Evans vs Engine Ice vs Watter Wetter hot weather

[virginoil]

Originally Posted By: andyd
If you run pure water , carry some with you in case of boiling over,


Pure water ? This is a scavenger ?

Do you mean deionized water ?

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
I avoid those products when I can use antifreeze (which has surface tension recducers and water pump seal lubes built in). Not too familiar with the RP Purple Ice product nor the Evans product, but I've used Water Wetter before and a) noticed absolutely zero improvement over ordinary coolant, and b) it turned to brown goo in the cooling system after about a year.

I would definitely use either one in a racing vehicle where glycol antifreeze is prohibited... but not in a street car.

I got the brown goop thing as well in a SAAB which was rough on water pumps. Cooling was always OK, I just wanted the "lube job". It turned the coolant almost black. I changed it and the new coolant stayed the normal color.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Water wetter does something that coolants don't do, because it is accidentally a detergent. It's reduces the surface tension of the water to improve heat transfer.

A lot of older racers use "poor man's water wetter ", which is just a drop of dishwashing detergent. In use, result is the same, including the appearance of grime removed from the cooling system.

Definitely better for track than street.

 

[Shannow]

When you look at the advertising blurb on water wetter (and purple Ice), they claim that by being a surfactant, they reduce nucleate boiling, and a decrease in coolant temperature.

Yes, reducing surface tension reduces nucleate boiling...

however nucleate boiling removes masses more heat than sensible heat addition to coolant alone.

SO...if they reduce nucleate boiling (and therefore heat transfer) AND they reduce coolant temperature, then they are actually reducing the heat transferred out of the engine...just saying.

 

[69GTX]

Reduces or eliminates bubbles or vapor barrier that form on hot metal surfaces to reduce coolant temperatures by up to 20° .

No mention on nucleate boiling on the Red Line WW webpage. The question is, does WW help break up inefficient vapor barriers which WILL lead to localized engine metal hot spots. No idea of WW actually interferes with NB where the bubbles are efficiently carried away as the form (ie no steam blanketing). It could reduce bubbles in those cases where they are collecting/pocketing. I've used RL WW on and off for 20 years. On cars where I ran a 70/30 to 90/10 water/coolant mix I saw a very obvious 5-10 deg improvement in my coolant temps. Whether that was at the expensive of hotter engine steel, I don't really know. I've never seen brown sludge form "due to WW." My current ride uses DexCool and a bottle of WW. After 4 years the mixture was clear as could be. I'm down to my last bottle of WW after going through a couple cases over 20 yrs. I probably won't buy it again. But, there's a proper use for it imo.

RL WW white paper

They suggest WW will help to form smaller bubbles due to the surfactant properties. That's a positive. Large bubbles lead to blanketing. What is ideal are smaller bubbles that are quickly taken away by the coolant flow.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: 69GTX
RL WW white paper

They suggest WW will help to form smaller bubbles due to the surfactant properties. That's a positive. Large bubbles lead to blanketing. What is ideal are smaller bubbles that are quickly taken away by the coolant flow.


In that paper, check the increase in heat transfer of the heated bar into the various coolants, it's virtually nil...the big differences are in removing glycol, not adding WW.

Dyno test results...they've left out a very important parameter, and that's where the heat is going...the size and capacity of the heat sink...was it a radiator being cooled by ambient air, or a virtually infinite heat sink in comparison ?

Again, what does a reduction in coolant temperature all other things being equal tell you ?

To be comparable to the (miniscule) difference in bar tests, they should have measured metal temperatures in the head, all things being equal of course, but they didn't...i.e they acknowledge that in the very next section...with those temperatures via SAE paper 880266, which clearly displays the water/glycol part...but has NO water wetter.

Their advertisements, their "white papers", and those of their competitors are a three card monte of "facts"