Off the side a bit but..........

[CINDERS]

Peter I found this thread ~
Matt
I've reposted this thread on waterless coolant because the original was deleted. Matt, your post came up first. I hope you don't mind that it looks like you started this thread, but I'm interested in knowing more about it. If you object, I will just start a whole new thread, but I didn't want to see some of this information go to waste.
West
Matt's initial post:
I did a lot of reading about the waterless coolants and am interested in using it myself. I think it's ideal for our cars that are stored for long periods.

From what I've read, the engines may run warmer ... but the stuff doesn't boil over... I read all the theory on the stuff, and it does say that while the overall temperature may go up, the actual amount of cooling being done to vital parts is greater. Basically, more heat is being transferred to the coolant than we're used to, therefore, it gets hotter. But since it has the capacity to hold that heat without boiling, there isn't a problem.

The temperatures we see with water/anti-freeze are the coolant temperature, and from the physics of the coolant itself, it seems that the waterless has more surface area contact with the hot metal, therefore it will absorb more heat, which is reflected in slightly higher operating temperatures. But does this count as overheating? I don't know, but I don't think so. We need to examine what we're worried about--an arbitrary number on a gauge or the actual boiling of the coolant where it has lost its ability to absorb any more heat and the efficiency of the system is reduced? If the coolant isn't boiling, it can continue to absorb heat until the radiator can no longer reject it, and even on old cars, the radiators can remove A LOT of heat. The point that the waterless coolant guys are making is that the margin between operating temperature and failure with water/anti-freeze is very slim, on the order of 15-20 degrees. That's not much of a cushion. The waterless stuff continues to work at 350 degrees, probably 100 degrees hotter than any car can possible make the coolant. So we need to look at how we define overheating in our cars and why it is or isn't dangerous. As far as physics goes, no boiling = working as intended, even at slightly elevated temperatures.

There isn't a specific temperature at which the metal parts in our engines will fail, at least, it isn't in the 200-240 degree range. The temperatures we fear seeing on our gauges and in theory are strictly a result of water's boiling point, nothing else. The engine will probably run happily at hotter temperatures and may in fact run better. The only issues might be vapor lock, but I suspect that the actual temperature of the working parts is close to the same, if not lower, with the waterless coolant.

Gil, what aluminum bits gave you that blister? Even at 130 degrees, metal will damage flesh, so I don't know that this was a result of the coolant--it probably would have been that hot no matter what, yes? And you also switched to a vastly more efficient radiator--that's far more likely than the coolant as credit for your cooling system's improved efficiency (or previous lack thereof).

I have no dog in this fight, but I would consider using the stuff if it works as advertised. The theory seems sound. I'm just wondering if we're used to seeing one number on the gauge and call anything above that "overheating." I guess it depends on how we define "overheating" (which I take to mean boiling). We all like to see nice cool numbers on the temperature gauge, but why? Because it gives us more room and we don't need to worry about overheating, right? It's not the actual temperature of the engine we're worried about, it's the boiling point of the coolant and knowing that it becomes a major PITA at that point. Think about it.

The waterless stuff boils at 368 degrees--there's just no way a Silver Ghost can get coolant that hot unless something is seriously amiss somewhere else--even oil starts to fail at around 270 degrees. I don't know that I would blame the coolant for that, but then again, I wasn't there so who knows?
Anecdotal stories about "it seemed hotter" aside, does anyone have direct experience? I'm very interested, but it seems most of our hobby-side stories are rumors and "I knew a guy who..." kinds of things and warnings about dire consequences. Like I said, the theory is sound, the math works, but everyone seems scared of it the same way we were afraid of taking the lead out of the gas...