[9krpmrx8]

Except I do. and you don't. You sound like a typical racer though, monkey see, monkey do.

FYI, a quick look at the class specific rules for spec Miata for example, only specifically bans Ethylene glycol coolant, not Propylene Glycol (which tracks allow due to easier clean up). The SCCA General rule book doesn't mention it either way, but if you have a page reference or something, by all means let me know.

But thanks for playing.

[justpete]

Originally Posted by 9krpmrx8

Except I do. and you don't. You sound like a typical racer though, monkey see, monkey do.

FYI, a quick look at the class specific rules for spec Miata for example, only specifically bans Ethylene glycol coolant, not Propylene Glycol (which tracks allow due to easier clean up). The SCCA General rule book doesn't mention it either way.

But thanks for playing.

And once again you can't use a search function. The only class where coolant is unrestricted is AS.

[9krpmrx8]

Oh come on man, first you say "All Glycols are vorboten in all race cars, all the time", then you say no sanctioning body, then I show you spec Miata (Engine: 11.3 in the 2017 rule book) only forbids Ethylene Glycol and then you say AS is the only class that is "unrestricted". You are wrong. Tracks allow Glycol and so do some sanctioning bodies and that is a fact.

As for Evans making the temps higher, well that is a blanket statement and is just nonsense for many reasons. But you probably have no hands on experience with it so yet again you are just parroting what you heard or were told.

[bbnks2]

Originally Posted by 9krpmrx8

Oh come on man, first you say "All Glycols are vorboten in all race cars, all the time", then you say no sanctioning body, then I show you spec Miata (Engine: 11.3 in the 2017 rule book) only forbids Ethylene Glycol and then you say AS is the only class that is "unrestricted". You are wrong. Tracks allow Glycol and so do some sanctioning bodies and that is a fact.

As for Evans making the temps higher, well that is a blanket statement and is just nonsense for many reasons. But you probably have no hands on experience with it so yet again you are just parroting what you heard or were told.

I'm not going to argue with you. You're being thick headed. WaterWetter serves a purpose and all you're doing is arguing symantics. You're making generalizations about using the fluid based on your limited experience. Just because a certain track/event says it's unlikely people will drop fluid, and it's allowed, doesn't mean that water and Waterwetter don't cool better than glycol. That's terrible logic.

Maybe there is no benefit in your eyes, but it's your loss if that's what you want to keep believing.

No you're average hpde driver doesn't bother swapping from coolant to water just for 1 event, but just about every instructor or advanced group driver does. I daily drove my car all spring/summer/fall with water+Waterwetter and switched back to glycol for winter. It takes 0 effort on our cars. The benefits are immediately obvious and just about every race car takes advantage of them.

Maybe you should read the technical data sheet for yourself and maybe even try it for yourself so you can see the benefits of better heat transfer as a real world result: https://www.redlineoil.com/product.aspx?pid=74&pcid=10

[9krpmrx8]

I don't need to read anything, and I never said glycol cooled better than water so don't put words in my mouth. If water as okay then manufacturers would spec water be used and they don't for many reasons. Will it ruin your engine immediately? No, but it's still not the best choice for a street car, there are many safer ways to lower temps and not have to worry about corrosion, cavitation, and other issues.

As for switching back and forth and the effects of that, well that is a personal choice and how well that works would depend on a lot of factors and there would be many unknowns until you pulled the engine apart.

Water wetter is not new, been there, done that in South Texas on track in 100F+ temps in a turbo rotary. The topic of whether it (and other coolant additives) is worthless or not has been going on for over a decade and this stuff has been tested for years and it does not do what they claim it will do.

And please let's stop with the broad statements about what advanced drivers and instructors do or don't do.

[bNks334]

Originally Posted by 9krpmrx8

I don't need to read anything, and I never said glycol cooled better than water so don't put words in my mouth. If water as okay then manufacturers would spec water be used and they don't for many reasons. Will it ruin your engine immediately? No, but it's still not the best choice for a street car, there are many safer ways to lower temps and not have to worry about corrosion, cavitation, and other issues.

As for switching back and forth and the effects of that, well that is a personal choice and how well that works would depend on a lot of factors and there would be many unknowns until you pulled the engine apart.

Water wetter is not new, been there, done that in South Texas on track in 100F+ temps in a turbo rotary. The topic of whether it (and other coolant additives) is worthless or not has been going on for over a decade and this stuff has been tested for years and it does not do what they claim it will do.

