Waterless coolant

GordnadoCRD · **Posted:** Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:08 am

PZKW108 wrote:

WWDiesel wrote:

What would be really nice to know about waterless coolants:
We need to know waterless coolant's BTU absorption rate ability, heat flux thermal capacity, and how well it can transfer or give up those absorbed BTU's in a heat exchanger like a radiator back to the metal flues. Those are real factors that count!
No one wants to be a guinea pig, but if it is a viable option for a diesel engine that has better cooling abilities, and will not harm engine gaskets, water pumps, etc...it would be very nice to know.

If it's the only thing that count for you then waterless coolant is not for you !!!!

Waterless as lower heat transfer than regular mixed coolant. For the same reason coolant mix ratio affect heat transfer. Coolant is not good at heat transfer but water is, the more water the better transfer.

Waterless has other advantages !

Your point about water is true. The only thing that will improve straight water is Water-wetter, but Water-Wetter should never be used with any kind of anti-freeze or other water conditioner. Has the same effect as blending IAT with OAT, HOAT, etc. It will make it gum everything up.

flash7210 · **Posted:** Mon Jun 03, 2019 10:11 am

Quote:

Water-Wetter should never be used with any kind of anti-freeze or other water conditioner. Has the same effect as blending IAT with OAT, HOAT, etc. It will make it gum everything up.

Not necessarily true.
Water wetter does work best with just straight water.
And under certain circumstances it is known to leave behind a “scum” in the tank.
Will not clog up a radiator like other mixes will.

I’ve used water wetter with my HOAT mix. Didn’t even notice the scum.
But unlike Purple Ice, I actually noticed improved cooling.

Also, there is some debate about whether distilled water should be used. (ion empty)
Some say softened water is best. (ion full)

WWDiesel · **Posted:** Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:17 am

PZKW108 wrote:

WWDiesel wrote:

What would be really nice to know about waterless coolants:
We need to know waterless coolant's BTU absorption rate ability, heat flux thermal capacity, and how well it can transfer or give up those absorbed BTU's in a heat exchanger like a radiator back to the metal flues. Those are real factors that count!
No one wants to be a guinea pig, but if it is a viable option for a diesel engine that has better cooling abilities, and will not harm engine gaskets, water pumps, etc...it would be very nice to know.

If it's the only thing that count for you then waterless coolant is not for you !!!!
Waterless as lower heat transfer than regular mixed coolant. For the same reason coolant mix ratio affect heat transfer. Coolant is not good at heat transfer but water is, the more water the better transfer.
Waterless has other advantages !

I agree, does not appear that waterless is a viable replacement for the proper factory recommended coolant. Now if it had a much better heat absorption and transfer properties than 50/50 antifreeze, it might be well worth considering.

As to Water Wetter: I have Water Wetter in both my diesels and a gasser, has been in them for several years and no ill effects seen with either the G-05 or Ethanol Glycol mixes.
Cannot 100% say for sure it helps in our Summer heat, but if it does, it's worth it. When your trying to cool a working engine with 100+ degree ambient air, every little edge can be important. :juggle:

PZKW108 · **Joined:** Sun Apr 06, 2014 5:23 pm **Posts:** 461

WWDiesel wrote:

PZKW108 wrote:

WWDiesel wrote:

What would be really nice to know about waterless coolants:
We need to know waterless coolant's BTU absorption rate ability, heat flux thermal capacity, and how well it can transfer or give up those absorbed BTU's in a heat exchanger like a radiator back to the metal flues. Those are real factors that count!
No one wants to be a guinea pig, but if it is a viable option for a diesel engine that has better cooling abilities, and will not harm engine gaskets, water pumps, etc...it would be very nice to know.

If it's the only thing that count for you then waterless coolant is not for you !!!!
Waterless as lower heat transfer than regular mixed coolant. For the same reason coolant mix ratio affect heat transfer. Coolant is not good at heat transfer but water is, the more water the better transfer.
Waterless has other advantages !

I agree, does not appear that waterless is a viable replacement for the proper factory recommended coolant. Now if it had a much better heat absorption and transfer properties than 50/50 antifreeze, it might be well worth considering.

