anti freeze question etc

[Corbusa]

Guys ,I dont remember exactually - but what is the bad antifreeze we dont need? does anyone know what is in the bad stuff that our head gaskets dont like? I am still tempted to get the Evans waterless coolant , but the company was also wondering about our head gasket situation..
Bugs Bunny would say if you want to make anti-freeze to take her nighty off - that wont work here:)

[GOLDCYLON]

Guys ,I dont remember exactually - but what is the bad antifreeze we dont need? does anyone know what is in the bad stuff that our head gaskets dont like? I am still tempted to get the Evans waterless coolant , but the company was also wondering about our head gasket situation..
Bugs Bunny would say if you want to make anti-freeze to take her nighty off - that wont work here:)


Just use the standard green stuff. Stay away from the red or anything else fancy the name you were looking for to stay away from was Dexi-Cool or Dex-Cool. Ive seen it both spelled both ways however avoid.

[Corbusa]

Got it !!! Thanks Bro

[Dynomite]

Just use the standard green stuff. Stay away from the red or anything else fancy the name you were looking for to stay away from was Dexi-Cool or Dex-Cool. Ive seen it both spelled both ways however avoid.

Like Daryll said :thumbsup:

LT5/ZR-1 Fluids (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c4-zr-1-discussion/3005470-tech-info-lt5-modifications-rebuild-tricks-500-hp.html#post1580070550)

RADIATOR COOLANT
You want to only use the green coolant. They have it at Napa and it meets 1825M GM Spec.

For Zerex the first gallon is called Regular Green Coolant (GM 1825M), the second gallon is called Original Formula (GM 1825M) and the third gallon is called G-05 Formula (GM 1825M). Zerex ZXRU1 is 50-50 and Zerex ZX001 is undiluted. The fourth gallon is NAPA coolant (GM 1825M).
http://partimages.genpt.com/partimages/213991.jpgORhttp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31jb-ZubjrL.jpgORhttp://www.valvoline.com/admin/p42.pngORhttp://partimages.genpt.com/partimages/213967.jpg
NAPA (http://www.napaonline.com/Search/Detail.aspx?R=NAF1GAL_0006411522)

See Filling With Coolant and the Air Locked Water Pump (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c4-zr-1-discussion/3005470-tech-info-lt5-modifications-rebuild-tricks-500-hp-5.html#post1581827089)

[Corbusa]

Thanks DYN. an easy way I'll remember is Dexter ( Dex ) is a bad dude . Keep away from Dex he'll mess yo engine up. I'll get the NAPA coolant.

[vilant]

I used the green stuff that meets GM1825M specs. Not sure if it makes a difference or not, but I did see some that wasn't.

[Kevin]

dex-cool will eat the head gaskets out.

[PhillipsLT5]

You gotta love the info & pics!

[RICHARD TILL]

I use the NAPA green stuff that states it contains silicates with a small gray bottle of Bar`s stop leak & conditioner. What exactly is silicates? Is it related to silica/sand?

[Hib Halverson]

That DexCool is a poor choice in antifreeze for the LT5 is nothing but a rumor.

In fact, in a properly maintained cooling system, DexCool is a better choice. The reason is its calcium-based corrosion inhibiters which are less abrasive and more friendly to pump shaft seals and last longer allowing longer times between coolant changes.

My 95 came stock with Dex Cool. I use DexCool whenever I need freeze protection in that engine. Im 17 years, I've never used anything else.

In fact, in all my vehicles, no matter what the model year or engine type, if I need freeze protection, it's DexCool I use.

That's even true of my S10 Blazer which is one of the vehicle platforms rumored to have the most problems with DexCool.

One problem with the S10 trucks and utilities is the heater core is above the level of coolant in the system, thus the system is prone to air bubbles. The one weakness of DexCool comes when it is used in a system with low coolant level due to either poor maintenance or failure to bleed or pack a system with the heater core above the nominal coolant level. DexCool's inhibiter package, hot coolant and air bubbles or trapped air space above the coolant, may cause sludge to develop. If that sludge is present long term, it damages the system.

That said, proper filling and proper maintenance prevent such problems. With the S10 trucks/utilities here's what you do...after filling the system and running the engine until the thermostat opens and adding coolant to bring the level up, holding the coolant container in your left hand, you reach over and rev the engine to about 3000 rpm with your right. You'll notice the coolant level drops significantly. That's because water pump is filling the heater core and holding the coolant level in the system downstream of the radiator at a higher level. With the engine at 3000, you fill the radiator to the top, then, while still holding 3000 rpm, you install and lock the radiator cap. Then let the engine idle and fill the overflow bottle to the proper level. Do that and you never have problems with air.

