Waterless coolant
Discussion
Russwhitehouse said:
Well that's turned things on their head! Now what?
All you can do is take a scan of what everybody says, and go on the average opinion. The average opinion in this thread is that seemingly I'm in the minority.All I can say is that I don't think I'd be comfortable telling you that if YOU put this stuff in YOUR car that you'd have exactly the same experience I have, because there could be all manner of variables in there (underlying coolant problems, poorly carried out conversions, a particular quirk of that engine being irritable by waterless coolant etc).
What I can say is that if I (keep dreaming) owned a big Healey, I'd personally have no reservations about converting it. I'd fully expect all the benefits I've experienced with previous engines. I've never converted a big Healey, only a Frogeye Sprite and an MGB. They both loved the stuff - absolutely no behavioural change between water and waterless, which is really the best thing you can hope for. Neither of them got hot enough to enjoy the being-able-to-go-over-100degrees factor, and the lack of corrosion is something that won't be enjoyed for years to come. Can't see us getting a -41degree winter, either!
But, just because you can't see the benefits, doesn't mean they're not there. Same can be said of any negatives to the product, but if/when I see anything, I'll let you all know!
Thanks for the detailed post Kitchski.
Unless I have missed something, I can't really see any benefits you have experienced in using waterless coolant. In particular with the Saxo you lost power, it ran hotter, costs a fortune and makes a hell of a mess.
To me, these waterless coolants are trying to re-invent the wheel and they have not done a good job of it. Except with their marketing! Waterless coolants are no new wonder product, they are glycol based similar regular antifreeze concentrate that you can buy in any motorfactor, its just dressed up as something special and new.
Another thing is the coolant/oil companies out there, if these waterless coolants really have legs then the majors would be all over them. But they are not, and there is a reason for that.
Now, I would like to see a test of regular concentrate antifreeze vs waterless coolants
Cheers
Guy
Unless I have missed something, I can't really see any benefits you have experienced in using waterless coolant. In particular with the Saxo you lost power, it ran hotter, costs a fortune and makes a hell of a mess.
To me, these waterless coolants are trying to re-invent the wheel and they have not done a good job of it. Except with their marketing! Waterless coolants are no new wonder product, they are glycol based similar regular antifreeze concentrate that you can buy in any motorfactor, its just dressed up as something special and new.
Another thing is the coolant/oil companies out there, if these waterless coolants really have legs then the majors would be all over them. But they are not, and there is a reason for that.
Now, I would like to see a test of regular concentrate antifreeze vs waterless coolants
Cheers
Guy
Edited by opieoilman on Wednesday 21st October 16:53
opieoilman said:
Thanks for the detailed post Kitchski.
Unless I have missed something, I can't really see any benefits you have experienced in using waterless coolant. In particular with the Saxo you lost power, it ran hotter, costs a fortune and makes a hell of a mess.
To me, these waterless coolants are trying to re-invent the wheel and they have not done a good job of it. Except with their marketing! Waterless coolants are no new wonder product, they are glycol based similar regular antifreeze concentrate that you can buy in any motorfactor, its just dressed up as something special and new.
Another thing is the coolant/oil companies out there, if these waterless coolants really have legs then the majors would be all over them. But they are not, and there is a reason for that.
Now I would like to see a test of regular concentrate antifreeze vs waterless coolants
Cheers
Guy
You probably can't see the benefits because I'm not very good at conveying my thoughts!Unless I have missed something, I can't really see any benefits you have experienced in using waterless coolant. In particular with the Saxo you lost power, it ran hotter, costs a fortune and makes a hell of a mess.
To me, these waterless coolants are trying to re-invent the wheel and they have not done a good job of it. Except with their marketing! Waterless coolants are no new wonder product, they are glycol based similar regular antifreeze concentrate that you can buy in any motorfactor, its just dressed up as something special and new.
Another thing is the coolant/oil companies out there, if these waterless coolants really have legs then the majors would be all over them. But they are not, and there is a reason for that.
Now I would like to see a test of regular concentrate antifreeze vs waterless coolants
Cheers
Guy
Lost power? On an average of 5 runs, I lost 0.7bhp. As I tried to state, that might have happened anyway. Dyno results are never fixed, they vary. My conclusion there was that even if it had lost 0.7bhp, fact, it wouldn't bother because I wouldn't be able to detect it on the road. 0.7bhp is something I'd happily trade off for all the benefits it brings.
Ran hotter? Yes, 2 degrees hotter after a marathon thrashing session. Does that bother me? No, not one bit. The main reason I went into detail here was to offer a counter argument to those who think that 70% efficiency means a rise in temps of 30%. My 6yr old kids might reach that conclusion in school, but I'm concerned some grown adults have too.
Costs a fortune? Yes, it's pricey stuff (compared with regular coolant). But then some engine oils cost twice as much as others, even if the grade is the same, and I'd argue you'd be even less likely to notice the advantages of it. Doesn't stop it being better though, and oil needs changing every service. This stuff lasts the life of the engine.
Re-inventing the wheel? Yes, some would say that. People probably said the same thing when fully-synthetic oil appeared on the shelf. Why buy that? 20w50 works fine! I've experienced that in previous jobs, where even though you advise somebody the grade recommended for their car is XXwXX, they'll still think you're trying to con them. Again, the difference with this coolant is that you can get the engine to 100degrees C, and squeeze a coolant hose. It'll be soft. You can feel the difference.
