• Register Today It's free! This box and some ads will disappear once registered!

Evaluation of Redline’s WaterWetter

aldive

Elite In Memoriam
Joined
January 17, 2001
Messages
24,711
Reaction score
15
Year, Model & Trim Level
1999 XLT
This scorching weather has prompted me to ponder the truck’s cooling system, therefore, I decided to repeat a previous ( and not previously posted ) evaluation I did of Redline’s Water Wetter [WW] ( http://www.redlineoil.com/products_coolant.asp ).

Red Line makes a claim about WaterWetter – “WaterWetter® is a unique wetting agent for cooling systems which reduces coolant temperatures by as much as 30ºF.” The science behind the use of surfactants is solid.

This test will demonstrate how WaterWetter performs in my truck.

The WaterWetter, in a 12 oz bottle, was purchased at Advanced Auto Parts for $7.77 a bottle. The Prestone antifreeze ( http://www.prestone.com/products/antifreezeCoolant.php )
was also purchased at Advanced Auto Parts for $9.88 a gallon. The distilled water was purchased at a local grocery store ( Publix ) for $1.19 a gallon. I made the RO/DI water with my home system ( used for making pristine water for my marine aquariums ).

The testing parameters will be as follows:

(1) Distilled water only
(2) Distilled water with WW
(3) Distilled water and antifreeze
(4) Distilled water and antifreeze plus WW

Each of the above mixtures will be evaluated during:

(1) A 10 mile “in town” drive in traffic
(2) A 20 mile drive on I75 at 70 MPH

The antifreeze was used at 20%. The common mix of 50% antifreeze is not needed here in the Sunshine State. 20% antifreeze will protect to approximately 20 F and that’s more than enough for me.

Coolant temperature were monitored via an OBD II scanner ( http://www.autoxray.com/default.htm ) and ambient temperature will be monitored via the overhead console temperature readout. Speed and distance will be determined via GPS ( http://www.garmin.com/products/sp2620/ ).

Prior to testing, the truck’s cooling system was flushed several times with RO/DI water.

For the first test, the cooling system was filled with distilled water only. The next test was with the same distilled water as in the previous test plus a bottle of the strawberry colored WaterWetter ( to add the WW, 12 ounces of the distilled water was removed from the radiator ). For the next test, the fluid was drained and cooling system flushed several times with RO/DI water; then antifreeze was added ( to reach a 20% level [ or 2.64 l of the antifreeze ] ) and the system topped off with distilled water. The final evaluation was made by adding a bottle of WaterWetter to the distilled water/antifreeze mixture used previously.

The data:

In town evaluation ( ambient temp 97 F )
Distilled water only 205 F
Distilled water with WW 206 F
Distilled water and antifreeze 212 F
Distilled water and antifreeze plus WW 207 F

Highway evaluation ( ambient temp 97 F )

Distilled water only 194 F
Distilled water with WW 192 F
Distilled water and antifreeze 192 F
Distilled water and antifreeze plus WW 192 F

Conclusions:

My previous testing was not as extensive as this one but found no significant temperature reduction using WW with antifreeze; no other mixtures were tested. This investigation was carried out last winter with ambient temperature at 63 F.

The current series of tests demonstrate that at highway speeds, my cooling system operates at the level the 192 F thermostat allows.

Had I thoroughly thought out the fct that the thermostat limits my testing, I woiuld not have conducted this experiment. Hindsight is always 20/20.

I left the 20% antifreeze and 12 oz WaterWetter mix in my cooling system; it should serve me well for another year.
 


Join the Elite Explorers for $20 per year. Gets rid of the ads! New $5 per month "try out" option.

Explorer Forum has probably saved you that much already, and will continue to save you money as you learn how to diagnose fix problems yourself and learn which modifications work without having to experiment on your own. Elite Explorer members see no advertisements, no banner ads, no double underlined links, can add their own profile photo, upload photo attachments in all forums, and Media Gallery, create and save more private Conversations, and more. Join Today. Your support is greatly appreciated.




BrooklynBay

Moderator & long time member.
Staff member
Moderator
Elite Explorer
Joined
November 11, 2005
Messages
54,921
Reaction score
611
City, State
Brooklyn, NY
Year, Model & Trim Level
88 89 93 95 96 Aerostars




aldive

Elite In Memoriam
Joined
January 17, 2001
Messages
24,711
Reaction score
15
Year, Model & Trim Level
1999 XLT
BrooklynBay said:
What would the next step be to thoroughly test it? Would a 160 degree thermostat work better in this evaluation?

Either that or no tstat at all.

I do not plan do further test in that manner.
 




Brock94

Well-Known Member
Joined
July 2, 2004
Messages
554
Reaction score
1
City, State
Milford, CT
Year, Model & Trim Level
1994 XLT
I think what you should be testing is the cooling efficiency of the system with or without WW-- the test you devised doesn't really do that. The best way to do that would be to have a temperature sensor at the radiator input and another one at the output, then measure temperature drop across the radiator under similar test conditions for the system with WW and without.

