CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.
160 or 180?
- Thread starter Jonny-K5
- Start date
most chips want u to run a 160 degree thermostat
I would go 180, far as I know the computer will not go into closed loop mode if it only is allowed to warm up to 160.
I agree with rjfguitar about using the 180*, 195* is stock and a 160* will not allow it to go into closed loop like he said.
Gotta hide the pinging from too far advanced timing somehow. /forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif
[ QUOTE ]
Gotta hide the pinging from too far advanced timing somehow. /forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah exactly, far as I know all those chips do is advance the timing and require you to use premium fuel. I would think the money would be better spent on a good intake filter and throttle body spacer or something. /forums/images/graemlins/dunno.gif
Gotta hide the pinging from too far advanced timing somehow. /forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah exactly, far as I know all those chips do is advance the timing and require you to use premium fuel. I would think the money would be better spent on a good intake filter and throttle body spacer or something. /forums/images/graemlins/dunno.gif
why "performance chips" are garbage
I've seen the results of these chips on CCC cars too..talking about cars running 16's in the quarter, and gaining at best 1/10th. Not nearly worth it being forced to run premium fuel all the time.
I've seen the results of these chips on CCC cars too..talking about cars running 16's in the quarter, and gaining at best 1/10th. Not nearly worth it being forced to run premium fuel all the time.
what is closed loop mode, and how do i know if it's going into it?? i've been running a 160 ever since i rebuilt my engine, and it runs great, and has never tripped a code.
also, i found out mine has some "performance chip" in it. i didnt buy it. but, i run regular fuel, and it seems to run just fine.
also, i found out mine has some "performance chip" in it. i didnt buy it. but, i run regular fuel, and it seems to run just fine.
Well, I think that if it is not in closed loop than it stays in warm up mode. Does it smell rich at all?
Closed loop is essentially when the ECM is using feedback from the sensors to determine engine conditions. Typically people consider the O2 sensor being in use as closed loop.
I know you can turn off "flags" in the PROM ("chip") to disable codes, so anything is possible, depending on how the chip was programmed. As is mentioned in the article I cited, you can get a fair amount of performance out of chip burning, without resorting to premium fuel. (IE not just more advance)
I know you can turn off "flags" in the PROM ("chip") to disable codes, so anything is possible, depending on how the chip was programmed. As is mentioned in the article I cited, you can get a fair amount of performance out of chip burning, without resorting to premium fuel. (IE not just more advance)
no it doesn't smell rich....
when i bought it, it had 200k miles on the original motor w/ the 195. it was tripping the o2 sensor code. i replaced the o2 sensor, and the code went away. i, then, rebuilt the motor, and stuck a 160 in there. it runs great, and doesn't trip codes.
is having the 160 bad for it? should i put a 180 in? i dont seem to be having any problems at all.
when i bought it, it had 200k miles on the original motor w/ the 195. it was tripping the o2 sensor code. i replaced the o2 sensor, and the code went away. i, then, rebuilt the motor, and stuck a 160 in there. it runs great, and doesn't trip codes.
is having the 160 bad for it? should i put a 180 in? i dont seem to be having any problems at all.
If you aren't throwing codes, then it's probably not a problem.
People have varying results with the 160 t-stats. The simple fact of the matter is, the thermostat means nothing, only the engine temperature the ECM sees. Obviously those two are tied together, but in many situations, the vehicle runs quite a bit warmer than the thermostats rated temperature. Scanning the ECM is the way to go to see what the ECM sees for engine temp.
I'd like to see some back to back dyno tests on an injected motor to see what kind of effect engine temp has. Heat in the combustion chamber makes power, (see aluminum heads vs. iron) but hot intake charge costs power, so personally I think there's probably not much difference whichever way you go. Newer GM engines (and probably all other makers) are getting a lot of power out of engines running 195* plus, would be interesting to see if there was much difference changing the t-stat.
People have varying results with the 160 t-stats. The simple fact of the matter is, the thermostat means nothing, only the engine temperature the ECM sees. Obviously those two are tied together, but in many situations, the vehicle runs quite a bit warmer than the thermostats rated temperature. Scanning the ECM is the way to go to see what the ECM sees for engine temp.
