Low temp thermostat

[digi]

What about the newest cars? They run 220-230, is that for emission
purposes only or is there some other design factor? I think thats kinda
high, I've been wanting to put a 195 thermostat in it because from my
experience, thats just too high especially for a aluminum block motor.

Thoughts?

On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Mike Rolica wrote:

> Geez,  I guess everybody is smarter than all them engineers at ford gm and
> D.C. that spend millions of man hours designing automobile engines.  
> Kinda funny that most cars use 190-195 deg thermostat.  Them engineers musta
> picked a number and stuck with it for no reason. With all the advances in
> engine tech of getting more power from each ci, I guess they coulda just
> saved a whole whack of money and put lower thermostats in a car.  My
> experience with oval track motors, 185-195 makes the most power no matter
> how you jet/rework the carb at 165 deg.  With over 1000hrs of dyno testing
> done on these motors not once have I seen one make more power with 165 water
> temp.  Things are done for a reason, and emissions is bs. Why do late 60's
> cars use 195 deg thermo, They obviously were not concerned when they built
> ma pa's 1967 chevelle, 396,375hp bbc. (8mpg).
> You may say then why can you get more power than stock motor?  Probalby
> because the stuff that makes real power is allot more expensive, ie porting,
> supercharging ect and not production line cost effectrive. They have to work
> with production line/mass production tolerances.  All motors have a saftey
> factor built into them, so that there is less chance of faliure.
> 
> 
> COST COST COST is why 350chev don't make 400hp out of the factory.  If
> changing a $2 thermostat made 30hp, I'm sure they would have already done
> that! And they could have found some way to cut the extra emmisions it made!
> 
> Just my view anyways.  Have read them kids mag.s before, for people that
> know squat about cars but like to think they do.  I know a little bit, quick
> fixes I just think about it, ask why would the guys that know allot
> (manufacturers) did not do that, and try to  come up with a reason why. Most
> of the time it is because it is BS
> Mike Rolica
> EXT. 260
>  :-)
> 
> 
> 	-----Original Message-----
> 	From:	JTesta1966 at aol.com [SMTP:JTesta1966 at aol.com]
> 	Sent:	Wednesday, October 27, 1999 8:23 AM
> 	To:	gmecm at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu
> 	Subject:	Re: Low temp thermostat
> 
> 	In a message dated 10/27/99 5:00:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> 	mwichstr at online.no writes:
> 
> 	<< My guess is that an engine with problems with its digestion ,you
> can make
> 	 the engine run hotter to evaporate the fuel better and have a
> compleate
> 	 combustion at low output.(think emisions)
> 	 High output will suffer.Hot air ,less oxygen molecules. You dont
> need the
> 	 hot eviroment t >>
> 
> 	Hmm...I'd have thought in a PFI car, the concerns would be more of
> thermal 
> 	expansion and not atomization since the FI's are really spraying at
> an open 
> 	intake valve? I can see your point on a TBI or Carb'd car however. I
> mean, I 
> 	know an engine runs more efficiently at high temps, (I remember an
> article 
> 	where Smokey Yunik got 400+hp our of a Pont 2.5 and it was ultimatly
> a zero 
> 	emissions engine (like 95% efficient) Cuz it ran hot, and used the
> heat to 
> 	preatomize the fuel etc. Was pretty neat article. Was in an old
> HotRod or 
> 	that type of mag.) But'd make more POWER at low temps, or maybe I
> should 
> 	reiterate, at low CHARGE temps.
> 
> 	Jim
>