160 degree thermo. Too cold???
01-30-2003, 10:33 AM
#1
TECH Addict
Thread Starter
160 degree thermo. Too cold??? They designed these things to run at 200+ from the factory now I add a 160 thermo and the car is running 172 on the freeway.
I am worried this is too cold and I am prematurely wearing my rings.
Any opinions on this? 172 too cold or just fine?
Rings being worn faster than with the stock thermo or no?
Other input?
Thanks in advance.
I am worried this is too cold and I am prematurely wearing my rings.
Any opinions on this? 172 too cold or just fine?
Rings being worn faster than with the stock thermo or no?
Other input?
Thanks in advance.
01-30-2003, 01:20 PM
#3
TECH Addict
Thread Starter
Re: 160 degree thermo. Too cold??? Probably so but if I am doing something that is shortening the life of the engine unecessarily I want to be aware of it.
The car has 60,000 on it now and I want it to hold together to at least 100,000 if not more before it becomes necessary to tear into the internals.
The car has 60,000 on it now and I want it to hold together to at least 100,000 if not more before it becomes necessary to tear into the internals.
01-30-2003, 01:48 PM
#4
Re: 160 degree thermo. Too cold??? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Blackbird:
<strong> They designed these things to run at 200+ from the factory now I add a 160 thermo and the car is running 172 on the freeway.
I am worried this is too cold and I am prematurely wearing my rings.
Any opinions on this? 172 too cold or just fine?
Rings being worn faster than with the stock thermo or no?
Other input?
Thanks in advance. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Blackbird,
The answer to your question is yes, you will cause premature wear to your engine with a t-stat that low. Engines with low tension rings like the LS1, are prone to problems with running an engine too cold.I don't knw who in the hell came up with that stupid thermostat gimmick, and said "buy this thermostat, or doodad and you'll pick up horsepower." It's pure BS. I have been in racing engines for years, and I have never seen any benefit by running an engine that cold. In fact, just the opposite. Engines usually make their best horsepower at between 215-220 degrees. When you run em' too cold, you're dumping all your horsepower into your cooling system, and with low tension rings, you want full expansion, not contraction as it would be, by running em' too cold. I have a 99' Z28 1LE, that has a modied thermostat to run at around a little over 215 degrees. I also use Evans Coolant and have done oiling system mods. I actually picked up ponies by running it warmer.
<strong> They designed these things to run at 200+ from the factory now I add a 160 thermo and the car is running 172 on the freeway.
I am worried this is too cold and I am prematurely wearing my rings.
Any opinions on this? 172 too cold or just fine?
Rings being worn faster than with the stock thermo or no?
Other input?
Thanks in advance. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Blackbird,
The answer to your question is yes, you will cause premature wear to your engine with a t-stat that low. Engines with low tension rings like the LS1, are prone to problems with running an engine too cold.I don't knw who in the hell came up with that stupid thermostat gimmick, and said "buy this thermostat, or doodad and you'll pick up horsepower." It's pure BS. I have been in racing engines for years, and I have never seen any benefit by running an engine that cold. In fact, just the opposite. Engines usually make their best horsepower at between 215-220 degrees. When you run em' too cold, you're dumping all your horsepower into your cooling system, and with low tension rings, you want full expansion, not contraction as it would be, by running em' too cold. I have a 99' Z28 1LE, that has a modied thermostat to run at around a little over 215 degrees. I also use Evans Coolant and have done oiling system mods. I actually picked up ponies by running it warmer.
01-31-2003, 04:32 AM
#6
Teching In
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 160 degree thermo. Too cold??? Someone had a similar post to this awhile back.
The only reason these engines have such a high temp thermostat is to pass federal emissions standards. Raughammer has some GM technical papers on his website that cover the design of the LS1. Inside they explain how they came up with a new composite for the engine block so they could operate them at high temperatures. The high heat in the CC burns more impurities.
As far as a hot engine creating more power:
Excessive heat causes knock, detonation, and breaks down the oil which will reduce horsepower and the life of your engine. Heat is a product of friction. Your piston rings will not contract as stated in a post above.
The only reason these engines have such a high temp thermostat is to pass federal emissions standards. Raughammer has some GM technical papers on his website that cover the design of the LS1. Inside they explain how they came up with a new composite for the engine block so they could operate them at high temperatures. The high heat in the CC burns more impurities.
As far as a hot engine creating more power:
Excessive heat causes knock, detonation, and breaks down the oil which will reduce horsepower and the life of your engine. Heat is a product of friction. Your piston rings will not contract as stated in a post above.
01-31-2003, 04:59 PM
#7
Staging Lane
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Effingham, IL
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 160 degree thermo. Too cold??? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by mike c.:
<strong> if you are worried about the 160,i bought a 172t-stat from a place in flordia called (vinci hi-performance).my car runs around 185 to 188deg, maybe you would want to try it. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Vinci makes a reliable thermo, I runa 178* in the hot months only and I run 185 to 190* on the interstate, I go stock in the winter.