As for marketing etc, I can't comment. They get their name out there, sure, but surely any company with a mountain to climb (i.e., they know many people will resist it before they've even experienced it) would do the same? The composition of it? No idea. Could be made of baby rhino tears for all I know, I'm no chemist. I'm just someone who's used the stuff in their car, and reporting the findings.
I'm told other companies don't have the legs over them as the formula is patented, and the few attempts there have been to replicate the stuff has resulted in lawsuits (successful lawsuits). I've seen evidence of a patent on some form at some point, but didn't take much notice because it bored me. As I say, I'm no rep, so I don't need to memorise all that kind of stuff. The whole patent thing could be b
ks, but if they're telling all their suppliers that, they're taking a pretty big risk if it's a lie. So, as far as I know, that is the reason nobody else is actively rivalling them. I believe there is an alternative in the states currently going through the mud that is the courts. I suppose the accused will argue their formula is slightly different, or something.On the neat (I assume that's what you mean) antifreeze vs. waterless coolants front, yeah there's a part of me that would be keen to see it. However, there are noticeable differences with the stuff, even when you're handling it. The waterless stuff is thinner, and leaves a much more oily, also lubricated film. It also doesn't dry off or leave dry residue marks like anti-freeze does. Further, you can drink the Evans waterless stuff (you wouldn't, but you could). Try doing that with anti-freeze and you'll probably experience a case of severe deadness.
I hope I don't come across like I'm arguing or anything, I'm just trying to offer an alternative line of thinking. I have no reason to help Evans as a company (I took their products on the information that we and another company in Southampton were the only ones stocking it - now Euro Car Parts do!) But I do like innovation, and I believe this stuff is a move forward, irrelevant of cost or how long it's been around. If someone wants to tell me it's expensive and not worth it, then that's their opinion and there's nothing I'd say to that. I just want to clear up some of the myths I keep reading about on PH.
All very good but having read this lengthy post it I'm still trying to spot any advantage.
It's cooling capacity is lower, the engine runs hotter, it costs a packet and if you have a leak at any point you can't top it up with water/antifreeze at the side of the road, your screwed and it costs a packet again plus it's flammable, hardly ideal for a coolant. As for patenting, it's ethylene glycol or a mix of ethylene glycol and propylene glycol. Both are available off the shelf for a fraction of what they are sold for with a "waterless coolant" label stuck on them and neither is patentable or patented. You would have as much luck patenting them as you would patenting water or snot.
It has a list of disadvantages and no discernible advantages other than that you notionally never have to change it. The facts is that at some point you will have to change it, pebbles happen and water pumps spring leaks and it will cost you a wad again. Possibly a big wad as it catches fire on the hot exhaust manifold. Hypothetically lets suppose you never have to change it. I can buy a gallon of concentrate branded antifreeze for 10 quid. That will keep me in coolant for 5 years if I could actually be bothered to change it every 2 years, and let's face it, who does that? I replace the coolant on the odd occasion something happens that means I have to drain it or I lose it.
It's snake oil sold to mugs, bottom line. Yes, that is an opinion, but one based on the facts. Anyone is entitled to hold a different opinion with or without facts but let's stop pretending it's a valid and considered one.
Do people who use this also stick overpriced magnets on their fuel lines to "ionise the molecules" and an electric fan on the air intake to supercharge their engine? How about a resistor on the lambda to make it run rich on cruise and do sweet FA when you toe it as it goes open loop. Molyslip anyone?
It's cooling capacity is lower, the engine runs hotter, it costs a packet and if you have a leak at any point you can't top it up with water/antifreeze at the side of the road, your screwed and it costs a packet again plus it's flammable, hardly ideal for a coolant. As for patenting, it's ethylene glycol or a mix of ethylene glycol and propylene glycol. Both are available off the shelf for a fraction of what they are sold for with a "waterless coolant" label stuck on them and neither is patentable or patented. You would have as much luck patenting them as you would patenting water or snot.
It has a list of disadvantages and no discernible advantages other than that you notionally never have to change it. The facts is that at some point you will have to change it, pebbles happen and water pumps spring leaks and it will cost you a wad again. Possibly a big wad as it catches fire on the hot exhaust manifold. Hypothetically lets suppose you never have to change it. I can buy a gallon of concentrate branded antifreeze for 10 quid. That will keep me in coolant for 5 years if I could actually be bothered to change it every 2 years, and let's face it, who does that? I replace the coolant on the odd occasion something happens that means I have to drain it or I lose it.
It's snake oil sold to mugs, bottom line. Yes, that is an opinion, but one based on the facts. Anyone is entitled to hold a different opinion with or without facts but let's stop pretending it's a valid and considered one.
Do people who use this also stick overpriced magnets on their fuel lines to "ionise the molecules" and an electric fan on the air intake to supercharge their engine? How about a resistor on the lambda to make it run rich on cruise and do sweet FA when you toe it as it goes open loop. Molyslip anyone?
fatjon said:
All very good but having read this lengthy post it I'm still trying to spot any advantage.
It's cooling capacity is lower, the engine runs hotter, it costs a packet and if you have a leak at any point you can't top it up with water/antifreeze at the side of the road, your screwed and it costs a packet again plus it's flammable, hardly ideal for a coolant. As for patenting, it's ethylene glycol or a mix of ethylene glycol and propylene glycol. Both are available off the shelf for a fraction of what they are sold for with a "waterless coolant" label stuck on them and neither is patentable or patented. You would have as much luck patenting them as you would patenting water or snot.