As to Water Wetter: I have Water Wetter in both my diesels and a gasser, has been in them for several years and no ill effects seen with either the G-05 or Ethanol Glycol mixes.
Cannot 100% say for sure it helps in our Summer heat, but if it does, it's worth it. When your trying to cool a working engine with 100+ degree ambient air, every little edge can be important. :juggle:

It worth considering actually !

It has other advantage and the big one is to overheat without disastrous consequences.....

You have to understand that it doesn't work like regular coolant.

You have to think differently !

That's what I say to people who want to learn welding aluminum...… It's not steel , quit trying to weld like if it's steel...…

GordnadoCRD · **Posted:** Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:09 pm

AS far as guinea pigs go, I've gone that route before, both with the CRD (GM FPS & home made torque tool) as well as others, and I have Evans coolant on my list to do when I upgrade to the HDS-001. No reason to rush though, when what I have is working well. Hopefully it will last to my next timing belt change..

Not going into this completely blind though. I know people who use Evans. Both in street vehicles and in dirt-track racing. I know they swear by it, but learn more of the "why" when visiting the Evans site. True, one can't learn everything, and they tend to not cover any circumstances that are less than good advertising, but other internet sites tend to also leave out details when the product fails due to their own errors. (ie. not getting the system dry enough, etc).

Edit: Word from the grapevine is GM is experimenting with various propylene glycol (waterless) blend formulas of their own. Although, really, GM is such a tiny generic company compared to DOW, what would they know about such things... :?:

If they can get a consistent 100K mi. formula, don't be surprised to see USE NO WATER stickers on the coolant caps of your Dina(saur)Max pickups. :lol:

DieselJeepLuvr · **Posted:** Mon Jun 03, 2019 6:38 pm

From what I gathered about waterless coolant is it was designed for vehicles that sat idle for long periods of time which causes electrolysis to accelerate quickly, especially in vehicles with aluminum components. Vehicles that are used regularly don't have these issues because of the erosive properties of moving liquids. So if you want to preserve that rare Ferrari sitting under glass in your garage and paying $50/gallon (or whatever it is now) doesn't make you pass out then waterless is the way to go. Otherwise stick with the regular stuff.

:2cents:

layback40 · **Posted:** Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:49 pm

flash7210 wrote:

Also, there is some debate about whether distilled water should be used. (ion empty)
Some say softened water is best. (ion full)

It depends what ions are present. Soft water often contains a lot of sodium chloride. Distilled with a suitable corrosion inhibitor is good. It is very important that the Ph of distilled be 7. That is why corrosion inhibitor is important as it provides the necessary buffer.

layback40 · **Posted:** Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:49 pm

flash7210 wrote:

Also, there is some debate about whether distilled water should be used. (ion empty)
Some say softened water is best. (ion full)

It depends what ions are present. Soft water often contains a lot of sodium chloride. Distilled with a suitable corrosion inhibitor is good. It is very important that the Ph of distilled be 7. That is why corrosion inhibitor is important as it provides the necessary buffer.

layback40 · **Posted:** Mon Jun 03, 2019 9:19 pm

Edit: Word from the grapevine is GM is experimenting with various propylene glycol (waterless) blend formulas of their own. Although, really, GM is such a tiny generic company compared to DOW, what would they know about such things... :?:

We all hear stories from time to time. How true they are is another thing along with how successful they are. Ceramic GP's are a good example that many have some experience with.
If GM are experimenting, it would be fair to say the cooling system would be designed to run the coolant. Bigger radiator & water pump for starters. GM is unlikely to be developing the coolant. They would leave that to a company with expertise in coolants & probably patents. When Evans coolant became very popular decades ago, the main driver was the toxicity of ethylene glycol with stories that CA was going to make coolant spills be treated as toxic chemical spills. I believe there were some rules concerning drag racing & how they would respond to toxic fluid leaks.
In the 70's & 80's Shell had a propylene glycol based coolant, it was abandoned because of its low performance compared with ethylene glycol based products. In the early 80's Dow's senior management would not allow justification of expanding propylene glycol production on the basis of expanding coolant markets.
If people wish to do their own experimentation, good luck to them.

flash7210 · **Posted:** Mon Jun 03, 2019 9:38 pm

I can see plenty of situations where the waterless coolant would be beneficial.

