Red Line Water Wetter

[Bruce T]

I think Water Wetter is a very misunderstood product in street use. RL's own tech data shows that it only reduces the overall coolant temperature by 8°F with a 50/50 mix. By itself, this is not very exciting. However, it becomes significant if you take 440Magnum's thoughts a step further. If WW reduces the surface tension of the coolant, so the hottest spots in the engine receive more coolant, wouldn't this also reduce oil oxidation and sludge?

 

[Mamala Bay]

If you spray water on a leaf surface does the water coat the leaf. What you see is some parts are droplets but the whole leaf is not covered with water. If you add a surfactant that neutralize the ions in the water it flattens out and you don't see droplets but the whole leaf is evenly coated with water.

If you polish a car and spray it with water it beads. If you added a surfactant and spray water on that polished car, the beads will not form, but the water flattens out and coats the polished surface.

Is Water Wetter a surfactant.

 

[boxcartommie22]

redline says those oily bubbles are a reaction to the antifreeze so they fall out of suspension and when the engine gets warm they go back into suspension.....i just add bg's supercool...bothers me to see oil floating around

 

[Craig in Canada]

Originally Posted By: Bruce T
I think Water Wetter is a very misunderstood product in street use. RL's own tech data shows that it only reduces the overall coolant temperature by 8°F with a 50/50 mix. By itself, this is not very exciting. However, it becomes significant if you take 440Magnum's thoughts a step further. If WW reduces the surface tension of the coolant, so the hottest spots in the engine receive more coolant, wouldn't this also reduce oil oxidation and sludge?


Agreed. Out on the road, my vehicles are almost always operating at the thermostat controlled coolant temperature. WW or any other surfactant can not, and should not, have any effect on this. If the patient vehicle is usually using the t-stat to control temperature, there will never be an observed difference.

What is different is that heat transfer is more efficient. There should be less micro-boiling in the block, the heater should work better, and you'll have more "reserve" in the system because it can MOVE more heat (not absorb more heat).

This is a contrast to, say, lowering the concentration of antifreeze. That increases the specific heat capacity of the coolant mix, and gives the coolant more heat carrying capacity (more heat is carried with a lower temperature increase of the fluid). This, however, won't increase the heat transfer in the system.

So, if you have an application that is often running with the t-stat wide open you may see temperature decreases from running a surfactant. You may also see less coolant temperature rise when stopped. You'd also see the same effect from reducing concentration.

I've run WW in previous cars without any issues. Only one of those cars was a bit of a heat challenge. In my current BMW, the WW broke down into thick brown greasy spooge when mixed with OEM G-48 coolant. Not impressed. Then I had to run RMI-25 to try to clean it up....

 

[tenderloin]

I use it in all of my vehicles. I use 1 gal of antifreeze (don't worry about cold temps here) in the system with one bottle of Water Wetter.

 

[tom slick]

does your car function better with no added coolant?

 

[Mamala Bay]

Originally Posted By: Craig in Canada
Originally Posted By: Bruce T
I think Water Wetter is a very misunderstood product in street use. RL's own tech data shows that it only reduces the overall coolant temperature by 8°F with a 50/50 mix. By itself, this is not very exciting. However, it becomes significant if you take 440Magnum's thoughts a step further. If WW reduces the surface tension of the coolant, so the hottest spots in the engine receive more coolant, wouldn't this also reduce oil oxidation and sludge?


Agreed. Out on the road, my vehicles are almost always operating at the thermostat controlled coolant temperature. WW or any other surfactant can not, and should not, have any effect on this. If the patient vehicle is usually using the t-stat to control temperature, there will never be an observed difference.

What is different is that heat transfer is more efficient. There should be less micro-boiling in the block, the heater should work better, and you'll have more "reserve" in the system because it can MOVE more heat (not absorb more heat).

This is a contrast to, say, lowering the concentration of antifreeze. That increases the specific heat capacity of the coolant mix, and gives the coolant more heat carrying capacity (more heat is carried with a lower temperature increase of the fluid). This, however, won't increase the heat transfer in the system.

