Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I have a 2016 Z71 Silverado 1500... I have read that changing the 195 degree thermostat to a 160 degree will increase the horsepower. However I live in Massachusetts, so how is that going to affect the heat in the winter? Will it be significant or not much?

Posted

I have never heard of lowering it to increase HP. I know guys that go a lower temp T-stat in old muscle cars to try and keep the Motor running cooler. The thought being that heat is the enemy and would possibly not wear the engine as much. If you did lower it it would effect your heat and it would be colder air coming out of the vents though.

  • Like 2
Posted

I'm pretty sure it would still run around its 192 degree mark, I know my 02 with a 180 thermo ran at the same temp as stock

Posted

160 will not throw heat once it gets below 40 degrees.

 

From what I remember, it was a trick back in the day but took a chip or programming to get any benefits. Otherwise, it's not good for the engine, too cold is not good.

 

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

Posted

if ur riding around at 160 ur gonna get way worse milage also. leave it alone. if you want to cool it down more you can have a tune to turn your fans on at a lower temp

Posted

160 will not throw heat once it gets below 40 degrees.

 

From what I remember, it was a trick back in the day but took a chip or programming to get any benefits. Otherwise, it's not good for the engine, too cold is not good.

 

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

I agree here,I also ran my fans longer on a programmer (not extreme,moderately)and brunt fans out,learned hard way.This wasn't a GM,but thought I share to know possibilities.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted

I have ran 160° in every one of my vehicles from 1989 Formula all the way up to my recent LTx series trucks. No issues at all, to many people regurgitating info from forums and such anymore in regards to them that is inaccurate.

 

GM has to use a higher factory stat in order to meet emissions requirements. Pure, plain and simple is that answer. So yes, you can run a lower stat and yes it will help with keeping the truck cooler, it will help with keeping detonation away as well and NO it wont affect your gas mileage one bit. You will need a custom tune if you run a 160° stat as it will trip a P0128 code in the ECM during the cold months, the ECM has to see 167° with in so many key cycles otherwise the ECM thinks the thermostat is stuck open. You will still have heat as well from the heater, maybe not roast you out of the cab heat, but heat none the less.

 

I have been using the 180° stats now, they are cooler than the factory 196° stat and also don't require any programming as it still allows the ECM to see the 167° temp, you will also have heat as well from the HVAC with this stat.

 

I will put a 180° stat in my truck eventually, just had too many other projects going so far this year to mess with it.

  • Like 2
Posted

I have ran 160° in every one of my vehicles from 1989 Formula all the way up to my recent LTx series trucks. No issues at all, to many people regurgitating info from forums and such anymore in regards to them that is inaccurate.

 

GM has to use a higher factory stat in order to meet emissions requirements. Pure, plain and simple is that answer. So yes, you can run a lower stat and yes it will help with keeping the truck cooler, it will help with keeping detonation away as well and NO it wont affect your gas mileage one bit. You will need a custom tune if you run a 160° stat as it will trip a P0128 code in the ECM during the cold months, the ECM has to see 167° with in so many key cycles otherwise the ECM thinks the thermostat is stuck open. You will still have heat as well from the heater, maybe not roast you out of the cab heat, but heat none the less.

 

I have been using the 180° stats now, they are cooler than the factory 196° stat and also don't require any programming as it still allows the ECM to see the 167° temp, you will also have heat as well from the HVAC with this stat.

 

I will put a 180° stat in my truck eventually, just had too many other projects going so far this year to mess with it.

Umm, I've ran 160 and 180 stats (when that was all "the rage"), and depending on the part of the country you live, you may not get any appreciable heat in the cab...been there, done that, and have the frosty toes to show for it.

 

Not saying whether it does anything for performance, just that in colder climates you may not have cab heat.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Posted

I have a 2016 Z71 Silverado 1500... I have read that changing the 195 degree thermostat to a 160 degree will increase the horsepower. However I live in Massachusetts, so how is that going to affect the heat in the winter? Will it be significant or not much?

