I meant to say that the ingredients are the same as the JD "Coolgard II"
John Deere Cool-Gard II
- Thread starter Coolant_Man
- Start date
- Status
Makes sense that some big producer like Havoline or another is blending JD's Cool-Gard II.
As far as I know Cool-Gard and G-05 contain benzoate, silicate, nitrite (diesel cylineder liner protection), nitrate, borate, and a triazole (some lead soldered copper-brass protection).
Cool-Gard II dropped the nitrite but kept the benzoate and probably everything else, and added 2 other unknown OAT inhibitors. I don't think I'd want to put various OATs in a vehicle unless it was factory approved for it.
As far as I know Cool-Gard and G-05 contain benzoate, silicate, nitrite (diesel cylineder liner protection), nitrate, borate, and a triazole (some lead soldered copper-brass protection).
Cool-Gard II dropped the nitrite but kept the benzoate and probably everything else, and added 2 other unknown OAT inhibitors. I don't think I'd want to put various OATs in a vehicle unless it was factory approved for it.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
I was always under the impression that G-05 was formulated with diesels in mind since it's a European formula and they use a lot of diesels, and also because G-05 has nitrite/nitrates and borate. What were they for really if not to address the diesel issue?
Just re-skimming this thread and thought I'd address this question. My understanding is that these additives are the cavitation protection additives. People refer to them as "diesel cylinder liner" protection because its definitely true that wet-liner diesels are most sensitive to cavitation damage eating through the relatively thin iron-based liners and holing a cylinder. However, all engines are subject to cavitation damage from microboiling, acoustic cavitation (happens in diesels more often than other engines, but not impossible), and flow cavitation (typically erodes water pump impellers) to varying degrees. So it can be good to have these additives even in non-diesel applications and some engines need them much more than others- lots of gasoline engine head castings are thick enough that the erosion due to cavitation isn't fast enough to cause a problem before the engine has a million miles. Wet-liner Honda engines come to mind as a case where it might be much more important to suppress cavitation, and the early-production Ford 5.4 had a cylinder head erosion issue due to cavitation IIRC (its been fixed for 15-odd years, so its not that relevant... just an example).
I was always under the impression that G-05 was formulated with diesels in mind since it's a European formula and they use a lot of diesels, and also because G-05 has nitrite/nitrates and borate. What were they for really if not to address the diesel issue?
Just re-skimming this thread and thought I'd address this question. My understanding is that these additives are the cavitation protection additives. People refer to them as "diesel cylinder liner" protection because its definitely true that wet-liner diesels are most sensitive to cavitation damage eating through the relatively thin iron-based liners and holing a cylinder. However, all engines are subject to cavitation damage from microboiling, acoustic cavitation (happens in diesels more often than other engines, but not impossible), and flow cavitation (typically erodes water pump impellers) to varying degrees. So it can be good to have these additives even in non-diesel applications and some engines need them much more than others- lots of gasoline engine head castings are thick enough that the erosion due to cavitation isn't fast enough to cause a problem before the engine has a million miles. Wet-liner Honda engines come to mind as a case where it might be much more important to suppress cavitation, and the early-production Ford 5.4 had a cylinder head erosion issue due to cavitation IIRC (its been fixed for 15-odd years, so its not that relevant... just an example).
I agree with all that. Although some antifreeze makers claim that high nitrites can reduse lead soldier protection. Not too many vehicles use lead solder radiators anymore plus triazole adds protection. Diesels generally do have much tougher cavitation protection needs because they tend to have higher harmonics. Several manufactures are protecting diesels and cavitation well without nitrites or or other inorganics and just OATs. My main problem with OATs is gasket compatibility. If the application didn't come with an OAT formula and isn't designed to work well with them (very hard to know for sure even if OAT is FF), then I wouldn't use them.
Quote:
On the subject of 2-EHA OATS...
"Regarding DEX-COOL, you are correct in that it is an OAT - type coolant using 2-Ethyl-Hexanoic Acid (2-EHA) as the OAT in its formulation. There was much controversy about ten or so years ago regarding seal hardening and cracking caused by 2-EHA. Cummins Engine Company and Texaco Chemical, now owned by Chevron, were two that particularly had issues with each other, but reached some sort of accommodation on the issue. You may want to do some Internet searches on the matter. For our part, we do not use 2-EHA in or formulation of either the former Cool-Gard or the current Cool-Gard II. The OAT used in Cool-Gard and now in Cool-Gard II, along with the two additional OAT's in Cool-Gard II, are unique and proprietary to Deere, and are not used by anyone else. That makes Cool-Gard II a truly unique and one-of-a-kind formulation."
