Tired and frustrated with the glycol in oil leak..

[scottj]

There is a manufacturer of piston aircraft engines that was recommending Evan's. It was known in the industry that 2 models of their engines have cooling capacity issues. They required that Evans be used in applications where CHT and coolant exit temp exceded 248 deg. F. It was a "bandaid" fix to prevent boil-over and crashing. The FAA, as well as most country's agencys, have since issued Airworthiness Directives prohibiting the use of Evans due to the liquid's flammable nature.
Note: I have no personal experience with Evans... I just thought that was interesting...

[undy]

Originally Posted by patrickt

You missed it. It turned out that the kid next door was sneaking over every few days and pouring a cup of water in to his valve cover.

...or the tears rolling off my cheeks, into the valve cover breathers when I finally tallied up how much I've spent and how much this turd is worth..

One kudo for Ronbo though... With the zero coolant pressure of the Evans stuff it probably would cure my oil pollution problem... or maybe not. Sooooo... it does have some validity here. (group hug...everyone???)

Pat, ya sure it was water ... and he was pouring it??? I wuz wonderin' why the glycol tasted a bit salty

[Z-linkCobra]

Originally Posted by Ronbo

The Evens commercial is over, you can relax now.

If you bothered to read through the entire thread you'd find that I may have been the only one to correctly identify Undy's problem.

Still waiting for you to tell us what the problem was.

Or are you too busy patting yourself on the back?

[Ronbo]

Originally Posted by Z-linkCobra

Still waiting for you to tell us what the problem was.

Or are you too busy patting yourself on the back?

The back coolant ports (read the thread).

Don't need to pat myself on the back, cash will do nicely.

Oh, by the way, bite me!

I guess no one forgot to take their azzhole pill today...

GM's research was specifically to address coolant issues with high horsepower engines being developed for the Corvette. (not that high horsepower engines have anything to do with Cobra's) Since emissions dictate not running rich (which would lower detonation problems) they addressed the "real" problem: the steam pockets that develop in any engine's coolant passenges above the cumbustion chamber. (turns out steam is a lousy conductor of heat, go figure) The problems you stated ie: valve spring fatigue and cylinder bore wear are a direct result of combustion chamber temps, not block temp.

There is a huge difference in your cumbustion chamber temp and your coolant temp. Why do you think your recovery tank level varies so much between hot and cold (the liquid coolant only expands slightly) that's how much steam is in your cylinder heads and upper block.

[Z-linkCobra]

Originally Posted by Ronbo

The back coolant ports (read the thread).

Don't need to pat myself on the back, cash will do nicely.

Oh, by the way, bite me!

I guess no one forgot to take their azzhole pill today...

GM's research was specifically to address coolant issues with high horsepower engines being developed for the Corvette. (not that high horsepower engines have anything to do with Cobra's) Since emissions dictate not running rich (which would lower detonation problems) they addressed the "real" problem: the steam pockets that develop in any engine's coolant passenges above the cumbustion chamber. (turns out steam is a lousy conductor of heat, go figure) The problems you stated ie: valve spring fatigue and cylinder bore wear are a direct result of combustion chamber temps, not block temp.

There is a huge difference in your cumbustion chamber temp and your coolant temp. Why do you think your recovery tank level varies so much between hot and cold (the liquid coolant only expands slightly) that's how much steam is in your cylinder heads and upper block.

I dont think it would have helped you Ronbo....

[ERA Chas]

Originally Posted by Ronbo

I guess no one forgot to take their azzhole pill today...

GM's research was specifically to address coolant issues with high horsepower engines being developed for the Corvette. (not that high horsepower engines have anything to do with Cobra's) Since emissions dictate not running rich (which would lower detonation problems) they addressed the "real" problem: the steam pockets that develop in any engine's coolant passenges above the cumbustion chamber. (turns out steam is a lousy conductor of heat, go figure) The problems you stated ie: valve spring fatigue and cylinder bore wear are a direct result of combustion chamber temps, not block temp.

There is a huge difference in your cumbustion chamber temp and your coolant temp. Why do you think your recovery tank level varies so much between hot and cold (the liquid coolant only expands slightly) that's how much steam is in your cylinder heads and upper block.

This scientific discourse may be true when you lecture the forth-graders on your planet, but here on Earth, no one is having steam pocket-itis. Even Patrick. You correctly state (contradicting your planet's science) that the chamber temps are higher than the 'recovery' tank. On Earth that is true -about 700 deg. F difference, but we on Earth have a miracle cooling substance know as water which negates the much feared and dreaded 'steam-pocket formation' syndrome.

For the second time however, you brought it up but failed to explain why GM is not using the magic coolant you promote, in every 'high horsepower' (or low for that matter) Corvette. Or Malibu, Traverse, Silverado or Volt. You're having a credibility problem Dude.

And Undy will use his magnifying glass to read this thread more carefully because he obviously missed your 'block coolant ports' solution to his problem.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by ERA Chas

And Undy will use his magnifying glass to read this thread more carefully because he obviously missed your 'block coolant ports' solution to his problem.

Am I correct that Undy is still waiting the results of sending out some parts to be pressure tested and that he just mightof/couldof/notreallysureof may have noticed some moisture, and that's it?