 

While you may pick up a couple of HP, it'll be so small it would be difficult to measure on a dyno, much less feel in real life, so don't do it for that reason. The only reason one should consider a lower temp thermostat on a stock or nearly stock engine in one of these trucks is if you do a lot of towing in hot weather up large grades. For that they can help keep temps down. Otherwise there's no real benefit.

 

From my experience, 160 is too low for winter use. The heat will not be as hot and you can run into trouble defrosting at highway speeds. A 180 is generally "hot enough" for winter use but obviously won't give heat quite as hot as stock so if you have no need for it I wouldn't recommend it.

 

Changing the thermostats on these trucks is only about a 10 minute job (especially if you get an extra housing) so if you do want cooler temps for summer towing, there's no reason to not do that because you're worried about the winter time--just swap twice a year.

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Forum Statistics

    250.4k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    342,758
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    Randy Ginoza
    Newest Member
    Randy Ginoza
    Joined
  • Who's Online   4 Members, 0 Anonymous, 1,903 Guests (See full list)


  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Paid $2.72 for E85 today.
    • Welcome back! No, it definitely doesn't pass the sniff test. Even "ceasefire" needs an alternative definition these days.    $5.29 at Kroger today
    • That makes sense, and I think you are describing the real product problem. Capturing data is the easy part. If the owner or technician has to manually dig through five minutes of millisecond-level logs, the product has already failed. The device would be at the ECM harness, not at the OBD port, so I agree that data retrieval and event marking need to be thought through carefully. The way I am thinking about the architecture is: The recorder itself should not depend on a phone, app, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or cloud connection to capture the event. It should always keep a local rolling buffer and lock the event locally. A button, phone app, or small cabin device would only act as an event marker. If the driver feels a stumble and presses the button 10–30 seconds later, the pre-buffer has to already contain the useful data. For data retrieval, the practical options would be a sealed service USB lead, Wi-Fi download, or a phone/cabin companion device. I would not expect the owner to remove the ECM-side module or work with raw files directly. The cloud or AI side would be for interpretation, not for capturing the event. The truck may have no connection when the issue happens, so the evidence has to be saved locally first. After that, cloud processing could help decode the data, compare it against baselines, and generate a readable report. For the first version, I would keep the automatic triggers conservative and objective: driver event marker bus-off error passive voltage drop / brownout device reset FIFO or queue overflow a normally periodic message disappearing side-to-side communication mismatch, if the topology supports that For “learning normal,” I agree with your point, but I would not want to overclaim it as automatic root-cause diagnosis at first. A realistic first step would be learned baseline comparison for that specific vehicle and operating condition. For example, a value would only be compared against similar conditions: RPM range load / MAP throttle position gear / vehicle speed coolant and oil temperature battery voltage AFM/DFM state, if decoded and validated Then the report could flag things like: this periodic message disappeared compared with its normal timing this value deviated from this vehicle’s normal range under similar conditions the same abnormal pattern repeated after the same type of event the anomaly occurred together with voltage, oil-pressure, misfire, or communication changes But I would still call that “abnormal pattern detected,” not “replace this part,” unless there is enough validated repair data behind it. So the intended product would not be “here is a huge log.” It would need to be an event package: what triggered the capture how much pre/post data was preserved what changed before and after the event whether the device itself reset, overflowed, or saw a bus error selected graphs around the event raw data only as supporting evidence From your perspective, what would make this kind of report useful instead of just another datalog? For example: What are the top 5 parameters or events you would want highlighted first? Would you trust a learned baseline for that specific vehicle, or would you prefer fixed thresholds? How much false-positive flagging would be acceptable before you stopped looking at the reports? What would a one-page report need to show for an independent shop to take it seriously? For misfire, AFM/DFM, oil pressure, or U-code complaints, what would you want the tool to flag automatically?
    • 2024 Silverado 2500 HD LTZ grille no camera Parts list   84603331 84913656 84913657 84913654 84913655 84911567 84911568 85646092 85646093 85797921 85797922   11570637  x10-15   grille/bumper bolts 11546500  x10      grille clips 11571006  x10      push/retainer clips 11546454  x6       nut retainers 11611609  x6       M5 bolts 11610700  x6       molding/trim retainers
    • And use RA's 5% discount code if you buy from them.  google for the code, one is always available.
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...