You could do this easily at idle if you use one of those touchless thermometers to measure the difference in temperature between the upper and lower hoses.
 




etc

Dead Inside
Joined
June 21, 2003
Messages
1,176
Reaction score
0
City, State
Miami, FL
Year, Model & Trim Level
'96 XLT 2WD
lol

As I began reading, I thought, what the hell is gonna be the difference cause of the thermostat.

=P
 




aldive

Elite In Memoriam
Joined
January 17, 2001
Messages
24,711
Reaction score
15
Year, Model & Trim Level
1999 XLT
Brock94 said:
I think what you should be testing is the cooling efficiency of the system with or without WW-- the test you devised doesn't really do that. The best way to do that would be to have a temperature sensor at the radiator input and another one at the output, then measure temperature drop across the radiator under similar test conditions for the system with WW and without.

You could do this easily at idle if you use one of those touchless thermometers to measure the difference in temperature between the upper and lower hoses.

Sounds like a good project for you to do.
 




gijoecam

Village Idiot
Elite Explorer
Joined
May 31, 1999
Messages
8,349
Reaction score
9
City, State
Trenton, MI
Year, Model & Trim Level
98 ExSport, '00 F-150
aldive said:
Had I thoroughly thought out the fct that the thermostat limits my testing, I woiuld not have conducted this experiment. Hindsight is always 20/20.
ROFLOL!! The whole time I was reading thhrough the test, I kept thinking to myself, "Nothing significant is going to change because of the position of the sensor" LOL!!

Glad you realized the error in your method.

As was already mentioned, you would need to be monitoring the inlet and outlet temps of the radiator and/or the inlet and outlet temps of the block to determine the amount of heat rejected. Inlet of the radiator should be pretty close to the same in both cases, but outlet of the radiator/inlet of the engine would be lower with the WW if, in fact, it made a difference.

In theory, you could check it idling in the driveway and shoot the temps with an infrared thermometer. The idling engine should generate a consistant amount of heat to be rejected by the heat exchanger (radiator). The more effective the water wetter is, the more heat it will reject, and the lower the temp at the lower hose will be.

Hmmm.... might not be too difficult after all!

-Joe
 




james t

Elite Explorer
Moderator Emeritus
Joined
January 27, 2002
Messages
10,680
Reaction score
7
City, State
Texarkana AR/TX
Year, Model & Trim Level
94 SAS sport
I tested Watter Wetter years ago, and yes it works (in a vehicle that needs it). It was designed for lots of engine mods and engine swaps were a sub-par radiator or cramped engine compartment limits cooling. My 75 Bronco with the 351W swapped in always ran 200-210 on trails in the summer with a 180 degree stat. Poured in a bottle and (on the same day) i was running 190-195.

There isnt really any point in running it in stock vehicles.
 




BrooklynBay

Moderator & long time member.
Staff member
Moderator
Elite Explorer
Joined
November 11, 2005
Messages
54,921
Reaction score
611
City, State
Brooklyn, NY
Year, Model & Trim Level
88 89 93 95 96 Aerostars
The A4LD transmissions have a tendency of blowing out the front seal in the bellhousing when driven on the highway with the A/C on. Anything you could do to lower the temperature would help. I don't know what the exact temperature this occurs at, but I've had this happen to me on a number of occasions, and if I could keep it a few degrees below this point, maybe it wouldn't happen on the highway.
 




james t

Elite Explorer
Moderator Emeritus
Joined
January 27, 2002
Messages
10,680
Reaction score
7
City, State
Texarkana AR/TX
Year, Model & Trim Level
94 SAS sport
BrooklynBay said:
The A4LD transmissions have a tendency of blowing out the front seal in the bellhousing when driven on the highway with the A/C on. Anything you could do to lower the temperature would help. I don't know what the exact temperature this occurs at, but I've had this happen to me on a number of occasions, and if I could keep it a few degrees below this point, maybe it wouldn't happen on the highway.
I would think you would have better luck swapping to a 180 degree thermostat than going with a coolant additive. It doesnt matter what you put in your coolant... if your running a 195 degree stat on a stockish motor and stock cooling system then your coolant is going to run 200 degrees.
 




jimbo74

Elite Exploder
Joined
December 27, 2000
Messages
18,450
Reaction score
7
City, State
Nor*Cal
Year, Model & Trim Level
2001, F150, XLT 4x4
my truck likes water wetter, i have seen that it helps it run cooler... on my toyota with a 4 cyl and a stock 180* tstat

my testing wasnt as controlled as aldives, but i had issues a few yeaars back with not having nay tstat installed..... the water weter was a last possible idea to help lower the regualr temps before i was able to figure out that i didnt have a tstat and it was summertime
 




