Exactly.

Stock stat + lower fan settings = prematurely burned out fan.

 

Well no one would ever know, the way you mince your words.


What a uselss post. Not to mention a "Red Herring", empty position.
"You should see what someone I won't tell you who, is doing! This statement is meant to imply that the nameless person supports my flawed, incomplete thinking!"....



I didn't know that anyone had asked me to. Did someone? If so, please quote where and I'll give an answer (not that it matters for the topic at hand). I thought that YOU knew all the criteria though. Isn't that what you implying, right here in post #47:

I and others DID specifically ask you (and others) to produce examples. We're still waiting. I'd LOVE to see you run your car 200* consistently, fan adjustments only.

 

The saying I have heard is that you can dress a pig up in a tutu, but you can't turn it into a ballerina. It just results in a lot of squealing by the pig, and you have to send the tutu to the cleaners.

I was going to use it earlier, but I bit my tongue.

 

Thank you. I don't know about your car, maybe just my situation (11:1 LS7, 91 octane fuel best available, and pretty darn hot in the summer) but I was getting spark pulled when over 200*. Have you datalogged for KR? Try it on a quarter mile pass, the long third gear pull will build up a lot more chamber heat than a short/easy stab in first. Even WITH my heat reduction efforts If I start my burnout @ 180* I'm at about 195 by the end of the pass.

 

http://www.galebanks.com/techarticle...r-equals-power

http://legendarycollectorcars.com/fe...clusive-video/

Interesting...

 

I agree, I don't see the problem. Did a backroads run Sunday night, ambient temp was 42F at times, was running oil temp in the 230's. Even if a thermostat was to reduce my oil temp by 20F (it wouldn't of course), I don't see a problem.

For stock HP or near engines, does it make more sense to relocate the IAT sensor or use a thermostat?

For higher HP engines you have extra heat you need to deal with so the thermostat is going to have to be part of the strategy.

 

The turbo (positive pressure) is making the power. The heat, is making the efficiency and mpg (also, the light aero car).

But the same set up would make MORE power, with an intercooler instead of heater.

Also, 250 hp and 0-60 in 6 seconds...in a Fiero? Something doesn't jibe there. 3600 lb Ecplises went 6.0 to 60 with 190 hp. Hmmm....

 

I have a 160 thermostat (ECS recommended), and based on what I have read in this thread...I'm keeping it!!

 

Anyone have any success with insulating the air inlet from the radiator? Is an effective way to “fool” the IAT sensor? It used to work well on the GTO. Anyway, I "ventilated" my radiator shroud and insulated the bottom of the intake today. Simple and free mod... Don't know it will help at all, but can't hurt.

 

If your talking what I am thinking of...the "free air mod" by opening up the shroud and closing up the stock intake from hot underhood air, then your doing just about as good as a $500.00 CAI system!

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show....php?t=1747569

 

Nope, but close (same concept). I simply drilled some 1" holes in the shroud near the air filter inlet. The next step will be to seal the mouth of the inlet to the shroud so it can ONLY draw in air from the radiator opening... essentially ambient air. Waiting for pictures to be "approved"...

 

 

AirBusPilot kept mentioning Smokey Yunick and I wanted to get a discussion going that would basically show his work being irrelevant to the 160°F vs stock thermostat debate. AirBusPilot is confusing efficiency with making power...the path to high HP does not have efficiency as one of the criteria. Yes, higher operating temps will lead to higher efficiency as the Laws of Thermodynamics show. In the quest for more HP, the Laws of Thermodynamics unfortunately run head-on into the limits of metallurgy that restrict operating temps and the laws of chemistry that govern normal combustion of gasoline (of which knock/detonation is not normal).

The other thing is the temperature differences of the coolant and the impact on heat loss. While an operating temp of 180°F vs 200°F would seem like a 10% difference in heat loss, that's not the correct way to look at it. On the Rankine scale, those differences become ~640°R vs 660°R for a difference of 3%...and that only affects the power lost to the coolant which is where ~25% of the heat goes. So on a best case scenario where we convert all of the extra heat to HP, the best we can hope for is a .75% increase in HP due to the higher operating temps. But we also know for every 10°F decrease in intake charge temperature we see a 1% increase in HP and we haven't even gotten into timing being pulled at the higher temps.
If we could get the engine to live and keep the gas from detonating at the higher operating temps, we'd make more HP by the Laws of Thermodynamics...but we're also constrained by the laws of metallugy and chemistry.

