ChocoTaco369

by no means will a 160* thermostat destroy your engine. however, it will cut your fuel economy and over time will likely wear your engine more. the key word here is overtime. eventually, all engines wear out and break. a 160* thermostat will simply wear your engine to its eventual demise sooner. how soon is you and my best guess.

i just don't see the extra few hp, if any at all, worth the loss in fuel economy and eventual engine wear, but that's just me. i regretted doing it last time. i wish i had my money back.

99blancoSS

iTrader: (115)

SO your saying that you changed your therm, was the ONLY mod you did, and you lost fuel economy and you think it was ruining your engine?

I'm not sure where your proof is. If your using your oil color as proof its not valid in your case given the fact that you run seafoam. I cant argue with you saying you lost gas mileage, I wasnt there. But I do ask did you drive the same way? This is a big question. Most people dont just swap their therm for a performance enhancement in the first place . But then when people do peformance enhancements they tend to drive it a bit more aggresively intentional or not.

Honestly I like to see some real proof in the pudding acurate facts. I'm running a 160 and havent noticed a difference one way or the other that I can really say with certainty.

I'm not trying to be difficult here, I have just never heard anyone say a 160 therm was ruining they're engine.

Also oil being created that can run at higher temps doesnt mean that they aren't effective at a lower temperature. It means it can withstand the highher temps and not breakdown. Runing the engine 10 degrees lower is not going against the properties of the oil and enhancing engine wear.

Show me one shred of real proof from an industry leader and I'll become an instant believer. Like a motor oil company stating that their product will only work properly at a minimum temperature of 195 or what ever temp you want to use between 220 and 160.

jmm98LS1

iTrader: (28)

I'll reiterate:
-10k miles on stock t'stat, 50k miles on 160 stat
-fuel economy stayed exactly the same
-oil temp gets to 225 degrees after 15 mins of driving
-engine internals were spotless at 60k miles
-tranny temps dropped considerably across the board (~10 degrees, very good thing)
-coolant temps stay around 176-184F

Running too cold of a thermostat can do some of the thing's Choco has stated (less efficient burn, yada yada), so his theory is not far off....just his practice. A 160 stat is not too cold for the LS1, and your properly maintained engine will live every bit as long as one with a stock t'stat. Case------closed.

ChocoTaco369

i'm just tellin ya, i saw some negatives but no positives on my '95 V6 firebird. i wish i had my 60 bucks back. it didn't do any good for me. if you guys wanna do it, go ahead, but any gains you 'feel' will likely be in your head. i think IMO you're better off saving your money and putting it toward something else.

DONAIMIAN

iTrader: (18)

ok I take it back, it is some truth, but you would be just as tired of seeing him post as I am if you were to read his conspiracy(sp) theory about ethonal in the advanced section.

TooSlow02

First of all, the oil doesn't actually wear out. Just the additive package is consumed, and deposits that are supposed to be held in suspension accumulate, which requires the oil to be changed. Second of all, modern synthetics do not "break down" until 450-500 degrees F, and even dino oil can withstand 300 F. My LS1 Corvette routinely experienced 250+ oil temps during high speed runs, and the oil wasn't "broken down". After my t-stat install, the oil temps still went just as high just as quickly. The only thing that helped was an oil cooler, which regulated the oil in the pan to around 195-210 degrees F.

There is absolutely no truth to this. The only thing in oil that's "heat activated" are the expanding polymers that increase viscosity with temperature which allows an oil to be multi-weight. Detergents clean regardless of temperature. Running your engine so cold that it doesn't enter closed loop mode (which is common in the V6 engines, especially the 3.4L) will increase fuel consumption, but that isn't a problem with the LS1 since the actual engine coolant temperature only drops roughly 10-15 degrees F and the PCM doesn't rely solely on coolant temperature as an indicator of actual engine temperature as the older engines did. And the comparison to 60's engines? Complete BS. 60's engines ran dirty because they were carbuerated, ran rich, had no feedback control, no PVC system, very few additives in the oil, shitty (if any) oil filters, shitty fuel filters, shitty air filters, had more combustion pressure blowback, ran on leaded gas, were much much less efficient, and were installed in heavy land barges that put a great deal of load on an engine. The reason today's engines run so much cleaner is simple: over 40 years worth of technological advancements. Not because they ran "cold" (which they didn't).

