anti freeze question etc

[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]

Originally Posted by Paul Workman

"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, 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/200...%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/Serv...ech%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]

Originally Posted by lbszr

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/Serv...ech%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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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!

P.

[gbrtng]

Originally Posted by nelson007

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/viewto...?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.