160F vs 195F thermostat

CCI

Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
407
Location
New Mexico USA
1993 5.7 TBI Chevy 2500 a little over 202K miles. Looking at the temperature gauge it seems like there is probably a 160 degree T-stat installed.
Looking at the stock specs it calls for a 195 as OEM.
What are the possible advantages or disadvantages of each?
 
I'm general, a cold thermostat will increase cylinder wear, reduce the effectiveness of the cabin heater and reduce gas mileage slightly.

Edit: I remember back in the day my Chevy friend talking about a cooler rated thermostat to reduce pinging in his Chevy truck. Don't know if that's effective or not.
 
Last edited:
I'm general, a cold thermostat will increase cylinder wear, reduce the effectiveness of the cabin heater and reduce gas mileage slightly.

Edit: I remember back in the day my Chevy friend talking about a cooler rated thermostat to reduce pinging in his Chevy truck. Don't know if that's effective or not.
This. A 160F stat is generally a poor choice for these reasons. Some engines start pulling timing at higher temperatures (like the EEC-IV Fords) so moving down to a 180 is a good balance, and what I always preferred in those applications. Without knowing your timing/temp map, I can't say the same benefit would extend to your application, it might be fine with the 195.
 
You could also have a lazy 'stat, they do fail partially open.

Can meet in the middle with a 180.

Colder: Less pinging, "better" performance, more "surge" headroom if something's marginal in the system.
Warmer: Better MPG, better emissions, better engine wear, better oil wear (less gas and water vapor condensing in it.)

If you do in fact have a 160, you might have a problem the previous owner masked. Or he might have just been old-school. Give yourself time if you start messing with things.
 
Back
Top Bottom