This is really interesting.What's the general consensus on the Deere Cool-Guard II?
Is it safe for older vehicles?
GO5 is scarce around here but we do have a Deere dealer down the road.
On the subject of 2-EHA OATS...
"Regarding DEX-COOL, you are correct in that it is an OAT - type coolant using 2-Ethyl-Hexanoic Acid (2-EHA) as the OAT in its formulation. There was much controversy about ten or so years ago regarding seal hardening and cracking caused by 2-EHA. Cummins Engine Company and Texaco Chemical, now owned by Chevron, were two that particularly had issues with each other, but reached some sort of accommodation on the issue. You may want to do some Internet searches on the matter. For our part, we do not use 2-EHA in or formulation of either the former Cool-Gard or the current Cool-Gard II. The OAT used in Cool-Gard and now in Cool-Gard II, along with the two additional OAT's in Cool-Gard II, are unique and proprietary to Deere, and are not used by anyone else. That makes Cool-Gard II a truly unique and one-of-a-kind formulation."
This is really interesting.What's the general consensus on the Deere Cool-Guard II?
Is it safe for older vehicles?
GO5 is scarce around here but we do have a Deere dealer down the road.
Well Cool-Gard II has 3 OATs. The JD guy claims no one else is using them but that sounds like a little bit of baloney. Maybe no one else is using all three together but I'd bet someone is using the same OATs. I think Cool-Gard II has benzoate, but the other 2 OATs are not known. If 2EHA is ruled out, I'd bet one of the others is sebacate and the third could be neodecanoate.
Havoline Dexcool had 2EHA and sebacate. I think 2EHA gets too much of the blame. Sebacate, neodecanoate etc could be just as strong plasticizers as 2EHA. Although 2EHA might gum in air more.
I don't see any reason to think the 2 other OATs are less agressive with certain plastic gaskets than 2EHA. I think G-05 or the original Cool-Gard would be safer to use in older vehicles.
Havoline Dexcool had 2EHA and sebacate. I think 2EHA gets too much of the blame. Sebacate, neodecanoate etc could be just as strong plasticizers as 2EHA. Although 2EHA might gum in air more.
I don't see any reason to think the 2 other OATs are less agressive with certain plastic gaskets than 2EHA. I think G-05 or the original Cool-Gard would be safer to use in older vehicles.
That makes sense,i will ask if they still have some original formula around.
If anyone has doubts about OAT destroying gaskets i can tell you in 35 yrs under the hood 8 hrs a day i have never seen LIM gaskets like the one that came out of the GP 3800.They were not leaking yet but the seals around the water ports were all wrinkled,swollen and spongy soft,almost like brake system rubber that has been exposed to engine oil.
No way i ever want to put something that can cause that in any engine again.
Until i find G-05 or original JD formula Peak green it is,it may need a bit more maintenance but its better than the alternative.
Thanks for doing the research and posting your acquired knowledge about this mechanicx the info has been a helpful learning experience.
If anyone has doubts about OAT destroying gaskets i can tell you in 35 yrs under the hood 8 hrs a day i have never seen LIM gaskets like the one that came out of the GP 3800.They were not leaking yet but the seals around the water ports were all wrinkled,swollen and spongy soft,almost like brake system rubber that has been exposed to engine oil.
No way i ever want to put something that can cause that in any engine again.
Until i find G-05 or original JD formula Peak green it is,it may need a bit more maintenance but its better than the alternative.
Thanks for doing the research and posting your acquired knowledge about this mechanicx the info has been a helpful learning experience.
That's exactly how I see the issue. The GM IMG might have been the least compatible with OATs being a silicon with a nylon carrier. But silicon is not the only gasket material that is not resistant to OATs, and I bet GM is not the only one that has used gaskets that are non-resistant.
Although in GM' case an OAT was factory filled and recommend yet still incompatible, I'd think that most any equipment made after '05 FF with an OAT containing coolant would be compatible. But to be safe I would not try to back-spec older equipment with an OAT coolant other than G-05.
Although in GM' case an OAT was factory filled and recommend yet still incompatible, I'd think that most any equipment made after '05 FF with an OAT containing coolant would be compatible. But to be safe I would not try to back-spec older equipment with an OAT coolant other than G-05.
Originally Posted By: Trav
Until i find G-05 or original JD formula Peak green
NAPA stores carry it or can get for you,around $12 a gal.