I've owned my Blazer since 1999, driven it 125,000 miles. There's never been any sludge in the radiator and it's always used DexCool. Had the heads off last summer to port/polish them and grind the valves/seats. No sludge in the block or head cooling jackets.

Ok.
You're probably wondering what I use for coolant if I don't need freeze protection.

Distilled water and Red Line Water Wetter. Straight water is a better coolant than 50/50 mixes of antifreeze and water. Of course, you have to use some type of water pump lubricant/corrosion inhibiter and that's where Red Line Water Wetter comes in. It has virtually the same lubricants and inhibiters in it as does DexCool. Additionally, Water Wetter has in it a surfactant which can improve heat transfer from the engine cooling jacket surfaces to the coolant. An LT5's cooling system is such that in most cases, it won't benefit from a surfactant additive, but there are other engines, such as Gen 1 and 2 SBV8s which may benefit.

[gbrtng]

Thanks Hib for blasting another myth. I did not know the 95s had Dexcool from the factory - interesting. Saturns began with Dexcool in 1991 and the industry reason was because of the aluminum head and block design. I figured if it's good enough for my 92 Saturn, it's probably good enough for the 91 turq. So I converted it to Dexcool in 1997 and it's been OK so far.

But you should see the Dexcool rants on Bob is the Oil Guy ...

[scottfab]

I ran dexcool for 5yrs with no problems. I succumbed to the rumors/facts that head gasket problems were an issue and switched back to the green stuff but change it every 2yrs.

It's certainly not clear to me that the reported gasket failures were due only to dexcool and not another cause (tap water or previous use of poorly maintained green stuff and/or poor maintenance etc).

I guess it's like the ZF6 damage reported after using Redline. When in doubt ..... avoid it. I do know that replacing the water pump is a real PIA.

[GOLDCYLON]

Hib is actually both right and wrong in this discussion. His 95 did indeed come from the factory with Dexcool. As long as he continues to service his ride with Dexcool he wont have a problem as he contends. There has been a lot of online debate on Dexcool but it appears if you flush regularly like you should do on any system after about 25K miles you wont have a problem. GM has faced many claims and lawsuits becuase they published a change interval of about 75K or 100K miles on the change ntervals. Results were contaminated systems, sludge build up and destruction of gaskets. Hib obvioulsy maintains his cooling system.

However the problem with Dexcool comes from owners who have added it into the system with the green stuff. In combination it is corrosive and will harm the head gaskets. Proven many times by M Haibeck and others after many Head Gasket exchanges. Remember one product contains silicates the dexcool does not. Dexcool was formulated to be less corrosive on aluminum than the green stuff was as well.

So the sage advice for the earlier ZR-1 owners is to avoid mixing the two because of this problem. So how could this happen? Well if you changed the hoses, or the radiator and proceed to fill the car with Dexcool guess what??? Plenty of green antifree resides in the block and will still cause the problem. Eventually. So maintain your cooling system.

No Myth. So if your car was not equipped with Dexcool. Avoid. GC

[USAFPILOT]

When did the dexcool start? My 94 had dexcool in it when I bought it, but have switched it to regular and had it flushed twice.

[GOLDCYLON]

When did the dexcool start? My 94 had dexcool in it when I bought it, but have switched it to regular and had it flushed twice.


I believe 94 was the first year. If you flushed it out twice you maybe ok the problem is when its just added and forgot about. Thats when the corrosion starts.

[Hib Halverson]

Marc and I exchanged emails about the coolant issue.

His belief is that the problem with DexCool and the LT5 engine is not the oxidation/sludge issue that comes up with S/T trucks and old B-cars, both of which have heater cores above the level of coolant. It's also not caused by people mixing the two types of coolants and the resulting combination becoming corrosive.

Marc feels the problem is the calcium-based corrosion inhibiter package in DexCool causes the non-metallic parts of the head gasket to swell and/or disintegrate.

I have not seen nearly as many high-mileage LT5s as has Marc so, while I'm not going to stop using straight water and Red Line Water Wetter in my LT5, there is evidence from engines Marc has worked on pointing at DexCool.

I wonder if other LT5 rebulders have seen the same trend?