And please let's stop with the broad statements about what advanced drivers and instructors do or don't do.

I never said that you said that glycol cools better than water either. So not sure where you got the from... I said water + Waterwetter cools better than glycol. Period.

When added to straight water, waterwetter doesn't act as a surfactant? It doesnt provide lubrication and anti-corrosion? That's it's purpose... and it does exactly as intended. You saying otherwise is completely unsupported.

Nothing you're saying makes sense. You seem to be stuck on only using Waterwetter in conjunction with a 50:50 mix.

Well formulated antifreeze already has additives to do all that waterwetter claims to do... that's why most people don't see much benefit from adding it. That doesn't mean that redline waterwetter doesn't do exactly what it claims...

[Sgop335]

Originally Posted by 9krpmrx8

I don't need to read anything, and I

[Cloud9blue]

Get the CSF radiator, seriously, it is cheaper than a set of tires and a drop-in replacement to the stock one. Best bang per buck for any e9x that sees serious track time.

[9krpmrx8]

Originally Posted by bNks334

I never said that you said that glycol cools better than water either. So not sure where you got the from... I said water + Waterwetter cools better than glycol. Period.

When added to straight water, waterwetter doesn't act as a surfactant? It doesnt provide lubrication and anti-corrosion? That's it's purpose... and it does exactly as intended. You saying otherwise is completely unsupported.

Nothing you're saying makes sense. You seem to be stuck on only using Waterwetter in conjunction with a 50:50 mix.

Well formulated antifreeze already has additives to do all that waterwetter claims to do... that's why most people don't see much benefit from adding it. That doesn't mean that redline waterwetter doesn't do exactly what it claims...

Yes it has chemicals in that work as a surfacant. No it does not drop your temps 20 degrees or whatever nonsense they claim and it is advertised as an additive to normal coolant as well, I'm not stuck on anything. Like I said, adding water wetter does nothing to lower your temps on it's own and using it in a street car offers no advantages.

[Cloud9blue]

the efficiency of a coolant is mostly dependent on its specific heat capacity and thermal conductivity. adding a tiny bottle of water wetter brings very little changes to these two properties of normal water.

[bNks334]

Originally Posted by 9krpmrx8

Yes it has chemicals in that work as a surfacant. No it does not drop your temps 20 degrees or whatever nonsense they claim and it is advertised as an additive to normal coolant as well, I'm not stuck on anything. Like I said, adding water wetter does nothing to lower your temps on it's own and using it in a street car offers no advantages.

Reading comprehension and logic are not you're strongest areas are they? I never made any claim that you'll see a 20f reduction, when adding waterwetter to coolant, and neither does redline...

If your "street car" is running straight water, then you're dead wrong. You'd 100% be wise to add an additive to the water such as waterwetter.

I understand the point you're trying to make. Adding waterwetter probably isnt going to make much of a measurable difference for a "street car" running a bmw specd 50:50 mix. However, adding Waterwetter to a generic 50:50 mix of "normal coolant" very well could increase its ability to cool better. It all depends on how well the coolant is formulated to begin with... Therefore, your statement that "adding water wetter does nothing to lower your temps on it's own and using it in a street car offers no advantages" is not logically valid. It can not be a "true" statement by any measure of logic.

"the efficiency of a coolant is mostly dependent on its specific heat capacity and thermal conductivity. adding a tiny bottle of water wetter brings very little changes to these two properties of normal water."

You went from coolant to water without making any meaningful connection so I'm not following what point youre trying to make.

Yes, the efficiency of glycol is pretty poor as a cooling agent. Surfacants, like what waterwetter contain, are added (in proprietary blends) to coolant to reduce surface tension; aiding in cooling and offseting some of Glycols drawbacks. Surfacants are also added to straight water to achieve the same goal...

As I already stated, most coolant sold today already contain additives. I'm just pointing out that waterwetter does indeed serve a purpose (add it to straight water) and it's not just "snake oil." If certain people don't understand why then that's their problem. Not sure why these people insist on arguing about specific situations and applying them to ALL situations.

[9krpmrx8]

Originally Posted by bNks334

Reading comprehension and logic are not you're strongest areas are they? I never made any claim that you'll see a 20f reduction, when adding waterwetter to coolant, and neither does redline...