<strong> if you are worried about the 160,i bought a 172t-stat from a place in flordia called (vinci hi-performance).my car runs around 185 to 188deg, maybe you would want to try it. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Vinci makes a reliable thermo, I runa 178* in the hot months only and I run 185 to 190* on the interstate, I go stock in the winter.
Trending Topics
01-31-2003, 05:04 PM
#8
TECH Addict
Thread Starter
Re: 160 degree thermo. Too cold??? thats what I am gonna do.
1 thermo for hot summer months
1 for the cool months.
it's a 10 minute swap so why not.
thanks for the feedback everyone.
1 thermo for hot summer months
1 for the cool months.
it's a 10 minute swap so why not.
thanks for the feedback everyone.
02-01-2003, 12:16 AM
#9
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dallas-freakin'-Texas
Posts: 716
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 160 degree thermo. Too cold??? Oil temp is MUCH more important than water temp when it comes to reducing wear on the motor.
As for power production, look at it this way... heat is energy. The hotter you can get your combustion chamber (without detonation), the more power you'll make. However, with reformulated fuel, 100+ degree summer temps, etc..., coolant temps often rise to the point that hot spots are allowed to form on the head and/or piston. Hot spots cause pre-ignition. Pre-ignition is bad (unless we're talking about a diesel). A lower temp thermostat will allow the heads to be cooled better, and reduce the chances of hot spots forming on the heads. Obviously, the piston cannot be directly cooled, but *slightly* lower combustion temps/pressures will help keep hot spots from forming on the piston face. Myself, I'm willing to trade a few RWHP in the name of reliability... just because you show no KR on a 40 degree day doesn't mean that you won't see any come July.
As for power production, look at it this way... heat is energy. The hotter you can get your combustion chamber (without detonation), the more power you'll make. However, with reformulated fuel, 100+ degree summer temps, etc..., coolant temps often rise to the point that hot spots are allowed to form on the head and/or piston. Hot spots cause pre-ignition. Pre-ignition is bad (unless we're talking about a diesel). A lower temp thermostat will allow the heads to be cooled better, and reduce the chances of hot spots forming on the heads. Obviously, the piston cannot be directly cooled, but *slightly* lower combustion temps/pressures will help keep hot spots from forming on the piston face. Myself, I'm willing to trade a few RWHP in the name of reliability... just because you show no KR on a 40 degree day doesn't mean that you won't see any come July.
02-01-2003, 01:27 AM
#10
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Objects in mirror no longer matter.
Posts: 1,566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 160 degree thermo. Too cold??? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by chikn:
<strong> Mine runs around that temp on the freeway and I have the stock thermostat. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I doubt it. The stock gauge is not accurate in the least bit, check it with autotap.
<strong> Mine runs around that temp on the freeway and I have the stock thermostat. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I doubt it. The stock gauge is not accurate in the least bit, check it with autotap.
02-01-2003, 07:46 AM
#11
TECH Regular
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 160 degree thermo. Too cold??? Stock Thermo in my 98, fans reprogrammed w/ HPP3, gauge reads 175-180ISH <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> Autotap say 195. The fan reprogramming just keeps it right there while i'm sitting in traffic. My question would be, does that mean when my gauge used to read 210 I was really running at 225? HMMMM <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
02-01-2003, 07:09 PM
#12
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Objects in mirror no longer matter.
Posts: 1,566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 160 degree thermo. Too cold??? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by VipZ28:
<strong> Stock Thermo in my 98, fans reprogrammed w/ HPP3, gauge reads 175-180ISH <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> Autotap say 195. The fan reprogramming just keeps it right there while i'm sitting in traffic. My question would be, does that mean when my gauge used to read 210 I was really running at 225? HMMMM <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The gauge doesn't read in a linear fashion unfortunately, I would get a more accurate aftermarket gauge if you were worried about it <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
<strong> Stock Thermo in my 98, fans reprogrammed w/ HPP3, gauge reads 175-180ISH <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> Autotap say 195. The fan reprogramming just keeps it right there while i'm sitting in traffic. My question would be, does that mean when my gauge used to read 210 I was really running at 225? HMMMM <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The gauge doesn't read in a linear fashion unfortunately, I would get a more accurate aftermarket gauge if you were worried about it <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
02-01-2003, 07:29 PM
#13
Re: 160 degree thermo. Too cold??? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by sawedoff:
[QB Engines usually make their best horsepower at between 215-220 degrees. When you run em' too cold, you're dumping all your horsepower into your cooling system, and with low tension rings, you want full expansion, not contraction as it would be, by running em' too cold. I have a 99' Z28 1LE, that has a modied thermostat to run at around a little over 215 degrees. I also use Evans Coolant and have done oiling system mods. I actually picked up ponies by running it warmer. [/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Holy cow, someone besides myself believes that. I know for a fact that my engine makes 10rwhp more w/ the temp at 210 than at 180. Anyone who doesn't believe needs to try to do back to back runs with nothing but the temp change. *NOT OVER HOT, ONLY 200-210* That is the perfect temp imo. I made a post on that over at the other site, and it turned into a flame war. As long as you don't have detonation, it is best to run it at warmer temps. Does the engine run strong in cooler air? Of course. But some people get that mixed up with cooler engine temps. These low temp thermos are a waste of money. I did lower my fan temps just so it would not get too hot in traffic.