[Hog]

Hib, the fill scenario you describe is one I use on my 1996-1999 pickup/SUV's as well. As with your Vortec V6 4.3 in your Blazer, the 1996-2002 Vortec 350/L31, 305/L30 can be affected as well. These vehicles use aluminum lower intake manifolds and iron cylinder heads. The difference in expansion/contraction rates of these dissimilar metals can cause the intake gaskets to "roll" during heating/cooling.
This issue is compounded by the fact that these intake manifolds are held down by bolts that do not apply clamping forces in a perpendicyular fashion to the gasket face. The bolts are pointed straight down to the ground, while the head/intake interface is at an angle. This puts the gasket in a state of shear force. Combined with the difference in expansion/contraction rates of the intake and cylinder head, these engines have known intake gasket issues.

The final torque on these intake bolts is only 11 lb/ft on their final pass, and these bolts are located in pairs only at the corners of the intake manifold. The V6's being shorter arent as bad as the londer V8's. There are only 8 bolts with none in the middle of each intake gasket flange. GM by making these intakes easy to install on the assembly line, have sacrificed ultimate durability. Felpro offers their "Problem Solver" intake gaskets for the Vortec 4.3/305/350 engines. They arnet cheap, but the are much more robust than even the redesigned GM gaskets. Back in 1996 when these Vortec engines were introduced in teh trucks/SUV's the encapsulated silicone intake gaskets were heralded as "REUSEABLE". What crap, they certaonly are NOT.

Stock "encapsulated silicone" Vortec 4.3/5.0/5.7 gasket(many other GM engines use this type as well)
http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb373/Paul_Schermerhorn/stockvortecgasket.jpg

FelPro problem solver intake gasket
http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb373/Paul_Schermerhorn/felproproblem.jpg

Keep the cooling system in good shape and keep the air out, use proper water and Dexcool is fine. Dont maintain those systems, and I have seen Dexcool etch cast iron cylinder heads, not good.

At least the LT5 is mostly aluminum, that helps the gaskets stay in good shape.
Was their any changes in waterpump durability once Dexcool was introduced in the LT5?

peace
Hog

[Hib Halverson]

On the S/T truck stuff, I guess we're sorta hijacking this thread.

That said, the coincidence of you mentioning the L35 is uncanny.

Last summer I did a top end overhaul of my 4.3. The engine had about 125,000 miles on it. Cooling system maintenance was done regularly and the coolant was 50/50 DexCool and water.

I had none of the problems you discuss with intake gaskets. I don't doubt that others do experience those problems, but I did not. Since, I always use Fel-Pro gaskets on jobs like that, I guess I installed those Problem Saver gaskets and didn't give it much thought.

[lbszr]

I'm not going to stop using straight water and Red Line Water Wetter in my LT5, there is evidence from engines Marc has worked on pointing at DexCool.

I wonder if other LT5 rebulders have seen the same trend?

You mentioned in an earlier post that the Red Line Water Wetter has the same inhibiters as the Dex Cool. I too use straight water and Red Line in the summer for track use and switch back to green in the winter, for about 3 years now (head gaskets are only about 6 years old).

I'll still keep using it also, but for curiosity. Does this mean basically, that I'm switching back and forth from DexCool (water wetter) to green? Even though that may not be a problem. :icon_scra

[Paul Workman]

My understanding (from Marc and reading up on it) the issue with our LT5s and Dexcool is one of possible chemical incompatability of the coolant and the specific chemical makeup of the gasgets initially used in the LT5s. If "Dex" was used as factory fill in the 95 ZR-1s, it might stand to reason that issue was resolved before the last production LT5 was assembled, back in '92(?). Not agruing with those using Dex in their LT5 successfully, but I've seen some of Marc's evidence in person. Y'all do what you want, but pulling the heads to change gaskets on an LT5 is a WHOLE nuther thing, compared to a SBC. Just sayin.;)


*snip*.

Ok.
You're probably wondering what I use for coolant if I don't need freeze protection.

Yeah, Hib: keeps me awake at night!;)

Distilled water and Red Line Water Wetter. Straight water is a better coolant than 50/50 mixes of antifreeze and water. Of course, you have to use some type of water pump lubricant/corrosion inhibiter and that's where Red Line Water Wetter comes in. It has virtually the same lubricants and inhibiters in it as does DexCool. Additionally, Water Wetter is a surfactant which improves heat transfer from the engine cooling jacket surfaces to the coolant.

