|
|
|
Re: 160 thermostat-vs-180 thermostat & no cold weather driv
[Re: A12]
#1035863
07/21/11 12:50 PM
07/21/11 12:50 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 25,200
Upper Midwest
MoparforLife
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 25,200
Upper Midwest
|
Quote:
FWIW: Yesterday with a 160 standard flow thermostat, outside/ambient temps in the mid 90's (F) and cruising on the Ohio Turnpike at 70 mph. Sunday with similar conditions but a little cooler out the temp gauge needle was right on the next to the last line and the car puked coolant two minutes after I shut the engine off at a local cruise  . just FYI and I have no clue on a 160 versus a 180 thermostat???? 
MikeR
That is why they came out with burp tanks. wasn't that you were necessarily overheating but that the coolant quit circulating and pressure built up.
|
|
|
Re: 160 thermostat-vs-180 thermostat & no cold weather driv
[Re: az426john]
#1035865
07/21/11 01:29 PM
07/21/11 01:29 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 21,748
N.E. OHIO, USA
A12
OP
Too Many Posts
|
OP
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 21,748
N.E. OHIO, USA
|
Quote:
You can't compensate for a cooling system that is at its maximum efficiency by using a colder thermostat.
In the Arizona desert many of us use triple core radiators with 3/8" tubes on 3/8" centers. It is just a simple fact of life that anything less is marginal and will probably fail just when you don't want it to.
Understand and agree with what you and others are saying about that but why have differant heat rating thermostats at all if there is no difference between a 160, 180, 195 or why even have a thermostat if they have no affect on engine running temp or cooling? Would I be better to get an aluminum multi core radiator and electric fan and not run a thermostat in a system like that?
|
|
|
Re: 160 thermostat-vs-180 thermostat & no cold weather driv
[Re: A12]
#1035869
07/21/11 03:27 PM
07/21/11 03:27 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 33,180
Grand Prairie,Texas
stumpy
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 33,180
Grand Prairie,Texas
|
Quote:
Quote:
You can't compensate for a cooling system that is at its maximum efficiency by using a colder thermostat.
In the Arizona desert many of us use triple core radiators with 3/8" tubes on 3/8" centers. It is just a simple fact of life that anything less is marginal and will probably fail just when you don't want it to.
Understand and agree with what you and others are saying about that but why have differant heat rating thermostats at all if there is no difference between a 160, 180, 195 or why even have a thermostat if they have no affect on engine running temp or cooling? Would I be better to get an aluminum multi core radiator and electric fan and not run a thermostat in a system like that?
The different stats have an effect on what the lowest temp will be not the highest. A 160 will open at 160 and a 195 won't open until the engine hits 195. Most street engines need a 180-185 stat to operate their best. Race engines do better at 160. A 180 stat will make the engine run at least 180 but won't keep it down at 180. A 160 will make the engine run 160 but again not keep it at 160. The high temps are controlled by flow and the engine and raditors ability to dispell heat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Same here. I run a 160 and the engine NEVER goes above 170 even on 90*+ days. I DO NOT have a daily driver and my car doesn't see more than 1000 miles a year also. 
If it works , don't fix it! 