Military vehicles sit for a long time and then get thrown into operation under extreme conditions, driven by guys who don’t pay attention to gauges and warning lights.
I spent the first 3 years of my career fixing Humvee’s, APC’s, and bulldozers.
I have no idea what type of coolant was used other than it came in 5 gallon cans and was a light blue color.
(Although I kinda find it hard to believe that you couldn’t add water to that stuff. I mean, what’s a soldier like me gonna do when I’m fixing a coolant leak in the middle of nowhere and all I’ve got is a bunch of 5 gallon water cans? But that was 20 years ago...)

Automobile racing is another example of extreme conditions.
Again, driven by guys who don’t pay attention to gauges and warning lights.
And most tracks prohibit the use of ethylene glycol coolants.
Most amateur teams use straight water. This is what Water Wetter was designed for.

GordnadoCRD · **Posted:** Wed Jun 05, 2019 2:22 am

layback40 wrote:

GM is unlikely to be developing the coolant. They would leave that to a company with expertise in coolants & probably patents.

You have a good point, especially considering their history, and the current butt-kicking they are getting from their DEX-COOL relationship with Prestone.
This history goes back a full century when a federal Anti-trust suit broke up their collaborative relationship with Du Pont. Point is, there is no shortage of companies willing to work with them on such a project. Most likely it's a Chinese company would be my guess.

GordnadoCRD · **Posted:** Wed Jun 05, 2019 3:03 am

flash7210 wrote:

Military vehicles sit for a long time and then get thrown into operation under extreme conditions, driven by guys who don’t pay attention to gauges and warning lights.
I spent the first 3 years of my career fixing Humvee’s, APC’s, and bulldozers.
I have no idea what type of coolant was used other than it came in 5 gallon cans and was a light blue color.
(Although I kinda find it hard to believe that you couldn’t add water to that stuff. I mean, what’s a soldier like me gonna do when I’m fixing a coolant leak in the middle of nowhere and all I’ve got is a bunch of 5 gallon water cans? But that was 20 years ago...)

You are right, I believe. Most military hardware I've been acquainted with were manufactured to run on any fuel, any coolant, and nearly any other of the associated liquids needed. The more picky their requirements become, the more they are found stranded T.U.

The first few HumVees I worked on were powered by Air-cooled V8 diesels. (Detroit) They worked well under normal conditions, but they were allergic to high water crossings when fully hot, and any Desert sandstorm. Kind of sucked for power too. No turbo. Probably would have overheated them, but never had the chance to try.
Wasn't a soldier, but was hired to restore military surplus vehicles bought by lot sale.

TKB4 · **Posted:** Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:14 pm

One thing to remember though I definitely am not saying its desirable or planned etc ( so don't think I am advocating anything) is a basic physics fact:

Should water boil the heat of vaporization is 540 calories per gram due to breaking the hydrogen bonds. Thus this heat is absorbed from the engine at 212 degrees farenheight. The heat absorbed to raise the same gram of water one degree from liquid water at 32 degrees up to liquid water at 212 degrees F is 1 calorie per Centigrade degree Under 1 atmosphere of pressure or total to raise it from 32 to 212 is 100 calories (0 to100C).

So for water from 99C to water at 100C it absorbs one calorie and from water at 212F to water vapor at 212F ( or 100C) it absorbs 540 calories.

Thats 540 times more heat absorbed no matter what units are used (joules etc)

I doubt the steam would transfer the heat as efficiently though.

Just something to think about, similar to freon cycle with HVAC.