Until i find G-05 or original JD formula Peak green
NAPA stores carry it or can get for you,around $12 a gal.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
That's exactly how I see the issue. The GM IMG might have been the least compatible with OATs being a silicon with a nylon carrier. But silicon is not the only gasket material that is not resistant to OATs, and I bet GM is not the only one that has used gaskets that are non-resistant.
Although in GM' case an OAT was factory filled and recommend yet still incompatible, I'd think that most any equipment made after '05 FF with an OAT containing coolant would be compatible. But to be safe I would not try to back-spec older equipment with an OAT coolant other than G-05.
..concerning ford or chrysler,(model yr 2005 onwards), it would seem that "havoline" is also taking the same position of no "back specing" for their new tri-oat formula..all other cars get dexcool or the low silicate green http://www.texaco.com/yourcar/havolinecoolants/findRightCoolant.asp
That's exactly how I see the issue. The GM IMG might have been the least compatible with OATs being a silicon with a nylon carrier. But silicon is not the only gasket material that is not resistant to OATs, and I bet GM is not the only one that has used gaskets that are non-resistant.
Although in GM' case an OAT was factory filled and recommend yet still incompatible, I'd think that most any equipment made after '05 FF with an OAT containing coolant would be compatible. But to be safe I would not try to back-spec older equipment with an OAT coolant other than G-05.
..concerning ford or chrysler,(model yr 2005 onwards), it would seem that "havoline" is also taking the same position of no "back specing" for their new tri-oat formula..all other cars get dexcool or the low silicate green http://www.texaco.com/yourcar/havolinecoolants/findRightCoolant.asp
Originally Posted By: Petersubaru
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
That's exactly how I see the issue. The GM IMG might have been the least compatible with OATs being a silicon with a nylon carrier. But silicon is not the only gasket material that is not resistant to OATs, and I bet GM is not the only one that has used gaskets that are non-resistant.
Although in GM' case an OAT was factory filled and recommend yet still incompatible, I'd think that most any equipment made after '05 FF with an OAT containing coolant would be compatible. But to be safe I would not try to back-spec older equipment with an OAT coolant other than G-05.
..concerning ford or chrysler, (model yr 2005 onwards), it would seem that "havoline" is also taking the same position of no "back specing" for their new tri-oat formula..all other cars get dexcool or the low silicate green http://www.texaco.com/yourcar/havolinecoolants/findRightCoolant.asp
That's interesting. Texaco recommends Green in everything and all years except for 95 up GM (Dexcool of course), and ~'04-up Ford and Chrysler (Custom Made). I don't see where it says Custom Made is a tri-OAT? I figured it was G-05 being a silicated hybrid, but it does mention it has carboxylate inhibitors and I can't remember if benzoate, which G-05 has, is considerd a carboxylate or not but I don't think it is.
Anyway Havoline is recommending Green for most all models and years.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
That's exactly how I see the issue. The GM IMG might have been the least compatible with OATs being a silicon with a nylon carrier. But silicon is not the only gasket material that is not resistant to OATs, and I bet GM is not the only one that has used gaskets that are non-resistant.
Although in GM' case an OAT was factory filled and recommend yet still incompatible, I'd think that most any equipment made after '05 FF with an OAT containing coolant would be compatible. But to be safe I would not try to back-spec older equipment with an OAT coolant other than G-05.
..concerning ford or chrysler, (model yr 2005 onwards), it would seem that "havoline" is also taking the same position of no "back specing" for their new tri-oat formula..all other cars get dexcool or the low silicate green http://www.texaco.com/yourcar/havolinecoolants/findRightCoolant.asp
That's interesting. Texaco recommends Green in everything and all years except for 95 up GM (Dexcool of course), and ~'04-up Ford and Chrysler (Custom Made). I don't see where it says Custom Made is a tri-OAT? I figured it was G-05 being a silicated hybrid, but it does mention it has carboxylate inhibitors and I can't remember if benzoate, which G-05 has, is considerd a carboxylate or not but I don't think it is.
Anyway Havoline is recommending Green for most all models and years.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: Petersubaru
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
That's exactly how I see the issue. The GM IMG might have been the least compatible with OATs being a silicon with a nylon carrier. But silicon is not the only gasket material that is not resistant to OATs, and I bet GM is not the only one that has used gaskets that are non-resistant.
Although in GM' case an OAT was factory filled and recommend yet still incompatible, I'd think that most any equipment made after '05 FF with an OAT containing coolant would be compatible. But to be safe I would not try to back-spec older equipment with an OAT coolant other than G-05.
