Some Performance Parts - Page 2 - GM Forum - Buick, Cadillac, Chev, Olds, GMC & Pontiac chat


Performance, Brainstorming & Tuning Talk about modifications, or anything else associated with performance enhancements. Have a new idea for performance/reliability? Post it here. No idea is stupid! (please use Detailing and Appearance for cosmetic ideas)

Reply
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-06-2007, 01:04 AM   #11
Senior Member
Posts like a Turbo
Thread Starter
 
LeSabreUltra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Alabama
Posts: 494
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
LeSabreUltra is on a distinguished road
Default

And there it is! Thank you very much for the information.

Though I must also ask, not having done this before, how difficult is the installation?
.
.
.
LeSabreUltra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2007, 07:21 AM   #12
Senior Member
True Car Nut
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,688
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
dillcc is on a distinguished road
Default

EASY! Since you have a '97 you should be able to swap the knock module on the side of your PCM with the new one so you shouldn't need a CASE learn.
dillcc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2007, 09:27 AM   #13
Senior Member
True Car Nut
 
toastedoats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Fitchburg Ma _ToastedRice_
Posts: 6,837
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
toastedoats is on a distinguished road
Default

can we clarify something here: why dont you want to do a 180* t-stat?
toastedoats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2007, 09:29 AM   #14
Junior Member
Posts like a Ricer Type-R
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
willwren is on a distinguished road
Default

I totally missed that reaming and sludge comment. Thanks Toasty!

Yes, let'* discuss that more. Considering the vast majority of this Forum runs them with no issues, and some of us are drilled? I'm running a drilled 180 myself, but that'* a little different setup to support it.
willwren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2007, 11:51 AM   #15
Senior Member
Posts like a Turbo
Thread Starter
 
LeSabreUltra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Alabama
Posts: 494
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
LeSabreUltra is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dillcc
EASY! Since you have a '97 you should be able to swap the knock module on the side of your PCM with the new one so you shouldn't need a CASE learn.
Great, thanks! I did a test checkout, and it apears I can get what I want for about $170 before shipping. I may be doing this soon, and it'* a great thing that I won't have to do a CASE learn because the shops that can do that around here are few and far between.

Quote:
Originally Posted by toastedoats
can we clarify something here: why dont you want to do a 180* t-stat?
Quote:
Originally Posted by willwren
I totally missed that reaming and sludge comment. Thanks Toasty!

Yes, let'* discuss that more. Considering the vast majority of this Forum runs them with no issues, and some of us are drilled? I'm running a drilled 180 myself, but that'* a little different setup to support it.
Well, with a 180 thermostat the wear factor would be nearly twice, worse fuel economy, oil sludging, etc. Not to mention that my car isn't programmed to run with a 180, so it would be nothing but harmful.

Basically, the pistons and the rings expand at different rates than the cylinder walls do. GM found the optimal temperature range to keep things in close tolerance and proper running order. With the stock 195 the clearances are optimal for compression with a minimum of friction. If they went to all the trouble of finding the best range for wear vs. performance, why deviate?
.
.
.
LeSabreUltra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2007, 12:03 PM   #16
Junior Member
Posts like a Ricer Type-R
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
willwren is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Well, with a 180 thermostat the wear factor would be nearly twice, worse fuel economy, oil sludging, etc. Not to mention that my car isn't programmed to run with a 180, so it would be nothing but harmful.

Basically, the pistons and the rings expand at different rates than the cylinder walls do. GM found the optimal temperature range to keep things in close tolerance and proper running order. With the stock 195 the clearances are optimal for compression with a minimum of friction. If they went to all the trouble of finding the best range for wear vs. performance, why deviate?
.
.
.
Wear factor worse? Please explain. I've never heard of that.

Worse fuel economy? Myth. I don't know of anyone that saw a decrease, and we're running HUNDREDS of these on this Forum. Have been for over 5 years now.

Oil sludging? Never heard of that either.

Many cars here that are not 'programmed' for it run them fine. But your INTENSE PCM will be programmed for it. That'* really moot though. It makes no difference. A 160 thermostat may be a different story.

I'd like to know where your information came from. Our experience over 5 years and hundreds (if not thousands) of cars, and thousands more on ClubGP dicatate quite the opposite of what you posted.
willwren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2007, 12:38 PM   #17
Senior Member
True Car Nut
 
toastedoats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Fitchburg Ma _ToastedRice_
Posts: 6,837
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
toastedoats is on a distinguished road
Default

i, too would like to see some supporting arguments and sources fo rthe information provided. I have had nothing but great results with my 180* for 3yrs/40k miles as have thousands of other people as stated above by bill
toastedoats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2007, 12:42 PM   #18
Senior Member
Posts like a Turbo
Thread Starter
 
LeSabreUltra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Alabama
Posts: 494
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
LeSabreUltra is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by willwren
Quote:
Well, with a 180 thermostat the wear factor would be nearly twice, worse fuel economy, oil sludging, etc. Not to mention that my car isn't programmed to run with a 180, so it would be nothing but harmful.

Basically, the pistons and the rings expand at different rates than the cylinder walls do. GM found the optimal temperature range to keep things in close tolerance and proper running order. With the stock 195 the clearances are optimal for compression with a minimum of friction. If they went to all the trouble of finding the best range for wear vs. performance, why deviate?
.
.
.
Wear factor worse? Please explain. I've never heard of that.

Worse fuel economy? Myth. I don't know of anyone that saw a decrease, and we're running HUNDREDS of these on this Forum. Have been for over 5 years now.

Oil sludging? Never heard of that either.

