12-31-2010, 02:26 AM
|
#1 (permalink)
|
Junkyard Engineer
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New Port Richey, Florida
Posts: 167
Thanks: 7
Thanked 19 Times in 12 Posts
|
Thermostat: 180 or 195?
My Metro's G10 seems to be lacking a thermostat as it will not heat up, so I went out and bought one. I got a 195 degree model on the theory that the engine would run more efficiently at a higher temperature. However, this does have me wondering if I am correct? Would the 180 have been the better choice? I'm curious if anyone has ever done A-B-A testing on this before and if it makes any real difference at all.
__________________
No green technology will ever make a substantive environmental impact until it is economically viable for most people to use it. This must be from a reduction in net cost of the new technology, not an increase in the cost of the old technology through taxation
(Note: the car sees 100% city driving and is EPA rated at 37 mpg city)
|
|
|
Today
|
|
|
Other popular topics in this forum...
|
|
|
12-31-2010, 12:25 PM
|
#2 (permalink)
|
EcoModding Lurker
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Halsey Oregon
Posts: 37
Box - '99 Chevy Metro Base Transit - '10 Ford Transit Connect Van XLT 90 day: 23.2 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
|
The 190° thermostat would be the right choice.
My 1994 FSM calls out for a 190°. Always use the correct one for the cooling system design wherever possible.
The XFI used a 197°F thermostat. That is likely the "Replacement" you got.
180° is not appropriate. Fuel consumption will be higher, and power lower running at a lower temperature.
The 195° thermostat will likely work just fine.
CJ
|
|
|
01-01-2011, 02:19 AM
|
#3 (permalink)
|
EcoModding Apprentice
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 119
Thanks: 0
Thanked 28 Times in 8 Posts
|
i changed my thermostat a while back to a hotter one and ive noticed it got a little bit better fuel economy and some tiny bit more power. no a-b testing though sorry but can try if you want
|
|
|
01-01-2011, 05:16 AM
|
#4 (permalink)
|
Junkyard Engineer
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New Port Richey, Florida
Posts: 167
Thanks: 7
Thanked 19 Times in 12 Posts
|
Sadly I have no real A to speak of or I would try to quantify the change myself. I know my car should pick up a substantial amount of FE because without the thermostat the engine would not warm up sufficiently for the ECU to go into closed loop operation. Thus, no O2 sensor data and a constant limp home mode. I am hoping to see another 5 mpg when the car goes back into service next week ( $250 cars tend to need a bit of help to become reliable!)
__________________
No green technology will ever make a substantive environmental impact until it is economically viable for most people to use it. This must be from a reduction in net cost of the new technology, not an increase in the cost of the old technology through taxation
(Note: the car sees 100% city driving and is EPA rated at 37 mpg city)
|
|
|
01-01-2011, 12:17 PM
|
#5 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 544
RaceJeep - '98 Jeep Grand Cherokee (ZJ) 5.9 Limited 90 day: 13.62 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1
Thanked 26 Times in 23 Posts
|
For mpg, warmer is better. For power, warmer engine with cold air is best.
__________________
Call me crazy, but I actually try for mpg with this Jeep:
Typical driving: Back in Rochester for school, driving is 60 - 70% city
|
|
|
01-02-2011, 02:41 PM
|
#6 (permalink)
|
EcoModding Lurker
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Wi.
Posts: 75
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
|
They make a 205* t-stat for V8 chevys, I used to run one in my 4.3L S-10year round up here in Wi. w/ no problems. You might be able to adapt that for winter use w/ alittle grinding on the stat.
|
|
|
01-04-2011, 12:52 PM
|
#7 (permalink)
|
the crazy guy in back
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Columbus, IN
Posts: 39
Cressy - '90 Toyota Cressida Pickup - '91 Toyota Pickup base
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
|
from the drag racer book-of-rules-of-thumb: colder thermostat= more power/worse FE. warmer=more FE/less power. Run stock unless you've got a good reason otherwise. unless that reason is other mods, fix the problem making you do something other than correct.
__________________
-2003 Subaru Baja 2.5 5MT
-2005 Subaru Baja 2.5T 5MT
-1994 Pontiac Firebird 5.7 V8/6MT
-2001 BMW R1200c
-1970 VW Beetle
-2015 Prius (for the wife)
"You don't get to blame me for how I fix what you broke."
|
|
|
01-06-2011, 01:03 PM
|
#8 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 544
RaceJeep - '98 Jeep Grand Cherokee (ZJ) 5.9 Limited 90 day: 13.62 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1
Thanked 26 Times in 23 Posts
|
In many cases, that's true. However, if you can up the t-stat temp without increasing air intake temps (dependent on manifold design), you get even better power due to keeping the dense air charge and increasing the engine's thermal efficiency.
__________________
Call me crazy, but I actually try for mpg with this Jeep:
Typical driving: Back in Rochester for school, driving is 60 - 70% city
|
|
|
01-12-2011, 11:40 AM
|
#9 (permalink)
|
EcoModding Apprentice
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Ivins UT
Posts: 213
Thanks: 2
Thanked 24 Times in 22 Posts
|
i went from a 205 thermostat to a 180 because i had a overheating problem and that took care of it, and from what i understand you don't need a lower thermostat because your engine isn't getting to temperature anyway. on the other side i think i'm going to go with a 165 degree thermostat cause i'm going to add a electric fan to my jeep and set it for 190 on 180 off
p.s. I read that for every 10 degrees in engine temperature decrease is another 1/4 to 1/3 a compression ratio increase you can get with the same unleaded fuel(to a point of course) and every 8 degree decrease in intake temperature is one point decrease in octane level required for increased CR
|
|
|
01-12-2011, 01:58 PM
|
#10 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 544
RaceJeep - '98 Jeep Grand Cherokee (ZJ) 5.9 Limited 90 day: 13.62 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1
Thanked 26 Times in 23 Posts
|
Stovie - Stock t-stat in your Jeep is a 195*. Going colder than a 180* will most likely trip a CEL for running too cold, and isn't good (nor is there any benefit). If you do an e-fan conversion, set it to kick on around 200* and off around 190* with the 180* t-stat.
Also, dropping to a colder t-stat doesn't fix an overheating problem unless the old stat was bad. It can simply band-aid it by allowing more time before it overheats, which typically allows time to get moving again (if it's an issue in traffic). ZJs are known for running hot in traffic, particularly with the A/C on. As long as it's no more than 1 tick mark to the right of center (just over 220*), it's not even a slight concern. If it hits the 3/4 mark (235*), then it's time to worry.
For comparison, with a 195* t-stat, mine runs 200* when cruising, up to 205* in hot weather. It'll hit 210 - 215* in traffic in the winter (mine's an e-fan, being a 5.9, so the fan cycles). In the summer, however, when the A/C is on and trips the fan sooner when stopped, it runs under 210*. It barely touched the 210* mark when climbing a hill last summer in 105* weather. It stayed around 205* when crusing, 207 - 209* when in traffic. Keep in mind that I'm putting the heat of a much bigger engine through the same sized radiator that you have. If your cooling system is up to par, it should have no issues, and shouldn't get over 215 - 220* idling in traffic with the A/C on, even in 100* weather with the mechanical fan.
__________________
Call me crazy, but I actually try for mpg with this Jeep:
Typical driving: Back in Rochester for school, driving is 60 - 70% city
|
|
|
|