re: Water Wetter

[Aaron Lung <alung@xxxxxxxxx>]

Harvey sez:

>Aaron Lung's post digest V9#921 is not quite an accurate reflection on what
>I posted or intended and overlooks some "system" limitations.    If any one
>is interested in clarification, please contact me privately via e-mail and I
>will be glad to try and clarify.

and....

Jon sez:

> 
> The point of water wetter is NOT to lower your coolant temperature during
> normal operation. Clearly, the thermostat won't let it do that.


Sorry...  I shouldn't have been so facetious in my original
response... :-)  ouch...

You're right, I failed to state that the design 
engineers should have already accounted for such adverse 
operating conditions and designed the cooling system to 
handle the load appropriately without the aid of additives.

Obviously, cost is a manufacturing concern and corners
will be cut, so a cooling system that satisfies most of 
the masses is good enough.

But it still seems to me that WW is just a kludge to mask a real 
problem--whether it's by design or due to something messed up.  
It's analogous to people saying, "I need to use premium 92 
octane so my 87 octane engine stops pinging."

Moreover, if the water pump can't pump enough coolant 
through a wide-open thermostat, or the thermostat isn't
opening as wide as it should be, or the radiator is too small
thermally or partially plugged, it won't matter what's in 
the coolant.

So if you *really, really* need it, it makes sense, otherwise,
it's still a waste of money, IMHO.

btw, I still ran my A/C full-blast when it was 105F (or whatever
it was) last summer and stuck in bumper-bumper commute traffic 
up Hwy17...even though there are signs telling people to turn
A/C off to avoid overheating. My temp guage never budged from 
where it always sits.

aaron

88 528e, 62K

------------------------------