So, if you have an application that is often running with the t-stat wide open you may see temperature decreases from running a surfactant. You may also see less coolant temperature rise when stopped. You'd also see the same effect from reducing concentration.

I've run WW in previous cars without any issues. Only one of those cars was a bit of a heat challenge. In my current BMW, the WW broke down into thick brown greasy spooge when mixed with OEM G-48 coolant. Not impressed. Then I had to run RMI-25 to try to clean it up....



I use but RMI-25 it's surfactant.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
The concept of water wetter is antithetical to what you want in an engine cooling system for a street driven family car.

You want to keep the heat in, not speed it's dissipation into the environment.



The theory is still good for street cars, and in fact antifreeze solutions also contain similar wetting agents. Yes, you want to retain heat in the engine, but you do NOT want to do so by impeding the transfer of heat from the metal to the coolant because all that does is create small localized hot-spots while keeping most of the engine much colder than necessary. You want heat transfer from the engine metal to the coolant to be as near ideal as possible, then you want the engine cooling system (thermostat and electric fans) to regulate how fast the heat is released to the environment. This lets the engine run at a higher average temperature (more efficient) than would be the case if there were localized hot-spots.

Short answer to the original question:

Water Wetter works, but is only of use when you can't run antifreeze since antifreeze already has the same wetting agents. Many racing classes ban the use of antifreeze since the glycol base fluid is very slippery and its hard to clean up a spill on the track.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum





I must be losing my mind. Must be fumes from working on cars for too long. I just replied with almost the same reply I made weeks ago. Now its too late to delete it.

Go ahead. Laugh. It'll happen to you too some day

 

[Mamala Bay]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: Shannow
The concept of water wetter is antithetical to what you want in an engine cooling system for a street driven family car.

You want to keep the heat in, not speed it's dissipation into the environment.



The theory is still good for street cars, and in fact antifreeze solutions also contain similar wetting agents. Yes, you want to retain heat in the engine, but you do NOT want to do so by impeding the transfer of heat from the metal to the coolant because all that does is create small localized hot-spots while keeping most of the engine much colder than necessary. You want heat transfer from the engine metal to the coolant to be as near ideal as possible, then you want the engine cooling system (thermostat and electric fans) to regulate how fast the heat is released to the environment. This lets the engine run at a higher average temperature (more efficient) than would be the case if there were localized hot-spots.

Short answer to the original question:

Water Wetter works, but is only of use when you can't run antifreeze since antifreeze already has the same wetting agents. Many racing classes ban the use of antifreeze since the glycol base fluid is very slippery and its hard to clean up a spill on the track.


I use RMI-25 and water. I've found this mixture is more ideal than the 50% coolant mix. I get less pinging on my vehicle.

I felt I had more problems with localized hot spots with 50% coolant than with RMI-25 and water. I change my cooling system every 6 months. Water itself will cool hot spots quicker than 50% coolant. Add a surfactant wetting agent that flattens water for even heat transfer.

I don't trust Water Wetter as I had brown scum but where did it come from. Stripping the scum from old radiator hoses surface I don't know.

 

[Epic_]

Originally Posted By: ZZman
Except there might be times where the thermostat is wide open but the cooling system can still not keep up with dumping the heat. Maybe like a very hot day, towing up hills or if the fan malfunctions etc......


The solution to your non-malfunction points is to not buy poorly engineered vehicles. Not water wetter.

 

[bullwinkle]

On some older vehicles w/marginal cooling systems (MGs, maybe some other British sports cars) cooling system capacity is increased w/Water Wetter type products-BUT, they have ZERO freeze protection. Water conducts & transfers heat better than antifreeze, & I've heard that higher coolant concentrations are even worse for heat transfer than 50/50. It gets too cold here too often to consider using it, but in an extremely hot environment, where temps never get below freezing, w/racing or heavy-duty towing, it would make a difference.