marchesmark wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 7:25 pm Really? I don't think that's what this thread is saying at all.
It's like the UFO thread, lots of myths but no real science.
The only real science that I've read in this thread is in the area of the heat conductivity, which is the only genuine argument against the stuff. But it depends on the original assumptions that the engineers made when they dimensioned the cooling, which nobody on this forum or any other car forum, will know.
It really starts with the combustion efficiency of the engine, and if you take petrol engines as the start, the best you'll get is ~30% efficiency. The rule of thumb is "a third, a third, a third" at the best point of the BSFC curve i.e. a third of the heat goes to the tyres pushing the car along, a third of the heat goes out of the exhaust, and a third of the heat is lost into the cooling system. But in IC engines, especially petrol engines, this is generally not the case because they rarely run at their best point of BSFC and, unless on a racetrack, rarely run anywhere near full power for very long. Thus it's difficult to be able to faithfully calculate the heat that the cooling system has to cope with.
If you read the responses from several contributors, you'll glean all of the above is mentioned in various ways, and, since an unpressurised cooling system is on an old design of car engine, it was likely over-dimensioned from the start. So if the engine and radiator have both been thoroughly de-scaled and cleaned out, and since these engines are not "performance" engines, their cooling systems will cope with this waterless cooling. For pressurised cooling it's more difficult to be sure.
EDIT - just a thought (and I might have already read this in the thread or in one of the links) if there is a problem, the analogy is with fitting the wrong thermostat, thus by induction, if one wanted use the stuff then a change of thermostat would solve any OCD concerns.