NOT SO FAST, pard! (Taking exception to advertising hype here...)

"Water Wetter" (WW) ...Because I'm veering OT, I'll keep it quick...

WW may or may not improve heat transfer, but compared to what???

I've always felt that once again some fundamental laws of physics are being trampled by the hype used to sell (in this case) WW. Pickin' a nit, perhaps, but specifically I've never bought into the surfactant explaination as the key to how heat transfer efficiency is affected by using it. Instead, known stuff like...oh..."heat of vaporization" and "specific heat" and "heat transfer coefficient" etc ALL have direct, scientifically predictable, affect on heat transfer. Sorry...surfactant ain't on the list (but sounds plausable to the uniformed).

To your point about pure water being a better coolant than 50/50 mix of water with glycol-based coolant is because the specific heat (capacity) of gylcol is lower than that of water. However, the offsetting fact is the boiling point of pure water vs. the boiling point of the 50/50 mix with glycol results in the mix being far more effective at cooling than pure water would be, due to the water coming to a boil. This fact too has direct consequences, in terms of ability to transfer heat.)

The beneifit of corrosion inhibitors and lube not withstanding, here's where I'm coming from: 1) Ordinarily, the ratio of pure (distilled) water to WW is not 1:1 (50/50) as typical for glycol anitfreeze, but more like 16 or 18:1 water to WW. So, the improvement of heat transfer is unlikely due to a significant increase in the specific heat characteristic of the mix (if any). I'd sooner be swayed to any improvement over pure water as 2) a function of raising the heat of vaporization (boiling point) and the resulting improvement in heat transfer coefficient (from the metal to a liquid coolant vs. metal to a gasseous (steam) coolant). (Oh, BTW, the flash boiling of coolant in direct contact with the metal, is not the culprit some think - as long as the bubbles (steam) are flushed away by the water circulation...(trust me).) And 3) the fact is the "specific heat (capacity)" of water is quite high, comparitively.

So if WW (or the like) can raise the boiling point without significantly reducing the specific heat capacity (of water), then the result is the best of two worlds: higher boiling point = more efficient heat transfer, higher spcific heat also = better heat transfer...compared to pure water as a coolant.

As for the surfactant claim,:blahblah: I would hope anything added to (water) would NOT foam. But, as I said, I believe the ability of additives (e.g. WW) coolant mix to be more efficient (compared to pure water, for example) are based on raising the boiling point (essentially) and NOT from that advertising BS claim re surfactant.

As for silicates and other stuff to prevent corrosion and lube the seal/shaft contact area of the water pump...sounds good to me.

Just because there is conventional belief (by some) that the universe rotates about the earth or the earth itself is flat, or BS advertising hype trumps true science, does not make it so. I always thought this topic would make a good experiment for a high school physics class...assuming their school even has a lab anymore... (Don't get me started!)

RE experimenting, this link touches on some of what I've been trying to say...

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2008/01/redline-waterwetter%C2%AE-review/

Not pickin' a nit wid ya Hib. It's just that sales hype is often written by "word smiths" that - wouldn't know a dB from a dollar bill!


P.

[nelson007]

I have never flushed my lt5's. What is the proper way to do a complete coolant flush?
Thanks
Nelson 007

[dredgeguy]

Nelson,
I have to do the same. Checked with the PO and all my fluids were last changed 5 years ago. Only 2000 miles since then but still, need to change all. Maybe during the next WAZOO maintenance day?

[lbszr]

"Water Wetter" (WW) ...Because I'm veering OT, I'll keep it quick...

WW may or may not improve heat transfer, but compared to what???

I've always felt that once again some fundamental laws of physics are being trampled by the hype used to sell (in this case) WW. Pickin' a nit, perhaps, but specifically I've never bought into the surfactant explaination as the key to how heat transfer efficiency is affected by using it. Instead, known stuff like...oh..."heat of vaporization" and "specific heat" and "heat transfer coefficient" etc ALL have direct, scientifically predictable, affect on heat transfer. Sorry...surfactant ain't on the list (but sounds plausable to the uniformed).

To your point about pure water being a better coolant than 50/50 mix of water with glycol-based coolant is because the specific heat (capacity) of gylcol is lower than that of water. However, the offsetting fact is the boiling point of pure water vs. the boiling point of the 50/50 mix with glycol results in the mix being far more effective at cooling than pure water would be, due to the water coming to a boil. This fact too has direct consequences, in terms of ability to transfer heat.)

