When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I'm testing each component before fitting it if possible. This round is the thermostat. I tossed them into a frying pan and measured the water temp with a very accurate thermometer (+/- 1F accuracy).
The LTT starts to opens at ~165F and is fully opened at ~179F.
My stock one opens at ~180F and it's fully opened at 206F.
Prepped the engine case by drilling a hole that can fit a 1/2" socket to tighten the oil line fitting on the flange. It's a very well built part, so sturdy. The flange is so heavy I feel tired just by holding it
Will dry fit the IMS Solution spin-on adapter once I receive the special spanner socket to tighten it onto the engine case. Once tightened to the specified torque, its oil output port needs to face the right direction for the hose. If it's not, one will need to add a shim to correct the orientation. The shims come in different thickness depending on the correction angle needed and can be obtained from LN Engineering free of charge.
Funny.
I posted the exact same specs as early as 2008 and all I got was disbelief and friction.
No one listens.
It is not the specs that were questioned it is the claim that the lower temperature T-stat is actually good for the engine, make that better for the engine than the stock/factory T-stat.
I have posted a chart of engine temperature vs. wear and engine wear increases as engine temperature drops. I won't post the entire chart again but in a 60 hour engine test with the engine at 210F engine wear was 0.0003" with a fuel consumption of 2.8gph. At 180F engine wear increased to 0.0005" and fuel consumption increased to 2.9gph. Lower temperatures are given and to save typing time just let me say that engine wear and fuel consumption both increase as engine temperature goes down.
Also, I have to note that installing a lower temperature T-stat affects the emissions of the engine. With all the attention back on emissions compliance the VW emissions scandal has produced and the increased attention to emsisions I'm not sure this is a wise modification to be recommending. It could run afoul of the emissions rules/regulations.
Those studies have also been carried out. This was done as early as 2007 when developing my engine program, and ensuring that emissions compliance would be a possibility all across the USA.
What the goal was, from the beginning, was to reduce thermal shock when the T stat opened, and the best way to do this was to open the unit at an earlier temperature. The byproduct was to keep the system at a temperature where the cylinders want to run.
All studies concerning some other engine, need not apply.
If there were issues with wear, or emissions compliance, you'd hear about it by now. Many of my engines have been in service for a decade or more, and have had enough emissions tests to prove themselves.
More than 20,000 of these T stats have been sold. Ever read of a complaint? Remember, 10% of people are impossible to please, anyway.
Sounds like people do listen. They just aren't always the one's that post.
It would be interesting to know what percentage of Rennlist "Addicts" post on a regular basis. I bet it's low single digits.
I'm with you. Hardly any of my purchasers post here. Lots of them do read here, though... I can tell because they bring things up to me that are mentioned here, and no where else.
Jake, Thanks for posting that you've considered the wear and emissions aspects of your lower temp tstat. Good.
As I've read all the posts about users who've advocated the lower temp, I actually *did* notice that, from what I've read HERE, there have been no complaints.
Which is why I posted my questions in the coolant temp thread.
Please remember, the RL community has a wide range of experience, and we're basically just trying to help each other. Well, there's a few characters thrown in there, but in general, we're helpful. Some have great levels of experience in Porsches, some have with other makes. Those of us who've had negative experiences with lower temp tstats IN OTHER VEHICLES are only trying to understand the differences in our Porsches, and understand that there *are* differences.
I fully accept that there are solutions contrary to "other" implementations, but again, some of us just want to know *why*. I'm sure if I posted that pissing in my gas tank increased HP by 10%, SOME would try it themselves based only on my post, and SOME would call shenanigans and ask a question or two. YOU sound like you check stuff out to verify first. Can we?
It's very simple. The coolant temperature inside the M96 engine is not very even, leading to hotter spots on the bank 2 thrust side (the sky side). The LTT lowers the temp of the whole system to create more headroom for the bank 2 thrust side. If heat load is added suddenly (e.g., WOT after a long stop light), there's still room to tolerate the heat increase.
In the M96 engine, the water pump pushes the coolant from the bottom of the engine to the top of the engine so by the time the coolant reaches the bank 2 thrust side, the coolant is already quite warm so it has less capability to carry the extra heat away from the thrust side. Bank 1 is the opposite because the thrust side of bank 1 is at the bottom (the ground side) so everything is good.
Another point is the thermostat is submerged in both the coolant coming back from the radiators (cooled) and the coolant coming out of the top of the engine. So any sudden heat increase from the cylinders will be averaged out by the cooler return coolant from the radiator and that makes the thermostat less responsive to open up.
06-24-2016, 02:26 AM
Thermostats: LN low temp 160F vs stock 180F
