 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / October 2005360 thermostat location
I'm guessing it's located on the top side of the engine. Just blew a lower radiator hose and decided to replace the stock thermostat with a 185 degree unit as is highly recommended. Let me know if I am correct in my assumption on location. Also, any tips anyone may have while I'm in here doing this would be appreciated. Next week I'm doing the DT TracBar, ball joints from Quad 4x4 and Borgeson steering shaft. 2001 Ram 2500 QC 4x4 5 speed.  Signature_________________________ Laszlo Almasi Carolina Watercraft Works, Inc. "In the battle between money and love, money will always triumph" I may have to change my signature......on second thought, I was right the first time. > I'm guessing it's located on the top side of the engine. Yep... follow the upper radiator hose. Where it ends, is the thermostat housing. Laszlo, I just replaced the thermostat on my wife's98 Durango with 360 and I never removed the upper hose off the piece that bolts down over the thermostat. I just loosened the 2 bolts and pulled it up by the hose and cleaned off the water outlet piece and engine side with a brass brush on the end of a drill. Used the special sealant they have at Auto Zone for thermostat gasket sealing. I think I put a 160 degree thermostat in when I did it. I just hate to have an engine running hotter than necessary. I hope this doesn't mess up the computer emission crap. I haven't noticed any problem in the 2 weeks or so since I did it. Ben > I'm guessing it's located on the top side of the engine. Just blew > a lower radiator hose and decided to replace the stock thermostat [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > 2001 Ram 2500 QC 4x4 5 speed. > thermostat gasket sealing. I think I put a 160 degree thermostat in when > I did it. I just hate to have an engine running hotter than necessary. Nevermind that a T-stat that low will set an OBD-II code, not let the engine reach optimal operating temperature, and cost you some fuel economy. The entire FI system has been designed with an operating temperature of 195°F. But hey - at least it's not running too hot... It's my understanding that a 185 degree stat will really help the 360 perform better. Is that not quite the case? Signature_________________________ Laszlo Almasi Carolina Watercraft Works, Inc. "In the battle between money and love, money will always triumph" I may have to change my signature......on second thought, I was right the first time. >> thermostat gasket sealing. I think I put a 160 degree thermostat in when >> I did it. I just hate to have an engine running hotter than necessary. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > But hey - at least it's not running too hot... > It's my understanding that a 185 degree stat will really help the 360 > perform better. Is that not quite the case? Yes, and no. On a stock engine, it will probably perform worse, because the computer thinks the engine is still cold. It will run rich, idle poorly, and get crappy mileage. Guess how I know this? Since trying that experiment (and quickly reversing the process) I used a Hypertech programmer. This advances timing, and adds a smidgen more fuel. That worked great, but on a hot day or when towing, I would get pinging at heavy throttle. So I went back to the 180* thermostat, and added a bottle of Water Wetter. Truck doesn't get as hot, and no pinging. Last time I towed on a hot day, I abused the engine a little to try and make it ping - it didn't. Other than that, I notice no difference at all in operation. So, bottom line: Stock engines should use stock thermostat. Signature.boB 1997 HD FXDWG - Turbocharged! 2001 Dodge Dakota QC 5.9/4x4/3.92 1966 Mustang Coupe - Daily Driver 1966 FFR Cobra - Ongoing project >> It's my understanding that a 185 degree stat will really help the >> 360 perform better. Is that not quite the case? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > So, bottom line: Stock engines should use stock thermostat. My 360's basically stock with a 185 thermo and it runs great. A/C on idling in traffic and 93 degrees outside is no problem at all. Mileage hasn't changed at all from the 195 thermo - still 14 mpg overall. Bob, do you have a link to the Hypertech? What octane are you using at the pump? Joe '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC '93 Mustang LX 5.0 hatch with a few goodies >>>It's my understanding that a 185 degree stat will really help the >>>360 perform better. Is that not quite the case? [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC > '93 Mustang LX 5.0 hatch with a few goodies www.hypertech.com There are two levels of tune available with the hypertech, 89 and 91 octane. I tried them both. 89 made a huge difference over stock, and got better fuel mileage. 91 didn't seem to make any additional improvements, but required premium fuel and got worse mileage. So I run mid grade all the time. Even when towing. Signature.boB 1997 HD FXDWG - Turbocharged! 2001 Dodge Dakota QC 5.9/4x4/3.92 1966 Mustang Coupe - Daily Driver 1966 FFR Cobra - Ongoing project >>>>It's my understanding that a 185 degree stat will really help the >>>>360 perform better. Is that not quite the case? [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > improvements, but required premium fuel and got worse mileage. So I > run mid grade all the time. Even when towing. Thanks for the info. ".boB" <bob >> My 360's basically stock with a 185 thermo and it runs great. A/C on >> idling in traffic and 93 degrees outside is no problem at all. Mileage [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > but required premium fuel and got worse mileage. So I run mid grade all > the time. Even when towing. I've had the 160 degree thermostat in my 98 Durango for a couple weeks now and unless it's cool outside it's not going to stay at 160 degrees. Yesterday, with temps above 85 degrees mine would stay in the middle of the Temp range on the gauge. If it's sitting at idle in the heat it's going to be in the middle range. The only time that it actually stays at 160 degrees (the little mark on the left side of guage) is when it's in the 70's outside and moving. That hypertech programmer might be nice to fix the tire ratio. My 98 was supposed to come with some 15 rims but, someone had already put a set of the 16 inch aluminum on there like the newer Dakotas and Durangos have. My speedometer actually shows that it is going around 1.5 mph faster than it actually is or so says my GPS receiver. Oh yeah, the trip computer on my Durango shows that it was averaging 16.5 mpg on the interstate @ 70 mph yesterday and that was with 3.92 gears ;) and no I don't know if that's accurate. It'll get even higher mpg @ 55 mph on that trip computer. PS. I'm ready to remove the catalytic converters and dual out the exhaust now after seeing all these epa commies in here. Ben > PS. I'm ready to remove the catalytic converters and dual out the exhaust > now after seeing all these epa commies in here. > > Ben We aren't the enemy Ben, just telling you what the rules say. I'm all in favor of allowing mods and doing a simple sniff test. After all, the important part is what comes out the tailpipe, not whats under the hood. But the laws aren't written that way. And everyone who is in this hobby deserves to know what the rules are so they can find the best ways to avoid detection. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > ".boB" <bob >>> My 360's basically stock with a 185 thermo and it runs great. A/C on [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Ben The problem with just the sniff test is that it requires people to be honest and actually care and unfortunantly, that is something that fewer and fewer people are these days. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > PS. I'm ready to remove the catalytic converters and dual out the exhaust > > now after seeing all these epa commies in here. [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > > > Ben > The problem with just the sniff test is that it requires people to be > honest > and actually care and unfortunantly, that is something that fewer and > fewer > people are these days. ??? The sniff test tells exactly whats coming out the tailpipe. No "honesty" factor about it, the engine cannot burn what is not there. If you are worried that someone will modify after being checked with a sniffer, all the other tests and inspections suffer the same flaw. At least with the sniff test, we know the car is meeting the emissions regs, not just looking like it will. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > The problem with just the sniff test is that it requires people to be > honest [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] >> > >> > Ben > > The problem with just the sniff test is that it requires people to be > > honest [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ??? The sniff test tells exactly whats coming out the tailpipe. Yea, at that particular time which with a little creative tuning has nothing to do with what is normally comming out of the tailpipe every other day of the year. > No "honesty" > factor about it, the engine cannot burn what is not there. Really, it can be temporarily tuned to burn fuel far more efficiently than it actually does under normal conditions which is dishonest now, isn't it? > If you are worried that someone will modify after being checked with a sniffer, all the > other tests and inspections suffer the same flaw. I am not worried about it but it does happen and while it can still happen with many of the current inspections, many of the more recent ones make it much more difficult to do, especially the ODBII one. > At least with the sniff > test, we know the car is meeting the emissions regs, not just looking like > it will. It means no such thing, unless of course, the person owning the car is honest and brings the car for inspection tuned the way it is the rest of the time. Gee, there is that honesty thing again. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Yea, at that particular time which with a little creative tuning has > nothing > to do with what is normally comming out of the tailpipe every other day of > the year. Ok...... > Really, it can be temporarily tuned to burn fuel far more efficiently than > it actually does under normal conditions which is dishonest now, isn't it? Burning fuel efficiently means its burning correctly, which also means its at optimum power output for the amount of fuel input. Say, thats sounds like a performance objective.....Maybe the engine is tuned to pass a sniffer AND its making its best power? >> If you are worried that someone will modify after being checked with a > sniffer, all the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > with many of the current inspections, many of the more recent ones make it > much more difficult to do, especially the ODBII one. Bullshit you aren't worried about it, both your previous statements say exactly that you are thinking someone will cheat on a sniffer test. Talk about spin, you say twice that someone could tune to pass the test, and retune for the rest of the year. Then when I say someone could do it to any test, you say you aren't worried about people cheating. WTF? Decide what you think THEN write, ok? >> At least with the sniff >> test, we know the car is meeting the emissions regs, not just looking [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the > time. Gee, there is that honesty thing again. Gee, theres that "I'm not worried about it but I keep mentioning it" thing again. Face it, if its a matter of tuning, and we have proof that the car is not putting out excessive emissions, its probably not far from that the rest of the year. Its certainly better than a "it looks like it'll pass, but we have no idea whats coming out of the tailpipe." In that scenario, we have to worry about cheating, but we also have to worry that the stuff isn't working, even though its there. I can see your argument going circular, so I'll let you blabber away at this point. I've made my point, even if you are too dense to understand it. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> > The problem with just the sniff test is that it requires people to be >> > honest [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > the > time. Gee, there is that honesty thing again. > > Yea, at that particular time which with a little creative tuning has > > nothing [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > a performance objective.....Maybe the engine is tuned to pass a sniffer AND > its making its best power? LOL, best power and maximum power usually have nothing to do with each other. Also and unfortunately, with current emissions standards in many cases the engine must be tuned leaner than maximum efficiency to pass. > >> If you are worried that someone will modify after being checked with a > > sniffer, all the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > test, you say you aren't worried about people cheating. WTF? Decide what you > think THEN write, ok? Jeese, talk about spin. There is a big difference between worrying about something and knowing that it can and does happen. Like I said many times, comprehension is not as big thing with you. Talk about mastery of the language or the lack of it in your case. > >> At least with the sniff > >> test, we know the car is meeting the emissions regs, not just looking [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Gee, theres that "I'm not worried about it but I keep mentioning it" thing > again. Yea, and what's your point? Oh, that's right, as usual you don't have one. People can see what is happening without worrying about it. > Face it, if its a matter of tuning, and we have proof that the car is > not putting out excessive emissions, its probably not far from that the rest > of the year. LOL, if that were true, there would be no reason for these "improved" tests. Actually, the ODBII test is designed to save time over the rolling sniffer test and it just happens to be a little harder to fool. > Its certainly better than a "it looks like it'll pass, but we > have no idea whats coming out of the tailpipe." What does this even mean? If the computer is functioning normally and the sensors are sending the correct data to it, the engine has to be at or near its lowest possible emissions. If a sensor fails, the computer is usually quick to notice it and flag a code but even if it didn't, it still reports sensor outputs and any competent tester can see if the output of something (like the TPS) doesn't look right. If the computer itself fails, the engine in most cases doesn't run at all so there is no "it looks like it will pass" BS about it. > In that scenario, we have to > worry about cheating, but we also have to worry that the stuff isn't > working, even though its there. Actually, there is much less chance of that with the ODBII tests than a sniffer test where the engine could simply be "rigged" to pass the test but you know that, right? > I can see your argument going circular, so I'll let you blabber away at this > point. I've made my point, even if you are too dense to understand it. No, you realised that once again, you have no valid argument and are tyring to save face, as usual. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Burning fuel efficiently means its burning correctly, which also means its > at optimum power output for the amount of fuel input. Say, thats sounds > like a performance objective.....Maybe the engine is tuned to pass a > sniffer AND its making its best power? Okay - but if the sniff test is done at idle, what about engines with big, lopey cams, that are most efficient at 4000-5000RPM or so, and run super-rich at idle? If left tuned for best top-end performance, they'll surely fail the sniff test. Thus - the owners lean the snot out of them, get a 'PASS' sticker, pull over two blocks from the center, richen it back up, and light 'em up for 2 city blocks :) > Okay - but if the sniff test is done at idle, what about engines with big, > lopey cams, that are most efficient at 4000-5000RPM or so, and run > super-rich at idle? If left tuned for best top-end performance, they'll > surely fail the sniff test. Thus - the owners lean the snot out of them, > get a 'PASS' sticker, pull over two blocks from the center, richen it back > up, and light 'em up for 2 city blocks :) First, it depends on the sniff test, those are performed in so many different ways its silly. Second, its undeniable that someone will cheat the emissions testing. If the concern is cleaner air, then certainly a sniffer will tell more than a visual inspection. If the concern is getting a car to pass regardless, by all means I like the visual withut a sniffer, the less they know the better, right? The reality is that cars like you described, in PA at least, can be registered as classic or antique, and be exempt from emissions. Further, there is a clause for low mileage that allows a car to be exempt from testing. But my point was/is, NO testing is foolproof, so a sniffer would likely catch more stuff than a visual, and would be a help to those with stock configurations. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> Burning fuel efficiently means its burning correctly, which also means >> its at optimum power output for the amount of fuel input. Say, thats [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > get a 'PASS' sticker, pull over two blocks from the center, richen it back > up, and light 'em up for 2 city blocks :) > > Burning fuel efficiently means its burning correctly, which also means its > > at optimum power output for the amount of fuel input. Say, thats sounds [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > get a 'PASS' sticker, pull over two blocks from the center, richen it back > up, and light 'em up for 2 city blocks :) Many states are using a dyno to run the engine up and test at idle and 2000-4000 rpm. Fail any part of it and your done. Also add in that some states also do a visual inspection and will fail you for illegal parts that way as well. I am betting that many more states will go to this method as the feds tighten the grip. SignatureSteve W. >The problem with just the sniff test is that it requires people to be honest >and actually care and unfortunantly, that is something that fewer and fewer >people are these days. Sniff test? Never heard it called that but it does bring back memories. beekeep > It's my understanding that a 185 degree stat will really help the 360 > perform better. Is that not quite the case? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > > But hey - at least it's not running too hot... I have a 95 Ram 1500 318. I went with a 185 stat after i had a head gasket and head reworked after a overheating. I soon had to replace the Cat Converter. I thought it was the water going into the cylinders that stopped it up. I ran my truck for 2 1/2 months so far this summer and have noticed a smell of not completely burned fuel out of the duel exhaust Dodge service put a test Ox Sensor on the converter and said that it was not burning fuel and wanted to know what degree stat i had. I told them a 185 and they changed it to a 195 and the burnt fuel smell just went away. There explaination was that the engine cylinder jackets were not getting hot enough to completely burn the fuel. So my experience would be to go with a 195 stat because that is where the enegine was built to run on. RamGuy Just my 2 cents worth. give me change if it wasn't worth it. Put in any lower than 195o in NY state and you might very well fail your emissions inspection next time around 'emissions tampering' G > I'm guessing it's located on the top side of the engine. Just blew > a lower radiator hose and decided to replace the stock thermostat [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > 2001 Ram 2500 QC 4x4 5 speed. Don't recall asking anything of the sort of what you posted. While I see your point, it was not requested to have input such as this. Signature_________________________ Laszlo Almasi Carolina Watercraft Works, Inc. "In the battle between money and love, money will always triumph" I may have to change my signature......on second thought, I was right the first time. > 'emissions tampering' > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >> 2001 Ram 2500 QC 4x4 5 speed. "Also, any tips anyone may have while I'm in here doing this would be appreciated." any other gripes or bitches you want to get off your chest, Bucko ? > Don't recall asking anything of the sort of what you posted. While I > see your point, it was not requested to have input such as this. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >> > >> 2001 Ram 2500 QC 4x4 5 speed. Your comment wasn't a tip. It was taken as a self-righteous tree hugger comment, Bubba. LOL A "tip" would be something like anything "everyone" else posted in the thread. Why people like yourself feel obligated to deviate from the thread is beyond my comprehension. The repair has been effected and all is good....included the kill-file addition. Signature_________________________ Laszlo Almasi Carolina Watercraft Works, Inc. "In the battle between money and love, money will always triumph" I may have to change my signature......on second thought, I was right the first time. > "Also, any tips anyone may have while I'm in here doing this would be > appreciated." [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > the >> >> first time. 'tree hugger' ????? get f.cking real....I'm as far from a 'tree-hugger' as it is possible to get; but like the laws regarding emissions or not, I tried to give you some advice you asked for 'tips', I told you that you are liable for a charge (and sizeable fine) for 'emissions tampering' go ahead, put a low-temp thermostat in it and when it fails testing, and the Feds crawl up your a.s, remember this day you idiot > Your comment wasn't a tip. It was taken as a self-righteous tree > hugger comment, Bubba. LOL [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > the > >> >> first time. > and when it fails testing, and the Feds crawl up your a.s, remember this > day Have you ever known someone who was fined for putting a lower temp. thermostat in a vehicle? I can see being fined for cutting off a cat - but for changing a 'stat? I find that a little over the top >> and when it fails testing, and the Feds crawl up your a.s, remember >> this day > > Have you ever known someone who was fined for putting a lower temp. > thermostat in a vehicle? I can see being fined for cutting off a > cat - but for changing a 'stat? I find that a little over the top The fact that it's running cooler may affect emissions in a negative way. > The fact that it's running cooler may affect emissions in a negative > way. That's not the point. You MAY lose your license for travelling 1MPH over the speed limit, too... I'm looking for actual first-hand knowledge of a fine being levied. >> The fact that it's running cooler may affect emissions in a >> negative way. > > That's not the point. You MAY lose your license for travelling 1MPH > over the speed limit, too... I'm looking for actual first-hand > knowledge of a fine being levied. My thought was that if the emissions are over the limit, the vehicle won't pass inspection, and if the driver gets caught driving without a valid inspection sticker, he'll get fined. So based on that, I guess it's possible to draw the conclusion that you can be fined for installing a low-temp thermo. Not that I'm defending the supposition... Actually, in a lot of states vehicles with a GVWR of 8800 and over are not subject to emissions testing. So, in NC it isn't even an issue for any sort of law enforcement agency. Signature_________________________ Laszlo Almasi Carolina Watercraft Works, Inc. "In the battle between money and love, money will always triumph" I may have to change my signature......on second thought, I was right the first time. > >>> The fact that it's running cooler may affect emissions in a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > you can be fined for installing a low-temp thermo. Not that I'm > defending the supposition... > Actually, in a lot of states vehicles with a GVWR of 8800 and > over are not subject to emissions testing. So, in NC it isn't > even an issue for any sort of law enforcement agency. Down here in SoFla we don't have any kind of inspection let alone emissions testing. Basically, if it's titled, licensed, and insured, it's on the road legally. > >> and when it fails testing, and the Feds crawl up your a.s, remember > >> this day [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The fact that it's running cooler may affect emissions in a negative > way. and if the emissions station guy has had a bad week, and decides to dig a bit.................... >> >> and when it fails testing, and the Feds crawl up your a.s, >> >> remember this day [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > and if the emissions station guy has had a bad week, and decides to > dig a bit.................... Personally, I don't give a rat's a.s because there's no inspection here, not that it wouldn't pass anyway. When it's 95 out and I'm in stand-still traffic and the a/c's on full blast, I want the truck to run a bit cooler, so I'll use the 180. End of story. > >> >> and when it fails testing, and the Feds crawl up your a.s, > >> >> remember this day [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > blast, I want the truck to run a bit cooler, so I'll use the 180. End > of story. Yep so what if it f.cks the rest of the folks. Who cares. Hell maybe we should all drive like the bitch who just killed 5 kids in upstate because SHE WANTED to drive 80 plus. and hit a truck killing herself and the 5 kids. >>>>>>and when it fails testing, and the Feds crawl up your a.s, >>>>>>remember this day [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > because SHE WANTED to drive 80 plus. and hit a truck killing herself and > the 5 kids. Yeah that'll really screw up the emissions. Clay Ps. You're an idiot, try to pay attention. >> >> >> and when it fails testing, and the Feds crawl up your a.s, >> >> >> remember this day [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > because SHE WANTED to drive 80 plus. and hit a truck killing herself > and the 5 kids. Whoa, slight tangent maybe? Back off the caffein a bit. Hey Joe....a kill-file is a great thing to have for newsgroups. Signature_________________________ Laszlo Almasi Carolina Watercraft Works, Inc. "In the battle between money and love, money will always triumph" I may have to change my signature......on second thought, I was right the first time. > >>> >> and when it fails testing, and the Feds crawl up your a.s, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > blast, I want the truck to run a bit cooler, so I'll use the 180. End > of story. > Hey Joe....a kill-file is a great thing to have for newsgroups. Nah, it's fun to read everything. > > >> and when it fails testing, and the Feds crawl up your a.s, remember > > >> this day [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and if the emissions station guy has had a bad week, and decides to dig a > bit.................... LOL, complete BS. Do you think that they have either the time, motivation, or permission to take the vehicle apart to look??? All they will do is say you are running cold, tell you that you need to get it fixed, and fail you. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving In California, the State does use remote emission sensing, and they can tell you the emissions along with a photo of the lic plate of the offending vehicle. They then send a letter to the owner of the vehicle, requesting a smog inspection. If that is not done, then you are unable to re-register your vehicle till it is completed. They also use the data collected from the remote sensing units to show the legislators what the status of the emissions are from area to area. This data is used to determine if a county needs to be within the Biannual inspection program. It is also used to determine how effective the present smog regulations are. In many cases lowering the operating temp of and engine will cause the engine to run rich. It will not go into closed loop operation. The mileage will drop off, It may cause the cat to plug, excessive fuel will wash the cylinder walls and reduce lubrication and increase the wear factor. The oil will be diluted and that will also increase wear. For us Tec's, I say go ahead and lower the operating temp. We can always use the repair business. On the newer vehicles the computers will realize the temperature is not within the operating range and will then ignore the signal from the temperature sensor if the temperature is not reached within a set time period. And yes, it is against Fed and State law to tamper with emmision control devices. And yes you can be charged with the crime. Clyde > >> and when it fails testing, and the Feds crawl up your a.s, remember > >> this day [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The fact that it's running cooler may affect emissions in a negative > way. > Your comment wasn't a tip. It was taken as a self-righteous tree > hugger comment, Bubba. LOL Laszlo, I don't have a dog in this but.. When Gary replied I sorta thought, hmmm.. good point I didn't think of that. Other might have thought of it. Who know's? Also how you take a post is on you, not the poster. > A "tip" would be something like anything "everyone" else posted > in the thread. Why people like yourself feel obligated to deviate > from the thread is beyond my comprehension. Gary's reply was not a deviation imo. > The repair has been > effected and all is good.... Good deal, glad it worked out. >included the kill-file addition. That is a mistake, again imo. Roy Well, he could have gotten his point across in a, IMO, a more polite manner. Something like: While I have heard of this being done, I'd recommend not changing to a 180 degree because it may cause the fuel to not combust as designed thereby lowering your overall fuel economy and dispensing raw fuel into the atmosphere which may be considered an environmental issue down the road. Now that would have been taken much better, wouldn't have come across as negative. We live in a world where too many people try to push their views and opinions onto others where it isn't wanted. I'm just sick and tired of people jumping in with something that sounds negative right from the get go. I think more points could be gotten across if the information is submitted in a more friendly manner...not purely " 'emissions tampering' " which automatically exudes negativity. Signature_________________________ Laszlo Almasi Carolina Watercraft Works, Inc. "In the battle between money and love, money will always triumph" I may have to change my signature......on second thought, I was right the first time. > >> Your comment wasn't a tip. It was taken as a self-righteous tree [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Roy > Well, he could have gotten his point across in a, IMO, a more > polite manner. Something like: While I have heard of this being > done, I'd recommend not changing to a 180 degree because it > may cause the fuel to not combust as designed thereby lowering > your overall fuel economy and dispensing raw fuel into the atmosphere > which may be considered an environmental issue down the road. Yeah, but I give Gary a lot of credit for being efficient with his words :) > come across as negative. We live in a world where too many people > try to push their views and opinions onto others where it isn't wanted. We live in a world with too many panty-waisted weak-in-the-knees twits who care more about how something is phrased rather than the meaning behind it. By posting something in an open forum such as this, you INVITE the opinions of all who read it. If you're not prepared to see those opinions, accept the ones you agree with, and discard the ones you don't, without getting all runny-nosed about it, then I would suggest not reading any future postings. while your points below are well taken, the mere fact that it is in the engine at all is 'emissions tampering' which carries a heavy fine Jesus, Mary, and Joseph...................are you this obtuse naturally or did you take classes ? > Well, he could have gotten his point across in a, IMO, a more > polite manner. Something like: While I have heard of this being [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > > > Roy Using that logic, doing a tune-up will carry a heavy fine. You're tampering with stuff directly related to emissions. > while your points below are well taken, the mere fact that it is in > the engine at all is 'emissions tampering' which carries a heavy [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >> > >> > Roy > Using that logic, doing a tune-up will carry a heavy fine. You're > tampering with stuff directly related to emissions. Dammit Joe, you beat me to it. :-) If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving another rocket scientist speaks > > Using that logic, doing a tune-up will carry a heavy fine. You're > > tampering with stuff directly related to emissions. > > Dammit Joe, you beat me to it. :-) > > If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Using that logic, doing a tune-up will carry a heavy fine. You're > tampering with stuff directly related to emissions. Actually, since all ya can do is swap plugs and plug wires, and you cannot :change timing, fueling, vacuum lines, etc, its not messing with emissions at all. Assuming you were correct, we'd have to include air filters, air intake mods (K&N anyone?) injector changes, PCM chipping, shift kits, exhaust mods of almost any sort, tire size changes..... SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > Using that logic, doing a tune-up will carry a heavy fine. You're > tampering with stuff directly related to emissions. [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >>> > >>> > Roy >> Using that logic, doing a tune-up will carry a heavy fine. You're >> tampering with stuff directly related to emissions. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >:emissions > at all. Sure it is. If you put the wrong plugs in you'll screw up your emissions big time. So what's the inspection guy gonna do, pull a plug to check if you've got the right ones in? > Assuming you were correct, we'd have to include air filters, air > intake mods (K&N anyone?) injector changes, PCM chipping, shift > kits, exhaust mods of almost any sort, tire size changes..... Indeed. Shows you how ridiculous this whole thing is. Bottom line is that if the stuff coming out of the pipe doesn't trip the sensor, you're ok. No way in hell is anybody going to check every single emission-related component on every single vehicle. > Sure it is. If you put the wrong plugs in you'll screw up your > emissions big time. Um, yeah, ok, sure...... > So what's the inspection guy gonna do, pull a > plug to check if you've got the right ones in? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the sensor, you're ok. No way in hell is anybody going to check every > single emission-related component on every single vehicle. Actually, PA has just enacted legislation to do exactly that with a "visual inspection". Now, since its still up to private enterprise to do the inspections......They may or may not check everything, including the thermostat. Those new handheld thermometer guns are wonderful, aren't they? I'll readily agree its ridiculous. But the fact is, if they actually enforce the regs (and someone WILL at some point do exactly that), then the thermostat is fair game. What I see here is a bunch of people saying, "well, yeah, it might be considered against the rules, if they catch us." Great, so for no appreciable gain, and to the possible detriment of the PCM programming, y'all are gonna change the 'stat? Ten degrees is worth that much trouble? (and I mean the hassle of changing the stat, not the bullshit regs) In some cases, I suppose it might be. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >>> Using that logic, doing a tune-up will carry a heavy fine. You're >>> tampering with stuff directly related to emissions. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > the sensor, you're ok. No way in hell is anybody going to check every > single emission-related component on every single vehicle. >> Sure it is. If you put the wrong plugs in you'll screw up your >> emissions big time. > > Um, yeah, ok, sure...... Uh, yeah, hullo... >> So what's the inspection guy gonna do, pull a >> plug to check if you've got the right ones in? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > mean the hassle of changing the stat, not the bullshit regs) In some > cases, I suppose it might be. Guess I'll never live in PA. No loss. >>> Sure it is. If you put the wrong plugs in you'll screw up your >>> emissions big time. >> >> Um, yeah, ok, sure...... > > Uh, yeah, hullo... Spark plugs are heat ranged to be self cleaning. The range is generally accepted to be about 300-400 degrees wide, and could be 500 to 900C, or 700-1000F, depending on your preference for measurement. Given the wide range of operation, changing a heat range, whether purposeful or by accident, will not appreciably alter the emissions of a vehicle, since the purpose is to burn off deposits of what is already in the cylinder. Spark plugs do not alter the operating temp of an engine (which is the greatest influence on emissions for a number of reasons) but instead alter the temp at which the plug disappates heat. Thus one engine model may be fine with stock plugs in one application, but may need a different heat range plug in another application. One example might be the Ford 5.4 often used in police applications. In a police cruiser, it may be necessary to have a hotter plug due to the relatively lazy way the car is used, slow patrols, stopped and watching. Conversely, the same model may be used in another PD and be used for highway patrol, and need a cooler plug. Thus swapping plugs is not a real factor on emissions, but is a definite factor in maintenance of the spark plugs. If you wish to reach a bit, certainly you could claim the lack of maintenance on a cool set of plugs, or the pre-ignition caused by too hot a plug, would affect emissions. However, between the two, there is plenty of space to roam. So, again, I say, Um, yeah, ok, sure, whatever.... > Guess I'll never live in PA. No loss. Or Cali. By what I've read so far, thats 3 down, and 47 to go. At what point will you decide to live in another country simply based on emissions regs that have very little effect on overall power? SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >>> Sure it is. If you put the wrong plugs in you'll screw up your >>> emissions big time. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Guess I'll never live in PA. No loss. >>>> Sure it is. If you put the wrong plugs in you'll screw up your >>>> emissions big time. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > So, again, I say, Um, yeah, ok, sure, whatever.... And to all that I say: Um, sure. Whatever. Using the wrong plugs will affect your emissions in a negative way. >> Guess I'll never live in PA. No loss. > > Or Cali. By what I've read so far, thats 3 down, and 47 to go. At > what point will you decide to live in another country simply based > on emissions regs that have very little effect on overall power? I'll never live in another country. Maybe another state, but never another country. The primary factor in determining where I will live has always been the weather. > And to all that I say: Um, sure. Whatever. Using the wrong plugs > will affect your emissions in a negative way. And I'm sure you have proof of this, so why not post the information? SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >>>>> Sure it is. If you put the wrong plugs in you'll screw up your >>>>> emissions big time. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > another country. The primary factor in determining where I will live > has always been the weather. "Max Dodge" <max340@verizon.net> wrote in news:KqPGe.3419$DJ5.479 @trnddc07: >> And to all that I say: Um, sure. Whatever. Using the wrong plugs >> will affect your emissions in a negative way. > > And I'm sure you have proof of this, so why not post the information? It's simply not worth the time. >> And I'm sure you have proof of this, so why not post the information? > > It's simply not worth the time. So you simply don't have it, do you? I mean, its worth the time to reply to a one line quip with a worn out line of your own, but to supply proof is beynd your limited time resources? I think the regulars can see where this is going. The last word is yours..... if you've got time, that is. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > "Max Dodge" <max340@verizon.net> wrote in news:KqPGe.3419$DJ5.479 > @trnddc07: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It's simply not worth the time. >>> And I'm sure you have proof of this, so why not post the >>> information? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I think the regulars can see where this is going. The last word is > yours..... if you've got time, that is. Max, if you don't buy it, that's fine - you're not important enough for me to give a rat's a.s about it. > >>> And I'm sure you have proof of this, so why not post the > >>> information? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Max, if you don't buy it, that's fine - you're not important enough > for me to give a rat's a.s about it. obviously, he is he has you dancing like the trained pup you are................ "TranSurgeon" <nobulltrans@mchsi.dotcom> wrote in news:WI4He.227970 $nG6.199453@attbi_s22: >> >>> And I'm sure you have proof of this, so why not post the >> >>> information? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > he has you dancing like the trained pup you are... Another one without a life. LOL! > > >>> And I'm sure you have proof of this, so why not post the > > >>> information? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > he has you dancing like the trained pup you are................ LOL, is this your lame attempt at reverse psychology???? SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > > >>> And I'm sure you have proof of this, so why not post the > > > >>> information? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > LOL, is this your lame attempt at reverse psychology???? you too, eh ? > > > > >>> And I'm sure you have proof of this, so why not post the > > > > >>> information? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > you too, eh ? I thought so SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > >> Using that logic, doing a tune-up will carry a heavy fine. You're > >> tampering with stuff directly related to emissions. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > the sensor, you're ok. No way in hell is anybody going to check every > single emission-related component on every single vehicle. NY Does on vehicles that are tested. The new computer system actually helps in that respect since it can bring up data on what is supposed to be on the vehicle in regards to emissions controls. Then you just look it over and see if those parts are there. As for mods that are considered tampering. Chips, Injector changes, Exhaust mods ahead of the cat., SOME air intake kits, Thermostat altering are on the list. NY now plugs into your vehicle and runs it. They check to see what parameters are out of spec. and how far. They also look at trouble codes and drive cycles, IF for example you just cleared a trouble code and haven't driven through a drive cycle they can make you take it out and drive it and retest. Upstate has just started with the onboard testing of vehicles with OBD ports. I can see the full dyno testing coming real soon. >> >> Using that logic, doing a tune-up will carry a heavy fine. >> >> You're tampering with stuff directly related to emissions. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > vehicles with OBD ports. I can see the full dyno testing coming real > soon. And I'll never live in NY either. Again, no loss. > > >> Using that logic, doing a tune-up will carry a heavy fine. You're > > >> tampering with stuff directly related to emissions. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Upstate has just started with the onboard testing of vehicles with OBD > ports. I can see the full dyno testing coming real soon. it also checks the ECM ID against what is supposed to be there wrong, Brainiac you are not changing to a non-specified part try again > Using that logic, doing a tune-up will carry a heavy fine. You're > tampering with stuff directly related to emissions. [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > >> > > >> > Roy LOL! WTF are you talking about? The sheer brilliance of your post just shines through... Right. "TranSurgeon" <nobulltrans@mchsi.dotcom> wrote in news:L%CGe.196448 $x96.6726@attbi_s72: > wrong, Brainiac > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >> >> > >> >> > Roy once more, Einstein: when you 'change plugs and wires', you are REPLACING with a 'specified part'that is the same as the original in the eyes of the EPA when you swap to a lower-temp thermostat, you are changing to a 'non-specified part', you are making MODICATIONS that will affect emissions I hopw this helps with your obvious comprehension difficulty > LOL! WTF are you talking about? The sheer brilliance of your post > just shines through... [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > >> >> > > >> >> > Roy > once more, Einstein: > > when you 'change plugs and wires', you are REPLACING with a > 'specified part'that is the same as the original in the eyes of the > EPA Now that's a pretty big ASSumption. So what happens when you put parts other than the 'specified parts' in, Mr. BrainSurgeon? D-oh. > when you swap to a lower-temp thermostat, you are changing to a > 'non-specified part', you are making MODICATIONS that will affect > emissions > > I hopw this helps with your obvious comprehension difficulty The only comprehension difficulty I have at this point is understanding how an idiot like you can actually operate a computer. But wonders never cease, eh? >> LOL! WTF are you talking about? The sheer brilliance of your post >> just shines through... [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Roy > > once more, Einstein: > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > understanding how an idiot like you can actually operate a computer. > But wonders never cease, eh? Ok, now you will be getting the cleaning bill for my monitor and keyboard and you owe me another cup of coffee :-) SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > once more, Einstein: > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Now that's a pretty big ASSumption. So what happens when you put > parts other than the 'specified parts' in, Mr. BrainSurgeon? D-oh. Why would anyone do that? > > > once more, Einstein: > > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Why would anyone do that? For the same reasons that they would put the wrong thermostat in it. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> once more, Einstein: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >understanding how an idiot like you can actually operate a computer. >But wonders never cease, eh? Ah come on and give the poor bastard a break. It only took him eight grueling years to get through tranny school at high school tech. Now he thinks he has a doctorate. The only reason he passed was that he out grew the other kids and could no longer fit the desk. beekeep > >> once more, Einstein: > >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > he thinks he has a doctorate. The only reason he passed was that he > out grew the other kids and could no longer fit the desk. No, that is why he is no longer there. I doubt that he passed. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> >> once more, Einstein: >> >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >No, that is why he is no longer there. I doubt that he passed. He definitely flunked car side manner. beekeep > LOL! WTF are you talking about? The sheer brilliance of your post > just shines through... > > Right. As does the sheer ignorance of yours. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > LOL! WTF are you talking about? The sheer brilliance of your post > just shines through... [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] >>> >> > >>> >> > Roy "Max Dodge" <max340@verizon.net> wrote in news:nrPGe.3429$DJ5.366 @trnddc07: >> LOL! WTF are you talking about? The sheer brilliance of your post >> just shines through... >> >> Right. > > As does the sheer ignorance of yours. Comeback of the year. Whoa. >> As does the sheer ignorance of yours. > > Comeback of the year. Whoa. Yeah, I figured you'd be right on that. Care for the last word? Or will you be providing proof of your claims? Awaiting your display of brilliance, SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > "Max Dodge" <max340@verizon.net> wrote in news:nrPGe.3429$DJ5.366 > @trnddc07: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Comeback of the year. Whoa. >>> As does the sheer ignorance of yours. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Awaiting your display of brilliance, That would be game, set and match. Glad to see ya haven't lost your touch Max. <GBMFG> Have to start a new best friend list for ya. Roy >> "Max Dodge" <max340@verizon.net> wrote in news:nrPGe.3429$DJ5.366 >> @trnddc07: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> >> Comeback of the year. Whoa. >>>> As does the sheer ignorance of yours. >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Roy Wow, Roy's actually trying to keep score. Another lively weekend, eh? >>>>> As does the sheer ignorance of yours. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Wow, Roy's actually trying to keep score. Another lively weekend, eh? No need to keep score. You talk about a lively weekend? You have around 15 post's over the past couple of day's dancing for Max. Guess you are having one. Keep up the entertainment, I'll check back on ya tonight and turn out the lights. >>>>>> As does the sheer ignorance of yours. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Guess you are having one. Keep up the entertainment, I'll check back > on ya tonight and turn out the lights. Whatever floats your boat, bucko. Have a good one. >Well, he could have gotten his point across in a, IMO, a more >polite manner. Something like: While I have heard of this being [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >manner...not purely " 'emissions tampering' " which automatically >exudes negativity. But that wouldn't have been Gary being Gary. He is what he is. beekeep > >Well, he could have gotten his point across in a, IMO, a more > >polite manner. Something like: While I have heard of this being [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > But that wouldn't have been Gary being Gary. > He is what he is. hi, Greggy still being an a.shole, eh ? >Your comment wasn't a tip. It was taken as a self-righteous tree >hugger comment, Bubba. LOL [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >from the thread is beyond my comprehension. The repair has been >effected and all is good....included the kill-file addition. Here's a tip - DON'T FEED THE GREASEMONKEY! BEEKEEP ROFLMAO...that's the truth beekeep. I'll heed that one. Signature_________________________ Laszlo Almasi Carolina Watercraft Works, Inc. "In the battle between money and love, money will always triumph" I may have to change my signature......on second thought, I was right the first time. > >>Your comment wasn't a tip. It was taken as a self-righteous tree [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > BEEKEEP > >Your comment wasn't a tip. It was taken as a self-righteous tree > >hugger comment, Bubba. LOL [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Here's a tip - DON'T FEED THE GREASEMONKEY! aaawww...........whasssamtter, Greggy-poo feeling left out ? or is the discussion over your head (again)? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.