The beneifit of corrosion inhibitors and lube not withstanding, here's where I'm coming from: 1) Ordinarily, the ratio of pure (distilled) water to WW is not 1:1 (50/50) as typical for glycol anitfreeze, but more like 16 or 18:1 water to WW. So, the improvement of heat transfer is unlikely due to a significant increase in the specific heat characteristic of the mix (if any). I'd sooner be swayed to any improvement over pure water as 2) a function of raising the heat of vaporization (boiling point) and the resulting improvement in heat transfer coefficient (from the metal to a liquid coolant vs. metal to a gasseous (steam) coolant). (Oh, BTW, the flash boiling of coolant in direct contact with the metal, is not the culprit some think - as long as the bubbles (steam) are flushed away by the water circulation...(trust me).) And 3) the fact is the "specific heat (capacity)" of water is quite high, comparitively.

So if WW (or the like) can raise the boiling point without significantly reducing the specific heat capacity (of water), then the result is the best of two worlds: higher boiling point = more efficient heat transfer, higher spcific heat also = better heat transfer...compared to pure water as a coolant.

As for the surfactant claim,:blahblah: I would hope anything added to (water) would NOT foam. But, as I said, I believe the ability of additives (e.g. WW) coolant mix to be more efficient (compared to pure water, for example) are based on raising the boiling point (essentially) and NOT from that advertising BS claim re surfactant.

As for silicates and other stuff to prevent corrosion and lube the seal/shaft contact area of the water pump...sounds good to me.

Just because there is conventional belief (by some) that the universe rotates about the earth or the earth itself is flat, or BS advertising hype trumps true science, does not make it so. I always thought this topic would make a good experiment for a high school physics class...assuming their school even has a lab anymore... (Don't get me started!)

RE experimenting, this link touches on some of what I've been trying to say...

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2008/01/redline-waterwetter%C2%AE-review/

Not pickin' a nit wid ya Hib. It's just that sales hype is often written by "word smiths" that - wouldn't know a dB from a dollar bill!


P.

I repeatedly saw obvious lower temps at the road track, so it does seem to work for me.

This link describes how WW works and Dyno test results. It doesn't raise boiling point and they don't claim to.

http://www.dual-star.com/index2/Service/WaterWetter%20Tech%20Info.htm

[nelson007]

Hello Charlie ,
That sounds good to me. I remember reading somewhere that's there is a certain way you have to it, in. order not to have any air pockets.

Nelson

[Paul Workman]

I repeatedly saw obvious lower temps at the road track, so it does seem to work for me.

This link describes how WW works and Dyno test results. It doesn't raise boiling point and they don't claim to.

http://www.dual-star.com/index2/Service/WaterWetter%20Tech%20Info.htm

Yeah...I hear ya. The link is full of self-serving, often contardicting statements. And, the "dyno" test was done by a little known company that markets an array of aftermarket stuff...for what it is worth.

Gotta tell ya... My curiosity is peaked. I think it would make for an interesting independant test!

[mike100]

Paul, I have witnessed strange things on different engine designs not running the proper coolant. Two examples I can think of were a 4.6 triton Ford that eroded/cavitated the water pump impeller to almost nothing and (also Ford/International) old idi 7.3 liter diesels with 20:1 compression ratios and thin cylinder walls that actually eroded through to the cylinder due to the void left by the wall flex (cavitation again).

I think the surfactant nature and higher boiling point of coolant prevent these types of events that most people don't even think about that when servicing cooling systems.

On maybe a 350 small block, nobody really has much issue there and I know of a couple people who ran water wetter with good results, but I have never been tempted to use it. I would feel more comfortable running a 70-30 antifreeze mix and a larger radiator.

[Paul Workman]

Paul, I have witnessed strange things on different engine designs not running the proper coolant. Two examples I can think of were a 4.6 triton Ford that eroded/cavitated the water pump impeller to almost nothing and (also Ford/International) old idi 7.3 liter diesels with 20:1 compression ratios and thin cylinder walls that actually eroded through to the cylinder due to the void left by the wall flex (cavitation again).

I think the surfactant nature and higher boiling point of coolant prevent these types of events that most people don't even think about that when servicing cooling systems.

On maybe a 350 small block, nobody really has much issue there and I know of a couple people who ran water wetter with good results, but I have never been tempted to use it. I would feel more comfortable running a 70-30 antifreeze mix and a larger radiator.