Smokey was known for "bending" the rules and sometimes outright making his own rules. I suspect there are a few things about his "adiabatic" engines that aren't "true". The patents have run out and anybody can build one of his engines, but you still don't see it. I do know his engines had an operating limit of just over 4000 RPM and they had to be cast iron block/heads to survive the temps...an aluminum head would not have tolerated the combustion chamber temps. Also, his coolant temps were not much more than what we have now. His gains in efficiency were made by recovering heat from the coolant/exhaust with the incoming fuel charge.

 

Now show the head/cam car with 470-500rwhp, let a lone a forced induction car 600rwhp+, that can cruise at 192 degrees (baseline for the stock stat) and then stay under 220-225 after a spirited WOT run in 95 degree weather.

I'm all for a stock power comuter car staying with good ol stock stats.

Its all about using the stat for your conditions. The high HP guy in texas heat isnt running the same stat as a northeast stock winter car.

I wish one of the stock stat guys would simply admit there's a time/place/power level for a lower opening stat. Not all engines in all places run fine with one size fits all.

Most important: no way no how you can have 214 degrees engine coolant and not be pulling timing with IAT's over 86 degrees.....even in <70 degree ambient weather. IAT's on the stock car go to 20 over ambient at every stop light and I scan all the time to see it. If you have 200-214 degrees coolant, the IAT's are being read by the sensor being artificially heated by that radiator hose with ANY air cleaner assembly I have tested. Yes, some are better than others but none have zero interaction. 10 degrees was the best one I saw when moving and way up there at stop lights. The coolant is the thing heating the front end of the car.

The average car (stock) on the average day (75-80 degrees 70% humidity), is hitting 100-110 IAT's at every stop light. Every single one of them. Now anyone want to bet a plane ticket to take the bet on their car?

Same car with a 160 stat wont break 95-100 IAT's.

Stock stat guys seem to only look at the cruise operating temps and not the average temps the car will see modded. Would they complain if the spirited driver sees 195-205 with a head cam car using a 160 stat as his AVERAGE coolant temps? Is that it? They only use the car for hiway commuting? Spirited doesnt come into the equation? Or high HP spirited never came into the equation?

 

No way you have a modded car to say that. That assumption is 100% wrong and is why your argument doesnt hold any credibility. If you modded your car and saw a 100 degree day with IAT's over 150 and coolant temps at 225-230 you would know why we raise the flag

A 228 cam and decent heads/compression with all bolt-ons will be at 225 degrees most of the time after 2 WOT blasts.

The fans on our car (all C6 vettes) cant come on sooner than 192 degrees without some aftermarket gizmo and even then, the max setting cant keep it under 220.

Setting the first cell to 100% at 192 degrees will still not keep the coolant under 220 degrees driving hard.

I live in Colorado and see 130 degree IAT's on an 80 degree night with a super charger. When/what is the application you will admit to having to work around the computer's constraints?

Again, my average running temps are higher than your's but you get hung up that I see 178 on the hiway at a steady cruise.

What mods do you have and do you ever get on the car hard?

 

I don't see how relocating the IAT sensor would help. It does not change the fact that the air temp has increased over ambient as result of the engine heat. If the need to pull timing for hot intake air wasn't real, it would be easily deleted in the tune.

Another 160 T-stat user here.

 

There it is, right there. "Criteria". I mentioned it earlier, but AirBus wasn't "getting it". That was an awesome post that does a good job clarifying the other aspects that the stock stat posters are not considering.

Nice to "see" you here, GlassSlipper!

 

That's not what I understood from this discussion. The problem is that the IAT sensor is heat soaked and reading artificially high, not that the air is actually being heated up 20F.

One purpose of the 160F thermo swap is to reduce heat soak of the IAT sensor, and get the readings more accurate, not to actually reduce the temperature of the intake air.

 

Isn't oil temp a better indicator of engine temperature? The issues raised were engine design for a particular running temp. Coolant temp doesn't indicate actual engine temp, but mainly the health of the system.

The real problem with that whole line of reasoning is the large variance of oil temps experience by stock C6 drivers in different latitudes, seasons and driving styles. Oil temps can vary from 180 - 260 (warmed up) with stock equipment. How can GM have "designed" for a particular temp, and how can a 160F thermostat catastrophically subvert that design, when the normal stock setup varies so much?

And what about here in sunny California when I start up my car in the morning and the oil temp is 60F? And that's in California... What about people living where snow falls...?

 

I didn't read Spin's post that way, but it wouldn't be the first time I've misread something. If the sensor is constantly reading too high from underhood heat, seems like the simply correction would be to shift the IAT table out 10*. Since Spin did not propose that, I inferred that the air is getting heated.