It has a list of disadvantages and no discernible advantages other than that you notionally never have to change it. The facts is that at some point you will have to change it, pebbles happen and water pumps spring leaks and it will cost you a wad again. Possibly a big wad as it catches fire on the hot exhaust manifold. Hypothetically lets suppose you never have to change it. I can buy a gallon of concentrate branded antifreeze for 10 quid. That will keep me in coolant for 5 years if I could actually be bothered to change it every 2 years, and let's face it, who does that? I replace the coolant on the odd occasion something happens that means I have to drain it or I lose it.
It's snake oil sold to mugs, bottom line. Yes, that is an opinion, but one based on the facts. Anyone is entitled to hold a different opinion with or without facts but let's stop pretending it's a valid and considered one.
Do people who use this also stick overpriced magnets on their fuel lines to "ionise the molecules" and an electric fan on the air intake to supercharge their engine? How about a resistor on the lambda to make it run rich on cruise and do sweet FA when you toe it as it goes open loop. Molyslip anyone?
Jon,It's cooling capacity is lower, the engine runs hotter, it costs a packet and if you have a leak at any point you can't top it up with water/antifreeze at the side of the road, your screwed and it costs a packet again plus it's flammable, hardly ideal for a coolant. As for patenting, it's ethylene glycol or a mix of ethylene glycol and propylene glycol. Both are available off the shelf for a fraction of what they are sold for with a "waterless coolant" label stuck on them and neither is patentable or patented. You would have as much luck patenting them as you would patenting water or snot.
It has a list of disadvantages and no discernible advantages other than that you notionally never have to change it. The facts is that at some point you will have to change it, pebbles happen and water pumps spring leaks and it will cost you a wad again. Possibly a big wad as it catches fire on the hot exhaust manifold. Hypothetically lets suppose you never have to change it. I can buy a gallon of concentrate branded antifreeze for 10 quid. That will keep me in coolant for 5 years if I could actually be bothered to change it every 2 years, and let's face it, who does that? I replace the coolant on the odd occasion something happens that means I have to drain it or I lose it.
It's snake oil sold to mugs, bottom line. Yes, that is an opinion, but one based on the facts. Anyone is entitled to hold a different opinion with or without facts but let's stop pretending it's a valid and considered one.
Do people who use this also stick overpriced magnets on their fuel lines to "ionise the molecules" and an electric fan on the air intake to supercharge their engine? How about a resistor on the lambda to make it run rich on cruise and do sweet FA when you toe it as it goes open loop. Molyslip anyone?
Mr Kitchski made a very good case for the fact that the waterless coolant is NOT flammable so we can lose half of your post right there.
It's cooling capacity is potentially lower than water but its operating range is hugely superior. It is therefore a lot more stable than water as was amply demonstrated with the Saxo on the rollers giving repeatable temperature readings of the same level regardless of whether it was idling or being pushed towards the limiter.
The engine does run hotter granted....by 2-3 degrees. In the real world I'm not really sure that could be regarded as worthy of being described as a noticeable jump up in temp. Certainly a car running regular coolant would see temp spikes of much greater than this.
Finally I do agree that the waterless coolant is a bit of a pest maintenance-wise. We will need to carry a 1ltr bottle of the stuff wherever we will go with the car incase of any leaks but, that said, the chances of leaks are significantly lessened by the lack of pressure in the system with the waterless solution instead of the regular pressured coolant. Every single cooling system failure I've suffered has been down to pipes perforating under pressure. This simply will not happen with the waterless coolant. They may well fatigue over time as everything does but their service life will be arguably longer.
Anyway, I'm off to bolt a couple of Turbonators onto the Vanquish. Laters.
On the subject of hotter temps .. this is a double whammy effect. yes the waterless will show a higher temp, this is because it's thermal transfer properties are poorer. Well understood. But if you measure the coolant at a higher temp, then the engine is a factor hotter again. This is because the waterless is transferring less heat through the rad, so getting rid of the heat from the waterless is harder, but also it is picking up less heat from the engine because f those same poor thremal transfer properties. So, your tvr at 100degC temp on the gauge is actually higher than 100degC in the fabric of the block/heads .. Thank goodness it was an old boat anchor cast iron affair. Do that on a rover v8 with it's suspect liners and you'd be looking at failure I'd wager ..
spitfire4v8 said:
On the subject of hotter temps .. this is a double whammy effect. yes the waterless will show a higher temp, this is because it's thermal transfer properties are poorer. Well understood. But if you measure the coolant at a higher temp, then the engine is a factor hotter again. This is because the waterless is transferring less heat through the rad, so getting rid of the heat from the waterless is harder, but also it is picking up less heat from the engine because f those same poor thremal transfer properties. So, your tvr at 100degC temp on the gauge is actually higher than 100degC in the fabric of the block/heads .. Thank goodness it was an old boat anchor cast iron affair. Do that on a rover v8 with it's suspect liners and you'd be looking at failure I'd wager ..
All good, but I also hit 120degrees in an all-alloy Peugeot engine, albeit one with non-suspect RV8 liners (wet, not dry). No problems there.I would strongly advise people not to buy the product on the assumption it will help out a poor cooling system, because it won't. It'll mask problems, which sometimes is a bad thing, as it's better to know your car is struggling to cool, rather than just let it get hot. But on the flip side, other side effects might be beneficial, for example mayo in oil due to HGF would become a thing of the past, because the cooling system isn't under pressure, so consequently isn't trying to force its way through tiny gaps in the head gasket.