If your "street car" is running straight water, then you're dead wrong. You'd 100% be wise to add an additive to the water such as waterwetter.

I understand the point you're trying to make. Adding waterwetter probably isnt going to make much of a measurable difference for a "street car" running a bmw specd 50:50 mix. However, adding Waterwetter to a generic 50:50 mix of "normal coolant" very well could increase its ability to cool better. It all depends on how well the coolant is formulated to begin with... Therefore, your statement that "adding water wetter does nothing to lower your temps on it's own and using it in a street car offers no advantages" is not logically valid. It can not be a "true" statement by any measure of logic.

"the efficiency of a coolant is mostly dependent on its specific heat capacity and thermal conductivity. adding a tiny bottle of water wetter brings very little changes to these two properties of normal water."

You went from coolant to water without making any meaningful connection so I'm not following what point youre trying to make.

Yes, the efficiency of glycol is pretty poor as a cooling agent. Surfacants, like what waterwetter contain, are added (in proprietary blends) to coolant to reduce surface tension; aiding in cooling and offseting some of Glycols drawbacks. Surfacants are also added to straight water to achieve the same goal...

As I already stated, most coolant sold today already contain additives. I'm just pointing out that waterwetter does indeed serve a purpose (add it to straight water) and it's not just "snake oil." If certain people don't understand why then that's their problem. Not sure why these people insist on arguing about specific situations and applying them to ALL situations.

That's your opinion. Water wetter does nothing to drop engine temps.

From Redline:

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

Complete bullshit.

[335stoner]

I ran water wetter in my Tacoma.. one thing I noticed was when I read the bottle it mentioned that if "you" want to run straight water + wetter you needed "X" amount per liter... when I did a coolant my coolant flush I decided to run 25% coolant and two bottles of wetter and the rest water.. the 25% coolant gave me plenty of winter protection needed in Houston..

if you use one bottle in a 50/50 coolant mix then yes one could call it snake oil... if it is used properly and in the correct conditions then it serves it purpose.

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

It works in the right application but if you want your coolant temps changed you can adjust them via flash. There are coolant tables available. The car from the factory will purposely let the coolant be hot during light cruising for emissions/efficiency purposes. It cools more during aggressive driving. An upgraded radiator will further help.

I ran water wetter in my C6Z, average temp drop was only about 2 degrees it has a 160T stat but never gets below 174 even in the coldest temps, stock radiator.

[davidwarren]

I was at Mid-Ohio last summer and an e30 popped a coolant line. The coolant sent the four cars behind him into the wall at turn 1.

[9krpmrx8]

That's weird, water should not have been that slippery and according to these "track" guys it couldn't have run coolant since it's not allowed in wheel to wheel racing on tracks.................

[bbnks2]

Originally Posted by 9krpmrx8

That's weird, water should not have been that slippery and according to these "track" guys it couldn't have run coolant since it's not allowed in wheel to wheel racing on tracks.................

Wheel to Wheel racing is not the same thing as a drivers education track day. I've never been to an HPDE event that allowed wheel to wheel racing...

You're just making stuff up now.

[9krpmrx8]

Originally Posted by bbnks2

Wheel to Wheel racing is not the same thing as a drivers education track day. I've never been to an HPDE event that allowed wheel to wheel racing...

You're just making stuff up now.

Well I was being sarcastic, we don't know what he was watching at Mid Ohio. But apparently it was multiple cars on track with an E30 running coolant and not water. Unless he meant that the E30 was running water and it still caused four cars to crash.

[Torgus]

This message is hidden because 9krpmrx8 is on your ignore list.

<3

Now if you could just stop quoting him...

[9krpmrx8]

Wah.

[davidwarren]

Originally Posted by 9krpmrx8

That's weird, water should not have been that slippery and according to these "track" guys it couldn't have run coolant since it's not allowed in wheel to wheel racing on tracks.................

HDPE. After seeing that, I only run distilled water with waterwetter.

[feuer]

Originally Posted by Cloud9blue

the efficiency of a coolant is mostly dependent on its specific heat capacity and thermal conductivity. adding a tiny bottle of water wetter brings very little changes to these two properties of normal water.

I'm not sure if there is a difference between the water wetter made for diesel and gasoline engines but from what I have seen on my industry the diesel version works quite well even when mixed with 50/50 coolant/water mix. Additionally, a local guy start using it in his 535xi that was running significantly hotter than average n54 with noticeable results.