Antifreeze for US.

[Derek up North]

I came across the following a few days ago:-

> I still have basic green Antifreeze in my 1985 22RE engine.
> I suspect my radiator is the copper brass variety which requires the
> green generic antifreeze type.
 

All Toyhome engines have aluminum alloy cylinder heads.
In 1989 the Toyota manufacturing plants spent extra money
equipping each new Toyota car and truck with a more expensive
borate free antifreeze (genuine Toyota Long Life Red colored antifreeze)
to prevent erosion / widening of the coolant passages in the
cylinder heads that can weaken the seal of the cylinder head
gasket. This new antifreeze also was silicate free to prevent
the buildup of silicate deposits inside the radiator core tubes
that can diminish their heat transfer capability and also partially
obstruct coolant flow. Lastly, Toyota mixed their new antifreeze
with distilled water to prevent calcium carbonate mineral deposits
inside the radiator core tubes that would otherwise form if the
antifreeze was mixed with tap water.

My 'problem' is with the statement "In 1989 the Toyota manufacturing plants spent extra money equipping each new Toyota car and truck with a more expensive
borate free antifreeze (genuine Toyota Long Life Red colored antifreeze) ...". No reference to where the info comes from. IF this is true, why does my 1992 Owners Manual and the 1993 Factory Service Manual simply say to use 'Ethylene-Glycol type'coolant. Not for the 1st time, I've looked online for when Toyota 'Red' was introduced but so far I've found nothing. The closest (but not close enough) is a 2004 TSB about Toyota 'Pink' & 'Red' compatibility.

http://www.toyotaparts.metro-toyota.com/ENGINE_COOLANT_COLOR_CHANGE_T-PG010-02.pdf

I'm not arguing that one/any is better than another for OUR engines (more modern Toyota engines is a different thing with changes in metallurgy and other materials). I just have a 'problem' when I see people saying that you 'should' (rather than 'can') always use Toyota 'Red'. If you 'should' use it, I'd assume that there would be a TSB about it but so far, I don't recall reading anything in the Head Gasket recall calling for use of the Toyota secret potion 'Red' antifreeze either. You'd think Toyota would be pretty sensitive to any potential gain and issue a TSB IF it was warranted

[zero]

Derek . . . I agree with you 100% (I think).  I've been immersed in info-arguments and hype for over 50 years.  That when working as a mechanic, electrician, carpenter, and even as a drug-addiction therapist.

In the realm of mechanics, it's been over things like the need for an additive to unleaded gas to prevent valve-train were, the environmental effects of Ethyl in high-test leaded gas.  Also about the damage done to HD engines in the 60s-80s by using the "new" multiviscosity oils.  Also - more recently it's the "need" for adding lube to ultra-low diesel fuel for older diesels, the "need" for adding ZDDP to engine oil for older rigs for proper metal-wear protection.  Also petro oil versus so-called "synthetic oil" even though most of the latter IS 100% petro based.  

When it comes to coolants in autos, trucks, tractors, etc.?  It's been a visible issue that I've been cognizant of since 1961 when GM came out with their pretty-neat, all aluminum V8.  It was a fantastic little engine but GM had to drop it (according to them) since engines got ruined pretty quick by owners not using the proper coolant.  Alcoa aluminum corrosion was the big factor.  So GM sold the engine to the Brits and they did just fine with it for many years - in MGs, Rovers, etc.

I kind of miss the days when there was NO Internet and not so many goofy blogs and Webplaces where rumours and mis-facts turn into virtual gospel.

Here's my take on coolants.   There has never been an "off the shelf" coolant that was so incompatible with others - it would "turn to sludge" or lose all its anti-corrosion properties.  So in that respect - they are all compatible.  Certain engines have certain needs if someone wants them to last a long time.  Same with radiators.  Radiators can be a separate argument with copper versus aluminum and that has its own share of BS. NOTE - "solder bloom" is a killer of copper radiators and does NOT occur in aluminum.  Both have their pros and cons.

