By looking in the FAQ/DIY section, lots of other great info in there too. You should look.

 

A 180* tstat is in my experience and many people I know better than a 195* tstat. The tstat rating DOES NOT MEAN that that is the highest temp the engine will ever reach. It simply means it will start opening at that temp. At idling my engine will warm up to 195* (verified through PCM temp sensor), then when I hit the road it keeps the engine at 185-190* unless under load, which then it would get to normal temperature but not over anymore.

 

Hello. I have a 1997 Ram with the 5.9L that I've played around with since buying it in 2001 used at 60k miles.
I was ultimately looking for more performance the cheap way instead of throwing wads of cash at it for upgrade goodies.
Changing out the stock 195° t-stat was one thing I did. Modifying the crank position sensor that bolts to the trans bellhousing was an attempt after the t-stat change to advance the ignition timing without purchasing a chip or tuner.
My fuel mileage suffered significantly after altering the factory set-ups.
The engine NEEDS the stock 195° t-stat to deliver the proper amount of injected fuel for most efficient operation. You go fooling with this stuff and it's gonna bite you in the **** down the road. Especially trying to increase ignition timing because your engine doesn't reach full operating temperature after installing the lower degree t-stat.
I raced it down the highway one day and....POP!.....bent a valve....there goes the smooth running engine and subsequent oil consumption out the tailpipes!
If you are looking for more performance, do it the right way....spend the money for proven upgrades.

 

Umm, I've never heard of ANYONE attempting to modify the CKPS to alter timing. Sorry but that doesn't work. PCM depends on the camshaft position sensor to determine timing... All you did was throw the sensor sync out of whack (CKPS and CSPS need each other to verify each other!!)

And attempting to increase ignition timing to bring engine temp is DUMB if you put a lower temp tstat in. First off you don't increase ignition timing to increase engine temps. Second off, why did you put a lower temp tstat in if all you were going to do was try to get the engine running hotter elsewise? Sort of counter-productive if you ask me

So TBH it was your fault that things went wrong. Putting in a colder tstat has a twofold purpose: first one is to help prevent stock heads from cracking, second one is to ALLOW for extra timing because timing DOES add heat, but TIMING should NEVER be used to try to get an engine to run a little warmer!!!!!! Hint: To warm an engine up the factory engineers ran a little more fuel :O

Had you not screwed with sensors you wouldn't have had the problems you did. It's no wonder you bent a valve...

And as for adding a 180* tstat: it's hit and miss whether the PCM actually will run the engine richer because of it or not. In my experience I've never seen that happen. It's difficult enough to get an accurate tstat in the first place, not to mention one that opens and closes smoothly...

And yes I agree with this part: Do things the right way!

 

Crank sensor deals with ignition timing, cam sensor deals with injector timing. Theoretically, moving the the crank sensor will artificially advance the timing by however many degrees you can move it. (which ain't many..... but, in this case, every little bit *should* help....)

Basically, all you do is slot the mounting holes for the bracket, and slide the sensor over a bit (opposite direction engine turns) to advance the timing. Personally, I view this as a 'workaround', that may or may not actually help you.... These engines are prone to spark knock in any event, *JUST* doing the timing may actually do more harm than good.

 

And attempting to increase ignition timing to bring engine temp is DUMB if you put a lower temp tstat in. First off you don't increase ignition timing to increase engine temps. Second off, why did you put a lower temp tstat in if all you were going to do was try to get the engine running hotter elsewise? Sort of counter-productive if you ask me

So TBH it was your fault that things went wrong. Putting in a colder tstat has a twofold purpose: first one is to help prevent stock heads from cracking, second one is to ALLOW for extra timing because timing DOES add heat, but TIMING should NEVER be used to try to get an engine to run a little warmer!!!!!! Hint: To warm an engine up the factory engineers ran a little more fuel :O

I think you misunderstood how I explained my post. Let me try again.
I installed the 180* t-stat to trick the pcm into richening the fuel mixture, then, I altered the cps to add timing to take advantage of the richer mixture for more power....not to try to "warm the engine temp"....you said that, which is dumb. lol.

In reference to the bent valve, I also added a lift kit with 35" tires, but kept the 3:55 gear...at the same time, not using a speed sensor re-calibrator which also caused weird shifting....and who knows what else?
I was merging onto the interstate doing a manual shift from 2nd to 3rd at over 5k when the engine "popped", then sounded like it was running on 7 instead of 8.....my bad. lol

My real point is, these aren't "race trucks", and everybody knows that the factory Magnum heads are junk.....no matter what you do to try to avoid the dreaded crack or warp.
Unless you're ready to throw down some serious cash for an application specific purpose, all you're going to have is a lot of stuff out of whack, and a gas guzzling beast.
I did the usual stuff....K&N....Hughes plenum fix....kegger mod....blah blah blah....the truck is a turd that gets about 10 mpg.

That's why I upgraded to a 3rd generation Hemi Daytona with a 3:92 gear.....plenty of power, and I can pass a few gas stations on the way to work. I still have the old turd....as a standby for hauling junk to the dump or whatever....atleast it's purpose-built.

Especially trying to increase ignition timing because your engine doesn't reach full operating temperature after installing the lower degree t-stat.

Yep, I did say that out of context, but I gave a more logical approach finally. (see above)