2nd Gen Ram Tech 1994-2001 Rams: This section is for TECHNICAL discussions only, that involve the 1994 through 2001 Rams. For any non-tech discussions, please direct your attention to the "General discussion/NON-tech" sub sections.

sct+160* tstat?

Old Feb 18, 2014 | 02:03 PM
  #1  
ReaperFIVE9's Avatar
ReaperFIVE9
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Default sct+160* tstat?

so I just got my tuner, and was reading about how I have to put a 160* tstat in my ram if I want to run the 91 oct tune. now obviously Ive read on here about the 180*, and the ping issue with running the stock tstat with the advanced timing. I am just curious if 1) I really have to go to a 160, as I am in Idaho and this winter as been crazy, ( 50* today, suppose to snow wed,thur and be like 10*) and don't really want to wait all day for my truck to warm up, and 2) has/is anyone running a 160? is that too cold for these engines (5.9l), and will a 160 cause more issues then its worth if anything, and I should just shut up and get the 180.. any and all criticism is expected.

sorry if this topic is already on here. searching 160 tstat didn't give me anything.




thanks a bunch.
 
Reply
Old Feb 18, 2014 | 02:16 PM
  #2  
CSDavies26's Avatar
CSDavies26
Veteran
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 487
Likes: 1
From: Evans City, PA
Default

I have the 180 thermostat with the 91 tune and it works just fine. Ive heard that people will get check engine lights when using the 160 because the computer will say that the engine has been too cold for too long. Idk what the law is in Idaho but around here you won't pass an inspection/emissions test with the CEL on. Just remember that these engines were designed to run at 195 so by lowering the temp, you will cause increased wear on engine parts because the internal components will not expand to fit tolerances properly. It's generally accepted that the 180 can be used without observing too many negative side effects...I noticed a slight drop in gas mileage when I went to the 180 - this is due to colder/denser air intake temps and the computer correcting the air/fuel ratio...if you go to 160, gas mileage drops even further.
 
Reply
Old Feb 18, 2014 | 02:17 PM
  #3  
stewie01's Avatar
stewie01
Legend
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,914
Likes: 4
From: Fredericksburg, Virginia
Default

I thought Sean @ HemiFever recommended the 180* tstat.

Some will argue there's no need and others will say to use the 180*....

It's a crap shoot.
 
Reply
Old Feb 18, 2014 | 02:21 PM
  #4  
merc225hp's Avatar
merc225hp
Champion
15 Year Member
Shutterbug
Liked
Loved
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,717
Likes: 10
From: N/A
Default

Deff not the 160, as others have posted 180 or 195.
 
Reply
Old Feb 18, 2014 | 03:16 PM
  #5  
Thornloe Pride's Avatar
Thornloe Pride
Captain
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
From: Northern Ontario
Default

^+1. 160 stat is too cool. It does weird things to the motor and computer. 180 or 195.
 
Reply
Old Feb 18, 2014 | 03:18 PM
  #6  
jpsycoboy5's Avatar
jpsycoboy5
Professional
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Default

I don't know how cold it is in Idaho but here in Michigan I can't run the 180 in winter I like my heat hot and lately it's been low teens. I've heard of people running the 195 in winter and when it warms up switching to the 180 for the summer months definitely not the 160 you'll freeze your **** off.
 
Reply


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:11 PM.