We had a real hard time with corrosion in HD engines starting in the 70s.  More in diesels, but gas engines too.  Why?  More power per pound of engine with a push to make engines lighter.  Thinner cylinder walls with more powerful explosions pushing on the pistons lead to cylinder-wall cavitation, big time.  So, coolants get a special additive to "preserve" corrosion and stabilize it as a fix. NOTE - that is my layman's explanation.  Corrosion can be a protective coating on parts that protects them once formed and stable.  If it is constantly removed, and reformed, it eats things up.

[Back East Don]

A topic near and dear to my heart.  Timely too as I have two vehicles that I need to deal with.  It is at least time for if not overdue for my Toyota and I have a Jeep Cherokee that are known to have rust issues once the mileage gets up there.  The Jeep I've flushed and flushed and still have rust issues.  I continue to do it every year.  The only tool I have thus far for this is to again flush it but this time I intend to not use tap water and to instead try distilled.  Some on the Jeep forums have indicated some improvement.  I've already replaced the radiator and pump in it along with all the hoses.  Only thing left is the block and heater core.

These discussions along with the intractable problems I am having with the Jeep leaves me with more questions and no idea which direction to go.  Indeed there is tons of information out there on the web and much of it contradictory.  I've used the Toyota red after replacing my water pump in the 05 Corolla.  Pulling the pump and seeing the steel impeller of the pump look like new after 100k mile kind of convinced me to spend the extra.  The red I took out looked like the red I put in.  After another 76k miles, it still looked new.  The Corolla however is an all aluminum system.  The Jeep is mixed with a new aluminum radiator and my Toyota has a copper radiator.  The Jeep is quickly approaching 200k and flushing once a year is the least of my worries as I'll likely be replacing it the near term (Maybe next year).  Hard to beat the old Cherokee wagons for use as an over sand fishing buggy though so I might get another one if I can find one in better shape.

So great topic that has gotten lots of talk but is there a consensus?

[Derek up North]

6 minutes ago, Back East Don said:

...  but is there a consensus?

Not something I'm optimistic to hope for. I'm just hoping that one of the 'Red' proponents can come up with a TSB (or anything else official from Toyota) .

[Back East Don]

3 minutes ago, Derek up North said:

Not something I'm optimistic to hope for. I'm just hoping that one of the 'Red' proponents can come up with a TSB (or anything else official from Toyota) .

In the case of the Corolla, a TSB would only be issued to address some problem.  I think what you are talking about is the manual and supplemental maintenance guide. Which states: Look at the see-through coolant reservoir when the engine is cold. The coolant level is satisfactory if it is between the “FULL” and “LOW” lines on the reservoir. If the level is low, add the coolant. For coolant type, see below.

Use of improper coolants may damage your engine cooling system.

Only use "Toyota Super Long Life Coolant" or similar high quality ethylene glycol based non-silicate, non-amine, non-nitrite, and non-borate coolant with long-life hybrid organic acid technology. (Coolant with long-life hybrid organic acid technology is a combination of low phosphates and organic acids.)

 

For the U.S.A.- “Toyota Super Long Life Coolant” is a mixture of 50% coolant and 50% deionized water. This coolant provides protection down to about -35C (-31F).

 

For Canada- “Toyota Super Long Life Coolant” is a mixture of 55% coolant and 45% deionized water. This coolant provides protection down to about -42C (-44F).

The chemistry from the bottle of Prestone didn't give me any clear indication that these requirements were met other than the statement of compatibility.  Wasn't reassuring enough for my liking to not spend the extra.  Don't know if that makes me a proponent.  I'd rather think we are in the same boat when trying to figure these things out and especially as to how they pertain to older vehicles.  Just put me squarely in the I don't know camp. 

[zero]

30 minutes ago, Back East Don said:

 

So great topic that has gotten lots of talk but is there a consensus?

