Pretty interesting reading:

[graysilverado5.3]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DamnYankee &#064; Apr 30 2007, 10&#58;17 PM) [snapback]91889[/snapback]</div>

It won&#39;t be until I do the cam swap so it might be a week or more.
[/b]

So i guess i&#39;ll try it first if i can get it this weekend. Because i installed the tb stall and themostat at the same time and i don&#39;t think the stall cause about 4-5 mpg decrease.

[567234ta]

great reading thanks for sharing.

[txarkitekt]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(graysilverado5.3 &#064; Apr 30 2007, 05&#58;48 PM) [snapback]91856[/snapback]</div>

I installed a tb stall and the 160* thermostat and i lost significant MPG. Anyone think its the 160* thats causing the MPG to decrease??
[/b]

IMO, I think that the stall is what is killing your mpg. The TB stall is a 2600? I am only going on prior knowledge--I could be wrong on that figure. Anytime you enlist a higher than stock stall, you will be revving your motor 1000-2000 rpms higher (depending upon specific applications) in certain gears. Since you are running higher rpms, you are wasting more gas. A higher stall puts your motor right in the beef of the power curve---your motor makes the most power, and uses a lot more gas at that point. I would venture to say that a 160 t-stat allows your motor to run slightly cooler, decreasing the notion of detonation, not allowing the stock fan clutch to engage, allowing better atomization of fuel/air, and to keep timing efficient. With that said, it should keep the motor running more efficiently. Just my ...

[spinz71]

I got worse gas mileage when I got my speedo calibrated&#33; I read an article a couple of years ago that indicated the same thing but it revolved around engine/oil life. That article stated that engine temps around 180-185 provided more oil life than either 160 or 210. Too cold and it doesn&#39;t have the full lubricating properties and too hot and it breaks down faster. That is why I originally went with a 180 but have since changed to a 160 per Allen&#39;s suggestion to run more timing. I&#39;ll look around and see if I could find it.

[graysilverado5.3]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(txarkitekt &#064; May 1 2007, 08&#58;44 AM) [snapback]91924[/snapback]</div>

IMO, I think that the stall is what is killing your mpg. The TB stall is a 2600? I am only going on prior knowledge--I could be wrong on that figure. Anytime you enlist a higher than stock stall, you will be revving your motor 1000-2000 rpms higher (depending upon specific applications) in certain gears. Since you are running higher rpms, you are wasting more gas. A higher stall puts your motor right in the beef of the power curve---your motor makes the most power, and uses a lot more gas at that point. I would venture to say that a 160 t-stat allows your motor to run slightly cooler, decreasing the notion of detonation, not allowing the stock fan clutch to engage, allowing better atomization of fuel/air, and to keep timing efficient. With that said, it should keep the motor running more efficiently. Just my ...
[/b]

There are people with bigger stalls, and bigger cams than mine and they get better gas mileage than me. A tb stall is really a stock stall if you think about it. Its what comes stock on a trailblazer. If it was a bigger stall i would understand about the gas mileage, not its not a big stall.