Hi, Kuk
At 01:45 AM 4/2/00 -0500, you wrote:
> <snip> I confirmed that the 93-95 did not go into closed loop till
>after 178-180 degrees. Therefore, the data tables that were suppossed to be
>flashed with my driving habits went to a stock WOT setting (like when the
>battery is disconnected).
I've had the 160F tstat in for a couple of weeks. My scanner showed that
the hottest the ECT got was 172F after one of my runs yesterday. Driving
to the track, the ECT was at the 160F +/- 2 and scanner showed closed loop
operation.
The reason for the 160 (was running 180 last year) is the custom programmed
computer that I picked up in the winter is calibrated for 160 (also 30#
injectors ... another story ... tried 24# ... back to stock 19#).
I recently read a message from Bill Tier about a friend that switched back
to the 180 from the 160 because of performance loss with the 160. Was
he referring to you? Can you give more details on your experiences with
the 160 and 180?
>On of the 56000 parameters was set to this 178 figure.
Not quite sure what you're referring to here.
>Flash forward to the 99, same programming parameter, YET, many 97-99
>guys put in a 160 and claimed theirs ran fine. Anyone care to test this idea
>at the track? Someone with a 95 or older and someone without a blower or
>juice on a 97 and up (I'll skip the 96 for another reason) swap the two
>different t-stats and record the differences. But this kinda goes against my
>one week theory of "learning", letting the motor see what it has. But it is
>still worth the info. As for the 95 that belongs to Chris, I would "strongly
>recommend" a 180 degree t-stat. I hope this will give you some direction in
>your choice.
I've read that, in general, generic computers don't rely much on the ECT
readings once passed the startup and warmup phase. I don't know if this
holds for mopar computers though.
My big concern with the 160 is the effect on the cyclinder walls and
the piston rings ... one of those areas where you want lower temps.
at the heads but warmer at the combustion chamber walls.
Too early to tell about performance differences with the tstats yet.
With the 180 and '96 MP PCM, last year's best was 14.91. After two
15.8x runs with the custom computer and 160, I ran a 15.2x with
the '96 MP PCM with 2-3 shift problems (did not want to go into
third and rpm was running between 5900-6000 ... scanner did show
I was doing 99 mph at the time ... probably cost me about 2/10s).
Thanks for sharing.
Bob
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:50:35 EDT