I bet there is (or was) a consensus on prior Jeep Wagoneer owners with Hurricane Six motors that they were awful. One of the most agreed upon topics I can think of.

On the subject of coolant? It appears to me there is NO conflicting info when you look at actual test data.   I'd call that a general consensus at least inside the world of automotive tech. Not so much in the laymen's world - especially with the Internet and WWW involved.

[zero]

3 minutes ago, Back East Don said:

 

"Only use "Toyota Super Long Life Coolant" or similar high quality ethylene glycol based non-silicate, non-amine, non-nitrite, and non-borate coolant with long-life hybrid organic acid technology. "

Auto companies have an agenda other then just caring about us (the consumers). If they really cared, GM would pay back the billions is soaked us for during the bail-out.

If Toyota, et. al. could get us to never drive over 30 MPH, and have oil and coolant diagnostic tests done every 6 months, and only have authorized dealerships do any work on our rigs - they would do it.  GM started to try something like that and the Feds jump on them for it.  So, it has not happened yet.  Since companies cannot sell many cars with such restrictions - they "strongly suggest" many things. I admit, I am NOT up to what Toyota today actually REQUIRES in order for a warranty to be valid.  BIG difference between "this is best" or . . "all warranty VOID if you do not follow our rules."

I know that there have been controlled study done on corrosion with engines using the most modern non-ferrous alloys and none have self-destructed with any modern coolant (added to water).  

[Derek up North]

16 minutes ago, Back East Don said:

Only use "Toyota Super Long Life Coolant" or similar high quality ethylene glycol based non-silicate, non-amine, non-nitrite, and non-borate coolant with long-life hybrid organic acid technology. (Coolant with long-life hybrid organic acid technology is a combination of low phosphates and organic acids.)

Well there's certainly nothing like that in the '92 Manual(s). I'm hoping someone will turn up a TSB.

[jjrbus]

I drove myself to distraction trying to figure out which to use and went with the owners manual! 

In my search I came across a highly rated mechanic who talked about putting green antifreeze in an old Toyota with like 190,000 miles on it (sorry don't remember all the details)  and within a month the radiator sprung a leak.  He was convinced it was the green coolant that destroyed the radiator And was on the only use Toyota red or suffer the consequences bandwagon!    

[zero]

6 minutes ago, jjrbus said:

I drove myself to distraction trying to figure out which to use and went with the owners manual! 

In my search I came across a highly rated mechanic who talked about putting green antifreeze in an old Toyota with like 190,000 miles on it (sorry don't remember all the details)  and within a month the radiator sprung a leak.  He was convinced it was the green coolant that destroyed the radiator And was on the only use Toyota red or suffer the consequences bandwagon!    

Highly rated by who?  People who nothing about their cars and bring them to him?  I wonder what he was smoking or drinking or shooting or licking?  Sounds like the old "Cargo Cult" style of reasoning to me (a common anthropological term for silly cause-and-effect reasoning).

[Back East Don]

1 hour ago, Derek up North said:

Well there's certainly nothing like that in the '92 Manual(s). I'm hoping someone will turn up a TSB.

In what regard?  A TSB would only be issued if there was a change in the recommended parts or service procedure. Or is that your point?  I'm not advocating anything, just asking questions.  Any suggested service method from the manual would remain valid in the absence of a revision.

 

1 hour ago, jdemaris said:

Auto companies have an agenda other then just caring about us (the consumers).

Altruism is seldom written into the articles of incorporation.  You are also correct that automakers do their best to lock consumers into service.  That said though, a great deal of effort and engineering has gone into maximizing the time between service intervals.  The biggest factor driving this is consumer economics and expectations.  In an effort to set itself apart from domestic brands, companies like Toyota and Honda have always touted lower cost of ownership often to offset the higher vehicle cost.  Their main argument is service costs.  While parts cost are relatively stable, labor and operating costs are not.  It is often the largest part of most service bills. Competition in the marketplace is pro consumer and is what drove things like long life anti freeze.

