Thermostat 160* or 180*??

[NewStang02]

I am going to change my thermostat on my 2002 3.8 V-6,a book i got (How to Tune & Modify Ford Fuel Injection) says to get a 160* stat,the reason I plan to change it is
1. allowing timing advance
2.richer fuel mixture
3.lower engine temp,lower intake temp,lower combustion chamber temp

Now a web site that had info on changing the thermostat said to get the 180* and that the 160* is to cold.Now I think the 160* would work ok and the cooler engine temp would be better.Anyone have any info on this.

[Maroon 5.0 LX]

I have been told a too cold thermostat will sent a signal to your computer that the engine needs more fuel, thus much higher fuel consumption.

Maybe an engine guru has suggestions.

[PKRWUD]

If you've got a race car, go for the 160. If it's a daily driver, you should keep the 192. In any case, don't go lower than the 180 (unless it's a race car). It was designed to run hotter. The gains you will see are minimal, but the damage that will occur is greater. You will thin out your oil, ruin your bearings, clog your cats, and cut the lifespan of your engine by 1/3 to 1/2. But hey, it's only money, right?

I'd leave the 192 in.

Take care,
-Chris

[MonsterTrosity]

I had an old Ford Probe ('89), and yes I know, it is a MAZDA motor, but I dropped the temp on it, and never had a problem. Got a decent enough boost to feel the difference. I know that the v6 is a much larger/hotter running motor, but I beleive Ford runs them hotter than needed for specific (average) road conditions. It is not exactly an "optimal" setup. As hot as they get, you get too much expansion, and contraction going from hot to cold for every time you run the car, and then let it sit. I would think that a 180 stat would be better. IMHO. That would actually save your bearings wouldn't it?