|
Re: What "degree" Thermostat
[Re: ahy]
#735129
06/28/10 11:31 PM
06/28/10 11:31 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,109
Hiram, Georgia
474218
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,109
Hiram, Georgia
|
Quote:
There was a poster - with real data - that showed the cylinder wear rate trade-off vs coolant temp. Cooler temps promote collection of fuel on the cylinder walls and reduce lubrication and engine life.
Dyno and drag race experience says cooler temps around 160 make more power.
A "sweet spot" in the trade-off was 180. Wear was reduced without much power loss. Plus in older MOPAR's keeping coolant temps a bit lower that current new car standards helps keep oil temp down, oil pressure up and detonation under control.
That's why I use a 180 stat.
Another benefit is consistancy. On a roll my cooling system can always maintain 180 so temps for tuning are consistant. If it creeps up to 190/195 with extended idling and AC on a hot day that's still OK. It cools right back down when I get moving.
I bought a new 1975 Dodge B100 van. From the the day I drove it off the lot the tempature gage never read in the normal range. The highest the neddle would get was just below normal. Since I lived in the desert in California I thought that was good. Will at about 12,000 miles it started using oil, lots, a quart every 300 to 500 miles. The dealer found the rings had never seated. The reason: the themostat and the exhaust heat riser were stuck open.
Heat is required.
|
|
|
Re: 383man
[Re: dulcich]
#735133
06/29/10 07:25 AM
06/29/10 07:25 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,162
USA
360view
Moparts resident spammer
|
Moparts resident spammer
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,162
USA
|
This research from back in 1984 is interesting in that it combines in one graph both coolant temperature at the cylinder head and compression ratio's effect on both horsepower and fuel economy, not in theory but from dyno results. My pencil marks showing degrees F are not clear, so 30 degrees C = 86 degrees F 50 C = 122 F 80 C= 176 F Note that the ignition timing was optimized in the two cases to "Light Knock" at Wide Open Throttle for max power, but 'Mean Best Torque' ignition timing when at part throttle running where fuel economy was the goal. The original SAE paper might be this one: http://papers.sae.org/841294For your daily driver would you trade an 8% drop in max horsepower for a 5% improvement in fuel economy? The line for 122 degrees F might be doable in a reverse cooling set up where the cylinder head gets the cooler water and the block is at 176 degrees.
|
|
|
Re: 383man
[Re: DennisH ]
#735135
06/29/10 09:21 AM
06/29/10 09:21 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,109
Hiram, Georgia
474218
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,109
Hiram, Georgia
|
Quote:
Come on. 180 in the old school, 200 plus in the new stuff. Apples/oranges. Knuckleheads on ChallengerTalk are running 180's in the new Hemis. Not a good idea. 180 in my 440, and whatever the factory put in the new Hemi.
I have a neighbor that runs a 160 in his Studebaker. This thread is like the what kind of oil thread. Opinions are like a$$holes. Everyone has one.
Why not run what the factory put in your 440?
|
|
|
Re: 383man
[Re: stumpy]
#735137
06/29/10 01:11 PM
06/29/10 01:11 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:
So you guys are saying that the tens of thousands of man hours and thousands of engine tests the factory engineers did are wrong and your few dyno test are better judges on what is best. It sure seems fuuny that all of the auto manufactures back then arrived at the 190+ temp for running their enegines.
That is a compromise for daily driven everyday type vehicles, not HP competition motors where the optimal performance is desired. dulcich is referring to optimal performance will come with hot free flowing lubricant and engines warm enough to close up tolerance and a cool air/fuel inflow.
|
|
|
Re: What "degree" Thermostat
[Re: stumpy]
#735138
06/29/10 01:57 PM
06/29/10 01:57 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,060
Pendleton NY
terzmo
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,060
Pendleton NY
|
Quote:
terzmo, before you post anymore inaccurate info on this subject I respectfully suggest you do some reasearch. Engines have been running 195 stats from the factory for a long time and 195 is not the high end of the heat range or the gauge for older engines. 215-220 is too hot not 195. BTW nice edit on the earlier post.
post was edited a few minutes later to add a letter...not change verbage or point of the matter
|
|
|
Re: What "degree" Thermostat
[Re: terzmo]
#735139
06/29/10 07:07 PM
06/29/10 07:07 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 14,889
up yours
Supercuda
About to go away
|
About to go away
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 14,889
up yours
|
Modern engines use higher temps for a reason, it's more efficient, period.
