Re:Coolant hose reliability

BruceTF135 wrote:

I have drained the system and replaced the PRT thermostat on my TF and that was awkward enough. Replacing the whole lot sounds like a labour of love.

Easy except for the heater hoses in the tunnel and to the heater which I passed on when I replaced all my hoses in 2006/7.

Steve: this supised (sic) know all knows better, that's all.

There is just as little pressure exerted in the cooling system if the liquid is not boiling. If boiling point were the criterion, we would cool the engine with oil (as of course we do). The cooling system is pressurised to prevent it from boiling so you don't need anything other than what has been in use since before you were born.

Far better to have a coolant warning device to warn of a pressure cap failure as a pressure cap failure is likely to affect coolant circulation rather than use a coolant that may mask a fault.

Waterless coolants are used in aero engines because the boiling point reduces with height above sea level and the pressure differential is correspondingly greater than for a land based vehicle. I reiterate that you don't need it in a K series engine whatever any well respected motor club might assert and if that upsets you, that's just tough.

Properly operated and maintained ones don't go wrong and to assert that they will be improved by an expensive coolant is twaddle, fiction and bosh! The evidence is in the tens of millions of cars that have gone from manufacture through a long service life to scrapyard without ever needing it, as they do to this day.

Im sorry, but what upset me was your aggressive response to my post, I will listen to any calmly debated argument, but responding the way you did is just rude and completely unnecessary.

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

(not relevant content removed by moderator, rude language was used)
Potentially harmful rubbish as waterless coolants can give the impression of a leaky system or worse, cause people to overtighten perfectly good clips onto old hoses that then fail.
(not relevant content removed by moderator, rude language was used)

I can see merit in each side of the discussion. Pressures , volumes & temperatures are governed by physical laws as defined by Mr Boyle & Mr Charles, no matter what medium is used to cool a hot body those rules apply, it’s thermodynamics.
A chemical similar to 4life is used at altitude for reasons outlined by Minimax, using it at ground level need not be vehemently criticised, it’s question of personally choice. If your car is a bastard bleeder & you can’t easily get the air out of the system, being able to forget about it, short of failures, for ten years makes it attractive.
My car doesn’t suffer in that way, I can drain it down, refill it, give it a couple of good burps & I’m off down the road with only half an eye on the temperature gauge.

Let me finish by quoting The Reverend Eli Jenkins & part friends even if there maybe a few ruffled feathers needing a smooth:

We are not wholly bad or good,
Who live our lives under Milk Wood,
And Thou I know will be the first,
To see our best side not our worst.

julianfoulger wrote:

BruceTF135 wrote:

I have drained the system and replaced the PRT thermostat on my TF and that was awkward enough. Replacing the whole lot sounds like a labour of love.

Easy except for the heater hoses in the tunnel and to the heater which I passed on when I replaced all my hoses in 2006/7.

Yes, those ones in particular are the ones I was thinking of.

@minimax
it's perfectly fine to have different opinions and to discuss all your thoughts freely. But this needs to be done in a respectful way.
I do not think your post above follows this simple rule, the tone of your post is not acceptable.
I leave it to you to amend your post #200799 and to reword it in a regardful and respectful way, please follow this simple policy or I have to delete this post.
Thank you.

minimax wrote:

You may well have had no problems in ten years with waterless coolant. I haven't had any in more than forty with antifreeze, so what does that prove?

I'd say that it proves that you've both made good points. Robust debate ain't gonna change that. Calm down guys, it's almost the season of good will and all that jazz. .

Now I’ve no idea as to what the chemical composition of the coolant in question is, but if it has a lower rate of thermal expansion in the important temperature range, then it stands to reason that the cooling system would be running at a lower pressure within the desired temperature range.
How much? I couldn’t say, but if this stuff doesn’t boil till 180C then I’d imagine that the difference could be considerable.
And it would also depend upon the nucleate boiling behaviour, that is the tiny layer of steam that forms between the liquid coolant and the surface to be cooled, the steam acts as an insulator reducing the effectiveness of the thermal conductivity of the coolant.
And furthermore I also would need to consider any difference in the thermal conductivity of the two coolants.

Now if this stuff does a pretty good Houdini impersonation and tries to escape the confines of the cooling system…… and normal coolant additive already does a good job of that, then the need to “ tighten “ all the hose clamps to compensate, may not be required as this could possibly be offset by the lower operating pressure.
Another question is how corrosive is this stuff? How do gaskets, pump seals, hoses, and the various metals, plastics etc that are used in our cars, react to exposure to this stuff, over time?

Normal coolant additives can, in some circumstances be more corrosive than plain water, usually when used in to low a concentration, or old and buggered.

These are the important facts to consider when evaluating the worth of this product, if it doesn’t achieve these goals then it’s just another miracle elixir, and as a such it will no doubt also lay claim to fixing such ailments as coughs, colds, sore holes, crook sheep and Fergy tractors that won’t start, :bust:

So if it actually does what it says on the tin….. all well and good ( mind you, it’s also worth considering how carefully worded the label on the tin is……. Bloody lawyers and their damned weasel words. )

BruceTF135 wrote:

julianfoulger wrote:

BruceTF135 wrote:

I have drained the system and replaced the PRT thermostat on my TF and that was awkward enough. Replacing the whole lot sounds like a labour of love.

Easy except for the heater hoses in the tunnel and to the heater which I passed on when I replaced all my hoses in 2006/7.

Yes, those ones in particular are the ones I was thinking of.

I thought so! My argument is that the heater hoses are not subject to the extreme engine heat, UV light and not used all year round (ie heater off). I will replace them if and when the heater core packs up. After 25 years, the heater hoses look as good as new (on the outside at least).

Regarding 'Waterless coolant', it appears to be more popular in the US (Jay Leno I think uses it in his cars) than in Europe. More costly than OAT and make sure anyone working on your car knows NOT to add water. I have never used it, mainly because of a deep mistrust over the MGF's coolant system

There is an emoji for most occasions.
I suggest this one.:nofight:

Keep it friendly, discuss and disagree as much as you'd like, but keep it friendly.

Name calling never ends well.
Did I mention, Please keep it friendly?
:nofight: :beer:

Oh, and "Peace and goodwill to all MG owners."
Merry Christmas.:frosty:

“Fergy tractor won’t start” how prophetic Cobber, I’m up to the farm in ten minutes, Jeans T20 won’t start, she’ll have flooded it, the choke will have stuck. I’ll take the power pack, the battery’s never good & she’ll have been at it since first thing.
And to all my unseen friends on here a Merry Christmas, peace & good will to all men, especially those who know one end of a spanner from another. Mike.