BrooklynBay

Moderator & long time member.
Staff member
Moderator
Elite Explorer
Joined
November 11, 2005
Messages
54,921
Reaction score
611
City, State
Brooklyn, NY
Year, Model & Trim Level
88 89 93 95 96 Aerostars
Aldive, I have been doing some research on pressure ratings of radiator caps. It seems that the higher the pressure rating, the cooler your system will run. When you did this test, what pressure rating was your cap? Do you have the regular one, or the one with the quick release from Stant (it has an arm that lifts up)?
 




gijoecam

Village Idiot
Elite Explorer
Joined
May 31, 1999
Messages
8,349
Reaction score
9
City, State
Trenton, MI
Year, Model & Trim Level
98 ExSport, '00 F-150
BrooklynBay said:
Aldive, I have been doing some research on pressure ratings of radiator caps. It seems that the higher the pressure rating, the cooler your system will run. When you did this test, what pressure rating was your cap? Do you have the regular one, or the one with the quick release from Stant (it has an arm that lifts up)?

Increasing the pressure rating of the cap does nothing for controlling the operating temperature, or the heat rejection properties of the water. It DOES affect the boiling point (increasing the max pressure increases the boiling point of the SYSTEM, but does not decrease the operating temperature)

-Joe
 




old mechanic

Explorer Addict
Joined
November 23, 2003
Messages
1,113
Reaction score
0
City, State
R.I.
Year, Model & Trim Level
92 xlt
AL, wouldn't a 50/50 mixture help if you were stopped or crawling in traffic? It would give it a higher boiling point.
 




james t

Elite Explorer
Moderator Emeritus
Joined
January 27, 2002
Messages
10,680
Reaction score
7
City, State
Texarkana AR/TX
Year, Model & Trim Level
94 SAS sport
old mechanic said:
AL, wouldn't a 50/50 mixture help if you were stopped or crawling in traffic? It would give it a higher boiling point.
Yes it would, but it would also run hotter. Water transfers heat better than antifreeze, the more water you run the more efficient the cooling system is. Ideal would be straight water. Of course, there would be nothing to protect the internals from corrosion, nothing to lube the waterpump, and nothing to keep it all from freezing.

Cliffs notes- more antifreeze will raise the boiling point but also possibly make it run hotter.
 




Jason94sport

Explorer Addict
Joined
April 30, 2001
Messages
4,141
Reaction score
61
City, State
FL
Year, Model & Trim Level
02 Sport 2WD 5 speed
I use the 50/50 pre mix plus WW. On my X I see no difference in the WW. But in my Acura with a bunch of go fast mods I did see a reduction.
So the test can't be a be all test. There are many factors to consider.
 




old mechanic

Explorer Addict
Joined
November 23, 2003
Messages
1,113
Reaction score
0
City, State
R.I.
Year, Model & Trim Level
92 xlt
james t said:
Yes it would, but it would also run hotter. Water transfers heat better than antifreeze, the more water you run the more efficient the cooling system is. Ideal would be straight water. Of course, there would be nothing to protect the internals from corrosion, nothing to lube the waterpump, and nothing to keep it all from freezing.

Cliffs notes- more antifreeze will raise the boiling point but also possibly make it run hotter.
------------------
Won't the engine run at whatever temp the t-stat is?
 




james t

Elite Explorer
Moderator Emeritus
Joined
January 27, 2002
Messages
10,680
Reaction score
7
City, State
Texarkana AR/TX
Year, Model & Trim Level
94 SAS sport
old mechanic said:
------------------
Won't the engine run at whatever temp the t-stat is?
Yes, if its stock and has a stock cooling system in proper working order. Even so, more water will transfer heat more efficiently and thus take some of the strain off of the cooling system. In other words, the stat will be able to close sooner and stay closed longer since the coolant is doing a better job at both absorbing heat from the engine and shedding heat in the radiator. Add a cam, headers, more fuel, bigger engine swap, etc. etc. etc. and you can see were this all snowballs. In a stock-ish vehicle it doesnt matter.
 




Brandons

Explorer Addict
Joined
May 20, 2002
Messages
2,498
Reaction score
2
City, State
Ontario, Canada
Year, Model & Trim Level
06 F150 SC 5.4
I want heavy water for a coolant :(
 


Join the Elite Explorers for $20 per year. Gets rid of the ads! New $5 per month "try out" option.

Explorer Forum has probably saved you that much already, and will continue to save you money as you learn how to diagnose fix problems yourself and learn which modifications work without having to experiment on your own. Elite Explorer members see no advertisements, no banner ads, no double underlined links, can add their own profile photo, upload photo attachments in all forums, and Media Gallery, create and save more private Conversations, and more. Join Today. Your support is greatly appreciated.




gijoecam

Village Idiot
Elite Explorer
Joined
May 31, 1999
Messages
8,349
Reaction score
9
City, State
Trenton, MI
Year, Model & Trim Level
98 ExSport, '00 F-150
Brandons said:
I want heavy water for a coolant :(

Naaah... heavy water is overrated... Why not go for the liquid sodium? It would never evaporate, of course, it probably wouldn't stay liquified in an engine either LOL!! I'm not so sure I'd want to drive it through the rain either!

-Joe
 




Top