160 F Thermostat vs 195 F
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 728
Received 29 Likes
on
22 Posts
Car: 92 Z28
Engine: Ramjet 350
Transmission: T-56
Axle/Gears: 3.23 Torsen
160 F Thermostat vs 195 F
Which is better? I have the 160 and my car really doesn't run like it use to. My temp use to always stay above 200 now I can hardly get above 180. I'm switching back to 195. Its been real cold here in l.a lately.
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: peterborough UK
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 88 T firebird
Engine: 2.8
Transmission: t5
Re: 160 F Thermostat vs 195 F
I'm running a 180 but thinking of going back to 195 myself. I dont see any gains running 180 , it was more peace of mind not overheating, I think with the fan cutting in at 220 the wider temp range between stat and fan is not a good thing either.
#5
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 728
Received 29 Likes
on
22 Posts
Car: 92 Z28
Engine: Ramjet 350
Transmission: T-56
Axle/Gears: 3.23 Torsen
Re: 160 F Thermostat vs 195 F
Yeah 195 is the way to go. I remember when I had it in there and it ran way better. And let me tell you these 3.1s love running hot and they run great too. Ive never had overheating problems ever. I even installed a fan toggle switch just incase.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post