WWDiesel · **Posted:** Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:36 pm

TKB4 wrote:

One thing to remember though I definitely am not saying its desirable or planned etc ( so don't think I am advocating anything) is a basic physics fact:
Should water boil the heat of vaporization is 540 calories per gram due to breaking the hydrogen bonds. Thus this heat is absorbed from the engine at 212 degrees farenheight. The heat absorbed to raise the same gram of water one degree from liquid water at 32 degrees up to liquid water at 212 degrees F is 1 calorie per degree Under 1 atmosphere of pressure or total to raise it from 32 to 212 is 180 calories.
So for water from 211F to water at 212F it absorbs one calorie and from water at 212F to water vapor at 212F it absorbs 540 calories.
Thats 540 times more heat absorbed no matter what units are used (joules etc)
I doubt the steam would transfer the heat as efficiently though.
Just something to think about, similar to freon cycle with HVAC.

Thank you! Kinda like what I had questioned earlier in this thread, what we need to know is real numbers for the heat (BTU's or calories) absorption ability or rate of waterless coolant vs 50/50 antifreeze mix and also what is the transfer rate ability of the two of giving up that absorbed heat. Just because the waterless cannot boil does in itself not make it a better medium for absorbing and then giving up that heat when exposed to the cooling tubes of a radiator. :ALONE:

TKB4 · **Posted:** Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:22 am

Exactly ,and thats what I knew your point was. That also was implied when layback40 says may need more flow than current water pump can deliver. Also have to remember that the hotter the liquid the more heat it will lose at same volume flow etc through same radiator at least till the components melt and at 400 degrees. (air cooled small aircraft IIRC run head temps in the 450 F range).

Suffice it to say without precise measurements and data from real world specific tests there are so many variables that its a best guess scenario that I wouldn't want to stake my CRD on. I do have the feeling though that at least with some modifications it would work, I just don't want to go to a lot of trouble for a little gain. If it is shown to work just more expensive to just drain dry and refill thats a different story.

PZKW108 · **Joined:** Sun Apr 06, 2014 5:23 pm **Posts:** 461

WWDiesel wrote:

TKB4 wrote:

One thing to remember though I definitely am not saying its desirable or planned etc ( so don't think I am advocating anything) is a basic physics fact:
Should water boil the heat of vaporization is 540 calories per gram due to breaking the hydrogen bonds. Thus this heat is absorbed from the engine at 212 degrees farenheight. The heat absorbed to raise the same gram of water one degree from liquid water at 32 degrees up to liquid water at 212 degrees F is 1 calorie per degree Under 1 atmosphere of pressure or total to raise it from 32 to 212 is 180 calories.
So for water from 211F to water at 212F it absorbs one calorie and from water at 212F to water vapor at 212F it absorbs 540 calories.
Thats 540 times more heat absorbed no matter what units are used (joules etc)
I doubt the steam would transfer the heat as efficiently though.
Just something to think about, similar to freon cycle with HVAC.

Thank you! Kinda like what I had questioned earlier in this thread, what we need to know is real numbers for the heat (BTU's or calories) absorption ability or rate of waterless coolant vs 50/50 antifreeze mix and also what is the transfer rate ability of the two of giving up that absorbed heat. Just because the waterless cannot boil does in itself not make it a better medium for absorbing and then giving up that heat when exposed to the cooling tubes of a radiator. :ALONE:

What temperature you think a CRD head can take without damage ? I don't know exactly ?
But if the temperature is evenly distributed probably a lot !
Probably way more than the boiling point of pressurized 50/50 coolant !

Now the problem is 50/50 coolant at high temp can make steam pockets that will not allow much heat transfer at all on some part of the head !!! How much temp difference a head can take without damage ? probably not much !

Now what's is more important the heat transfer potential or the boiling point ?

For a buddy I know who race semi , waterless has save him few head gasket job !

So I think it could be a good alternative even with a lower heat transfer rate.

WWDiesel · **Posted:** Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:53 pm

PZKW108 wrote:

What temperature you think a CRD head can take without damage ? I don't know exactly ?
But if the temperature is evenly distributed probably a lot !
Probably way more than the boiling point of pressurized 50/50 coolant !
Now the problem is 50/50 coolant at high temp can make steam pockets that will not allow much heat transfer at all on some part of the head !!! How much temp difference a head can take without damage ? probably not much !
*Now what's is more important the heat transfer potential or the boiling point ?
For a buddy I know who race semi , waterless has save him few head gasket job !
So I think it could be a good alternative even with a lower heat transfer rate.

