GEN 2 anyone running a 170 thermostat?

[Ruger]

The beauty of the internet: Everyone you meet on the internet is an engineer, scientist, lawyer or law enforcement professional. Or all of the above.

Or a sasquatch hunter!
(Hee-hee)

 

[nikhsub1]

Gotta be a dem... you're right and anybody else who thinks otherwise is wrong.

Nope. Facts are facts. This is not about opinion. Do your own research, IDGAF what you think.

https://blog.viscosity.com/blog/bid/372966/heat-exchanger-velocity-why-should-i-care

Careful, lots of math in this one

https://www.ripublication.com/ijaer18/ijaerv13n14_04.pdf

 

[dhmcfadin]

Zero benefits. In today's computer controlled (ECU) cars, using a lower thermostat will just confuse the car thinking it isn't all the way up to temp possibly leading to premature fouled plugs and/or O2 sensors. There is no reason to change the stock thermostat.

Not true. With a tune, the 170 degree stat does a lot more than just drop engine operating temps. It allows you to run more timing and helps with egt’s. Both of which are extremely important in a forced induction engine.

 

[BIG TIME BALLER]

Nope. Facts are facts. This is not about opinion. Do your own research, IDGAF what you think.

https://blog.viscosity.com/blog/bid/372966/heat-exchanger-velocity-why-should-i-care

Careful, lots of math in this one

https://www.ripublication.com/ijaer18/ijaerv13n14_04.pdf

Comical my friend. You link some thermal dynamic info and think it describes how a cooling system works on a car. I suppose you think these links would also suffice in a AC discussion? Fact is, I am an ME (Mechanical Engineer to you), math is my strong suit. Iv also worked on cars for 20+ years and just about anything else mechanical or electrical.

So to summarize your thoughts... moving fluid through a heat exchanger at a faster rate = lower temps... is that the jist of it? With no regard to fluid volume? With no regard to the efficiency of the heat exchanger? With no regard to ambient temps, surface area of the heat exchanger? Just pump it through faster...

Let me guess... couple years out of school... no real work or life experience... just academic?

 

[zemuron99]

moving fluid through a heat exchanger at a faster rate = lower temps... is that the jist of it? With no regard to fluid volume? With no regard to the efficiency of the heat exchanger? With no regard to ambient temps, surface area of the heat exchanger? Just pump it through faster...

I would think (and I really do want to understand this more, so bear with me) that nikhsub1's statement is true to a point, higher flow thru the radiator = cooler engine, as long as the fluid is able to shed the head equally to the rate at which it gains it. In other words heat in at the source (engine) = heat out at the radiator. Insufficient heat rejection (flow too fast, not enough time in the radiator), and the heat will accumulate until the engine overheats. GREATER heat rejection than accumulation, and there's a net heat loss, cooling the engine more over time. The rate at which heat is gained and shed is based on the differences in temperature (delta-T) between the engine components and the coolant (heat gain) and the difference between the air temp and coolant temps in the radiator (heat rejection). Cooler coolant picks up more heat from the engine. However, it then sheds it somewhat more slowly as the delta-T between the coolant and ambient air is slightly smaller...so you can't pass it too quickly thru the radiator, or it won't shed as much heat as it gains.

However, the determining factor of how much time the coolant spends in the radiator isn't really the t-stat itself, but engine speed. Once the t'stat is fully open, it's no longer regulating flow. Rather, it's the engine itself: Higher speed (RPM) = faster water pump action = higher coolant flow throughout the system. Now you could floor it in 3rd gear, and at (I'm guessing here) 35 mph get the same coolant system flow (volume/time) as flooring it in 6-7th (or whichever gear lets you hit red-line before the speed limiter kicks in). But in the latter case you'd be generating much more heat in the engine, so the coolant must still be able to reject sufficient heat (regardless of the ambient temperature) to maintain a stable engine temperature. Anything less = overheating, anything more = t-stat closing. So wouldn't the Ford engineers design the system so at maximum heat generation (107 mph, 2900 RPM), the coolant stays in the radiator long enough to provide adequate cooling up to say 85 or 90* ambient? Of course towing, and then towing uphill adds even more complexity to this...

So...two identical engines except for the T'stat run under identical conditions. Both able to maintain the set temp of the t-stat. Won't the one with the cooler coolant (170 degree t-stat) have cooler internal temperatures (larger delta-T between engine and coolant), enabling as dhmcfadin said more spark advance, more aggressive valve timing, a leaner mixture (less evaporative cylinder cooling needed) etc, generating more power?

I guess to really know if there's benefit or harm, we'd need to know at what coolant temp the engine transitions from open loop (below full op temp) to closed loop, where the a/f ratio is determined from mainly the oxygen sensor(s). As long as it's warm enough to hit closed loop there shouldn't be any issue with plugs / sensors fouling, as the computer will manage the a/f ratio to maintain 14.7:1 air to fuel. Or...am I all wrong here?

 

[zemuron99]

Gotta be a dem... you're right and anybody else who thinks otherwise is wrong.

Right, because we all know how flexible Republicans are in their opinions. Science much?

 

[nikhsub1]

Comical my friend. You link some thermal dynamic info and think it describes how a cooling system works on a car. I suppose you think these links would also suffice in a AC discussion? Fact is, I am an ME (Mechanical Engineer to you), math is my strong suit. Iv also worked on cars for 20+ years and just about anything else mechanical or electrical.

So to summarize your thoughts... moving fluid through a heat exchanger at a faster rate = lower temps... is that the jist of it? With no regard to fluid volume? With no regard to the efficiency of the heat exchanger? With no regard to ambient temps, surface area of the heat exchanger? Just pump it through faster...

Let me guess... couple years out of school... no real work or life experience... just academic?

You being an ME doesn't mean anything to me as you clearly don't know what you are talking about on this particular subject. That is what is comical. Just admit you're wrong and move on, no big deal. And your summarization of my 'thoughts' (they aren't thoughts, they are facts) is wrong, clearly you missed the point where I said 'all things being equal', faster flow rate through a heat exchanger is always better - key words here are all things being equal.

Not sure what my political views have to do with anything and the generalization is typical of someone who can't win a fact based discussion.

 

[dewalt]

I have pulled a thermostat on a gas engine in a tandem to try and cool it. Didn't work. Some 855 Cummins ran a low flow rad. 350 horse and an 1.25 rad hose. They called it a low flow rad. Didn't work. No degrees. Just observations from pushing a skinny pedal trying to get more horsepower out than was built for

 

[Ruger]

Right, because we all know how flexible Republicans are in their opinions. Science much?

That's how to ruin a thread.
Everyone desist.
There are things to learn here, and it won't happen if we get political and/or personal.

 

[goblues38]

That escalated quickly