It's definitely no substitute for a well-maintained and efficient cooling system, just an aid to one that's working properly.
edited to add (because I forgot to include it): If your car has gone to 100+ degrees, iron, alloy...whatever, then sure, the 'fabric' of the engine will be hotter than the liquid trying to soak the heat out of it. But, if you try that with a water-based coolant, you won't have liquid trying to soak the heat up everywhere, because at that temp you'll also have pockets of steam building up. These will then provide no thermal soak whatsoever, so you'll have spots of the engine which are totally open and allowed to build heat up. With a liquid that boils much higher, you know there are none of these steam pockets, so though your coolant is LESS efficient at soaking the heat out of the metal in the engine, it's overall MORE efficient because it stays there and fights, rather than breaking down on a molecular level.
Would switching to a less-efficient waterless coolant cause the engine to step out of it's operating window, where it wouldn't have got hot enough for this to be an issue using water, and enter it because the waterless is only 70% as efficient as water? That's a valid question, and something that can only be answered after you'd done the conversion, though I'd argue if your engine heats up significantly more using waterless coolant, then you've got a pretty weak cooling system anyway.
Edited by Kitchski on Thursday 22 October 12:15
"just an aid to one that's working properly"
no it's a hindrance to one that's working properly. It transfers less heat for Gods sake!
In answer to your other comments. I have never had a coolant pipe blow out in 30 years of driving everything from bangers to modern cars. I have lost a few water pumps, a heater matrix and several stone holed radiators though. A litre of snake oil in the boot would not have got me home but when needs must a nearby loch has helped me out in the wilds of Scotland, where I otherwise might well have died in an ambient of -15c and 50 miles from civilisation!
Cooling systems are pressurised on all modern cars and even most very none modern cars. The boiling point of the water at 1 bar is circa 115C so by the time it boils up you are probably well and truly in it already and probably have coolant loss or some other problem causing the overheat. Both of these would be exacerbated by having a coolant that transfers 1/3 less heat so you are very much more likely to hit the temperatures that cook your engine.
You seem to have some misunderstandings on head gasket failure. They can blow from pot to pot, from pot to coolant or from pot to oil. In case 1 and 3 it will make no difference which coolant you use. In case 2 under induction vacuum it will suck in coolant whether you have pressure in the cooling system or not. It will also pollute your oil with glycol which is not going to do you any more favours that water. Not sure I would want to be behind breathing its products of combustion either.
As for does not burn! It has a flash point of 111C and an auto ignition temperature of 410C. How anyone can conclude that it doesn't burn defies logic and chemistry unless they rigged the test.
I think we will have to agree to differ as I have an inbox that's getting higher by the minute.
no it's a hindrance to one that's working properly. It transfers less heat for Gods sake!
In answer to your other comments. I have never had a coolant pipe blow out in 30 years of driving everything from bangers to modern cars. I have lost a few water pumps, a heater matrix and several stone holed radiators though. A litre of snake oil in the boot would not have got me home but when needs must a nearby loch has helped me out in the wilds of Scotland, where I otherwise might well have died in an ambient of -15c and 50 miles from civilisation!
Cooling systems are pressurised on all modern cars and even most very none modern cars. The boiling point of the water at 1 bar is circa 115C so by the time it boils up you are probably well and truly in it already and probably have coolant loss or some other problem causing the overheat. Both of these would be exacerbated by having a coolant that transfers 1/3 less heat so you are very much more likely to hit the temperatures that cook your engine.
You seem to have some misunderstandings on head gasket failure. They can blow from pot to pot, from pot to coolant or from pot to oil. In case 1 and 3 it will make no difference which coolant you use. In case 2 under induction vacuum it will suck in coolant whether you have pressure in the cooling system or not. It will also pollute your oil with glycol which is not going to do you any more favours that water. Not sure I would want to be behind breathing its products of combustion either.
As for does not burn! It has a flash point of 111C and an auto ignition temperature of 410C. How anyone can conclude that it doesn't burn defies logic and chemistry unless they rigged the test.
I think we will have to agree to differ as I have an inbox that's getting higher by the minute.
fatjon said:
"just an aid to one that's working properly"
no it's a hindrance to one that's working properly. It transfers less heat for Gods sake!
In terms of how purely much cooling a cooling system does, yes I agree it's a hinderance if you include nothing else in your decision making. no it's a hindrance to one that's working properly. It transfers less heat for Gods sake!
However, I'm basing my opinion that it's an aid on the fact that it extends the operating window of that cooling system; That it stops corrosion by removing the sole cause of it; That it lasts the life of the engine; That it effectively requires no pressuring of the system, meaning less stress on everything as nothing is pressurised anywhere near as much as water. There are multiple advantages to it. Whether they outweigh the disadvantages or not is down to personal choice, and the cost of the stuff has to be a factor in that.
fatjon said:
In answer to your other comments. I have never had a coolant pipe blow out in 30 years of driving everything from bangers to modern cars. I have lost a few water pumps, a heater matrix and several stone holed radiators though. A litre of snake oil in the boot would not have got me home but when needs must a nearby loch has helped me out in the wilds of Scotland, where I otherwise might well have died in an ambient of -15c and 50 miles from civilisation!
