1991Z07

I think you missed the point about not using antifreeze...if you have antifreeze in your system you are 100% correct.

If you DON'T have it because tracks don't ALLOW it, then you have to back up to plan "B"...and the Water Wetter works...as I explained above.

I check my max water temps on the digital readout after every session...average was -19 to -20 degrees with Water Wetter vs straight H2O.

I don't think it works at all when used in combination with antifreeze...but it REALLY isn't why they came up with it in the first place. RACERS were having cooling problems with straight water...and this one product reduced those temperatures.

WW7

If you read down the list of responses that seems to hold true, the race guys mostly say they like it, while the other guys running coolant in there street cars say they didn't get much out of it........WW

PLRX

I tried it before with no changes in coolant temperatures. Ensure you rad shroud is clean.

Frizlefrak

Nope, we're on the same page.

93Rubie

I run 50/50 anti-freeze/distilled car mix. Stock Rad, Stock t-stat, stock fan settings, etc...

Even on hot high humidity days as long as I am moving temperatures range from 189-194. EVERY car heats up in traffic. Our fans just kick on a wee little bit later. MANY cars have high fan kick on temps like ours. Just no digital readout to see it and freak out. Most modern cars run north of 200 degrees.

For crying out loud my beater 01 Ford Focus does not have a fully open t-stat till 215.

FOURSPEEDVETTE

Just add a few ice cubes to the radiator before you leave the house. It'll be fine. Seriously, Water Wetter is a waste of your time and money. It doesn't do much of anything. Definitely doesn't do anything for older 60's & 70's muscle car cooling systems.

91 corvette

It didnt do anything but drop my temp. gauge.

FOURSPEEDVETTE

How long do you expect a liquid "fix it" to last? Stop Leak is another liquid "fix it" that people think is going to permanantly solve problems. I used Water Wetter in my 383 Roadrunner because it loved to run hot. I never heard of it, but the mechanic who did some work to the engine put it in insisting it was worth a try. It didn't do a thing. My buddy tried it in his 1992 Corvette without any success eigther. Maybe it's hit or miss and you are having good luck with it.

Paul Workman

Would some basic physics help?

What we're talking about is centered around (coolant) boiling point, the "heat of vaporization", and the "heat transfer coefficient" between the (engine) and the (coolant).

Bear with me for a moment, and I'll try to "boil" this down...

We all know that once the coolant temperature reaches its boiling point, it will escape as vapor (steam), yes? When the remaining liquid recedes to the point of exposing the hot metal, heat transfer suffers as a given volume of steam does not have the same capacity to absorb heat as the same amount of liquid (coolant), and the metal surface temperature skyrockets! It isn't the boiling itself that is bad as much as the loss of liquid coolant to wash over the hot metal that carries the heat away that is the real issue.

Now, let's agree that the heat generated inside the combustion chamber is hundreds of degrees hotter than the boiling point of the coolant. Therefore, once the the metal surface heats past the boiling point, the coolant will vaporize, according to laws of physics. Here is where a phenomenon called the "heat of vaporization" comes into play!

In short, for example, it takes approx 540 X as much heat to convert a given amount of (liquid) water to steam as it does to raise the temperature of that volume of liquid water one degree C. And, (here is the best part..) that volume of (steam) gives up the same amount of heat when it refeverts back to liquid - transfers that heat back into the liquid.

You can see this double transformation for yourself by watching a pot of water come to boil on the stove. As the temperature of the water is just at the threshold of boiling, the surface temp of the pot will cause the water to (flash) boil - cause steam bubbles to appear. But, immediately the steam bubbles dissapear as the heat in the steam is absorbed by the cooler liquid. Evenually, the temperature of the liquid itself reaches the boiling point, and can no longer absorb more heat without itself becoming steam, and "the pot boils". At that point the water is escaping as vapor and left alone will all convert to steam and the pot boils dry.

Once the (engine metal) is exposed to steam, the surface temperature of the metal will soar, due to the fact the capacity of the volume of vapor (steam) to store heat is much less than the that of the liquid.

So! If you're with me this far, we come to the nut of it...

The trick is to keep the relatively high heat carring capacity of the liquid in contact with the hot metal without the liquid exceeding the temperature of vaporization (aka boiling). This is done in several ways in our cars:

• Coolant boiling point can be raised by increasing the pressure on the liquid.
  