RE 350 SBC: Yep. I agree, Mike. The characteristics are pretty well understood in all types of applicaitons - pretty well put to bed before WW ever was on the market. AND, I'm not saying WW isn't effective - at least to some degree.

Ya jess can't fool mother nature; fundamental laws of physics would have to be broken in order for some of the published claims to be true. So, I guess I'm really having more of an issue with the claims of HOW (WW) works, and some of the resultant claims, more than doubt it works (which I don't doubt - at least in certain instances).

That's why I would like to perform or monitor an independant set of experiments to get a set of objective results, doanchaknow...;) Seperate truth from hype, in other words!:icon_stud

P.

[gbrtng]

I have never flushed my lt5's. What is the proper way to do a complete coolant flush?
Thanks
Nelson 007
I don't know about "proper" but I drained and filled with DI water and drained until the green was gone - no smell, taste or visual. Then I drained and filled with 100% DEXCOOL. Then I made sure the system was completely filled making sure it temperature cycled several times with a known good coolant tank cap. It's been there for almost 20 years. YRMV.

[Hog]

Here is a link with a buddy who made up a home cooling flush kit. Obviously the truck and Vette will be slightly different, but the theory is the same. It might be easier if the car is elevated a bit.

http://www.pacificp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=61206#61206

Not a bad idea to reverse flush the heater core while your at it. Its amazing how much crap will come out of them, even if the coolant looks "good".

peace
Hog

[Hib Halverson]

In doing some more research on the DexCool/LT5 issue, I spent some time emailing with Marc about the problem.

My feeling, now, is that it's really not the "fault" of the coolant but it may be the "march of technology" which is to blame.

The LT5 does not have the "Dexcool problem" that do powertrains with heater cores above the level of coolant when the engine is not running. It's possible problem is compatibility of the non-metallic parts of the gasket with 50/50 mixes of DexCool and water...this according to Marc's research.

The LT5 head gasket material was likely something known to Lotus as being reliable with coolants available in the mid-1980s, 5-7 years before Texaco began developing the Dexcool formula for GM.

What I'm wondering is, when GM converted all engines to DexCool in 1994 and 1995, did it change the head gasket material?

Ok, that's a loaded question the answer to which is, of course, "No". All the engines used in 1994 and 1995 had already been built.

Going forward, if you're rebuilding an LT5, use the head gaskets Cometic makes. They are proven compatible with both "green" (traditional antifreeze) and "red/orange" (DexCool-type) coolants.

[Hammer]

If you are having problems, here's how to make sure the coolant is filled, by none other than Marc Haibeck, the ZR-1 Specialist.

http://zr1specialist.com/HAT%20Web/articles/Filling%20the%20LT5%20With%20Coolant.pdf

[Dynomite]

If you are having problems, here's how to make sure the coolant is filled, by none other than Marc Haibeck, the ZR-1 Specialist.

http://zr1specialist.com/HAT%20Web/articles/Filling%20the%20LT5%20With%20Coolant.pdf

John...I just talked with Marc a week ago in e-mail and he also uses compressed air sometimes applying the air pressure to a specially made coolant surge tank cover (radiator cap) to make sure coolant is forced into the water pump area.

But this method I used here works even better I think. This method does not require jacking the car or a compressed air tank.

Filling With Coolant and the Air Locked Water Pump (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c4-zr-1-discussion/3005470-tech-info-lt5-modifications-rebuild-tricks-500-hp-5.html#post1581827089)

Now......if you really want to make sure you get the Air out of an Air Locked Water Pump.....do what mgbrv8 does mgbrv8 Modifications of Water Pump (http://zr1.net/forum/showthread.php?p=166840)

[Hib Halverson]

As a partial answer to an earlier question about "flushing" the LT5 cooling system...it's really hard to remove an LT5s cooling system block drains and you don't drain much of the coolant when you just open radiator petcock. What I did on my LT5 was drill and tap a small hole in the thermostat housing upstream of the thermostat and fill it with a small pipe plug. When I "flush" the system, I remove that plug and open the radiator drain. That gets a more of the old coolant out. Then I replace the plug, fill the system with tap water, idle the engine for 10 min. or so and drain it again. After that, I refill the cooling system with fresh coolant.

(snip)
Yeah, Hib: keeps me awake at night!;)
(snip)
NOT SO FAST, pard! (Taking exception to advertising hype here...)

