Go Back   Third Generation F-Body Message Boards > Tech Boards > Tech / General Engine
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?

Tech / General Engine Is your car making a strange sound or won't start? Thinking of adding power with a new combination? Need other technical information or engine specific advice? Don't see another board for your problem? Post it here!

Welcome to ThirdGen.org!
Welcome to ThirdGen.org.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, join the ThirdGen.org community today!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-07-2008, 08:58 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 504
Car: 1985 Camaro and 1996 Mustang GT
Engine: 350 4bbl/281
Transmission: 700R4/4R70W
Axle/Gears: 9" rear/8.8" 4.10

Classifieds Rating: (0)
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
__________________


1985 IROC Camaro - for mods and videos, check my car's myspace.
http://www.myspace.com/impaled1985iroc
impaled is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2008, 11:10 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Sonix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 10,760
Car: 1982 Trans-Am
Engine: 355 w/ ported 416s
Transmission: T10, hurst shifter
Axle/Gears: 10 bolt, true-trac, 3.73

Classifieds Rating: (1)
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.
Sonix is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2008, 12:31 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
pandin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: West Central Ohio
Posts: 1,091
Car: 86 vette
Engine: 383
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.07

Classifieds Rating: (0)
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.
pandin is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2008, 07:43 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Supervisor42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Arab, Alabama
Posts: 1,660
Car: 1988 Trans Am GTA
Engine: 350 4BBL
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.27

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: pros and cons to changing to a 160* thermostat

Quote:
Originally Posted by pandin View Post
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.
That's a good point. Too many people think that a 160° thermostat will make an engine that runs 240°, run cooler. It won't.
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.
Supervisor42 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2008, 01:06 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
TADailyDriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lowell, Michigan
Posts: 539
Car: 1988 Trans Am WS6, 1999 Grand Prix
Engine: Vortec 357
Transmission: Built TH700R4 with 26-2800 Stall
Axle/Gears: GM 10 bolt 3.73 Posi

Classifieds Rating: (8)
Send a message via AIM to TADailyDriver
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?
TADailyDriver is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2008, 02:17 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Supervisor42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Arab, Alabama
Posts: 1,660
Car: 1988 Trans Am GTA
Engine: 350 4BBL
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.27

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: pros and cons to changing to a 160* thermostat

Quote:
Originally Posted by TADailyDriver View Post
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?
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.
Supervisor42 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2008, 04:40 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
TADailyDriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lowell, Michigan
Posts: 539
Car: 1988 Trans Am WS6, 1999 Grand Prix
Engine: Vortec 357
Transmission: Built TH700R4 with 26-2800 Stall
Axle/Gears: GM 10 bolt 3.73 Posi

Classifieds Rating: (8)
Send a message via AIM to TADailyDriver
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.
TADailyDriver is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2008, 04:40 PM
ThirdGen
1992 Camaro




Paid Advertisement


Reply

Go Back   Third Generation F-Body Message Boards > Tech Boards > Tech / General Engine

Tags
160, 1996, benefits, car, carb, carburetor, changing, cons, cooler, hypertech, milage, mustang, pros, thermostat, trans
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 


1982 Camaro '82 || 1983 Camaro '83 || 1984 Camaro '84 || 1985 Camaro '85 || 1986 Camaro '86 || 1987 Camaro '87 || 1988 Camaro '88 || 1989 Camaro '89 || 1990 Camaro '90 || 1991 Camaro '91 || 1992 Camaro '92


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright © 1997 - 2012 ThirdGen.org. All rights reserved. No part of this website may be reproduced without the expressed, documented, and written consent of ThirdGen.org's Administrators.

Emails & Contact Details