Old school engines APPEAR to work better with colder temps simply because the intake isn't as hot. Which is NOT to say colder coolant is better, but it is to say colder intake temps are. Ever hear of icing down an intake?
Modern engines get colder intake temps by using a composite intake, not an aluminum one. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that having a composite 4bbl intake might be of benefit. But it might affect fuel suspension, which may be why they aren't made.
As for dynos, answer me this, who races a dyno? How many times have we seen an engine optimized on the dyno having a poor tune for the street?
As for the trade off between the temperature of the coolant and the affect on HP and MPG, you can have both. Years ago I had a heater hose tear a bit on my 86 Daytona. In Chicago, during a very cold winter day. I got 50 mpg on a 150 mile round trip. Hot block, ice cold intake. Been a believer in running warm coolant since.
Finally allow me to point out the no where does the OP say anything about maximum performance in regards to picking a thermostat rating.
They say there are no such thing as a stupid question.
They say there is always the exception that proves the rule.
Don't be the exception.
|
|
|
Re: What "degree" Thermostat
[Re: joedust451]
#735142
06/29/10 08:12 PM
06/29/10 08:12 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,445
N.Wilkesboro,NC
DusterKrazy
master
|
master
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,445
N.Wilkesboro,NC
|
Quote:
Why is it that "simple" threads like this turn into a debate & get tons of experts, but when someone ask a "possible" brain stormer ALL the experts disperse  . 
No kidding..
I asked what color a 1970 383 Magnum is and it turned into 3 pages of debated arguing and bs 
|
|
|
Re: 383man
[Re: dulcich]
#735143
06/29/10 08:28 PM
06/29/10 08:28 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,698
NE Oklahoma
Von
master
|
master
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,698
NE Oklahoma
|
Quote:
Cold water and hot oil will always give the most power every time.:
72 RR, Pump gas 440, 452s, 3800 lbs, Corked, ET Radials,. 11.33@117.72.
Same car, bone stock 346s, 9.5 comp, baby solid. 12.24@110.
|
|
|
Re: What "degree" Thermostat
[Re: stumpy]
#735144
06/29/10 08:37 PM
06/29/10 08:37 PM
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 2,046
ky.
kenworth_goose
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 2,046
ky.
|
Quote:
Engines are more efficent and have less wear if run at 185-195. Any lower and your not getting all it's got and are wearing parts faster. 
Are you nuts??? Any engine will wear far more at 185-195 than if you were running 160-170!! I can build tons more power at 160-170 than 185-195. Been there done that many times. Had many engines that had 195 stats and they ran good but when I'd drop to a 160 it's night and day difference. Why in the world is it the first thing to do to any car to make it proform better is to drop t-stat temp then??? Goes against everything you say.
|
|
|
Re: What "degree" Thermostat
[Re: kenworth_goose]
#735146
06/29/10 09:52 PM
06/29/10 09:52 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 32,970
Grand Prairie,Texas
stumpy
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 32,970
Grand Prairie,Texas
|
Quote:
Quote:
Engines are more efficent and have less wear if run at 185-195. Any lower and your not getting all it's got and are wearing parts faster.
Are you nuts??? Any engine will wear far more at 185-195 than if you were running 160-170!! I can build tons more power at 160-170 than 185-195. Been there done that many times. Had many engines that had 195 stats and they ran good but when I'd drop to a 160 it's night and day difference. Why in the world is it the first thing to do to any car to make it proform better is to drop t-stat temp then??? Goes against everything you say.
I've been at this since 1965 and your statements are totally wrong. Dropping thermo temp is never the first thing you do. You stick to driving trucks and I'll stick to building engines like I have for the Last 45 years.
|
|
|
Re: What "degree" Thermostat
[Re: kenworth_goose]
#735147
06/29/10 10:14 PM
06/29/10 10:14 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,222
Someplace you aren't
SomeCarGuy
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,222
Someplace you aren't
|
Quote:
Quote:
Engines are more efficent and have less wear if run at 185-195. Any lower and your not getting all it's got and are wearing parts faster.
Are you nuts??? Any engine will wear far more at 185-195 than if you were running 160-170!! I can build tons more power at 160-170 than 185-195. Been there done that many times. Had many engines that had 195 stats and they ran good but when I'd drop to a 160 it's night and day difference. Why in the world is it the first thing to do to any car to make it proform better is to drop t-stat temp then??? Goes against everything you say.
No. Engines do not wear more at 195 degrees. Not sure where you heard that.
You can make more power with cooler, denser air. No secret there.
|
|
|
|
|