*I agree totally with your statement and that in itself is the dilemma.
If I have a coolant that does a very good job of absorbing and removing the heat from the head and then transferring or giving up that heat (calories, BTUs, or whatever you want to call them) then the coolant should never get to a dangerous boiling point condition in the first place.
Now if I knew I was going to be subjecting an engine to overheating, then going with a coolant that cannot boil would certainly be the wiser choice.

As for me, I never want to get to an overheated condition and preventing that is my first and foremost goal. At this point I don't believe I would want to "guinea pig" my engine just to find out if the stuff works better than antifreeze or not.
But now if someone else wants to try it in their engine and report the results I for one would certainly be interested and listen with an open mind.
I am not against trying new or better things, but I do tend to be very cautious when weighing the consequences and costs of experimenting. :5SHOTS:

PZKW108 · **Joined:** Sun Apr 06, 2014 5:23 pm **Posts:** 461

WWDiesel wrote:

PZKW108 wrote:

What temperature you think a CRD head can take without damage ? I don't know exactly ?
But if the temperature is evenly distributed probably a lot !
Probably way more than the boiling point of pressurized 50/50 coolant !
Now the problem is 50/50 coolant at high temp can make steam pockets that will not allow much heat transfer at all on some part of the head !!! How much temp difference a head can take without damage ? probably not much !
*Now what's is more important the heat transfer potential or the boiling point ?
For a buddy I know who race semi , waterless has save him few head gasket job !
So I think it could be a good alternative even with a lower heat transfer rate.

*I agree totally with your statement and that in itself is the dilemma.
If I have a coolant that does a very good job of absorbing and removing the heat from the head and then transferring or giving up that heat (calories, BTUs, or whatever you want to call them) then the coolant should never get to a dangerous boiling point condition in the first place.
Now if I knew I was going to be subjecting an engine to overheating, then going with a coolant that cannot boil would certainly be the wiser choice.

As for me, I never want to get to an overheated condition and preventing that is my first and foremost goal. At this point I don't believe I would want to "guinea pig" my engine just to find out if the stuff works better than antifreeze or not.
But now if someone else wants to try it in their engine and report the results I for one would certainly be interested and listen with an open mind.
I am not against trying new or better things, but I do tend to be very cautious when weighing the consequences and costs of experimenting. :5SHOTS:

You're right a good coolant with well design cooling system should never get to an overheating condition.

I found the CRD tend to get pretty hot when put to work, even if I've never experience boil over with mine.
I guess all diesel engine can put out quite a bit of heat under load ! But it's always a bad feeling to see the gauge ( a real one not the OEM....) going up when you're towing in the mountain on a hot summer day.

I'm not going to be the guinea pig either !!! but I'm very curious about the product !

flash7210 · **Posted:** Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:02 pm

Idk how much heat the the aluminum head can handle.
But if it were an iron head, I wouldn’t be worried about 240+ degrees. Especially with studs and a MLS head gasket.

Now, if you are running that high of a temp, I’d consider looser tolerances for piston-to-cylinder wall clearance. Probably rod and crank bearings too.

PZKW108 · **Joined:** Sun Apr 06, 2014 5:23 pm **Posts:** 461

flash7210 wrote:

Idk how much heat the the aluminum head can handle.
But if it were an iron head, I wouldn’t be worried about 240+ degrees. Especially with studs and a MLS head gasket.

Now, if you are running that high of a temp, I’d consider looser tolerances for piston-to-cylinder wall clearance. Probably rod and crank bearings too.

When I said how much heat an aluminum head can take without damage I'm thinking way more than 240F
some heat treatment for aluminum are over 900F. But here we're talking about evenly distributed heat.
uneven temperature is what wrapped a head and cause stress on the head gasket. It's cause by vaporisation of the water in the coolant !

In dirt bike racing , with waterless coolant they can bring the bike engine to a temp that will melt the rubber impeller of the water pump without damage to the aluminum head !

Waterless coolant

Who is online