Driving Without A Thermostat

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 04:12:08 +1100, RV > wrote:

>On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 09:44:17 -0600, Bob Urz >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
wrote:
>>
>>> I need your opinions on this.
>>>
>>> A friend told me that a thermostat in a car is not necessary for proper
>>> engine operation and that the thermostat is mainly there to provide
>>> heat for people in the car. He said that cooler engines run better, are
>>> more powerful, last a lot longer, and provides more protection for
>>> gaskets. When the thermostats on his cars go bad, he takes them out
>>> altogether and runs without one. If needed, he even hooks a portable
>>> electric heater in his vehicles to get heat in the winter. He loves his
>>> engines to run very cool. When I ride with him, the temperature gauge
>>> in his cars never even move past 'C'.
>>>
>>> What do you think of this? Would it be alright to take the thermostat
>>> out of my car and drive without one if mine ever goes bad? I drive a
>>> '91 Plymouth Sundance w/ 2.5l engine.
>>>
>>
>>You can take the hood and the truck lid off also since there not
>>required for normal operation. Add the jack and the spare tire.
>>That ought to buy you a few MPG.
>>
>
>Definately
>Trunk lid should go too, waste of space
>
>May as well drop the exhaust system, reduce weight and give others
>some advance audible wanring of his approach on the highway.
>It works for Harley Davidsons
>
>In addition to that, if he has no family and no likelyhood of every
>having a girl friend, he could remove all the seats and mats, except
>the drivers seat of course.
>In addition to removing weight, he would then have space to start a
>small camp fire for heating and demisting, instead of having to use an
>electric heater as is friend apparently does.
>

When I was 16 I drove my used Fiat from Rhode Island to St Petersburg
Florida and back ( to visit grandma ). About Georgia, it got so damn
hot inside the car ( no A/C ) that the engine was overheating. I just
took the hood off from over the engine, and that worked well enough to
keep it from boiling over.

Too long ago to remember where I stored the hood. Maybe in the back
seat. When it began to rain later on ( I hit a few cloudbursts ) I
put it back on again. I was doing 500 miles/day in that "thing."
Only needed new tires to get back to Rhode Island, otherwise the
little train that could, did. Truly an amazing feat considering the
engine was just a little 4 cylinder job, probably comparable to what
you would find in a Geo or Civic. The car had a 4-speed shift on the
steering column, with straight forward and down for reverse.

H-pattern for 1st through 4th, and from neutral, straight forward and
down for reverse. I wish I still had that thing, the gas economy was
amazing.

Lg

| > I need your opinions on this
mysterious posters get no info fr me

| The engine becomes more efficient the hotter it gets
Ridiculous ; both intake air & fuel should be as cool as possible, exactly
as per 1 article in www.circletrack.com . After I replaced my F20A's
short & cheap 4into1 manifold & its 2 covers, with a long 4-2-1
manifold, water temperature dropped, torque @ even low rpm was higher
, >twice as much @ high rpm.

On 9 Feb 2005 02:30:19 -0800, wrote:

>I need your opinions on this.
>
>A friend told me that a thermostat in a car is not necessary for proper
>engine operation and that the thermostat is mainly there to provide
>heat for people in the car. He said that cooler engines run better, are
>more powerful, last a lot longer, and provides more protection for
>gaskets. When the thermostats on his cars go bad, he takes them out
>altogether and runs without one. If needed, he even hooks a portable
>electric heater in his vehicles to get heat in the winter. He loves his
>engines to run very cool. When I ride with him, the temperature gauge
>in his cars never even move past 'C'.
>
>What do you think of this? Would it be alright to take the thermostat
>out of my car and drive without one if mine ever goes bad? I drive a
>'91 Plymouth Sundance w/ 2.5l engine.


The computer gives the engine more gas when the engine is cold.
Basically the electronic version of what the choke plate did years
ago. This extra gas keeps a cold engine running smooth but it also
has a tendency to wash the oil off the cylinder walls.

As other have already pointed out If the computer never sees the
engine warm up then you keep getting that extra gas which lowers your
mileage and increases wear on the cylinder walls and rings (due to the
oil being washed off).

Another big point is that the oil never gets hot enough to boil out
the condensation and extra fuel that accumulates in the oil. These
contaminants in the oil cause excessive wear on bearing surfaces in
the engine.

So you take out the thermostat and drive around in a cold
uncomfortable car while burning more gas and wearing out your
engine.... Doesn't seem like much of a bargain to me.


Steve B.

"Don Stauffer in Minneapolis" > wrote in message
...
> Highest efficiency is obtained with NO cooling- the so-called
> adiabatic engine. R&D has not been able to make these work yet, as no
> lubricants have yet been found to run at the very high temperatures in
> an adiabatic engine.

I think it's actually 3 things: NOx, suitable materials (i.e. ceramic) at
a reasonable cost, and lubricants for high temp that need to be solved
before they can leave R&D labs.

> Your friend may have been confused with intake air temperature. Engine
> develops more power with cooler intake air. But not with lower coolant
> temps.

