Saabscene Saab Forum - Saab Technical Information Resource banner
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,448 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Well we tried to swap over to the waterless coolant. We eventually ran into a problem though. There was no way to completely remove all the old coolant. Because of this, there has been no appreciable change in the way the car runs. Not better, not worse.

We got out 1.6 gallons of 2.3 total in the cooling system. I'm going to order two more gallons of the Evan's coolant. If we do this twice more we'll use a total of 4.8 gallons (out of 5 that will have been purchased) and at the end have a concentration (by volume) of only 2.8% original coolant. Evan's says that under 5% is acceptable.

Once we've finished I'll update more, or if anything else develops. Again as I said, no change in the way to car runs despite having 85% glycol and 15% water. No hotter, no cooler.

Dubbya~
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
494 Posts
i figure and 85/15 mixture would show some difference, but did you get out on the freeway in stop and go traffic over the weekend with ambient temperatures over 100 degrees? i think that or possibly a top-speed run or some other sort of strenuous driving, where your running temperature would be raised significantly, is where you would see the largest chance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
548 Posts
Adrian,

Did you try using air pressure to remove the old coolant, or just radiator/hose/block plug removal? At $25 a pop it makes the change much harder to justify if we need to refill twice.

Could this upgrade be better suited to a complete engine-out rebuild?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,448 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Originally posted by Aerohead:
[qb]Adrian,

Did you try using air pressure to remove the old coolant, or just radiator/hose/block plug removal? At $25 a pop it makes the change much harder to justify if we need to refill twice.

Could this upgrade be better suited to a complete engine-out rebuild? [/qb][/b]
The upgrade definitely is best suited to those who are completely removing the engine. I'm doing those more as a safety measure. When my last Saab overheated in the Summer several years ago (fan stopped working) it cost quite a bit to have it all pulled apart and have the head re-planed. Because this stuff doesn't boil until 375F (instead of 260F max for standard coolant) it should be less likely to cause the same exorbatently expensive damage should the fan stop working again in 10+ degree heat.

And yes, we tried using air pressure to flush the coolant out. Saab just didn't design the system with a total drain and re-fill in mind.

5 gallons of the stuff will en up costing around $125. I'm hoping that's worth the performance change. If it isn't, then it certainly will be worth the added over-heating barrier in a climate that occasionally goes past 115F.

There are certain other brands of coolant the EVan's can be mixed with for temporary purposes. These include Sierra and Prestone Low-Tox. I'm going down to pick up a gallon of the Sierra and re-flush it today. That should take the percentage of water down to about 4.6%. Unfortunately that will only be good for temporary purposes until I can order more of the stuff.

Anyhow, we shall see how things progress.

Dubbya~
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,448 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Ok after trying and trying to get this coolant to work I've finally given up and switched to a 80%water/20%glycol + water wetter.

The car has had all of the "cold" induction hoses thermally wrapped, and has had ducting placed in the front end of the car to force are over the intercooler. (That's made at least 1-2 psi difference in boost on hot days.) The car is a 2002 Viggen, which uses a strainer after the throttle body (mentioned in another thread here), and it is using the 82C degree thermostat instead of the stock 89C degree. (Another huge performance mod for those using lower octane than ideal.)

Here is my final breakdown between the two coolants, and I believe this may ONLY apply to Trionic 7 ...

Waterless NPG+:

The good: The Waterless coolant DOES resist detonation just as well, possibly better, than water in any ambient temperature. It's nearly impossible to over-heat the car as the boiling point is now 350F degrees.

The Bad: It quickly drops power dramatically once coolant temps get higher. It's a PAIN to flush, and takes 5 gallons of the stuff, and 3 flushes to get an acceptable final flush. It has less thermal mass and thus heats up quicker. After the car has been driven gently, and at higher than 2700 RPM for adequate coolant flow (the coolant is thicker than water) it cools off and gets full power again for maybe 10 seconds.

80/20 gly/water + water wetter:

The good: When just warmed up power is massive. Wheel spin on new Eagle F1's in dry weather on fresh tarmac in 2nd gear ... stock. Power lasts like this for roughly 10-20 minutes. It's also easier to flush as you can flush with distilled water, which is 1/10th the price of NPG+.

The bad: It takes 10-20 minutes of driving to get coolant temps down to where the car makes power again.

Conclusion:

The principle behind NPG+ is scientifically sound, therefore I am suspicious of Trionic. I think that when Trionic sees increase in coolant temps it forces reduced boost irrespective of knock, even if the coolant temps are not "excessive". This is consistent with the data as the relative performance of each coolant, despite HUGELY different conductive properties, changes in exactly the same manner as coolant temps go up to exactly the same point.

Also, I think there is something else wrong with my car. I believe the high MMT concentration may have upset my A/F ratio by messing with the O2 sensors (any time the engine is in closed loop the boost is 5-7 psi less than it should be), or my MAF sensor may be on its way out. In either case, the car, despite cooling modifications, is running worse than it used to at similar ambient temps with similar fuel.

Reccomendations:

I desperately urge others to try this coolant, despite the cost. Here is why ...

For non-trionic, or at least non-trionic 7 Saabs; if your performance increases it will be obvious that Trionic 7 is to blame for the decrease in boost when coolant temps rise. One of the Research and Development guys at Evan's has a Saab 9000 Aero and noticed an increase in performance, so I'm led to believe this is a Trionic 7 issue.

For non-performance/daily driven Saabs; there was no significant decrease in performance for things like quick passing on the highway, or brief accelleration periods in my experience. This coolant will not destroy the block if left out in extremely cold weather, and it is nearly impossible to over-heat because it boils at over 350 degrees F.

It might be ideal for naturally aspirated, or LPT non-trionic cars which are run in very hot climates. Even if the coolant temp exceeds 300F degrees, the damage to the engine should be minimal compared to a conventional coolant. On a Trionic car, the engine will be shut off if it goes beyond the stock over-heating point, so there is no benefit there.

Brief Summary

It's a good idea, and could be made to work, but most cars simply were not designed for it. It's in the same catagory as water injection; a brilliant idea, but one which requires too many modifications to be practical for all but the heavily modified cars.

Dubbya~
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top