None of this is relevant to older vehicles and toyota has marginal interest at best in them.  Manufacturers are fine with ending support and letting the aftermarket take over.  That leaves us to figure out if any newer tech is beneficial to our older vehicles.  One area where material science has greatly improved over what was available between 1970's and 1990 are brake pads.  Here I'd rather avail myself of a higher wear product for the marginal difference in price or does someone think an 87 oem would be a better choice?

Edited July 24, 2016 by Back East Don

[Derek up North]

11 minutes ago, Back East Don said:

In what regard?  A TSB would only be issued if there was a change in the recommended parts or service procedure. Or is that your point?  I'm not advocating anything, just asking questions.  Any suggested service method from the manual would remain valid in the absence of a revision.

That's exactly my point (I think). People see that Toyota recommends only 'Red' be used in later vehicles (as in your '05 Corolla) and interpret that to think that suddenly ALL Toyotas need to use it. I'm saying that if Toyota thought the ALL Toyotas should use it, they'd have issued a TSB. If there is a TSB, I'd like to know so that I can make an informed decision not based on something written by an authority on Monarch butterflies.

[jjrbus]

8 minutes ago, jdemaris said:

Highly rated by who?  People who nothing about their cars and bring them to him?  I wonder what he was smoking or drinking or shooting or licking?  Sounds like the old "Cargo Cult" style of reasoning to me (a common anthropological term for silly cause-and-effect reasoning).

I don't know who rated him, his Mom?  

I sometimes wonder if people post these things to see if anyone will believe it or call them on their BS.    Back at the ranch he is rolling on the floor laughing at the responses.  Jim

[Back East Don]

4 minutes ago, Derek up North said:

That's exactly my point (I think).

 

14 minutes ago, Back East Don said:

That leaves us to figure out if any newer tech is beneficial to our older vehicles

I'd like to point out that we are likely to be in vehement agreement.  My system is still original and seemingly in good condition.  I cannot find any definitive way of figuring out either if the red is harmful or beneficial or at least a position on this I can get behind.  I have plenty of red leftover as I miscalculated on the Corolla water pump repair. Hence the thought.  Wonder if I could give it to someone as the RV is the only Toyota left in the family fleet where there once were many.  The Camry, Corolla, Tacoma and Landcruiser are now gone and the wife loves her CRV to the point where we just priced out another one as she's hit 100k in 3 years.  Also trying to decide if I would purchase a 100k miles CRV for 15k meaning that is what the dealer is offering on the trade.  Should I keep it for myself or just let it go in the trade?  Decisions a many to be made.  None the wiser or the better it seems in the antifreeze saga.

[Derek up North]

Of course, being 'thrifty', it'll probably take more than a framed TSB to convince me to switch to 'Red'.

https://www.amazon.ca/Toyota-Genuine-Fluid-00272-1LLAC-01-Coolant/dp/B004SL84Z0

But I would like to be able to correctly inform the 'rich folks'.

[Back East Don]

16 minutes ago, Derek up North said:

But I would like to be able to correctly inform the 'rich folks'

I paid half that at the Toyota dealer US.  And no GST.  If it helps ease the pain, I'm Canadian by heritage but not by birth.  Parents moved from New Brunswick then had me.  We used to get the Rich American comment when I was younger and visited.  Now I get that when we go to Korea.  I guess that means I must be rich.

[zero]

1 hour ago, Back East Don said:

One area where material science has greatly improved over what was available between 1970's and 1990 are brake pads.  Here I'd rather avail myself of a higher wear product for the marginal difference in price or does someone think an 87 oem would be a better choice?