[Excaliber]

As expensive as this stuff is it's not surprising an auto manufacturer would NOT use it for their vehicles, except in extreme cases. Like a high horse power application. Just to darn expensive to justify the cost for typical use. Me? Heck I to research this kind of stuff, I'm looking forward to trying it out. The biggest plus I see is the zero to low pressure aspect on the cooling system.

[RodKnock]

Has anyone recommended "Bars Leak"?

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

Has anyone recommended "Bars Leak"?

Uhhh, perhaps you should go take a leak at your favorite bar....

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by patrickt

Uhhh, perhaps you should go take a leak at your favorite bar....

Sorry, but the water is too cold and deep too.

[Ronbo]

Originally Posted by patrickt

Am I correct that Undy is still waiting the results of sending out some parts to be pressure tested and that he just mightof/couldof/notreallysureof may have noticed some moisture, and that's it?

Patrick, now don't go posting on threads you've actually read. It sets a bad example for others...

His responses were: (from memory)

1: Interesting idea about the back ports, I'll have to look at that area.

(then later)

2: I've noticed a bit of what looks like porosity on the back machined area.

Considering all the stuff he checked and the history of the problem...

He's doing the right thing and eliminating everything possible, kept an open mind, then I bring up "waterless coolant" and the door slams shut.

Then the reading-challenged ERA jumps in...

I also like ERA's claim there's no steam in the coolant passages. (makes me wonder why they call those extra holes the mfgs drill in the deck face and heads "steam holes" Hmmm.) But what do the mfg's know anyway.

[undy]

Originally Posted by patrickt

Am I correct that Undy is still waiting the results of sending out some parts to be pressure tested and that he just mightof/couldof/notreallysureof may have noticed some moisture, and that's it?

Nah... I'm keeping all my pressure testing in house. I sent the manifold out to be artificially inseminated, or sumpin' like that

My next magic trick will be blowing up the block/heads with some stratospheric pressure testing. I figure 10 or 12 bar will do the trick. My philosophy, can't find a leak? ... make one!

On the count of three, everyone duck!

The nitrogen bottle still has 1500 psi left ... and there's more where that came from

[undy]

Originally Posted by Ronbo

(makes me wonder why they call those extra holes the mfgs drill in the deck face and heads "steam holes" Hmmm.) But what do the mfg's know anyway.

Ohhhhh... shades of Chebby small block 400. Ya got to love those steam holes for the STEAM caused by the siamesed bores. GM knew and designed for it. It's also a problem with the LS motors, #7 hole to be exact.

Sorry Pat, Ernie and Chas, got to go with ol' Ronbo on the steam up your gump-stump theory.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by undy

My next magic trick will be blowing up the block/heads with some stratospheric pressure testing. I figure 10 or 12 bar will do the trick. My philosophy, can't find a leak? ... make one!

If you have, say, a teensy weensy pin hole leak in the cylinder, aren't you going to have to spray some soapy suds up from the bottom to find it?

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by undy

Ohhhhh... shades of Chebby small block 400. Ya got to love those steam holes for the STEAM caused by the siamesed bores. GM knew and designed for it. It's also a problem with the LS motors, #7 hole to be exact.

Sorry Pat, Ernie and Chas, got to go with ol' Ronbo on the steam up your gump-stump theory.

You mean the Three Stooges. (just kidding, take it easy now)

[ERA Chas]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

You mean the Three Stooges. (just kidding, take it easy now)

Ahem...you're getting as giddy as Professor Ron. Soon you'll have steam hole nightmares too...

[ERA Chas]

Originally Posted by undy

Ohhhhh... shades of Chebby small block 400. Ya got to love those steam holes for the STEAM caused by the siamesed bores. GM knew and designed for it. It's also a problem with the LS motors, #7 hole to be exact.

Unlike Professor Ron, you can provide some factual GM information. I must be reading-challenged-I still can't find where his point was on a GM- supported product that they won't use in production.

The 289 was a steam hole-dependent design too. Yes the LS' also because of the partitioning in the jackets around the bores. That problem was solved by World's Warhawk LS blocks which surrounded all four of the siamesed bores with water.

[undy]

Originally Posted by patrickt

If you have, say, a teensy weensy pin hole leak in the cylinder, aren't you going to have to spray some soapy suds up from the bottom to find it?

Assuming there's just a hint of seriousness in your question, If one side of the motor fails it's pressure test then that side's head will be jerked, head gasket thoroughly inspected for witness leak marks and said head pressure tested. If the head's fine then I'll have to pressure test that side of the short block. If the block leaks then I'm afraid it's time for a full engine tear-down (not that I'm too far from that already) I'll send my bare block out to get pregnant with the intake too.

In all seriousness I'm going to test each side to 20-30 psi and let it sit, then watch my pressure gauge and wait. Perfectly sealed the head/block should hold pressure for some time, without dropping pressure.

[Ronbo]

Do be carefull with the pressure testing Undy...

We lost my best friend's dad to a tank rupture some years back, a grenade couldn't have done worse. It was a Nitrogen tank with a fake test stamp (we think).

There's a lot of force in compressed air, a seat/guide machine I used some years back had a floating head jig that weighed around 100lbs. (minus the head) To float in on the machine deck it used 20psi of air. I couldn't believe it took so little pressure to do that.