Lucky you, I have. I've never had a stone through a radiator before, but I fail to see how a loch is going to get you home when you have a hole in your radiator. And even if you did manage to re-core your radiator on the side of a Scottish back road in -15c temps, you could top up the waterless coolant with water to get you home, the only resulting issue being that you've just contaminated all that coolant. Not good, but better than the prospect of freezing to death and have your frozen carcass pecked by hungry scavengers.fatjon said:
Cooling systems are pressurised on all modern cars and even most very none modern cars. The boiling point of the water at 1 bar is circa 115C so by the time it boils up you are probably well and truly in it already and probably have coolant loss or some other problem causing the overheat. Both of these would be exacerbated by having a coolant that transfers 1/3 less heat so you are very much more likely to hit the temperatures that cook your engine.
Yes, cooling systems are pressurised. The reason they're pressurised is because the liquid being used to cool the engine can't handle the temps the engine wants to run at, so it needs to be pressurised to give it some wiggle room. That solves the issue of temperature, but the downside of that is the pressure on everything. And the fact with water comes corrosion etc etc.fatjon said:
You seem to have some misunderstandings on head gasket failure. They can blow from pot to pot, from pot to coolant or from pot to oil. In case 1 and 3 it will make no difference which coolant you use. In case 2 under induction vacuum it will suck in coolant whether you have pressure in the cooling system or not. It will also pollute your oil with glycol which is not going to do you any more favours that water.
Thanks for the suggestion. I'm aware that there are many different causes and types of HGF. This is why I wrote "For example" before my example, rather than "All HGF cases are a result of....."fatjon said:
Not sure I would want to be behind breathing its products of combustion either.
True, you're much better off sucking in regular carbon monoxide.fatjon said:
As for does not burn! It has a flash point of 111C and an auto ignition temperature of 410C. How anyone can conclude that it doesn't burn defies logic and chemistry unless they rigged the test.
Ah, you got me! It was totally rigged. The naked flame was in fact a hologram, and the green liquid was composed of squashed bath bombs I nicked from my wife's corner of the bathroom cupboard! It's a good job that the hoses containing the liquid (running at much higher pressure) around the engine bay that the engine runs on aren't concealing a liquid that burns as easily as something I couldn't set fire to.fatjon said:
I think we will have to agree to differ as I have an inbox that's getting higher by the minute.
I think that's probably the only thing you've said that we're both going to agree on. And sorry for sending you all those love letters I wasn't going to reply again to this thread but there have been few interesting posts.
Don't panic, I order nearly every year with Opie (order 408769) so you still get yours. Oh, and the coolant is for my modern daily. That said, I might order some more when I take the car back out of hibernation...
I'm still in two minds really, I changed to Evans 99% because it is lifetime and for the corrosion. However, there are plenty of coolants that'll do 5 years and I have already (as per my original post) sussed out a way to quickly and cleanly drain my swine of an engine. The higher temperature does concern me, I normally struggle to do more than 150miles a year in it and therefore I use a mineral 20/50w oil (I still change it every year) but due to my heat concerns I have nearly doubled what I normally spend to get a bit more heat resilience that semi-synthetic will provide.
If I ignore what the Evans cost me completely, my heart says change it for water based which is probably the answer for my particular car. Particularly as a switch back to mineral oil will save £18 a year so the conversion back will effectively pay for itself eventually.
Take from my posts what you will, I have only bothered to post to give them the benefit of my experience as a car and bike enthusiast with no links to any part of the auto industry. Good luck
opieoilman said:
Interesting choice of brake fluid, a dot5. How do you get on with it?
I would not call it a modern addition, quite the opposite over a glycol based brake fluid for a car that gets used. Because dot5 brake fluids are hydrophobic it will not absorb water, on the face of it this sounds good however if you do get water into the brake system, say via condensation then the water will collect at the lowest point of the system it can get to. If this is in the caliper area it can lead to corrosion from the inside.
They do however absorb air, so if you get air into it, it can become compressible and this is something you don't want with your brake fluid. Dot5 is useful for vintage/classic cars in museums that don't move anywhere.
5 years and no issues whatsoever, I also have never suffered with any of the issues you list and I've been through some vehicles I can tell you. I rate DOT5 and recommend it 100%. The only thing I am aware of is that sometimes it doesn't play nicely with seals that have had DOT4. I took a chance on that, though most of the system was new, dry or fully flushed, and I'd definitely use it again.I would not call it a modern addition, quite the opposite over a glycol based brake fluid for a car that gets used. Because dot5 brake fluids are hydrophobic it will not absorb water, on the face of it this sounds good however if you do get water into the brake system, say via condensation then the water will collect at the lowest point of the system it can get to. If this is in the caliper area it can lead to corrosion from the inside.
They do however absorb air, so if you get air into it, it can become compressible and this is something you don't want with your brake fluid. Dot5 is useful for vintage/classic cars in museums that don't move anywhere.
Don't panic, I order nearly every year with Opie (order 408769) so you still get yours. Oh, and the coolant is for my modern daily. That said, I might order some more when I take the car back out of hibernation...
lowdrag said:
+1. My calipers from the E-type are currently out and away to get the pistons out since several have seized. In 30 years I've never had a problem with DOT4, so that's going back in after all four Zeus brakes are refettled.
No problems apart from the seized pistons that you had to send away...due to the hydroscopic dot 4 causing the pistons to corrode and seize. That is one of the exact reasons to use it. Regardless, stainless pistons make a lot of sense - Big Red did mine although I wasn't happy with the quality of their zinc plating on the caliper bodies. //j17 said:
Had DoT5 fluid in my Spitfire for getting on 10 years now and no issues.
I've never heard of anyone having an issue except for the seals previously used with DOT4.Kitchski said:
Suppose I should probably offer my two cents' into the discussion. Ready for a mammoth posting?
