Jay Leno has had alot to say on this but one has to consider he's a paid endorser. I personally want to try (I first caught it on Wheeler Dealers) it as I like the idea that the pressure is taken out of the system. I understand tho, it is paramount that the remnants of old water be removed completely. Spendy for the product(s). ciao, jc
Having used the ordinary 50/50 mix of regular coolant for decades in my Alfas, I guess I'm not sure I see the point of this stuff, since the regular coolant seems to work just fine as long as it is changed every couple of years or so, or whatever schedule the new versions call for.
One thing I noticed is that some people say that because of the lower specific heat of that coolant, the engine steady state temperature runs hotter all the time. If true, I'm not sure we would want that, as that higher running temperature might cause the auxiliary components bearings to have their lube overheat and dry out. We seem to have that problem now with the 164 serp belt idler pulley bearing, it running hot and seizing (ask me how I know this), the standard lube in it having a max working temperature of about 180F. To me, this would be a problem.
I don't see an issue if the operating temp of the engine is what it should be, oil temp is lower than coolant temp correct? If coolant runs much lower than 212 boiling point isn't that better? Having the best heat exchange is what is the most important in a cooling system right?
Oil temp and coolant temps are generally about the same under normal operation.
The issue with this stuff is it's basically straight glycol. Glycol has higher viscosity than water or a 50/50 mixture and also lower heat capacity. It's going to run hotter, especially in the head. This does Bad Things, regardless of whether the coolant boils or not.
...tried it on a fleet of 5 trucks with SI engine about ten years ago. It didn't save us any money for the 5 years we ran the trucks with this coolant. Trucks were driven on average 30,000 miles a year. And it wasn't worth the hassle.
I have installed Evans waterless coolant in 2 Ferrari's , a vintage 59 250 and a 79 308. This was done under supervision of Evans engineers and filmed for training. The obvious advantages are that there is no water in the product to eliminate corrosion, the chemical make up of the product is Poly glycol and ethyl glycol mixture plus a additive package. The biggest issue in the conversion from conventional anti freeze is the flushing of the old coolant out, you must have less then 3% water in the Evans after the install. The owner of the 308 reported slightly lower operating temperature noted on the gauge. in testing Evans engineers claim a slight horsepower gain on engines that they have dyno tested . They also claim that the product disperse heat better then standard anti freeze products. The most interesting aspect of the product is you can open up a hot radiator with the product installed with no gush of pressure and product. ( of course this is not recommend )
I also think this is interesting. I can see one advantage in this product. By being able to remove the radiator cap while the engine is running, it appears to operate under less pressure than our current system. This might extend the lives of our relatively fragile expansion tanks. That would be a plus. The downside is cost. Is this product widely available, at say AutoZone or NAPA? Could I buy some in an emergency if I did not have a reserve amount in the trunk?
I would be interested in anyone who tries this on a 164.
The system pressure need not be lower, just the boiling point higher.
System pressure is a function of fluid volume change with heat which pressurizes the system by compressing the air chamber in the top of the expansion tank. The glycol may well expand as much or more than the water as the system heats up so maximum pressure could easily be the same figure.
The reason water based systems appear to explode when pressure is relieved is the water boils into gaseous form expanding rapidly and from the hottest point. Because that gas expands deep in the engine it expels coolant on its way to the atmosphere. If the hottest point of the coolant were to be at the air coolant surface all that would escape would be the steam, still dangerous but not in liquid form.
If you take out the water the remaining glycols don't boil when pressure is suddenly reduced. The air chamber depressurizes with no drama. The escaping air is just as hot as with a water based system so wear a glove sufficient to protect your arm at the wrist or use a substantial rag to cover the cap.
It is possible to learn how to ease the cap off without risk of injury, experienced mechanics do so on a daily basis. However, it is a trick doing so without allowing rapid escape of hot fluid.
Guess I don't see the need of this expensive coolant for ordinary usage as, if the car's coolant system is kept up to snuff as designed, regular inexpensive coolant is sufficient to maintain the cooling needs.
" oil temp is lower than coolant temp correct? "
Don't know if this is really relevant these days, but in my original 64 Giulia Sprint GT with the stock oil temperature gauge, while the oil temperature was slower than the coolant to come up to a steady reading, there were times when the oil temps were higher readings than for the coolant. I always thought this interesting. The car used Kendall 30W or 40W at the time.
The big decision for coolant is to decide whether long life coolant is worth it. I decided it is especially for low mileage annually. Coolant breaks down by age not miles.
As for oil and coolant temperatures differing it depends where the sensor is.
Engine oil gets hotter but cools faster. There is no coolant anywhere near the bearings that heat up the oil.
Mind you, engines run most efficiently when as hot as possible. Oil temperature gauges are useful to inform the driver when the engine has fully warmed up. If the oil temperature gauge displays a high temperature drain the sump and refill with tougher oil.
" If the oil temperature gauge displays a high temperature drain the sump and refill with tougher oil."
Indeed. I drove that first Alfa back in the days when multiweight oils were not readily available or popular. Later of course we started using the first of the miltiweights, such as the 10W-40 and then the 20W-50. Single weight oils were very hard on starters, esp when the outside temperature was very low. The single weights were like glue in the engine on cold starts.
Interesting note, the Europeans were ahead of the US when it came to multiweight oils, my modified 67 Cooper S came from England in 68 with Duckham's 20W-50, a weight not available here at the time.