GM Engine & Exhaust Performance EFI | GEN I/GEN II/GEN III/GEN IV Engines |Small Block | Big Block |

160 therm any good or do you...

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Mar 18, 2007 | 10:01 AM
  #1  
ty02silv's Avatar
Thread Starter
Teching In
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Default 160 therm any good or do you...

i'm new to the trucks into the lt1 camaros, but i know on the camaros if you put a 160 therm in you have a tune done to turn on your fans sooner. does it work that way with the 5.3 trucks or cant you turn the fans on sooner?
Reply
Old Mar 18, 2007 | 10:14 AM
  #2  
nightrunner's Avatar
Mr. Obvious
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,006
Likes: 2
From: Manchester, TN
Default

you can but it doesnt rally help the gen 3 motors any they are made to run hotter than the gen 1 or 2 sbc, basically all it does for us is lose 1-2mpg
Reply
Old Mar 18, 2007 | 10:44 AM
  #3  
bluecajun5.3's Avatar
11 Second Truck Club
20 Year Member
iTrader: (31)
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,861
Likes: 0
From: Breaux Bridge, LA
Default

Originally Posted by nightrunner
you can but it doesnt rally help the gen 3 motors any they are made to run hotter than the gen 1 or 2 sbc, basically all it does for us is lose 1-2mpg
humm...
well if they were made to run hotter, then why does my engine run alot faster at the track with a cooled down engine compared to when it's hot?
Reply
Old Mar 18, 2007 | 10:48 AM
  #4  
nightrunner's Avatar
Mr. Obvious
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,006
Likes: 2
From: Manchester, TN
Default

ok i'll say i have read this on this fourm on more than one occassion

im saying the gen3 motors are made to run a little warmer than the gen1 sbc

and more than one member reported no to little gains with the 160-degree tstat and lost 1-2 mpg, one memeber that sticks out it chevy6000vho
Reply
Old Mar 18, 2007 | 11:09 AM
  #5  
truckmann's Avatar
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0
From: OK
Default


I was thinking about doing the same thing, but a former employee of the GM R&D team that we all know around here informed me on what nightrunner is saying. I trust his input so I decided there was no reason for me to put in a 160 thermostat.
Reply
Old Mar 18, 2007 | 12:20 PM
  #6  
Formulized94's Avatar
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (68)
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 707
Likes: 0
From: Cleveland, TN
Default

I will lose a mile or two per gallon to let the engine run a little cooler. Les heat keeps wear down also, it is proven....
Reply
Old Mar 18, 2007 | 12:35 PM
  #7  
Quik's Avatar
5 year bitches!
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,890
Likes: 2
From: Pittsburgh!!!!!!!! Pa
Default

Originally Posted by Formulized94
I will lose a mile or two per gallon to let the engine run a little cooler. Les heat keeps wear down also, it is proven....
not enough heat is harmful also
Reply
Old Mar 18, 2007 | 12:36 PM
  #8  
Quik's Avatar
5 year bitches!
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,890
Likes: 2
From: Pittsburgh!!!!!!!! Pa
Default

160 isnt worth it by no means unless you have a boosted motor or a large cubed motor which takes alot of timing.

our motors need to be above 178* to function properly

so for average person 180 is more then enough
Reply
Old Mar 18, 2007 | 12:44 PM
  #9  
Derek @ EDO's Avatar
FormerVendor
iTrader: (73)
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,072
Likes: 8
From: Baton Rouge, LA
Default

your not going to run 160 with a 160 stat I have one and i run 178-180 right where i should be.
Reply
Old Mar 18, 2007 | 04:41 PM
  #10  
Formulized94's Avatar
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (68)
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 707
Likes: 0
From: Cleveland, TN
Default

Originally Posted by DLH2006
your not going to run 160 with a 160 stat I have one and i run 178-180 right where i should be.

exactly, oh well. This topic will always be biased to no end. If you want it buy it, if not dont. It seems maybe you should look for a 280 thermostat, it may run better then j/k
Reply



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:45 PM.