"Water Wetter" (WW) ...Because I'm veering OT, I'll keep it quick...

WW may or may not improve heat transfer, but compared to what???

With respect to Paul's rambling critique of Red Line Water Wetter on this thread (one of several threads on the site in which Paul rails on WW)….my goodness gracious, are his panties ever in a bunch about that product!

I never said Water Wetter increases the boiling point of the coolant. It changes neither the boiling point nor the freezing point of whatever coolant to which it's added. Also, because I chose my words in an earlier post poorly–and I have since edited that–the implication was use of Water Wetter in an LT5 will reduce engine coolant temperature (ECT). In most cases, that won't happen. The main reason I use Water Wetter in an LT5 is to replace the water pump lubricant, anti-foaming agents and corrosion inhibiters which are in antifreeze coolants (green or orange) which I don't use.

RLWW's other active ingrediant is a surfactant which, in engines with areas of their cooling jackets prone to localized, nucleate boiling, will mitigate that boiling and improve transfer of heat from metal parts to the coolant, thus, reducing ECT.

LT5, because of the design of its cooling jackets and the high flow rates in the system, in most situations, does not have trouble with nucleate boiling, so, in most situations, the ability of Water Wetter (or any of the other brands of coolant additives which claim to reduce temps) to reduce ECT is a solution looking for a problem.

The only duty-cycle were I suspect there might be a role for RLWW's surfactant to reduce ECT is when an LT5 is at high rpm and under high load for an extended period. In that situation, the engine is producing a lot of heat in the cylinder heads, but a production based LT5 cooling system is bypassing a lot of coolant around the radiator so ECT rises. Additionally, water pump cavitation may develop at high rpm. The combination of those circumstances could allow localized, nucleate boiling to begin. I say "could" as I have no test data to support that. I base that suggestion solely on my understanding of the LT5 cooling system. When localized nucleate boiling begins in cooling jacket areas adjacent to combustion chamber walls, those areas will experience increased temperature and detonation is lilely to follow. Red Line Water Wetter's mitigating effect on localized boiling could be valuable in that situation.

When I use straight water in a 15-pound system at low altitudes, I give away some boilover protection on the high-end, but because straight water cools better than does a 50/50 mix of ethylene glycol and water, the decrease in ECT allowed by a 170° termostat, preserves the safety margin between my nominal ECT and the boil over temperature.

That said, 100% water coolant works only under limited conditions.
1) Obviously, there's no freeze protection. If you park or store the car where the ambient temperature goes below 32°, don't use straight water.
2) Dont use it if you run the car hard at altitudes over 8000 feet. Under those conditions, you may want the extra 5°F or so of boil over protection you'll get with a 50/50 mix.
3) It's maintenance intensive. You must change coolant every 18-24 months regardless of mileage.
4) You must use an additive which has the following components: water pump seal lubricant, anti-foaming agent and corrosion inhibiter. There are a number of products like that on the market. I choose to use Red Line's brand mainly because it was first on the market and, back in the early-1990s, I had a supporting role in assisting Red Line Synthetic Oil Corp. in developing the original Water Wetter, which was a race-only product packaged in chrystaline form, into to what it is today, a pour-in, liquid additive for road car as well as race engine cooling systems.

What's the advantage to straight water? Better cooling especially, at high rpm and under high load when the engine is producing a lot of heat and the LT5 cooling system is bypassing a significant amount of coolant flow around the radiator.

As for Paul's posting the link to that lame "test" of Red Line Water Wetter, I actually accept the writer's results of his narrowling focused test. I don't recall that article stating what kind of engine was used for the test but, in reading the story, it doesnt' seem that the tester put the engine's cooling system under any significant load. Tested like that, it's unlikely Red Line Water Wetter or any of the other coolant additive brands (Royal Purple, Design Engineering and etc) would have had any positive effect on lowering ECT.

Where Red Line Water Wetter can make a difference in ECT is in situations where a cooling system under high load is pone to localized boiling. It there's no localized boiling, there won't be much of a change.


Not pickin' a nit wid ya Hib. It's just that sales hype is often written by "word smiths" that - wouldn't know a dB from a dollar bill!

P.

Come on Paul...you're so full of :censored: sometimes. "Pickin' a nit" is exactly what you're doing, you love doing it and...I don't have a problem with it. Just, please, be honest about it, for gosh sakes.