Reische 170* Thermostat Testing

[kris5597]

Hey guys,

To start this thread off, this is not advertisement nor did I get this thermostat for free for this testing, this is merely done to show the comparison, as I promised I would once I got my hands on one.

I have installed a Reische 170* thermostat on my 2015 PP GT S550, and I wanted to share my results with datalog comparisons that I have performed to show the difference a drop in a 10* thermostat could make when installed on the S550 5.0L chassis.

Alright, 170* thermostat installed. Right away I made the fan start up temps lower to compensate for the 10* lower thermostat. Went for a drive and to do a 3rd gear pull. During my drive, cylinder head temps never reached over 185 until parked, at this point they went to 192-195 as I sat. Engine coolant temps never went over 185, while driving, they stayed around 178-180. I'd say the new thermostat is working. I am also running e46 in the car, or so it says.

Did a third gear pull, and I found so very interesting information. I am comparing todays log with a log that I took exactly 8 days ago.

On this day my IATs were 53.6*F and I was running E70. Igition advance at each rpm breakpoint is as follows:
4500rpm- 25*, 5000rpm- 27*, 5500rpm- 27.5*, 6000rpm- 28*, 6500rpm- 28*, 7000rpm- 28.5*

Today, my IATs are 87.9*F and I am running E46. Ignition advance at each rpm breakpoint is as follows:
4500rpm- 26.5*, 5000rpm- 27.5*, 5500rpm- 28*, 6000rpm- 28.5*, 6500rpm- 28.5*, 7000rpm- 28.5*

Now considering this is a much hotter day, and I am running less ethanol content, I would say there is something a little going on with the ECT ignition compensation tables. Might I add, my ECTs never moved from 178* during this 3rd gear pull and I have self tuned the car myself, no tuning changes were made except for the fan initiation temperature.

And there are my results. Let me know if yall have any questions.

Kris

Sponsored

 

[dubster99]

Once I get mine in I'll get some logs on full E85 and the lund FF tune. We'll see if the timing increases like yours did.

 

[Higgs Boson]

Hey guys,

To start this thread off, this is not advertisement nor did I get this thermostat for free for this testing, this is merely done to show the comparison, as I promised I would once I got my hands on one.

I have installed a Reische 170* thermostat on my 2015 PP GT S550, and I wanted to share my results with datalog comparisons that I have performed to show the difference a drop in a 10* thermostat could make when installed on the S550 5.0L chassis.

Alright, 170* thermostat installed. Right away I made the fan start up temps lower to compensate for the 10* lower thermostat. Went for a drive and to do a 3rd gear pull. During my drive, cylinder head temps never reached over 185 until parked, at this point they went to 192-195 as I sat. Engine coolant temps never went over 185, while driving, they stayed around 178-180. I'd say the new thermostat is working. I am also running e46 in the car, or so it says.

Did a third gear pull, and I found so very interesting information. I am comparing todays log with a log that I took exactly 8 days ago.

On this day my IATs were 53.6*F and I was running E70. Igition advance at each rpm breakpoint is as follows:
4500rpm- 25*, 5000rpm- 27*, 5500rpm- 27.5*, 6000rpm- 28*, 6500rpm- 28*, 7000rpm- 28.5*

Today, my IATs are 87.9*F and I am running E46. Ignition advance at each rpm breakpoint is as follows:
4500rpm- 26.5*, 5000rpm- 27.5*, 5500rpm- 28*, 6000rpm- 28.5*, 6500rpm- 28.5*, 7000rpm- 28.5*

Now considering this is a much hotter day, and I am running less ethanol content, I would say there is something a little going on with the ECT ignition compensation tables. Might I add, my ECTs never moved from 178* during this 3rd gear pull.

And there are my results. Let me know if yall have any questions.

Kris

wait a minute, I am confused, I thought everyone says thermostat won't do anything?:headbonk:

;) Thanks for posting your results!

 

[Evolvd]

The results aren't exactly conclusive since the variables aren't the same. The IAT's and the fuel could possibly explain the differences.

BTW, I have the 170 in my car as well....just pointing out some things as a person who does testing for a living.

 

[kris5597]

The variables are different, but the weather and fuel are in favor of the factory thermostat and the results showed the 170* thermostat had a better outcome even with the variables against it. Now, you are correct since it wasn't an exact back to back test, but this is close enough.

Kris

 

[esacteksab]

Thanks for this information Kris. I know this doesn't seem to be the place to share this sort of information but glad you did so.

 

[Rhinogt]

Yep, you're much closer to 180 so the computer is leaning on that point in the ECT table versus using the 200 point with the stock thermostat. Therefore, more timing is being added. Good write up.