[QB Engines usually make their best horsepower at between 215-220 degrees. When you run em' too cold, you're dumping all your horsepower into your cooling system, and with low tension rings, you want full expansion, not contraction as it would be, by running em' too cold. I have a 99' Z28 1LE, that has a modied thermostat to run at around a little over 215 degrees. I also use Evans Coolant and have done oiling system mods. I actually picked up ponies by running it warmer. [/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Holy cow, someone besides myself believes that. I know for a fact that my engine makes 10rwhp more w/ the temp at 210 than at 180. Anyone who doesn't believe needs to try to do back to back runs with nothing but the temp change. *NOT OVER HOT, ONLY 200-210* That is the perfect temp imo. I made a post on that over at the other site, and it turned into a flame war. As long as you don't have detonation, it is best to run it at warmer temps. Does the engine run strong in cooler air? Of course. But some people get that mixed up with cooler engine temps. These low temp thermos are a waste of money. I did lower my fan temps just so it would not get too hot in traffic.
02-01-2003, 07:34 PM
#14
10 Second Club
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Berkeley, California
Posts: 1,471
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Re: 160 degree thermo. Too cold??? BrettD
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The only reason these engines have such a high temp thermostat is to pass federal emissions standards. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not the only reason. Another reason is that the cooling system works better at the higher operating temperature. The rate at which the radiator removes heat depends upon the difference between the coolant temperature and the surrounding air temperature. Maintaining a lower temperature under all conditions would require a larger radiator.
-Gary
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The only reason these engines have such a high temp thermostat is to pass federal emissions standards. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not the only reason. Another reason is that the cooling system works better at the higher operating temperature. The rate at which the radiator removes heat depends upon the difference between the coolant temperature and the surrounding air temperature. Maintaining a lower temperature under all conditions would require a larger radiator.
-Gary
02-01-2003, 08:41 PM
#15
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Objects in mirror no longer matter.
Posts: 1,566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 160 degree thermo. Too cold??? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Gary Z:
<strong> BrettD
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The only reason these engines have such a high temp thermostat is to pass federal emissions standards. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not the only reason. Another reason is that the cooling system works better at the higher operating temperature. The rate at which the radiator removes heat depends upon the difference between the coolant temperature and the surrounding air temperature. Maintaining a lower temperature under all conditions would require a larger radiator.
-Gary </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The terminal temperature difference is a measure of the radiator's effeciency, and you are correct in saying that the radiator can basically only reject so much heat out of the cooling system per unit time. My car maintains 165 degree temps on the highway and only goes up to 170 when idling. In my opinion this is an indication that the radiator is more than capable of maintaing an LS1 at these temperatures, even a large displacement motor like mine.
<strong> BrettD
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The only reason these engines have such a high temp thermostat is to pass federal emissions standards. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not the only reason. Another reason is that the cooling system works better at the higher operating temperature. The rate at which the radiator removes heat depends upon the difference between the coolant temperature and the surrounding air temperature. Maintaining a lower temperature under all conditions would require a larger radiator.
-Gary </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The terminal temperature difference is a measure of the radiator's effeciency, and you are correct in saying that the radiator can basically only reject so much heat out of the cooling system per unit time. My car maintains 165 degree temps on the highway and only goes up to 170 when idling. In my opinion this is an indication that the radiator is more than capable of maintaing an LS1 at these temperatures, even a large displacement motor like mine.
02-02-2003, 01:04 AM
#16
Staging Lane
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Effingham, IL
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 160 degree thermo. Too cold??? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by VipZ28:
<strong> Stock Thermo in my 98, fans reprogrammed w/ HPP3, gauge reads 175-180ISH <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> Autotap say 195. The fan reprogramming just keeps it right there while i'm sitting in traffic. My question would be, does that mean when my gauge used to read 210 I was really running at 225? HMMMM <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Seems like I run the best at 190 to 195. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
<strong> Stock Thermo in my 98, fans reprogrammed w/ HPP3, gauge reads 175-180ISH <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> Autotap say 195. The fan reprogramming just keeps it right there while i'm sitting in traffic. My question would be, does that mean when my gauge used to read 210 I was really running at 225? HMMMM <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Seems like I run the best at 190 to 195. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
02-02-2003, 05:12 AM
#17
On The Tree
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ft. worth TX.
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 160 degree thermo. Too cold??? the guy that said the engine performs better with the temp. being at 210 to 215 would be the wised person talking on this subject why do you think so many top racers coat the top of thier pistons an combustion chambers on thier heads, its to keep the heat inside the combustion chamber and reduce the heat on the underside crown of the piston. the hotter the fuel burn in the combustion chamber the more ponies you will recieve any questions on this issue should see the stats they run in the NASCAR series 195 on ashort track 205 on the larger tracks according to a good personal friend of mine that happens to be a crew chief for one of the not to mention NASCAR teams.
