way of keeping the engine from pulling timing. Changing the IAT position is ultimately the best solution to this type of problem. Getting more air through the radiator to hold a consistent 180 degrees with a 180 stat is the best solution, upgrading to a high efficiency aluminum radiator also can solve the coolant temp concearns at a much higher price. It really depends on your budget.

I pesonally don't like the idea of running the lower T stat, its not a solution for an inefficient cooling system. It will also lower your cylinder pressure and increase blow by when your engine is at 160 degrees. I do realize that even with a 160 stat the coolant temp will more times than not be above that temp.

 

It is not theory or conjecture. What do you want me to do spinmonster give you the names of people whose engines wear out from running too cold? And if I can't then what you're automatically right? This kind of argumentation is nonsensical.

Fact - the ecm pulls timing from excessive IAT NOT engine temps unless it starts pinging.

Fact - the engine tolerances are designed around operating temps from stock thermostats. Is it a good idea to run an engine hard when it's tolerances are off? When you build an engine do you purposely make sure the rings do not seal properly for example? Or the bearings are too loose?

Fact - hotter combustion chamber temp (until detonation occurs) generates more power. Where do you get 1 hp by the way - you keep asserting this and it is not true. 1% per 10 degrees is a fair estimation of power loss/gain.

So why would you want to lower engine temps with a lower temp thermostat? You say it produces more power and I am not disagreeing that may be the case because of the side effect of making the sensor read differently. My point is that is a stupid and rube goldbergian approach for the reasons I outlined above. And all your pontificating does not change physics or thermodynamics.

There are better ways to lower IAT and better ways to fool the sensor (which I have outlined) so again, why run at less than optimum temps? WHY?

By your logic why not run without a thermostat altogether?

Why do race engine builders run their cars at higher operating temps? I am not talking about some local tuner of street cars but real race car engine builders - ask any of them about combustion temps and power. NASCAR NHRA take your pick - ask the guys who build real racing engines for big money events. And then you can tell them they are dealing in conjecture and theory and not the real world and watch them laugh at you.

And the example of marine engines is more nonsense - they are designed and engineered to run at a certain temp - and guess what? It is lower than a Corvette street car engine since they are cooled by the water the boat is in.. DOH. Good grief.

This marine engine example actually bolsters my argument re oil temps - you must change the oil every 50 hours in your boat right? What is the equivalent in a car - say you average 35 mph and that is a high average - then you are changing the oil every 1,750 miles. Why? because it does not run as hot so you have to change more frequently.

 

I see, so your contention is that the only contaminant that gets into your oil is water? Really? How about fuel? Fuel additives? Carbon? Combustion chamber gases? None of these, just water. Right.

 

Actually yes. Just one name on this forum full of 160 stat users is what I want.....just one. One owner that killed an engine from a 160 stat.....C5 or C6.

Just one.....since just about every single tuner uses them and the forum is full of modded cars with them. About how many miles should an owner expect to get from running his engine between 178 and 192 degrees? My cousin's H/C LS1 has 130k on it and swapped his when he bought the car. Is he near the end?

 

Stop with the sarchasm drama queen, my oil runs within 10 degrees of stock for average driving and peaks WAAAY higher than a stock stat/ stock power car does. There are times 500-700hp cars see temps your car would never see on the oil hence people buy aftermarket oil coolers. Your stat wouldnt help too much there would it? There is a time when oil is too hot. One size doesnt fit all and the stock stat isnt a fixed variable for all engines. Using a 160 stat lowering IAT's solves the IAT timing issues and is the right way for higher than stock power. I dont suppose you actually scanned car one to see for yourself?

Car 1 running in the heat of Texas with a 160 stat sees up to 205 degrees coolant and oil temps OVER a stock stat car. Car 2 with a stock stat is running in NY in March in 45 degree weather sees 198 degrees engine coolant and 10 degrees less in oil temps.....so whats your point? One size fits all and there are water and contaminants in the Texas car because it has a 160 stat and the NY car is better off even though its running cooler? So which is it....observed parameters to taget running a car with average temps to accomplish the majority of things you need OR 160 stats are evil and bad for a car? How about admitting: high HP cars run completely different sets of parameters and need more cooling. Try scanning a H/C or supercharged car before you post BS based on some variable you never put into action. Modded cars produce way more heat and the PCM fights it.

Cars down south run 20 degrees hotter than cars up north so is GM seeing mass failures up north?

For the record guys in Canada shouldnt be running 160 stats in the winter. There is a right time for it based on measured parameters. A car producing 30% more than stock power will make proportionately more heat which wasnt in the design of the car. You work with it.