..concerning ford or chrysler, (model yr 2005 onwards), it would seem that "havoline" is also taking the same position of no "back specing" for their new tri-oat formula..all other cars get dexcool or the low silicate green http://www.texaco.com/yourcar/havolinecoolants/findRightCoolant.asp
That's interesting. Texaco recommends Green in everything and all years except for 95 up GM (Dexcool of course), and ~'04-up Ford and Chrysler (Custom Made). I don't see where it says Custom Made is a tri-OAT? I figured it was G-05 being a silicated hybrid, but it does mention it has carboxylate inhibitors and I can't remember if benzoate, which G-05 has, is considerd a carboxylate or not but I don't think it is.
Anyway Havoline is recommending Green for most all models and years.
..Maybe they are playing it "safe" with the "green" recommendation..at the moment, I will say that I screwed up by mentioning "tri-oat" because I can't find the "link" to that reference at the moment..hopefully later..anyway the ingredients listed in the MSDS are the same as JD II..I find it interesting that the "custom made" is not back spec'ed in the same way as the G-05 was for ford and lincoln, until 1999 or 1998...But is the G-05 of present day still the same product as in 1995..I have my doubts since it hides it present formula behind the wall of NJTS#s
Originally Posted By: Petersubaru
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
That's exactly how I see the issue. The GM IMG might have been the least compatible with OATs being a silicon with a nylon carrier. But silicon is not the only gasket material that is not resistant to OATs, and I bet GM is not the only one that has used gaskets that are non-resistant.
Although in GM' case an OAT was factory filled and recommend yet still incompatible, I'd think that most any equipment made after '05 FF with an OAT containing coolant would be compatible. But to be safe I would not try to back-spec older equipment with an OAT coolant other than G-05.
..concerning ford or chrysler, (model yr 2005 onwards), it would seem that "havoline" is also taking the same position of no "back specing" for their new tri-oat formula..all other cars get dexcool or the low silicate green http://www.texaco.com/yourcar/havolinecoolants/findRightCoolant.asp
That's interesting. Texaco recommends Green in everything and all years except for 95 up GM (Dexcool of course), and ~'04-up Ford and Chrysler (Custom Made). I don't see where it says Custom Made is a tri-OAT? I figured it was G-05 being a silicated hybrid, but it does mention it has carboxylate inhibitors and I can't remember if benzoate, which G-05 has, is considerd a carboxylate or not but I don't think it is.
Anyway Havoline is recommending Green for most all models and years.
..Maybe they are playing it "safe" with the "green" recommendation..at the moment, I will say that I screwed up by mentioning "tri-oat" because I can't find the "link" to that reference at the moment..hopefully later..anyway the ingredients listed in the MSDS are the same as JD II..I find it interesting that the "custom made" is not back spec'ed in the same way as the G-05 was for ford and lincoln, until 1999 or 1998...But is the G-05 of present day still the same product as in 1995..I have my doubts since it hides it present formula behind the wall of NJTS#s
Originally Posted By: Coolant_Man
G-05 is not formulated to protect against cylinder liner cavitation erosion and pitting, and does not pass the ASTM D7583 John Deere Cylinder Liner Cavitation Erosion Test.
G-05 is a fully formulated nitrited coolant which is designed to protect against cylinder liner cavitation erosion and pitting:
http://www.valvoline.com/pdf/zerexg05.pdf
http://www.univareurope.com/uploads/documents/ie/Glysantin_G05_TDS1.pdf
It has not been tested against ASTM D7583. ASTM D7583 involves a 250 hour engine dynamometer test, developed to determine the ability of various coolants to resist engine cylinder liner cavitation erosion, and was approved by ASTM International as a Standard Test Method October 2, 2009.
In Europe G-05 is being replaced gradually by G-48:
http://www.deckmanoil.com/downloads_products/Zerex/Zerex+G+48++Antifreeze 103002.pdf
which has also not been tested against the new standard.
G-05 is not formulated to protect against cylinder liner cavitation erosion and pitting, and does not pass the ASTM D7583 John Deere Cylinder Liner Cavitation Erosion Test.
G-05 is a fully formulated nitrited coolant which is designed to protect against cylinder liner cavitation erosion and pitting:
http://www.valvoline.com/pdf/zerexg05.pdf
http://www.univareurope.com/uploads/documents/ie/Glysantin_G05_TDS1.pdf
It has not been tested against ASTM D7583. ASTM D7583 involves a 250 hour engine dynamometer test, developed to determine the ability of various coolants to resist engine cylinder liner cavitation erosion, and was approved by ASTM International as a Standard Test Method October 2, 2009.