Car 2 - 2800cc all iron Ford OHV V6 - converted around April '15 A TVR S1 I own, converted to Classic Cool 180 prior to its return to the road in April 2015. The weekend following the MoT, I took the car to Guernsey. We were running late for the ferry from Poole, and there was awful traffic on an unusually hot spring morning. I knew from past experience when it used to run normal coolant that this would be touch and go, as it never used to like sitting in traffic for more than 10mins at temps of 20degrees C or higher. No big deal, as you could always stop and let it cool, but we were late for the ferry. I explained to my panicking wife that we have trick coolant fitted, and that we should be fine. The temperature hit 115degrees on the gauge (before the gauge fogged up completely) and I never stopped, nor turned the engine off. Heater blower doesn't do anything, so pointless employing it to help. We made the ferry with 5mins to spare. It then continued to drive around fine, including being spanked around Millbrook Proving Grounds. The only issue I've had is that the temps climb quite quickly once the speeds get near 90mph with heavier throttle loadings. It's possible to hit 100degrees while flat out, and we did indeed do this on the High Speed Bowl (we got to 100degrees before we got to 100mph
) Whether this is a combination of the very slightly less efficient coolant coupled with TVR-esque levels of engineering regarding cooling systems or not, I can't say. It doesn't affect the car or the way it drives, it's just that you happen to be looking at the gauges and notice things. I've never driven around Millbrook with normal coolant, so can't compare - it may well have been the same story!
If you don't like change, fine. If you can't give things the time of day because they don't fit into your thought process, or you can't figure out how they work, fine. If you've used the product, and had lots of issues (yet had none on regular coolant), fine. Basically, everyone's entitled to their opinion.
Thanks for taking the time to post, nice to have some detailed quality input from someone who's walked the walk (I notice the most outspoken comments are from those who have never used it). It would appear that your experiences with the older 2.8 V6 are very similar to mine. I don't know what the actual temperature increase is but it's about 10% higher on the gauge and I'm GUESSING that is probably a 20/30 degree increase. Given the very valid point made by spitfire4v8 quoted below, that does worry me somewhat. Tbh, it worried me before but now it really worries me.Car 2 - 2800cc all iron Ford OHV V6 - converted around April '15 A TVR S1 I own, converted to Classic Cool 180 prior to its return to the road in April 2015. The weekend following the MoT, I took the car to Guernsey. We were running late for the ferry from Poole, and there was awful traffic on an unusually hot spring morning. I knew from past experience when it used to run normal coolant that this would be touch and go, as it never used to like sitting in traffic for more than 10mins at temps of 20degrees C or higher. No big deal, as you could always stop and let it cool, but we were late for the ferry. I explained to my panicking wife that we have trick coolant fitted, and that we should be fine. The temperature hit 115degrees on the gauge (before the gauge fogged up completely) and I never stopped, nor turned the engine off. Heater blower doesn't do anything, so pointless employing it to help. We made the ferry with 5mins to spare. It then continued to drive around fine, including being spanked around Millbrook Proving Grounds. The only issue I've had is that the temps climb quite quickly once the speeds get near 90mph with heavier throttle loadings. It's possible to hit 100degrees while flat out, and we did indeed do this on the High Speed Bowl (we got to 100degrees before we got to 100mph
) Whether this is a combination of the very slightly less efficient coolant coupled with TVR-esque levels of engineering regarding cooling systems or not, I can't say. It doesn't affect the car or the way it drives, it's just that you happen to be looking at the gauges and notice things. I've never driven around Millbrook with normal coolant, so can't compare - it may well have been the same story!If you don't like change, fine. If you can't give things the time of day because they don't fit into your thought process, or you can't figure out how they work, fine. If you've used the product, and had lots of issues (yet had none on regular coolant), fine. Basically, everyone's entitled to their opinion.
spitfire4v8 said:
On the subject of hotter temps .. this is a double whammy effect. yes the waterless will show a higher temp, this is because it's thermal transfer properties are poorer. Well understood. But if you measure the coolant at a higher temp, then the engine is a factor hotter again. This is because the waterless is transferring less heat through the rad, so getting rid of the heat from the waterless is harder, but also it is picking up less heat from the engine because f those same poor thremal transfer properties. So, your tvr at 100degC temp on the gauge is actually higher than 100degC in the fabric of the block/heads .. Thank goodness it was an old boat anchor cast iron affair. Do that on a rover v8 with it's suspect liners and you'd be looking at failure I'd wager ..
And that makes perfect sense. I'm still in two minds really, I changed to Evans 99% because it is lifetime and for the corrosion. However, there are plenty of coolants that'll do 5 years and I have already (as per my original post) sussed out a way to quickly and cleanly drain my swine of an engine. The higher temperature does concern me, I normally struggle to do more than 150miles a year in it and therefore I use a mineral 20/50w oil (I still change it every year) but due to my heat concerns I have nearly doubled what I normally spend to get a bit more heat resilience that semi-synthetic will provide.
If I ignore what the Evans cost me completely, my heart says change it for water based which is probably the answer for my particular car. Particularly as a switch back to mineral oil will save £18 a year so the conversion back will effectively pay for itself eventually.
