Low temp thermostat

[CSH-HQ]

What AL block gm motor is this??.
Grumpy



At 09:02 AM 10/27/99, gmecm at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu wrote:
>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
>> 
>