In Europe G-05 is being replaced gradually by G-48:
http://www.deckmanoil.com/downloads_products/Zerex/Zerex+G+48++Antifreeze 103002.pdf
which has also not been tested against the new standard.
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
Originally Posted By: Coolant_Man
G-05 is not formulated to protect against cylinder liner cavitation erosion and pitting, and does not pass the ASTM D7583 John Deere Cylinder Liner Cavitation Erosion Test.
G-05 is a fully formulated nitrited coolant which is designed to protect against cylinder liner cavitation erosion and pitting:
It is??
educate me then what in them links(i looked)thats tells you this is true,I'm just asking,because if it does it would save me money vs. buying the expensive fleet guard coolant for my diesels tractors when i can get G-05 for allot less
Originally Posted By: Coolant_Man
G-05 is not formulated to protect against cylinder liner cavitation erosion and pitting, and does not pass the ASTM D7583 John Deere Cylinder Liner Cavitation Erosion Test.
G-05 is a fully formulated nitrited coolant which is designed to protect against cylinder liner cavitation erosion and pitting:
It is??
educate me then what in them links(i looked)thats tells you this is true,I'm just asking,because if it does it would save me money vs. buying the expensive fleet guard coolant for my diesels tractors when i can get G-05 for allot less
Originally Posted By: daman
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
G-05 is a fully formulated nitrited coolant which is designed to protect against cylinder liner cavitation erosion and pitting:
It is??
educate me then what in them links(i looked)thats tells you this is true,I'm just asking,because if it does it would save me money vs. buying the expensive fleet guard coolant for my diesels tractors when i can get G-05 for allot less
G-05 is a nitrited HOAT. The nitrite is intended to protect against cylinder liner cavitation, which is why it suggested for both gas and diesel passenger car use and is Deere & Company approved.
Over-the-road and other heavy duty diesel applications cannot use G-05 - it won't hold up for the kinds mileage that OTR and HD diesel subject coolant to. Nor can it be replenished, which is the common practice in commercial use.
For over-the-road and other heavy duty diesel applications the norm is a fully formulated (pre-charged with SCAs), low (and in some case no) silicate and phosphate-free coolant.
As an aside, Detroit Diesel at one time approved G-05 and comparable extended life coolants for Series 60 diesel engines, but revoked the approval in September, 2002.
To be consistent, here is Zerex's fully formulated coolant for heavy duty diesel engines:
http://valvoline.com/pdf/Zerex_Extended_Life_Extreme_Precharge_618.pdf
Note that you can use it for twice the original mileage by adding the extender.
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
G-05 is a fully formulated nitrited coolant which is designed to protect against cylinder liner cavitation erosion and pitting:
It is??
educate me then what in them links(i looked)thats tells you this is true,I'm just asking,because if it does it would save me money vs. buying the expensive fleet guard coolant for my diesels tractors when i can get G-05 for allot less
G-05 is a nitrited HOAT. The nitrite is intended to protect against cylinder liner cavitation, which is why it suggested for both gas and diesel passenger car use and is Deere & Company approved.
Over-the-road and other heavy duty diesel applications cannot use G-05 - it won't hold up for the kinds mileage that OTR and HD diesel subject coolant to. Nor can it be replenished, which is the common practice in commercial use.
For over-the-road and other heavy duty diesel applications the norm is a fully formulated (pre-charged with SCAs), low (and in some case no) silicate and phosphate-free coolant.
As an aside, Detroit Diesel at one time approved G-05 and comparable extended life coolants for Series 60 diesel engines, but revoked the approval in September, 2002.
To be consistent, here is Zerex's fully formulated coolant for heavy duty diesel engines:
http://valvoline.com/pdf/Zerex_Extended_Life_Extreme_Precharge_618.pdf
Note that you can use it for twice the original mileage by adding the extender.
Originally Posted By: Petersubaru
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: Petersubaru
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
That's exactly how I see the issue. The GM IMG might have been the least compatible with OATs being a silicon with a nylon carrier. But silicon is not the only gasket material that is not resistant to OATs, and I bet GM is not the only one that has used gaskets that are non-resistant.
Although in GM' case an OAT was factory filled and recommend yet still incompatible, I'd think that most any equipment made after '05 FF with an OAT containing coolant would be compatible. But to be safe I would not try to back-spec older equipment with an OAT coolant other than G-05.