• The boiling point of the water can be raised by adding certain chemicals with a higher boiling point (important in this discussion)
  
• Coolant can be circulated past the hot metal so as to keep coolant that is below the boiling point in direct contact with the metal, and for any steam bubbles that do form, can be swept away from the hot surface and their heat energy aborbed by the (cooler) coolant
  
• Heat has to be transferred* from the coolant at a rate at least equal to the rate that the source (the motor) is generating it or the coolant temperature will reach the boiling point.

*Note: This brings up what is referred to in thermal dynamics physics as "heat transfer coefficient" - which means the hotter the radiator, the more heat is transferred to the air passing through it. In other words, higher temperature within the radiator, relative to the air, results in higher heat transfer.

Heat generated by the motor is a quantity. If that quantity is transferred to (the air) at a rate equal to that being generated, the (net sum) coolant temperature is stabilized. However, as we know, heat generated by the motor varies with load. So, in order to maintain sufficient cooling, the capacity for heat transfer to the atmophere has to be flexible - enter the temperature stability control, aka the thermostat!

So...Where does this all lead us? It "boils" down to this:

Keeping the coolant temperature below the boiling point will maximize efficiency of the cooling system, and chemical additives is in the spotlight. But, here's the "deal":

Modern antifreeze (in proper proportions) has chemical additives in it to control the boiling point to a level well within the requirement for most cars/driving usage situations. So IF the boiling point is controlled sufficiently with everything else considered (radiator, cooling fans, water pump, etc), to prevent boiling, then enough is enough, far as chemicaly raising the boiling point goes. Adding more chemical to further raise the boiling piont in excess of what is already sufficient, will do little to improve cooling. And, the opposite is true if excessive boiling is occuring - as may be the case in extreme situations such as the race track where engine heat might exceed the normal boiling point afforded by conventional coolant additives and something more might be a solution.

Keeping the radiator clean will increase heat transfer by allowing more air through (back to that "heat transfer coefficient stuff again)

Have the pressure cap tested. A weak spring will allow the pressure to drop, not only allowing coolant to escape, but lowers the boiling point as well = a double whammy!

And, a bit off topic, but if lowering the temperature of the themostat is done to reduce the coolant temperature, increasing the size of the radiator and water pump flow capacity might also be required to stabilize coolant temperature at a lower value, especially in hot weather.

Oh! Again swerving a bit OT, one of my pet peaves: Next to the "Turbinator" and other snake oil remedies, is the occational reference to placing a washer in the cooling circuit to limit the flow of water into the radiator, "to allow the radiator to better cool the water". The hotter the temperature of the radiator, the more heat gets transferred (to the air) and visa versa. And since the amount of heat generated by the motor is a quantity, and if it is not being efficiently transferred to the air, then it has to go somewhere, or it will build up. And, guess where? If it isn't being transferred to the air...the coolant actually in the jacket surrounding the cylinders and the heads becomes hotter!

The reason some claim this washer BS works, has to do with where the temperature is being measured. If the temp sensor is close to the radiator outlet, then yes, coolant temp there may indicate cooler temps. But!! It is at a reduced volume, and thus the heat carring capacity of the coolant is reduced proportional to the reduction in volume. Adding icewater to a LT4's coolant with an eyedropper isn't going to amount to squat, far as cooling goes. It's that pesky thermal dynamics stuff again!

Anyway....Back on topic: "Truth is where you find it." If Water Wetter works for you, then it works. But! Chances are quality antifreeze in good condition in a cooling system also in good condition, will control boiling in excess of what is required for even some spirited driving in hot conditions. As for a good source of entertainment, it's always fun to read the hype marketing people come up with for stuff, including some I've seen for "chemical coolant enhancement" products!

P.

91 corvette

My car didnt run hot,it just runs cooler now.