Take from my posts what you will, I have only bothered to post to give them the benefit of my experience as a car and bike enthusiast with no links to any part of the auto industry. Good luck
280-Oscar said:
Thanks for taking the time to post, nice to have some detailed quality input from someone who's walked the walk (I notice the most outspoken comments are from those who have never used it). It would appear that your experiences with the older 2.8 V6 are very similar to mine. I don't know what the actual temperature increase is but it's about 10% higher on the gauge and I'm GUESSING that is probably a 20/30 degree increase. Given the very valid point made by spitfire4v8 quoted below, that does worry me somewhat. Tbh, it worried me before but now it really worries me.
I think you're probably right on your first statement. In fact, you're the first person I've happened across who's used the waterless coolant, but doesn't have a glowing report on it!If you're running 20-30degrees C hotter than before, something definitely isn't right! My TVR in normal day to day use doesn't run any hotter at all, and I only noticed it creeping to 100 when it was being pounded round Millbrook bowl (I imagine quite a few other cars were getting warm too, though most of those didn't struggle to get to the 100mph mark!) An increase of 10% and running at 20-30 degrees hotter - that's cause for concern, and something I've never experienced after switching to the stuff. In fact, the only car that I can actually say for sure ran hotter post-conversion, was the Saxo (and that was what, 2-3 degrees?). Everything else (including any cars a customer has had me convert) didn't register a difference in running temps at all.
Obviously your car is your car and you know it, but personally speaking (especially as somebody who stripped their old Cologne lump and saw the state of the inside of the core plugs) I'd fight to keep waterless coolant in it, especially in something that barely moves every year. My attention would be drawn to why is it running so much hotter, possibly to the point I'd conduct some tests on it, drain the coolant (carefully, and assuming you kept the prep fluid) and then refill with water-based and perform the same tests again. If you really are getting those differences, it's a new one on me, but I think it'd be worth looking into more as you may have coincidentally developed a issue with the actual system itself, rather than the coolant in it.
280-Oscar said:
I'm still in two minds really, I changed to Evans 99% because it is lifetime and for the corrosion. However, there are plenty of coolants that'll do 5 years and I have already (as per my original post) sussed out a way to quickly and cleanly drain my swine of an engine. The higher temperature does concern me, I normally struggle to do more than 150miles a year in it and therefore I use a mineral 20/50w oil (I still change it every year) but due to my heat concerns I have nearly doubled what I normally spend to get a bit more heat resilience that semi-synthetic will provide.
If I ignore what the Evans cost me completely, my heart says change it for water based which is probably the answer for my particular car. Particularly as a switch back to mineral oil will save £18 a year so the conversion back will effectively pay for itself eventually.
5 years isn't lifetime though. One thing I like about the coolant is that when the day comes where I sell the TVR, I can drain the coolant out, filter it and put it in something else. As for the oil, again, I'd be looking closer at the cooling system. Personally, for 150 miles a year I think switching to expensive oils because your engine's running hotter is probably a bit overkill (the Cologne isn't exactly operating in with low tolerances!) But whatever helps you sleep at night! If I ignore what the Evans cost me completely, my heart says change it for water based which is probably the answer for my particular car. Particularly as a switch back to mineral oil will save £18 a year so the conversion back will effectively pay for itself eventually.
If you were local to me I'd happily help you with testing/checking etc, even down to performing the same kind of tests I did on the Saxo using the dyno etc. I did a bit more than I've posted, but pretty much all the results showed no change. To be totally honest, I was expecting to have to get used to some sort of massive shift in how a car behaves when it's running on the stuff, and of all the cars I've converted (I'm guessing around 25 now) I've barely noticed any difference, and certainly nothing that affects the way the car has to be handled.
Cheers
I use waterless coolant (Evans NPG) in a rotary MX5.
I tried it based on some rotary books that advised that water cavitation at high speeds can be a problem. My rotary engine runs up to 10Krpm but the water pump is sized to work at low speed. It is running very fast at max rpm. The bubbles in the water mean key areas of the engine are not getting enough cooling (very bad thing for a rotary).
I don't know if all that is true and don't have any direct experience of that happening but use waterless coolant to eliminate that risk. Its easy to put in a fresh engine and means I never have to change the coolant or check the antifreeze.
I do monitor the ecu logs and see that it gets up to temperature quickly (compared to my water-cooled RX7, very similar engine). Once at temperature, it is stable under power runs.
Having the engine warm up quicker means I need less coolant correction, every last bit of fuel savings helps on this car!
I tried it based on some rotary books that advised that water cavitation at high speeds can be a problem. My rotary engine runs up to 10Krpm but the water pump is sized to work at low speed. It is running very fast at max rpm. The bubbles in the water mean key areas of the engine are not getting enough cooling (very bad thing for a rotary).
I don't know if all that is true and don't have any direct experience of that happening but use waterless coolant to eliminate that risk. Its easy to put in a fresh engine and means I never have to change the coolant or check the antifreeze.
I do monitor the ecu logs and see that it gets up to temperature quickly (compared to my water-cooled RX7, very similar engine). Once at temperature, it is stable under power runs.
Having the engine warm up quicker means I need less coolant correction, every last bit of fuel savings helps on this car!
Just to comment of the flammable issue, applying a match isnt a great test
see this comparison of fuel types:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nL10C7FSbE
The point is that in use, a leak has a good chance of spraying hot droplets or vapour around the engine bay - that could give very different results.
I have no axe to grind on this but I'm not convinced about the 'it doesn't burn' argument.
see this comparison of fuel types:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nL10C7FSbE
The point is that in use, a leak has a good chance of spraying hot droplets or vapour around the engine bay - that could give very different results.
I have no axe to grind on this but I'm not convinced about the 'it doesn't burn' argument.