I haven't noticed much difference from brakes from 70s as compared to now -as long was we are comparing "apples to apples."  In fact, many new pads went down in quality when asbestos first got dropped.  In the 70s - you could pick a non-metallic brake so it would wear a lot faster then the brake rotors.  Same with clutch linings.  If the pads or disks got changed in time, often no metals had to be resurfaced or replaced.   Such brake though suffer from "glazing" under heavy use.  We also had long-wearing metallic brakes in the 70s, just as now - as well as clutch disks.  They lasted a long time but when replacement was needed, metal parts would often have severe wear. In fact, I saw many rotors and flywheels that had to be thrown out and could not be resurfaced.

As I understand it - Toyota used either organic, or semi-metallic brake pads in most trucks. Our originals were asbestos based.  Now - besides the choice of organic, semi-metallic, or metallic, we can also choose ceramic and maybe a few other things.  No real gain I can perceive for a Toyota RV.  We always wind up "robbing Peter to pay Paul" in some way.   Get long wearing pads and maybe need new rotors later, or get organic brakes and maybe never need rotors if the pads are changed in time.

I use semi-metallic in my Toyota. I do not want to risk heavy use fade from heat.   It is a trade-off.  Semi-metallics wear well but don't wear out rotors super fast.  The pads themselves also tend to grip better when wet. One down-side is they transmit heat a little better then some organic materials - so that heat is quickly conducted to the brake pistons.  That is why some heavy vehicles had to go to plastic pistons when more metallic brake materials were used.  Plastic (technically Phenolic) insulates the brake fluid in the caliper from the hot brake pads.  Ford had a huge sort-of recall over this in F250 and F350 trucks and changed to plastic because brake fluid was boiling when the brakes got used hard. Fade can be from hot brake materials themselves losing friction, or from boiling brake fluid.  Neither is fun.

[Back East Don]

3 minutes ago, jdemaris said:

I haven't noticed much difference from brakes from 70s as compared to now

 

4 minutes ago, jdemaris said:

Get long wearing pads and maybe need new rotors later, or get organic brakes and maybe never need rotors if the pads are changed in time.

In many ways this makes much of my point except that service interval and its cost is left out of the equation.  I get that you do your work yourself and don't apply market value to it.  The cost of either replacing the pad or rotor or both is often a fraction of the overall cost of service when having it done.  The only exception to that is a shop that marks up the parts higher to mask the high cost of labor or to gain higher profits.  So the question becomes, is a longer wearing pad a benefit if a longer service interval is gained for someone paying retail for service?  Please note I am not unaware of the other issues like fade.  My driving is pretty normal and not too demanding.  If I had the case where I would be often traveling down hilly terrain, function over wear would prevail at a cost of a shortened service interval.

[zero]

9 minutes ago, Back East Don said:

 

 The cost of either replacing the pad or rotor or both is often a fraction of the overall cost of service when having it done. 

I agree, but often it shouldn't be.  It can be a half-hour job at most to put new pads in a car or truck if nothing else has to be changed.   Takes a lot more work when we're talking changing rotors on some rigs, and/or calipers, etc.   Resurfacing rotors and drums is also required at some shops even though it often is unnecessary.  I changed brake pads like I change oil.  X amount of miles and I look at them. If worn down 2/3s, I just pop in new ones. 

It used to be that all cars and trucks had drum brakes and it was an awful job to fix. Never anything "quick" about it.  With disk brakes - it got much easier to just swap in new pads before too worn.

This discussion makes me think of Midas Muffler when they were around (not here anymore).  They offered "lifetime" brakes and mufflers.   The catch was -only the pads were covered.  So they would install very long wearing pads and hope you'd die or sell the car before they wore out.  When they DID wear out - they'd put in new pads but also sell you a major repair job needing new rotors and likely more.

I don't think I proved your point though.  In the 70s, there were very durable brake materials if someone wanted them. Also fast wearing brakes. I know the disk brakes on my 2001 Dodge Grand Caravan wear just as long (or short) as they did on my 1976 Chevette. I think that Chevette was one of my first cars that had disks in front instead of drums.

