When I first replaced the motor in my 96 blazer I soon found out that the new motor had a 160 thermostat. It didn't hurt anything. The emissions were not any different. If never hit 210 though. It didn't stay in "warm-up mode" either. It just ran at a cooler temperature. I think the motor would have to be cold to stay in warm-up mode, which 160 ain't cold. So 160 didn't really do any different for me besides never allowing the motor to go anywhere near 210. Nothing else was different. The motor still warmed up in the mornings. The 160 thermostat just opened at 160 instead of 190, 205, or whatever temp according to other thermostats.

 

On my 1990 Chevy C1500 I had a 160 Tstat, but I was also running the Hypertech Thermomaster chip that said to run a 160 Tstat. I never had a problem with emissions. And in the winter in Kentucky once the truck warmed up I had plenty of heat being pumped into the cab.

 

i have a 160 tstat no codes thrown truck runs great it normally runs about 180. still gets good gas mileage too. slp makes one that fits got mine from summit. takes a few minutes longer for heat to work but not much. if u dont adjust the fans it will still run at 210 in heavy traffic on a hot day.

05 4.8 cai diablo programer flowmaster no cats

 

I've been around the block once or twice with this. If it negatively affected emissions, companies wouldn't be selling them and guys wouldn't be running them without issue.

 

Great point damnyankee,well got one installed with no codes or issues.Takes about 1/2 hour of regular driving to get the temp at 190.another great thing is that the heater in my truck would run you out on low and the dash would be really hot to the touch,no longer a issue.

 

just my two cents .... on the other hand, by the same reasoning, if the engine really runs better with them and a few tweaks, then mfr would be using them. on the other hand, it could be that 190 makes more money for the mfr. on the other hand, it could be that 160 does hurt emmissions, but not enough to make it fail ... or it could be that the emission test computers adjust for engine temperature ... but don't ask me, i couldn't decide between a standard tstat and a fail-safe tstat.

 

Not true about if they ran better with a few tweaks GM would use them - GM (and most of the other auto manufacturers) don't produce cars with performance in mind. The cooler thermostat allows for more aggressive tuning. GM doesn't give a crap about that, they shoot for the comfort the average driver is looking for. That's why they have a ridiculous amount of torque management.

 

Not true about GM doesn't give a crap about that, they shoot for the comfort the average driver is looking for. If all it took was an alternate tstat and a few tweaks for a noticeable performance boost with no consequences for their warranty program, it would be simple, cheap and a no brain moneymaker for GM to offer just such a performance "package". Just my two cents ... actually only one cent, because i can't tell if I am meaning to be sarcastic or not. My guess is that the more performance that is configured into an engine, the sooner it will fail - assuming the owner makes use of that "performance enhancment". For example if you want an engine to work harder and still get the same service life out of it, then you also have to upgrade the bearings and lubrication system.

 

Who said anything about no consequence to the warranty...?

My point was that the comment you made above is not true. 'Runs better' is a relative term. A manufacture generally (with very few exceptions) builds cars for the 'average driver'. GM is not going to make the 'few tweaks' in the PCM that a tuner will make because a more aggressive tune means a bigger chance of something breaking during the warranty period. So MOST vehicles are built with that in mind.

Now granted there are exceptions...Trailblazer SS's, GTo's, etc. that ARE built with performance in mind and have the necessary internal upgrades to ensure they will in most cases make it through the warranty period.