 

[markmurfie]

Thank you!

 

[sloppymax]

Favorable outcome when the inputs are decidedly worse, that is all the proof I need. Thank you for posting the info.

 

[Evolvd]

The variables are different, but the weather and fuel are in favor of the factory thermostat and the results showed the 170* thermostat had a better outcome even with the variables against it. Now, you are correct since it wasn't an exact back to back test, but this is close enough.

Kris

While I'm sure it's "close enough" for everyone here, the data is not conclusive unless it's repeatable. But then again, in the car world, word of mouth usually wins over sound testing and unbiased data....

 

[Mikeiscoo2]

i cant wait to install mine. i ordered it yesterday

 

[kris5597]

While I'm sure it's "close enough" for everyone here, the data is not conclusive unless it's repeatable. But then again, in the car world, word of mouth usually wins over sound testing and unbiased data....

Well thank you for your opinion on my inconclusive data. Considering I bought this piece merely to do a quick test for my own information and to show what data I could given the time and circumstances. The data is good enough for me and that's all that matters. I am not sure how you say it is not repeatable, I guarantee I will get the same outcome doing it again. If the weather cools back down to similar temperature, I will mix for E70, do the test again, and post my results to eliminate more variables. Considering I have fully tuned my own car and many others, I have seen what the car likes and does not like based on modifications and fuel type, however, I have never done the comparison with the thermostat change. Based on another thread and conversation with other members who also tune, the idea was put into place to do this test to see. Here are my results. Take it as you want, and please move on.

 

[djpheer]

Thanks for the results Kris, much appreciated!!

 

[Evolvd]

Well thank you for your opinion on my inconclusive data. Considering I bought this piece merely to do a quick test for my own information and to show what data I could given the time and circumstances. The data is good enough for me and that's all that matters. I am not sure how you say it is not repeatable, I guarantee I will get the same outcome doing it again. If the weather cools back down to similar temperature, I will mix for E70, do the test again, and post my results to eliminate more variables. Considering I have fully tuned my own car and many others, I have seen what the car likes and does not like based on modifications and fuel type, however, I have never done the comparison with the thermostat change. Based on another thread and conversation with other members who also tune, the idea was put into place to do this test to see. Here are my results. Take it as you want, and please move on.

I didn't say it wasn't repeatable...I said your conclusions are misplaced until it is repeatable. You can guarantee all you like, but that is speculation until you do so.
No need to get butthurt over it. Like I already said, I have the 170 in my car...
If the data is "good enough for you and that's all that matters" then you just wasted everyone's time by posting your "results".

So which is it? Do you not care and are just here to piss in the wind...or do you really care and think you're doing something to benefit this community? If it's the latter you've not helped anyone unless you can make the test repeatable using reliable testing methods and removing the "noise" factor of temps, fuel inconsistencies, etc.

So many people get on this forum and bitch about "manufacturers power increase claims" but it's not ok for us to question your methods? You did in fact ask for questions...I gave you my opinion, but now you're mad bro?

 

[kris5597]

I didn't say it wasn't repeatable...I said your conclusions are misplaced until it is repeatable. You can guarantee all you like, but that is speculation until you do so.
No need to get butthurt over it. Like I already said, I have the 170 in my car...
If the data is "good enough for you and that's all that matters" then you just wasted everyone's time by posting your "results".

So which is it? Do you not care and are just here to piss in the wind...or do you really care and think you're doing something to benefit this community? If it's the latter you've not helped anyone unless you can make the test repeatable using reliable testing methods and removing the "noise" factor of temps, fuel inconsistencies, etc.

So many people get on this forum and bitch about "manufacturers power increase claims" but it's not ok for us to question your methods? You did in fact ask for questions...I gave you my opinion, but now you're mad bro?

I believe Higgs and Mark would both agree that the data I have provided will suffice. I asked for questions in regards to the information I have posted but I did not ask anyone to come in my thread and be an asshat. Am I mad bro? No sir, but thank you for your concern. Thank you for providing your opinion, since clearly that is a question... Am I stating that the car is actually making more power based on the increase in ignition advance? Nope, because I do not have the information to back that up simply because if it was on a dyno and given the fuel and weather difference, it would validate your statement in saying my data is inconclusive. However, considering I stated that the weather, date, and fuel is different, explaining by how much different, everyone should take this information and factor that in to my results, as I did. Considering the variables were against the lower temperature thermostat, I would say there are some benefits.

Your opinion to me at this point is useless. If you want more conclusive data, do it yourself. Please do not respond in my thread anymore, I get what you're saying and you are just wasting our time at this point.

Thank you.

Sponsored