[zero]

By the way - not exactly the same subject, but kind of related.  In the 90s, John Deere started to retrofit "super high tech" clutches in older tractors and it was a total disaster.  The old, full face, semi-metallic disks from the 60s and 70s had a very long service life.  When they did need work - flywheels and pressure-plates could often be re-used.  When Deere changed to ceramic button clutches - they would grind their way into the flywheel until it was almost gone.  We're talking flywheels that often cost over $1000.   

Same sort of issue came up with new brake materials. Especially in certain tractors that used a machined surface on the transmission case for braking.  It ended up with several completely ruined transmission cases with the new materials.

Back to Toyotas - I don't think anything has changed from the 70s to now when it comes to brake replacement options except two things.  #1 - no more asbestos.  #2 - parts are ultra cheap thanks to China.

[Back East Don]

2 minutes ago, jdemaris said:

I don't think I proved your point though.

I'm Ok with this given the subjective nature of much of this.

2 minutes ago, jdemaris said:

I know the disk brakes on my 2001 Dodge Grand Caravan wear just as long (or short) as they did on my 1976 Chevette.

Beware the apple and oranges comparisons.  The Caravan is a heavy girl and it is often said the brakes are a tad undersized.  Fleet manager liked the service history of this vehicle but said they ate through brakes.  I use a couple for service and keep an eye on them even though the newer ones are supposed to be heavier with the C/V Cargo version.

[zero]

It would be easier if engineering was linear, so a vehicle twice as big got brakes twice as big. I know it does not really work like that.   I don't own any vehicles where I notice anything "special" when it comes to brake issues or longevity except maybe my diesel Ford F250. It is well known for cracking front rotors and mine needs them so far - every 30K-40K.  I just put new pads in it as routine maintenance and was surprised to find both front rotors cracked (it was working fine).  The only  vehicles I've owned with disk brakes that wore fast in recent history - were my Subarus. No matter if a Justy, a Loyale wagon, or a newer Impreza.  All had tiny little brake pads that wore very fast. MUCH faster then on either of my Grand Caravans.  My 98 AWD has drums in back, whereas my 2001  FWD has disks all around.

[Derek up North]

So, anyone want to start a fresh thread to discuss brakes and clutches on various makes other than Toyotas??

[zero]

4 minutes ago, Derek up North said:

So, anyone want to start a fresh thread to discuss brakes and clutches on various makes other than Toyotas??

Is that a hint that we are to discuss brakes on Toyotas only?

I'll say this. I am very impressed with the brakes on my 1988 Toyota.  After last week, driving all over the UP with six people and a dog inside and many hard and long braking cycles coming down some steep hills. Not a hint of fade or glaze or fade. I did get some pulsation from the pedal when the brakes were good and hot. I assume the rotors get a little warped when overheated.

[Derek up North]

No, it's an obviously too subtle hint that this is a tread about Toyota Red antifreeze.

[Back East Don]

24 minutes ago, Derek up North said:

No, it's an obviously too subtle hint that this is a tread about Toyota Red antifreeze.

And the all too subtle point is made about new tech in old vehicles which fundamentally is the argument.  Exactly about toyota red, perhaps and only kind of.  Did I mention I've got a few gallons in the shed and don't know what to do with it.

From Toyota:

This special pink formula provides maximum protection without the use of harmful silicates. It’s extremely durable and was developed specifically to meet the requirements of your Toyota’s engine.

• Compatibility with non-metallic materials helps it extend the life of water pump seals
• Won’t corrode aluminum surfaces like coolants that contain borate
• Won’t clog radiators due to silicone "gelling"
• Pre-diluted 50/50
• Compatible with Toyota red Long Life Antifreeze/Coolant

[zero]

I'm kind of a dim-bulb when it comes to others being droll.

[WME]

I always used Toy red in all my Toys and even in my Hot Rod, aluminum heads, iron block. I think is the most idiot proof  coolant there is for mixed metal engines. After reading the MSDS and a lot of other stuff, there other AF with the same formula.

Old fashion green is OK IF you keep up with it and change it as required. It does not tolerate abuse very well.