That's very likely.

wrote in news:1107945019.314810.167570
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

> I need your opinions on this.
>
> A friend told me that a thermostat in a car is not necessary for proper
> engine operation and that the thermostat is mainly there to provide
> heat for people in the car. He said that cooler engines run better, are
> more powerful, last a lot longer, and provides more protection for
> gaskets. When the thermostats on his cars go bad, he takes them out
> altogether and runs without one. If needed, he even hooks a portable
> electric heater in his vehicles to get heat in the winter. He loves his
> engines to run very cool. When I ride with him, the temperature gauge
> in his cars never even move past 'C'.
>
> What do you think of this? Would it be alright to take the thermostat
> out of my car and drive without one if mine ever goes bad? I drive a
> '91 Plymouth Sundance w/ 2.5l engine.
>
>

In a word, No.
An engine has a designed operating temperature. Parts inside the engine
are toleranced so that at operating temperature, there are the correct
clearances between mating parts. Running an engine cold decreases these
clearances and can lead to excessive wear.
You also seriously mess with the emissions of the vehicle, as combustion
temperature plays a significant role in emissions. This is the very
reason manufacturers re-route exhaust gasses back into the intake when
the engine is cold, in order to get it up to operating temperature
sooner.



--
Anthony

You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make
better idiots.

Remove sp to reply via email

"Anthony" > wrote in message
...
> wrote in news:1107945019.314810.167570
> @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>
>> I need your opinions on this.
>>
>> A friend told me that a thermostat in a car is not necessary for proper
>> engine operation and that the thermostat is mainly there to provide
>> heat for people in the car. He said that cooler engines run better, are
>> more powerful, last a lot longer, and provides more protection for
>> gaskets. When the thermostats on his cars go bad, he takes them out
>> altogether and runs without one. If needed, he even hooks a portable
>> electric heater in his vehicles to get heat in the winter. He loves his
>> engines to run very cool. When I ride with him, the temperature gauge
>> in his cars never even move past 'C'.
>>
>> What do you think of this? Would it be alright to take the thermostat
>> out of my car and drive without one if mine ever goes bad? I drive a
>> '91 Plymouth Sundance w/ 2.5l engine.
>>
>>
>
> In a word, No.
> An engine has a designed operating temperature. Parts inside the engine
> are toleranced so that at operating temperature, there are the correct
> clearances between mating parts. Running an engine cold decreases these
> clearances and can lead to excessive wear.
> You also seriously mess with the emissions of the vehicle, as combustion
> temperature plays a significant role in emissions. This is the very
> reason manufacturers re-route exhaust gasses back into the intake when
> the engine is cold, in order to get it up to operating temperature
> sooner.
>
>

As far as I understand, exhaust gasses are routed back into the intake to
reduce NOx, not to heat up the intake. The intake air isn't diluted with
exhaust gasses until the engine has started to warm up anyhow.

Some engines use the heat from the exhaust manifold to heat the intake to
help atomize the fuel a little better but it's not exhaust gasses.

The messing of the emissions is based on the warm up enrichment that the
computer uses while the engine is still undergoing warm up.

"Bruce Chang" > wrote in
. com:


> As far as I understand, exhaust gasses are routed back into the intake
> to reduce NOx, not to heat up the intake. The intake air isn't
> diluted with exhaust gasses until the engine has started to warm up
> anyhow.
>
Actually, IIRC, on newer engines, they route the exhaust gas back in to
help warm up the engine and fire off the cat faster.


> Some engines use the heat from the exhaust manifold to heat the intake
> to help atomize the fuel a little better but it's not exhaust gasses.
>
> The messing of the emissions is based on the warm up enrichment that
> the computer uses while the engine is still undergoing warm up.
>
And if the engine never reaches Op temp, that enrichment doesn't stop.





--
Anthony

You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make
better idiots.

Remove sp to reply via email

wrote:

> I need your opinions on this.
>
> A friend told me that a thermostat in a car is not necessary for proper
> engine operation and that the thermostat is mainly there to provide
> heat for people in the car. He said that cooler engines run better, are
> more powerful, last a lot longer, and provides more protection for
> gaskets. When the thermostats on his cars go bad, he takes them out
> altogether and runs without one. If needed, he even hooks a portable
> electric heater in his vehicles to get heat in the winter. He loves his
> engines to run very cool. When I ride with him, the temperature gauge
> in his cars never even move past 'C'.
>
> What do you think of this? Would it be alright to take the thermostat
> out of my car and drive without one if mine ever goes bad? I drive a
> '91 Plymouth Sundance w/ 2.5l engine.

Ideal way to do all of the following...

1. Carbon up cylinders
2. Burn out catalytic converter from rich mixture
3. Increase engine wear by diluting oil with gasoline
4. Build up a nice deposit of sludge in the oil galleries
5. Fail any decent smog check

Frank

"Raybender" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>> I need your opinions on this.
> Ideal way to do all of the following...
>
> 1. Carbon up cylinders
> 2. Burn out catalytic converter from rich mixture
> 3. Increase engine wear by diluting oil with gasoline
> 4. Build up a nice deposit of sludge in the oil galleries
> 5. Fail any decent smog check
>
> Frank
>

And the only upside is a small "perception" of increased horsepower.
Bob

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 19:51:25 -0600, "Bob" > wrote:

>
>"Raybender" > wrote in message
...
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I need your opinions on this.
>> Ideal way to do all of the following...
>>
>> 1. Carbon up cylinders
>> 2. Burn out catalytic converter from rich mixture
>> 3. Increase engine wear by diluting oil with gasoline
>> 4. Build up a nice deposit of sludge in the oil galleries
>> 5. Fail any decent smog check
>>
>> Frank
>>
>
>And the only upside is a small "perception" of increased horsepower.
> Bob
>

Take Bob's word for it Raybender, Bob is KNOWN for "small
perceptions."

He's an expert at them.

Lg