pros and cons to changing to a 160* thermostat
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1985 Camaro and 1996 Mustang GT
Engine: 350 4bbl/281
Transmission: 700R4/4R70W
Axle/Gears: 9" rear/8.8" 4.10
pros and cons to changing to a 160* thermostat
i did a quick search about 160* thermostats, and found some useful info, but alot of it doesnt pretain to me... i have a holley 780 CFM carb and no computer at all, so what would the benefits be of switching to a 160 thermostat? i heard from one person that it killed their gas milage, but the thread did not state wether or not he had a computer controlled engine (CCQJET, TPI, TBI, etc) because i know that if you change the thermostat it can mess up the computer, but i dont have to worry about that.
i had a 160 thermostat in my old camaro and i loved it because it would never ever get too hot.
i live in florida which is a hotter climate so i am guessing that the 160 would be good in the summer, and it probably wouldnt hurt anything in the cold because it rarely goes below 60 degrees here in the winter
i had a 160 thermostat in my old camaro and i loved it because it would never ever get too hot.
i live in florida which is a hotter climate so i am guessing that the 160 would be good in the summer, and it probably wouldnt hurt anything in the cold because it rarely goes below 60 degrees here in the winter
#2
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 10,763
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Car: 1982 Trans-Am
Engine: 355 w/ ported 416s
Transmission: T10, hurst shifter
Axle/Gears: 10 bolt, true-trac, 3.73
Re: pros and cons to changing to a 160* thermostat
The t-stat just controls your lowest operating temperature. If two cars had a 160* and 180* t-stat respectively, neither one should be operating at 200*, unless there was a problem with the cooling system.
The car will burn a bit more fuel when it's running too cold.
I'd just use a 180* and not worry about it. If the car is running too hot it's not the t-stats fault, look at the rad or waterpump.
The car will burn a bit more fuel when it's running too cold.
I'd just use a 180* and not worry about it. If the car is running too hot it's not the t-stats fault, look at the rad or waterpump.
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: West Central Ohio
Posts: 1,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 86 vette
Engine: 383
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.07
Re: pros and cons to changing to a 160* thermostat
After your coolant temp gets to be 185 degrees. There is no difference in the t-stat. Both would be wide open. The time it would take to get there may be different, but once the valve is open. It is just a open hole. Same size hole, same coolant flow, same cooling.
#4
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Arab, Alabama
Posts: 1,675
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Car: 1988 Trans Am GTA
Engine: 350 4BBL
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.27
Re: pros and cons to changing to a 160* thermostat
My on 160° thermostats:
If you are running a high compression engine and fighting detonation, tooth & nail, a colder thermostat will help. Some.
Colder engines (less than 180°) form more sludge in the oil in the topside of the engine.
195° engines will get better gas mileage than 180° engines because less energy is lost to the coolant and out the radiator. All SBC's had a 180° thermostat "back in the day" until the gas shortage in the late 70's. The factory realized the engines ran cleaner and more efficient the warmer they are.
Best rule of thumb: don't run any cooler thermostat than you have to.
It only wastes money and makes your oil get dirty faster.
Like previously stated: when an engine is at 200° and above, all thermostats are the SAME. Wide open.
#5
Senior Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lowell, Michigan
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1988 Trans Am, 2005 Sierra 2500
Engine: Vortec 357
Transmission: Built TH700R4 with 26-2800 Stall
Axle/Gears: GM 10 bolt 3.73 Posi
Re: pros and cons to changing to a 160* thermostat
So what ur sayin is that 180 thermostats r better, but im thinking of buying a hypertech theromaster performance chip for my 88 T/A. It says to switch to a 160 thermostat. So should i stay with the 180 or go with a 160?
#6
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Arab, Alabama
Posts: 1,675
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Car: 1988 Trans Am GTA
Engine: 350 4BBL
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.27
Re: pros and cons to changing to a 160* thermostat
195° is best for mileage and keeping the oil clean. The performance chip will maximize performance at the expense of gas mileage. A colder engine will pull in more air since it will warm the air less. The program on the chip is probably set up around the engine staying "cold" (160°) so it can put more gas with the extra air for more power. If the chip manufacturer says use a 160, then use that. As long as you don't expect the same highway mileage as the stock setup you will be fine.
#7
Senior Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lowell, Michigan
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1988 Trans Am, 2005 Sierra 2500
Engine: Vortec 357
Transmission: Built TH700R4 with 26-2800 Stall
Axle/Gears: GM 10 bolt 3.73 Posi
Re: pros and cons to changing to a 160* thermostat
im not too worried about gas milage as it will be a street/strip car but im only going to drive it to car shows and whenever the weather is nice. It already gets bad gas milage with my cat cut out and the egr valve not fuctioning because of that lol.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post