For the record this section of the forum is where guys with modded cars go for answers to how to mod for PERFORMANCE. First you measure performance and then you make adjustments. There's a time for 160 stats. There's a time for a bigger radiator and oil coolers. Stock stats are for stock cars in average temps. A 500rwhp H/C car is going to produce more heat at idle, cruise, and way more under WOT. You run yours how you want and I think people should hesitate taking mod advice from a guy that thinks a rear spoiler and a car stereo are mods. Poser.

 

The 160 is great, the rest of the arguing is moot as when I show
178 degrees with my 160 stat. That is the water, Oil temp is around 20 degree's hotter at 198. when warmed up. My stock stat pushed the
water too high to 200. But not much to do with the IAT's!

 

Now with a S/C on your car, street scanning would show way more IAT's than short bursts on a dyno. The intercooler is sitting in front of the radiator and heat soaks it in traffic.

 

Wrong: The engine also pulls timing starting at 212 degrees engine coolant temps. Reduced timing from knock retard is even higher and from a completely different section of the tune.
Here is the table:


Wrong again. Rings most certainly are taking into account when you design an engine. Forged engines run different rings gaps for FI, nitrous, and for N/A. Yes you purposely open the gaps for high heat applications such as nitrous and many close them even using total seal rings for N/A.

Modded engines produce more heat and abandon stock engine design parameters....you scan and see what the new engine design needs. Once you change anything the engine design tolerances are all changed. Cammed cars like 160's.

A high HP FI engine runs hotter from Newton's laws of thermodynamics in that all power looses some to heat....more power = more heat so you would be an idiot to not compensate.

Lastly you should look at what the variances are in GM's 'engineering'. They consider 70 grams to be balanced for a rotating assembly. .2 grams per inch on a crank is what an aftermarket engine gets balanced to. Any idea what the difference between the tightest to loosest piston ring gap is on your engine? Way more than 20 degrees would make at idle/cruise compared to WOT. This average is what a 160 stat tries to maintain on a car with even 50 more HP than stock.

 

Because under high power situations it will generate more heat from higher HP production and the average running temps will stay the same. Cylinder pressures alone account for this.

Idle and cruise will be 178 but WOT for extended times would generate far too much heat for heat control with the stock stat.....again a scan is needed for you to stop assuming.

No loss at WOT will be observed since the heat developed will exceed stock power applications.

 

Spin, give up. You can't argue facts with a true believer. They get their "facts" from some book they read.

True, properly tuned race engines can develop more power running at higher operating temps. However, last time I looked NASCAR was not running street C6's with A/C, catalytic converters, and computer controls.

If any one of the naysayers can demonstrate what mods they are running on their cars, and show actual results (timing slips or dyno charts) of performance improvements by running higher coolant temps, I will take my hat off and bow. I am sure other CF members will sit up, take notice, and give it a try.

If all the naysayers want to do is quote theory, then fine --- I AGREE WITH THE THEORY, AND THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS. I also agree with what WORKS IN THE REAL WORLD. So do the guys on this forum who actually race their cars, and care about real results, not theories.

 

Damn ole' eggheads than their fancy books. LOL

I think we're in agreement for the most part.

2008 LS3 MN6. Bassani CB. Untouched factory tune:

My car's fastest trap speed occurred with starting line coolant temp of 193*. Speed was 118.40 mph. DA 963'.

Slowest at a starting line coolant temp of 219*. Speed was 117.28 mph. DA 963'. The ecm intervened due to the much higher coolant temp.

Interestingly, a starting line coolant temp of 171* trap speed was 118.36 mph. But DA was better at 528'.

Not a scientific test, but my car is pretty consistent and only varies due to DA changes or as in example #2, getting the car hot enough the ecm intervenes.

My solution to fix keep the ecm in check is as simple as adjusting the cooling fans. But I am reluctant to touch the factory programing not wanting to potentially void the warranty.

 

Where did I "dismiss" the other criteria? Post where I did that please, so I can correct that. IN FACT, what I did do was explain that DUE TO OTHER CRITERIA (and I am more aware of those than you are, I'm sure), GM DOESN'T give us LT headers, long duration cams, 160* T-stats etc. My point was that there are other criteria that GM has to meet, that we don't, and some of us don't care (as much as GM HAS TO) about...which allows us to use:_______________(<Fill in blank w/aftermarket parts and tunning), that results in greater power.

I don't think that you read my post in context, Air Bus.

I'd type more, but I'd pretty much be dulicating what Spin said. I too, am waiting for an example of an engine that "died" from a 160* T-stat.

On last thing to "Carbon" in oil doesn't "burn out" (sic) no matter how hot you get the oil, but again, Spin covered that pretty thoroughly too.