TooLateForAName said:
Just to comment of the flammable issue, applying a match isnt a great test
see this comparison of fuel types:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nL10C7FSbE
The point is that in use, a leak has a good chance of spraying hot droplets or vapour around the engine bay - that could give very different results.
I have no axe to grind on this but I'm not convinced about the 'it doesn't burn' argument.
No, that's a fair point. I performed that 'test' while I was typing out my mammoth response! You're quite right in that there's a chance it might behave differently if sprayed in a hot environment I'd say. see this comparison of fuel types:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nL10C7FSbE
The point is that in use, a leak has a good chance of spraying hot droplets or vapour around the engine bay - that could give very different results.
I have no axe to grind on this but I'm not convinced about the 'it doesn't burn' argument.
My point with it was that there are liquids in the engine bay that would burn with a naked flame. If the waterless coolant doesn't, then surely it's not as high on the list of potential problems?
I have had a car let it all go over an exhaust manifold once. The result was thick, acrid smoke/vapour. No flames. Can't say it would be the case for everyone, but in this case that's what happened.
Kitchski said:
If you're running 20-30degrees C hotter than before, something definitely isn't right! My TVR in normal day to day use doesn't run any hotter at all, and I only noticed it creeping to 100 when it was being pounded round Millbrook bowl (I imagine quite a few other cars were getting warm too, though most of those didn't struggle to get to the 100mph mark!) An increase of 10% and running at 20-30 degrees hotter - that's cause for concern, and something I've never experienced after switching to the stuff. In fact, the only car that I can actually say for sure ran hotter post-conversion, was the Saxo (and that was what, 2-3 degrees?). Everything else (including any cars a customer has had me convert) didn't register a difference in running temps at all.
Obviously your car is your car and you know it, but personally speaking (especially as somebody who stripped their old Cologne lump and saw the state of the inside of the core plugs) I'd fight to keep waterless coolant in it, especially in something that barely moves every year. My attention would be drawn to why is it running so much hotter, possibly to the point I'd conduct some tests on it, drain the coolant (carefully, and assuming you kept the prep fluid) and then refill with water-based and perform the same tests again. If you really are getting those differences, it's a new one on me, but I think it'd be worth looking into more as you may have coincidentally developed a issue with the actual system itself, rather than the coolant in it.
Hi, Thanks for this. I did say that I was guessing at the 20/30 degrees, I have no idea what the increase is - just that it sits 10% higher on the gauge than it used to be. What I really need to do I think is get a laser thermometer and compare the actual temperature of my engine at the same time as another Capri with the same engine. Not a perfect test I know but the best I can achieve without swapping back and forth with water which there's no way I can be bothered to do. If it ever switches back that will be that - I didn't keep the prep fluid in any case as I don't like clutter.Obviously your car is your car and you know it, but personally speaking (especially as somebody who stripped their old Cologne lump and saw the state of the inside of the core plugs) I'd fight to keep waterless coolant in it, especially in something that barely moves every year. My attention would be drawn to why is it running so much hotter, possibly to the point I'd conduct some tests on it, drain the coolant (carefully, and assuming you kept the prep fluid) and then refill with water-based and perform the same tests again. If you really are getting those differences, it's a new one on me, but I think it'd be worth looking into more as you may have coincidentally developed a issue with the actual system itself, rather than the coolant in it.
I doubt the car has developed an issue, it has done 14,500 miles from new and all I did was swap to lifetime "classic black" silicone hoses, put in a new (genuine Ford) thermostat and swapped to the Evans. In addition to this, before going to considerable efforts to remove all traces of water from the system (as per my first post) I flushed the system through very thoroughly.
I think early on next season I will see what temperature it really is at with the laser thermometer and make my decision based on that.
Edited by 280-Oscar on Tuesday 27th October 19:52
Hi,
Water has 4.18 KJ ⁰Cˉ¹ Kˉ¹.
Glycol mix has a reduced Heat capacity around 3.8 KJ ⁰Cˉ¹ Kˉ¹, at around 25% mix this means it is less able to absorb heat from the engine. Therefore, the water/glycol mixture will need to flow faster, increasing the fluid passage volume proportionally. If the waterless coolant has less heat capacity than the forgoing, the water pump pulley diameter has to be decreased, to increase the flow rate. The new size of the pully will need to be calculated. In order to meet the manufacturers minimum "Heat absorption/heat exchange rates".
Kind Regards,
Francesco M
Water has 4.18 KJ ⁰Cˉ¹ Kˉ¹.
Glycol mix has a reduced Heat capacity around 3.8 KJ ⁰Cˉ¹ Kˉ¹, at around 25% mix this means it is less able to absorb heat from the engine. Therefore, the water/glycol mixture will need to flow faster, increasing the fluid passage volume proportionally. If the waterless coolant has less heat capacity than the forgoing, the water pump pulley diameter has to be decreased, to increase the flow rate. The new size of the pully will need to be calculated. In order to meet the manufacturers minimum "Heat absorption/heat exchange rates".
Kind Regards,
Francesco M
My E-type still had a problem of expansion and dumping water even after a complete rebuild and a new radiator so recently I bought a little bottle of Water Wetter, something I had never heard of before. All I can say, since I am no engineer, is that whereas the temperature gauge sat around 70 degrees on steady running, once we got into traffic it started dumping via the overflow. Since I put the Water Wetter in I have a job getting the temperature gauge much above 30C It only cost £12 the bottle too. Early days, but I am rather happy with the results so far.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff