Cooler Thermostats bad?

[mullens]

With many of us going to cooler t-stats, the benefits are obvious. On the other hand I'm hearing that a cooler t-stat makes our engines run richer, hurting mileage and wearing on the internals. Does anyone have any info on this? I went to a 170, which actually runs at 176 on the freeway.

Thanks

[k9eros]

I have a 180 which actually runs about 185 at a cruise, and haven't noticed a major MPG change. I have also heard of increased wear from cooler temps, but I had a 160 in my Impala SS for 203,000 miles and it still ran strong when I sold it.

[PowerWagon896]

I posted a thread about this subject in the "Knowledge Base".

I can't post the link on this computer. (work).

Go to the "Knowledge Base", "Engine, Trans and Exhaust" & look for . "Low temp thermostats and engine wear".

General concensis is that as long as you do not get much below 180* there will be no significant increase in engine wear.

[PowerWagon896]

I posted a thread about this subject in the "Knowledge Base".

I can't post the link on this computer. (work).

Go to the "Knowledge Base", "Engine, Trans and Exhaust" & look for . "Low temp thermostats and engine wear".

General concensis is that as long as you do not get much below 180* there will be no significant increase in engine wear.

I just gave it a "boot".

[FloridaRT]

Stick with the 180 stat..................no problems.

Bob

[Guest]

On a stock motor SRT Engineering suggests that you not change the thermo. The engine will run too rich.

If you have modified your motor where it is leaned out a bit then it can't hurt much.

[mullens]

Thanks for all the responses. It sounds like the 180 (actually 185) is the best balance of power without hurting mileage or internals. A caution to all that are running the NAPA 191. I don't beleive it is a bypass type t-stat required in the hemis. There is no lower disc on that t-stat.