Many cars here that are not 'programmed' for it run them fine. But your INTENSE PCM will be programmed for it. That'* really moot though. It makes no difference. A 160 thermostat may be a different story.

I'd like to know where your information came from. Our experience over 5 years and hundreds (if not thousands) of cars, and thousands more on ClubGP dicatate quite the opposite of what you posted.
A quote that helped drive my decision:

Quote:
Cooler intake air is good but just running the car cold is not. You want heat in the combustion area, heat is power. What exactly are you trying to do? Remember you can't tune the richness out of our FI systems like you could a carb car unless you are running a piggyback or something. If you are too rich you will not only hurt performance, you will also hurt your engine. A righ engine will get "cylinder wash" which means the fuel is removing the lubricating oil from the cylinder walls and this will wear your engine out sooner. There really is no reason to run a colder stat as the car will still come up to temp where the low fan comes on, usually around 96 degrees. Just because the stat opens at 180 doesn't mean the car will run at that unless you are running on the freeway. In the kind of driving most people do, they don't move enough air though the radiator to lower the temp anyhow. So, unless you have a way to turn your fan on early, it is really a waste of time.
You also can't deny that engine wear increases as operating temperature decreases. Granted, it'* far more dramatic below 180 but it'* still greater at 180 than at 195.

Think of this also, running a lower temp thermostat without a PCM reprogram is really not a good idea. Coolant temperatures will vary from a range of 180 to 220 degrees (or whichever activation point it is) until the radiator fans engage, rather than the narrower band with the stock thermostat. Is that higher range of expansion and contraction really beneficial to the engine? Especially considering that the materials inside expand and contract at different rates?

The pistons in our 3800'* are aluminum correct? And the block itself is cast iron? These metals expand and contract at different rates according to their temperature. GM designers found that the best thermostat setting to keep tolerances optimal for compressioon and minimal wear was 195 degrees. Again, why change?

As far as oil sludging, the reason is simple. With a higher operating temperature, the engine warms up more and burns off condensation more quickly. The result is less oil sludging.

It'* also fairly understandable why fuel economy will be decreased...a cooler engine runs richer. Heck, you can smell the unburnt fuel coming out of a cold engine that'* just been started. The difference between a 195 and a 180 would be VERY minimal, but still present.

Running a 180 thermostat is not going to kill your car, if I gave that impression it wasn't my intention. It is however, pointless unless you have sufficient engine modifications to require a lower operating temperature. Even the increased wear and sludging AREN'T going to make the engine die young, but it would wear out sooner than an engine that'* been run with a 195 it'* entire life.
.
.
.
LeSabreUltra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2007, 01:33 PM   #19
Junior Member
Posts like a Ricer Type-R
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
willwren is on a distinguished road
Default

By design, the rings are the 'flexible' interface between the cylinder wall and the piston itself for thermal expansion coefficient differences between the two components. This is designed into the engine by GM and every other manufacturer.

Nobody here has any sludging, nobody here has any fuel mileage problems, and nobody here has ever had any other adverse effects.

For you, the 180 is more important from a reliability standpoint, as the L36 MIGHT live a little longer with a cooler running engine when you consider the EGR stovepipe area and a cooler intake passage nearby.

Friction and combustion are the causes of heat in an engine. As heat increases, oil viscosity decreases. Your wear theory is backwards in that sense.

Your theories are interesting to chew on, but not backed up in practical experience.
willwren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2007, 01:46 PM   #20
Senior Member
Posts like a Turbo
Thread Starter
 
LeSabreUltra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Alabama
Posts: 494
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
LeSabreUltra is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by willwren
By design, the rings are the 'flexible' interface between the cylinder wall and the piston itself for thermal expansion coefficient differences between the two components. This is designed into the engine by GM and every other manufacturer.

Nobody here has any sludging, nobody here has any fuel mileage problems, and nobody here has ever had any other adverse effects.

For you, the 180 is more important from a reliability standpoint, as the L36 MIGHT live a little longer with a cooler running engine when you consider the EGR stovepipe area and a cooler intake passage nearby.

Friction and combustion are the causes of heat in an engine. As heat increases, oil viscosity decreases. Your wear theory is backwards in that sense.

Your theories are interesting to chew on, but not backed up in practical experience.
Again, the differences between the 180 and the 195 that would cause wear, sludging, and poorer fuel economy are minimal enough to go unnoticed, but still present.

In any event, agree to disagree.

Speaking of my plenum, it'* been almost five years since it'* been replaced. How long do those things last, usually? I don't want to let it get to the point of hydrolocking the engine.

I understand that the L67 does not experience such difficulties, further reason for me to get the swap. I've also heard of people doing a "top end" swap...how difficult would this be if say, the UIM failed and the upper part of the engine was off anyway? Would it be just a direct fit or would other modifications need to be done? There would probably be a necessity for a PCM change and of course the drivebelt configuration. Fuel pump and injectors maybe? Just a thought, it would be easier than a full engine swap.
.
.
.
LeSabreUltra is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Race - Win Some, lose some and tie some.... 2000SilverBullet Your Other Rides: Pics & Videos 6 07-02-2006 03:44 AM
i wanna buy some performance parts dont know where to start 1995SESC495HP Performance, Brainstorming & Tuning 2 08-22-2005 08:39 PM
Where can I get some performance parts for a 2.8 89 cutlass? 1989_cutlass Lounge 6 05-10-2005 01:46 AM
New to Bonneville's, what are some performance parts? dbtk2 2000-2005 18 06-16-2003 03:39 PM
An idea to get performance parts SSEiDu Performance, Brainstorming & Tuning 12 08-17-2002 03:21 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:56 PM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.