BGZQ8

Paul what is your opinion on products claims of increasing the "heat transfer coefficient" with their use ? (Different topic than raising the "heat of vaporization.")



http://www.lubegard.com/pdfs/KOOLIT_...ison_sheet.pdf


http://www.lubegard.com/~/C-201/Kool...lant+Treatment

96 Vette CE

anciano

Water-Wetter and similar products are simply surfactants which reduce the surface tension of the liquid they are in. It seems to me quite logical that this reduced surface tension could have two advantages with respect to the efficiency of a cooling system:
1) even in a system under pressure there can be flash formation of microbubbles where coolant meets a hot metal surface, since the temperature at that immediate interface will exceed the carrying capacity of the coolant under pressure; those bubbles will disappear when carried away by the relatively cooler coolant stream and "squashed" to nonexistence by the pressure of the system -- but this momentary bubble formation reduces heat transfer (air does not conduct heat as well as liquid);

and 2) if there is an impeller in the system, such as the water pump, there is always the possibility of cavitation which reduces the efficiency of the impeller or propeller. A surfactant would reduce or eliminate cavitation.

I don't know either of these things for a fact, but just trying to apply a little theoretical noodling. As I said before, I could detect the difference on a V-4 motorcycle engine with (IMHO) inadequate cooling for its 1200cc displacement so something good must have happened.

RedLS1GTO

As has been said here multiple times, it might be a waste of time and money for those of you who leave them sitting in the garage looking all nice and pretty.

It is NOT a waste of time for those who can't use antifreeze on a track. It absolutely makes a difference in the application that it is made for.

Straight from Redline's page:

If you are using antifreeze, you don't need it. Not sure what part of the purpose of this product seems to be difficult for people to understand.

Paul Workman

I don't have an opinion beyond how a product works in a given situation/conditions of the test supporting the claim. For example, increasing transfer compared to what circumstances/conditions, comes to mind:

- over water alone?
- over X or Y or Z type antifreeze and at what proportions to water?
- at what operating temperature?
- at what pressure
- how does the condtions of the test compare to actual conditions typical of the application?

Gotz ta be kerful about taking marketing claims to heart, methinks!

So... Far as their claim goes, it may or may not be accurate, all depending on the conditons of the test (e.g., some of the big variables listed above). Therefore, without knowing the specific conditions of the test on which the claim is based, who can say if it applies to your car or mine?

The fact is, thermal transfer coeficient, i.e., in this case the rate at which heat transfers from a given area of (the block) to the same contact area of the coolant varies significantly depending on whether the coolant is (flash) boiling or not (or at least not so much!). If the coolant does not boil, then the transfer of heat is much more efficient than it will be if transferring to a gas (steam). So, the claim may be valid - in so far as the test conditions prevail compared to actual use conditions. (Does that make sense?)

However, I DO look upon the claim of coolant temperature itself being lowered with it's use - for various reasons. Might have to do with where the temperature is measured, as much as anything. (Have to think about that some.)

P.

cv67

Dishsoap will do just that and cheaper...oh well it foams though.

FOURSPEEDVETTE

Being that you referred your comments to my reply with your obvious insults, did I say something to directly offend you by name? Do you feel the need to throw an insult at me or my car for no reason? Makes no sense to me.

RedLS1GTO

Sooooo.... you are saying that I insulted your car by calling it "nice" and "pretty"?

By all means, tell your car that I am deeply sorry for those heinous remarks.


Why the reply you ask? I'm going out on a limb and guessing that you have never actually used Water Wetter in it's intended application as defined by the product itself "Rust and corrosion protection allows for use of straight water in racing or reduced antifreeze levels ..." I'm also guessing that you have never actually analyzed the benefits it gives water only cars in terms of pump and gasket longevity. Am I wrong in those guesses?

If not, it seems to me it would be a pretty relevant to point that out before saying that it is a waste of time and money and doesn't work as if it was a matter of fact.

droeme

Any advertisement or claim that uses the words "up to" is meaningless.

FOURSPEEDVETTE

Seems to me you do alot of guessing. Now try and read my reply again very..... slowly.... as you seem to have a lot of difficulty understanding simple comments about this topic. After you have "analyzed" it and realize( if that's possible) that my reply stated it didn't work for the cars I mentioned and we wasted our money on it, I gave my "opinion" another word you don't understand obviously, (opinions are not always facts) and told the poster who I felt by his wording wanted to use it in a street car (using coolant) application not to waste his money on it. We're not ALL interested in race car applications! Now I'm going to go out and shine my car to make it more "nice and pretty". By the way, do you really talk to cars?