Edited July 25, 2016 by WME

[Jaunt]

just don't mix them, I just use Toyota red on all my vehicles (because I have a bunch stocked up) and you can never lose with OEM fluids, but if you have a proper green in there you won't have any problems.

Edited July 25, 2016 by Jaunt

[jjrbus]

9 hours ago, Jaunt said:

just don't mix them, I just use Toyota red on all my vehicles (because I have a bunch stocked up) and you can never lose with OEM fluids, but if you have a proper green in there you won't have any problems.

For clarity Toyota red is not the OE fluid in our Toy's.  As near as I can figure the red was not even available  when our vehicles were built.  Would I use it if I had it stockpiled, yes.   Jim

[Back East Don]

9 minutes ago, jjrbus said:

As near as I can figure the red was not even available  when our vehicles were built.

Seems to me there are two distinct camps on this.  The hey this is new, can I use it camp and the hey, this wasn't made for my vehicle camp.  I get it.  Green has been around for a long time and has a proven track record.  Also on the road if you run into trouble, it is also very common and I can get it almost anywhere.  Down side is you have to flush the system every 3 years.  The appeal to me with the red and perhaps I may have mentioned this is the long service interval.  For the mileage I put on mine, red would be a lifetime fluid change (or at least that is my hope, reality might vary).  Short term savings or long term, either of cost or time or both.  My business is all labor.  Time is money is how I look at it especially for a job like flushing out the cooling system and not being an environmental hazard doing it.  Good news is the towns transfer station takes antifreeze. 

I doubt any minds have been changed here but I at least learned some have used red and haven't been plagued by disaster.  The value of this place is the different perspectives and to even a limited extent, from people you have at least a casual familiarity with as opposed to a blog or forum post from someone you've never had any interaction with. 

Since this post started, I've renewed my interest in purchasing another RV that is going to need a lot mechanically.  Might save the red for that as I'll have the motor torn out of it and while I'm at that, might consider having a shop custom a heavy duty radiator.   Green would last the two or 3 years I intend to be working on my Itasca's replacement.  I'm probably getting ahead of myself.

[Derek up North]

I'm in the 'thrifty' camp. I don't argue that 'Red' (maybe) is better. I'd just like to read what Toyota has to say about it (though probably biassed) WRT our engines.

I'd also like to read their comments on compatibility. I see no clear warnings on their container labels. "If flushing is needed:"

[Now there's a brilliant idea to boost sales. Flush using $80/gallon coolant and not water (distilled or not)]

"For vehicles filled with Super Long Life Antifreeze/Coolant at the plant, it is highly recommended that Super Long Life Antifreeze/Coolant be used for maintenance."

So they can't even bring themselves to 'highly recommend' it for ours that weren't factory filled with it.

[zero]

I am still amazed at how much coolant gets sold in 50/50 mix.   At least with the stuff I buy locally, a gallon of 50/50 is near the same price as a gallon of 100% strength.  What amazes me is how lazy some people are - they will pay twice the price to avoid mixing their own.  I don't know if works the same way with the new stuff since I'll never -ever - buy any.

[jjrbus]

27 minutes ago, jdemaris said:

I am still amazed at how much coolant gets sold in 50/50 mix.   At least with the stuff I buy locally, a gallon of 50/50 is near the same price as a gallon of 100% strength.  What amazes me is how lazy some people are - they will pay twice the price to avoid mixing their own.  I don't know if works the same way with the new stuff since I'll never -ever - buy any.

I am with you on that one, the I just paid $8.00 for a 1/2 gallon of distilled water mentality eludes me. Maybe if you are a forum owner and money is not object or if living in a condo.  Then there is the people filling up the same car I have with premium gas, after 3,999, 271 studies have proven it is not worth the extra money.

[Derek up North]

58 minutes ago, jdemaris said:

I am still amazed at how much coolant gets sold in 50/50 mix. 

Some just have a hard time with advanced math.