Why, because the coolant temperature is 10 degrees cooler? Running an engine with a 160 degree t-stat in hot weather still wouldn't cause as much of a temperature reduction as driving your car in freezing weather. And oil temperature is not directly affected by coolant temperature at all unless you have an oil-to-water oil cooler.

On a OBDI controlled V6 that's running in open loop because of low coolant temperature reading? Perhaps. On an OBDII controlled LS1? BS. My Corvette still got 34 MPG highway.

It's kind of hard to notice a small gain in horsepower on a turd 3.4L V6. There's really no comparison whatsoever. I use one because it's hot as hell where I live. But I also use a BeCool radiator, a four-core power steering cooler, a six-core oil cooler, twin Spal fans, water wetter, and a different coolant mix to keep my temps rock-steady at 185 degrees when ambient is 130 in the shade. Cooler weather just increases my power and my fuel economy.

Somebody09

Good post TooSlow02. I think I'll get the 160° stat. lol. I'm going to get a 3000 stall (maybe even higher) and NOT a tranny cooler so hopefully that'll keep my temps what they were before my head swap (194°-196°). And if it's too cold, then it's only $50 for the 180º + $5 for coolant.

jmm98LS1

iTrader: (28)

I hope you're joking......you might as well start saving a couple grand for a new tranny then, because yours won't last long without a tranny cooler. A good tranny cooler IS AN ABSOLUTE MUST with a higher-than-stock stall. It's even a damn good idea with the stock stall.

keliente

iTrader: (22)

You're not going to lose 4mpg with a 160 degree thermostat...it's not like the engine is actually running at 160. I had a 160 degree thermo in both of my Z28's because it makes it a touch easier to keep things cooler at the track...both cars were 20 mpg in the city and 30mpg highway.

bene

iTrader: (16)

Listen to this mechanic, she knows what she's talking about.

hammertime

iTrader: (1)

So adding a 160* t-stat is ok for our cars...good.

I was hoping to lower temps a bit when I do H/C on mine so I can get by with a bit more compression. Anyone want to comment on what SCR and DCR they've run with lower temperature t-stat's and associated cooling system mods?

I'm assuming M6 cars without tranny coolers, but include that if it's relevant.

FASTCAMAROMAN

iTrader: (1)

i got the 187 not 2 hot for summer or 2 cold for winter just perfect

spy2520

iTrader: (3)

just a side question. how much impact does changing the coolant thermostat have on oil temps anyway?

jmm98LS1

iTrader: (28)

I noticed no change, mine still climbs north of 225 degrees measured at the oil filter.

SSDoubleK

iTrader: (100)

This issue will be debated forever, so many posts on this subject, I put in the 160TStat and am staying with it.

Sigforty

It is a PCV (positive crankcase ventilation) system not PVC. PVC stands for polyvinyl chloride, and is commonly used in plumbing pipes.

Gun5

iTrader: (37)

i got a electric pump, 160 stat, and a ram air hood with extractors... i run at 180-190 in the 110 texas heat.. thinking about putting water wetter in or should I just leave it?? thats just driving around not going crazy (5k-6k)

Gearhead1

Me too!! A 160 was just too cold for me in the winter. I only live ten miles from work and my car is not garaged. A 160 just wasn't cutting it on those mornings with the temps in the teens. Also, I leave for work at 5AM so there wasn't any warming from the sun going on. Brrrr!!!!

bene

iTrader: (16)

Where do live? Alaska?

bjamick

iTrader: (31)

well from what ive always known a car that runs at 210degrees will not run as good as a car that is running at 180.