I'd like to see some back to back dyno tests on an injected motor to see what kind of effect engine temp has. Heat in the combustion chamber makes power, (see aluminum heads vs. iron) but hot intake charge costs power, so personally I think there's probably not much difference whichever way you go. Newer GM engines (and probably all other makers) are getting a lot of power out of engines running 195* plus, would be interesting to see if there was much difference changing the t-stat.
[ QUOTE ]
If you aren't throwing codes, then it's probably not a problem.
People have varying results with the 160 t-stats. The simple fact of the matter is, the thermostat means nothing, only the engine temperature the ECM sees. Obviously those two are tied together, but in many situations, the vehicle runs quite a bit warmer than the thermostats rated temperature. Scanning the ECM is the way to go to see what the ECM sees for engine temp.
I'd like to see some back to back dyno tests on an injected motor to see what kind of effect engine temp has. Heat in the combustion chamber makes power, (see aluminum heads vs. iron) but hot intake charge costs power, so personally I think there's probably not much difference whichever way you go. Newer GM engines (and probably all other makers) are getting a lot of power out of engines running 195* plus, would be interesting to see if there was much difference changing the t-stat.
[/ QUOTE ]
Dorian is right, engine temp makes a big difference on some motors.
My 406 made 40 some plus horses when we had it on the dyno when it was nice and cool compared to running temp. /forums/images/graemlins/eek.gif
Like he said, the engine usually runs warmer than the t-stat settings, I have a 180 and mine runs 195 all day long, mechanical guage reading too.
If you aren't throwing codes, then it's probably not a problem.
People have varying results with the 160 t-stats. The simple fact of the matter is, the thermostat means nothing, only the engine temperature the ECM sees. Obviously those two are tied together, but in many situations, the vehicle runs quite a bit warmer than the thermostats rated temperature. Scanning the ECM is the way to go to see what the ECM sees for engine temp.
I'd like to see some back to back dyno tests on an injected motor to see what kind of effect engine temp has. Heat in the combustion chamber makes power, (see aluminum heads vs. iron) but hot intake charge costs power, so personally I think there's probably not much difference whichever way you go. Newer GM engines (and probably all other makers) are getting a lot of power out of engines running 195* plus, would be interesting to see if there was much difference changing the t-stat.
[/ QUOTE ]
Dorian is right, engine temp makes a big difference on some motors.
My 406 made 40 some plus horses when we had it on the dyno when it was nice and cool compared to running temp. /forums/images/graemlins/eek.gif
Like he said, the engine usually runs warmer than the t-stat settings, I have a 180 and mine runs 195 all day long, mechanical guage reading too.
Eric M.
1/2 ton status
I think I read in one of the shop manuals that the ECM goes into closed loop when it sees 140 degrees.
Eric M.
Eric M.
[ QUOTE ]
no it doesn't smell rich....
when i bought it, it had 200k miles on the original motor w/ the 195. it was tripping the o2 sensor code. i replaced the o2 sensor, and the code went away. i, then, rebuilt the motor, and stuck a 160 in there. it runs great, and doesn't trip codes.
is having the 160 bad for it? should i put a 180 in? i dont seem to be having any problems at all.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well I have tried this before on a non GM engine so I am not sure it will be the same but with the lower temp thermostat, it did run rich, I didn't smell it but the Mileage dropped drastically, when I put the higher temp stat back, it got me good mileage again, just food for thought.
/forums/images/graemlins/thumb.gif
no it doesn't smell rich....
when i bought it, it had 200k miles on the original motor w/ the 195. it was tripping the o2 sensor code. i replaced the o2 sensor, and the code went away. i, then, rebuilt the motor, and stuck a 160 in there. it runs great, and doesn't trip codes.
is having the 160 bad for it? should i put a 180 in? i dont seem to be having any problems at all.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well I have tried this before on a non GM engine so I am not sure it will be the same but with the lower temp thermostat, it did run rich, I didn't smell it but the Mileage dropped drastically, when I put the higher temp stat back, it got me good mileage again, just food for thought.
/forums/images/graemlins/thumb.gif
