We can go back and forth all day but its not worth the time if all we are going to do is contradict each other without trying to understand the basic physic principles in play. I think we can all agree that in order for a radiator to reduce the temperature of the fluid flowing through it one key component is time. If the fluid flows through too quickly it simply will not lose heat at the same rate/level as it would at a slower rate. Not nonsense. Not BS. Scientific fact. The simplest example I can think of is an iron. When one is pressing their pants they don't hold their hand against the surface of the iron to see if it is hot but rather might quickly tap it with a finger to sense the heat. Why do we do it this way? Because if you hold your finger against it too long you get burned! Same kind of basic idea with flow through a radiator. It takes time for the heat to transfer out of the fluid and into the surface of the radiator and then out to the surrounding air.
The assumption that regardless of flow rate the water spends just as much time in the radiator is correct but that doesn't mean the time is enough to provide any or enough cooling effect. What percentage of the fluid loop is in the radiator as compared to in the heat source (engine)? If 40% is rad time and 60% is in the heat source what is going to happen if the radiator is not capable of "keeping up"? Yep, temps will rise. Such as when sitting in traffic, etc. Like the poster is having issue.
The thing when using such a low temp thermostat is that it opens fully sooner and will NEVER close in a application as we are discussing. Therefore the flow rate is at it's least restricted state all the time. Coupled with a slightly under performing radiator (as is likely the original posters issue) the engine and thus the coolant temperature can and likely will continue to rise.
Now if one were to put in a 180* thermostat it is possible that the same set-up could run cooler and not see the same rise in temperature because its possible the thermostat would partially close at times (cruising speed) when the lower temp unit would remain fully open, restricting the flow rate and allowing the radiator to do a better job of cooling. That is not nonsense that is how the system is designed to operate.
Remember, all of this is based on a system utilizing a borderline/maybe eve slightly under-performing radiator. If one had a massive, highly efficient unit you could run a 195* unit and never see a temp above 160* but that is not the issue these posts have been trying to address.
I'm done on this issue after this. If you don't agree that's fine. If anyone wants to do more research, maybe talk to experts and engine builders...have at it. I have spent my share of time doing such and keep coming back with the same conclusions, explanations and firsthand experiences.
The assumption that regardless of flow rate the water spends just as much time in the radiator is correct but that doesn't mean the time is enough to provide any or enough cooling effect. What percentage of the fluid loop is in the radiator as compared to in the heat source (engine)? If 40% is rad time and 60% is in the heat source what is going to happen if the radiator is not capable of "keeping up"? Yep, temps will rise. Such as when sitting in traffic, etc. Like the poster is having issue.
The thing when using such a low temp thermostat is that it opens fully sooner and will NEVER close in a application as we are discussing. Therefore the flow rate is at it's least restricted state all the time. Coupled with a slightly under performing radiator (as is likely the original posters issue) the engine and thus the coolant temperature can and likely will continue to rise.
Now if one were to put in a 180* thermostat it is possible that the same set-up could run cooler and not see the same rise in temperature because its possible the thermostat would partially close at times (cruising speed) when the lower temp unit would remain fully open, restricting the flow rate and allowing the radiator to do a better job of cooling. That is not nonsense that is how the system is designed to operate.
Remember, all of this is based on a system utilizing a borderline/maybe eve slightly under-performing radiator. If one had a massive, highly efficient unit you could run a 195* unit and never see a temp above 160* but that is not the issue these posts have been trying to address.
I'm done on this issue after this. If you don't agree that's fine. If anyone wants to do more research, maybe talk to experts and engine builders...have at it. I have spent my share of time doing such and keep coming back with the same conclusions, explanations and firsthand experiences.
