Project Farm tests coolant boosters/water wetters

[TiGeo]

Interesting one from our friend over at Project Farm on water wetters/coolant boosters. I am particularly interested in this testing as I run the Redline Water Wetter product and have run the VP Cooldown as well. Both mixed with a lean (30%) coolant mix for my Sportwagen that sees track use. I have seen coolant temps up to 240 on track so anything I can do to help is worth a try. The test showed the wetter products are more efficient at removing heat - I would have liked to see a blend like I run as well as straight water as the control. For normal driving/condition, no need for these products.

 

[johnmyster]

Why is he wear scar testing antifreeze additives? (Not important for cooling system.)

Why is he testing them for pH buffering? (My coolant does this.)

Why is he testing boiling point elevation? (My coolant does this.)

Project farm. Leading in nonsense.

 

[zeroptzero]

The only thing I ever noticed with water wetter was brown deposits in my overflow bottle, so I stopped using it. It sounds like a good product but not much benefit that I've seen.

 

[TiGeo]

Why is he wear scar testing antifreeze additives? (Not important for cooling system.)

Agreed...didn't get that. Maybe because the lubricity could be somehow correlated with claims of maintaining lubrication of the water pump?

Why is he testing them for pH buffering? (My coolant does this.)

Seems relevant for coolant additives to me.

Why is he testing boiling point elevation? (My coolant does this.)

Seems relevant for coolant additives to me.

 

[TiGeo]

The only thing I ever noticed with water wetter was brown deposits in my overflow bottle, so I stopped using it. It sounds like a good product but not much benefit that I've seen.

I've been running both the VP and Redline products for several years and note nothing like that.

 

[Glenda W.]

In before the

 

[RooflessVW]

Project farm. Leading in nonsense.

I hate when he does the one arm bandit test on fuel additives.

If you're not going to add them to fuel before testing it's a double nonsense test.

 

[4WD]

PF, listen this time: glue boards, add weights to failure point.

 

[TiGeo]

I hate when he does the one arm bandit test on fuel additives.

If you're not going to add them to fuel before testing it's a double nonsense test.

The man loves him some lubricity testing.

 

[TiGeo]

PF, listen this time: glue boards, add weights to failure point.

Huh?

 

[4WD]

Huh?

Within his skill set.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

The man loves him some lubricity testing.

Has he done a video on Jergens, Dove and Vaseline?

 

[TiGeo]

Within his skill set.

That heat exchanger setup is pretty slick man, I'd say that was a solid way to test these things. Ok, back to looking at cut-open oil filters, flashlight/burn testing, and UOAs here on the 'tog for some real meat/potatoes type data complete with "discussion" by "experts"!

Edit. Forgot about the critical "pic of your dipstick/oil color" testing.

 

[nwjones18]

I'll be honest I enjoy his videos.. I think his testing on tools is often quite good.

I've always thought if your car needs anything other than antifreeze to stay cool you have a problem that needs fixing so no reason to dabble in the coolant snake oil realm.

 

[TiGeo]

I'll be honest I enjoy his videos.. I think his testing on tools is often quite good.

I've always thought if your car needs anything other than antifreeze to stay cool you have a problem that needs fixing so no reason to dabble in the coolant snake oil realm.

For normal driving correct. For track use these products have a value.

 

[johnmyster]

Which salad dressing tastes best...as determined by the wear scar tester.

Everything is a nail when you really like your hammer.

 

[nwjones18]

For normal driving correct. For track use these products have a value.

Ah that makes sense.

 

[johnmyster]

For normal driving correct. For track use these products have a value.

I'd think having clean heat transfer surfaces (acid flush of radiator to rid corrosion products, which are ceramic/insulators) and good airflow across the radiator (free of leaves, pine straw, and bird feathers) are going to be more dominant than benefit of surfactants. If the radiator tubes are long/thin enough I'd have a hard time imagining the surface transfer rate from coolant to tube is the limiting factor.

My trackhead friends are always switching to straight water this time of year because of hype behind higher specific heat of water vs glycol. Granted, the frailty of E46 cooling systems may be a factor. Better to spill water than glycol on the track.

 

[burbguy82]

So what were the results @TiGeo? Are you going to continue using WW or no?

 

[dnewton3]

Yet more proof why PF is silly.

- wear scar testing for a coolant? How is that relevant?

- checking boiling point at atmospheric pressure? Is the assumption that the delta when pressurized is equal for all products? I doubt that is true.

- testing cooling capacity at atmospheric pressures, and temps around 105F or so? How is that applicable for guys who want to know how these perform in racing applications when temps are north of 230F? Again, is the assumption that the deltas are all equal?


This vid is just more PF sensational YT garbage, IMO.