My mileage hasen't decreased!
Jason
>
>One of the main reasons for taking the temps up to 200 in the first place
>was due to Smog Control...good old EPA decided that a hotter running engine
>produced less emissions. True...but at a sacrifice on power. Now, most of
>the engines run at close to 200 without any problems...but run them a
little
>cooler (not too cold though) and you'll see slightly better performance.
>
>Have I see any degradations in mileage even on my Dak...nope. Any on my
>co-workers 5.2L Dak with the 180...nope (his actually got better).
>Remember, the 180 runs normally at 185-187...not 180...and the 190 runs
>around 195-197 as well. (Conditions vary obviously.)
>
>I'm not that familiar with the principles you're talking about...I just
know
>what works from "real world" experiences.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <SuperNagz@aol.com>
>To: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
>Sent: Thursday, May 13, 1999 4:17 PM
>Subject: Re: DML: Re: 180 thermo (hurts mileage)
>
>
>> Well then maybe there were some other variables involved that somehow
>managed
>> to get you greater mileage.
>>
>> All I am saying that it is a thermodynamic principle that clearly states
>the
>> lower the temperature, the lower the efficiency of the cycle... and of
>> course, the opposite holds true... the higher the temps, the better the
>> efficiency.
>>
>> Keep in mind, I am talking about the operating temperatures... and not
the
>> incoming air temperatures... we all know the cooler the incoming air,
>the
>> more dense it is... the more dense it is.. the more oxygen it contains...
>>
>> This is not a flame in any way... all I am simply stating is that, "all
>> things held constant... going from a 200 to a 180 degree t-stat will
yield
>> lower mpg"
>>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:14:03 EDT