Thanks for that link.
A couple years ago, I was tempted to engage in an argument on a Toyota forum. Someone was stating that different fluids accept BTU's differently. That part I fully agreed with.
Their argument was, that waterless coolant will travel through an engine, and come out measuring less 'temp' at the sensor. Viola'; the stuff causes the engine to run 'cooler', even though the measured temp was lower, the same amount of 'heat' was removed.
My issue, and I'm no physicist, was that heat is heat, and if the btu's aren't transferred as quickly to fluid 'b'.. they must be 'left behind'.
The response was it takes 'x' amount of btu's to raise pure water 1 degree, (true) and 'z' amount of btu's to raise a waterless product the same amount. (also true) I searched for a table of common fluids and solids that showed this. yep, all over the 'net. Their point was accepted.
My 'hang up'.. is heat transfer rate. And thus ended my engagement on that argument. I just didn't know.
Another of my concerns was; tuning dynamics in all the ecm's out there, using coolant temp as a big input; suddenly it's showing 10-12 degrees LOWER temps!! That ecm might go nutz.. or will the original 'stat try to compensate, and try to stay closed.. and effectively run it hotter?!? I suppose running a cooler stat would be THAT 'fix'..
That link claims that water does indeed have superior heat transfer capabilities,(which kinda answers my original thoughts on 'transfer rate') but also goes on to list all the benefits of 'waterless' as you stated. (corrosion, boiling, cavitation etc)
Some of those rock crawler 'yota guys are voracious defenders of their 40+ dollar per gallon product.. me, I'm not so sure!
All of the cooling components are designed around a certain and well documented 'rate of transfer'.. and surface area, gallons per minute, CFM's.... etc being factored in, using the coolant that is installed at the factory.. Changing the transfer rate could throw a wrench in the mix??