A lot of faulty thermodynamics in some of the above posts - particularly the ones by 1991l98g92. The engine is a heat driven device. The more heat you keep in the combustion chamber, the more power you make. The downside occurs when the combustion temperatures, cylinder pressure and air charge preheat start to cause uncontrolled combustion = detonation. There is a critical mix of coolant temp, ignition timing, air/fuel ratio and combustion air preheat that determines where maximum power will be made. It isn't a simple combination to optimize. We spent the time to do it. Trust me, my engine is not have a problem with "gap/firing issue that's causing it not to burn properly with the colder temps." Its making 800HP and handling a 300-shot of nitrous.

The colder the coolant temp, the more heat it is removing from the combustion chamber. That's less heat left to increase the cylinder pressure. Evans Coolant claims a significant power advantage, and they do this by increasing the coolant temperature, and using a coolant that can withstand nucleate boiling at these elevated temperatures.

BOTH water and ethylene glycol (contemporary anti-freeze is not "alcohol")remove heat from the engine. Water just happens to have a higher specific heat than ethylene glycol, so it removes a larger percentage of the heat, but the ethylene glycol is still removing some of the heat.

Colder combustion chamber temperatures reduce fuel economy, increase CO and unburned HC's, reduce NOx formation and reduce the overall thermal efficiency of the engine. Some of this efficiency loss can be compensated with some additional timing advance, or decreased air charge preheat. But, "cooler isn't always better".

Not sure why you feel I would say that..... WTF are you talking about?

 

Well that's quite an engine lol. I think (but don't know) the reason your higher temps gave you better hp is because the N2O cooled the chambers down so much and casued your plugs to miss. Lol.

 

The coolant temperature was optimized first for NA operation. Not sure why you want to keep making these inane statements.... but it is entertaining.

 

I thought the cooler motor allowed cooler, more dense (and therefore more mass) air to enter the combustion chamber, allowing for more combustion per stroke of motor, as well as allowing more timing advance. That is what is advertised, but it prob minimal benefit compared to reduced efficiency/completeness of the combustion reactionp at lower temperatures - i never even thought of that!

At WOT, i would think the air is moving so fast it wont get heated up too much by the motor anyway. So why do people obsess over cooling their motor before a quarter mile pass? Is it all in the head?

 

Cooling the air in the intake is something different than cooling the area around the combustion chamber. With Evans you have warmer coolant going in, but it actually is cooler in the grand scheme of things because evans has a better transference of heat and that means that if you put a bag of ice on your intake before you go run the 1/4 then the air going in will be cool, the combustion temp will be hot still and therefore giving you better combustion and hotter spark, and all that good stuff.

 

Lol Injuneer, I really don't know what I'm talking about. That actually should have been phrased as a question. "Could it be the N2O cooling it down?". I'm just trying ot learn. Wasn't it you who said "If everyone agreed with me I'd never learn anything."

 

Let's take your water heater for example:
Turn the hot water on. Your heater is full of hot water. As the hot water leaves the tank, cold water is put in it's place. Eventually, the water will get colder at the tap. Why, you ask? Because the water isn't there long enough to absorb the heat from the flame. So you have to shut off the tap (thermostat) and allow the water to absorb the flame so you have hot water again, maintaining a constant temp; and your wife won't nag at you for using all the hot water! Where did the heat from the flame go? Not in the water, otherwise you would have a constant sourse of hot water.
Everytime the spark plug fires and the gases burn, heat is created. If not absorbed into the water, where does it go? It must be removed, or it stays in the cylinder and transfered through the metal parts. Light a match and hold your hand over it. Where does the heat go? Into your hand! Then you take your hand and wipe it on your leg. Ah, your leg gets warm from transfering the heat from your hand, and your hand returns to normal.
If colder coolant temps are better, why run a thermostat at all? If you understand the A/C system, you know the purpose of the compressor.
Quiz: What's the purpose of the compressor?

 

Yeah but how hot is the pipe that the water is in? All our cooling system is supposed to do it cool down that 'pipe', not heat itself up.

 

I won't even touch the water heater analogy, as it is irrelevant (not to mention incorrect), but I'll try and explain the automotive engine related part in simple terms so you can understand it:
The heat of combustion goes to three different places. Two of those places "waste" the heat (lower engine efficiency and reduce power made from the fuel) and one of them actually produces the engine power. In a modern gasoline engine, approx. 1/3 of the heat leaves the combustion chamber in the form of high temperature exhaust gasses. This energy is "wasted". Another 1/3 is lost to the cooling system. This energy is wasted. The final 1/3 heats the combustion products, expanding them to provide the pressure required to drive down the pistons. This energy is "converted" from "heat" energy to mechanical energy, and is the "horsepower" that the engine makes.

The more heat you can keep in the combustion chamber, the more power you make. Very simple.

 

Very simple theoretically yes. I'm learning that in my Thermodynamics class. It's wierd thinking about it as heat that powers your car.

 

You need to get the concept. Water has to get hot in order to be cooled, which means it's absorbing heat. Forget about cylinder temperature. It doesn't matter where the heat is coming from. The object is to get heat from one point to another.
Let's look at the cooling system only. It's absorbs heat from around the cylider. Then the water is moved to the radiator. Air flows across the radiator. In turn the air is heated and removes the heat from the water. Then it cycles back to the cyliders where heat is put back into the water and then starts the whole process over. The hotter the water and the cooler the air going across the radiator will remove more heat. If you have a heavy duty cooling system, the radiator has more area for air to go across which in turn removes more heat.
What you need to get into your head is that with lower block coolant temps, measured by the CTS, less heat is being removed, not more. Now if you were 10 years old, and had no concept of the real world, it would be easy to uderstand, without letting your beliefs get in the way.
Hey let's talk NASCAR. These guys make a living getting as much as they can out of their engines. They spend millions of dollars. Drive their cars 500 miles as fast as they can. What temps are they running? About 220-230, when it climbs over 240 they start to worry. If running 170 degrees would be better, wouldn't they be doing it? It would be very easy to install a thermostat that flows more water, in turn, less time around the cyl wall to absorb heat, in turn, running cooler water temp. Maybe I should patent that. I could make millions.

 

Funny how the simple things get so complicated when you look at them so hard. All I can say is I see where injuneer going and how more heat generated in the combustion chamber = more power. However, in my experience (with a 180,000 mile Z28) that when running the stock thermo and no fan switch I would run a constant 210 to 220 deg f (about half way to the 3/4 mark) based on the stock LT1 gauge (best guess) when in stop and go traffic or sitting for extended amount of time. Always at this time when the gauge was above the 1/2 mark the car would be noticeable slower on acceleration then when it was below the 1/2 mark. When the thermo went bad I said what the heck and put in the 160 deg. Now for what ever reason or combination of reasons with the new stat and fan switch even in traffic I can keep the temp at the 1/4 mark or less and get noticeably better acceleration. It just is a plain crisper feel to the throttle response. If I don't use the fan switch and let it heat up to the stock fan temps it will still get "mushy" when driving until the airflow, of course, brings it back down without the fans. Now if this results from a little more timing added maybe some issues with heat soak, god likes black cars on cool days, what ever it works for the better for me. I don't think my 180,000-mile combustion chambers are pristine to the point where the maximum effect of added heat would be of a primary concern for me, but hey I could wrong. Also after being around here for a few years I can say that among the folks I listen to when they have an opinion it would be Injuneer or shoebox. So take my experience for what it is worth.

 

Wouldn't the amount of time be irrelevant considering that the coolant is in constant contact with all the surfaces? Wouldn't the issue be how efficiently said coolant could transfer heat from the source (block) and then dissipate it (radiator)? This also digresses from the original issue is it better to run in the 220's or 180's

 

Those NASCAR guys also constantly run their enignes at 8,000+ rpm

 

For those of you who have seen Anchorman, i feel like Brick, jumping in th middle of the argument everyone is screaming in and yelling "I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLING ABOUT" as if to prove a point.