..concerning ford or chrysler, (model yr 2005 onwards), it would seem that "havoline" is also taking the same position of no "back specing" for their new tri-oat formula..all other cars get dexcool or the low silicate green http://www.texaco.com/yourcar/havolinecoolants/findRightCoolant.asp
That's interesting. Texaco recommends Green in everything and all years except for 95 up GM (Dexcool of course), and ~'04-up Ford and Chrysler (Custom Made). I don't see where it says Custom Made is a tri-OAT? I figured it was G-05 being a silicated hybrid, but it does mention it has carboxylate inhibitors and I can't remember if benzoate, which G-05 has, is considerd a carboxylate or not but I don't think it is.
Anyway Havoline is recommending Green for most all models and years.
..Maybe they are playing it "safe" with the "green" recommendation..at the moment, I will say that I screwed up by mentioning "tri-oat" because I can't find the "link" to that reference at the moment..hopefully later..anyway the ingredients listed in the MSDS are the same as JD II..I find it interesting that the "custom made" is not back spec'ed in the same way as the G-05 was for ford and lincoln, until 1999 or 1998...But is the G-05 of present day still the same product as in 1995..I have my doubts since it hides it present formula behind the wall of NJTS#s
What it says to me is Havoline acknowledges that OATs may not be compatible with applications' gaskets that aren't FF with the OAT coolant. They are saying what I've been saying, to play it safe and not put OAT coolants in older vehicles.
Also it is up to the engine manufacturer to verify and backspec coolant. Havoline is not doing it. So far, like you mentioned only, Ford has back-speced G-05.
Forget about MSDS. As we seen you can go through various MSDS for the same coolant and find didn't ingredients. the MSDS do not list all th ingredients and neither doe the ingredient list on the coolant bottle. G-05 is a standard formula and they all contain the full formulation.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: Petersubaru
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
That's exactly how I see the issue. The GM IMG might have been the least compatible with OATs being a silicon with a nylon carrier. But silicon is not the only gasket material that is not resistant to OATs, and I bet GM is not the only one that has used gaskets that are non-resistant.
Although in GM' case an OAT was factory filled and recommend yet still incompatible, I'd think that most any equipment made after '05 FF with an OAT containing coolant would be compatible. But to be safe I would not try to back-spec older equipment with an OAT coolant other than G-05.
..concerning ford or chrysler, (model yr 2005 onwards), it would seem that "havoline" is also taking the same position of no "back specing" for their new tri-oat formula..all other cars get dexcool or the low silicate green http://www.texaco.com/yourcar/havolinecoolants/findRightCoolant.asp
That's interesting. Texaco recommends Green in everything and all years except for 95 up GM (Dexcool of course), and ~'04-up Ford and Chrysler (Custom Made). I don't see where it says Custom Made is a tri-OAT? I figured it was G-05 being a silicated hybrid, but it does mention it has carboxylate inhibitors and I can't remember if benzoate, which G-05 has, is considerd a carboxylate or not but I don't think it is.
Anyway Havoline is recommending Green for most all models and years.
..Maybe they are playing it "safe" with the "green" recommendation..at the moment, I will say that I screwed up by mentioning "tri-oat" because I can't find the "link" to that reference at the moment..hopefully later..anyway the ingredients listed in the MSDS are the same as JD II..I find it interesting that the "custom made" is not back spec'ed in the same way as the G-05 was for ford and lincoln, until 1999 or 1998...But is the G-05 of present day still the same product as in 1995..I have my doubts since it hides it present formula behind the wall of NJTS#s
What it says to me is Havoline acknowledges that OATs may not be compatible with applications' gaskets that aren't FF with the OAT coolant. They are saying what I've been saying, to play it safe and not put OAT coolants in older vehicles.
Also it is up to the engine manufacturer to verify and backspec coolant. Havoline is not doing it. So far, like you mentioned only, Ford has back-speced G-05.
Forget about MSDS. As we seen you can go through various MSDS for the same coolant and find didn't ingredients. the MSDS do not list all th ingredients and neither doe the ingredient list on the coolant bottle. G-05 is a standard formula and they all contain the full formulation.
You are right Wilhelm. You know a lot about coolant. I would add that there are 2 types of HD coolant-IAT and OAT extended life which is usually a nitrited OAT I think. The two main SCA players to use with IAT coolant is Pencool and FleetGuard. FleetGuard DCA-4 is phosphated and Pencool is not.
Ahh ok so if im reading this right G-o5 can be used but in short it's not a long drain coolant like the fleet guard im presently using?
- Status
