Actually Randy, I see it being just the opposite. The thermal coating keeps the hot chamber gases from being transferred to the metal, and ending up out the radiator. That is how one makes the engine more thermal efficient. More heat of combustion is used to push the piston down, and less is used to heat up radiator. Be thankful metal surfaces do not get as hot as the combustion gases do.
I don't agree with your analogy either. Anything that would keep less combustion temps from reaching coolant, means more for generating torque, providing it doesn't melt the combustion chamber walls, or promote detonation causing hot spots.

 

Arnie, I see Stonebreaker saying the same thing you are saying. I took him to mean that thermal coatings keep the combustion hot gasses insulated from the metal. And also keep them from the incomming air fuel such as with intake coatings.
I agree fully with you guys on that point.
Karl

 

I agree, my mistake. For some reason, had combustion chamber gases in mind, and not cold A/F mix.

 

So basically the Evans mix runs the coolant hotter, but only because it's pulling heat out of the motor, Our gauges run off of coolant temp as opposed to the actual temp of the motor........so where should we get our temp from?


would measuring oil temp be better to take the temps from if we were using Evans as it would be at a more constant temp and showing the true temp of the motor?

 

You just have to get used to the gauge reading hotter.

 

Running at these higher coolant temps would also warrant a fuel table change. Especially if you are running a speed density system.

 

I like it and Pat Musi swears by it so just try it and don't make a project out of comparison to water. If it works it works. I think you will be pleased with it.

 

related to this, can someone explain the Pat Musi deal? How can he run an antifreeze at a drag strip when all the sanction tech rules say that you must run 100% water? At least I coulda sworn that I read that in a rule book once.

Karl

 

Think you were reading a road race rule book.

Back on topic If the temp gauge and coolant temp sensor see higher temps, wouldn't you need to tune the ecm accordingly?

David

 

Yes and No. You adjust the fans for water temp and or oil temp to turn them on via programming. The actual cooling itself is more mechanical.

I'm cheating here running a somewhat high compression stroker moter in a C4 and I need all the help I can get in good ol sunny Dallas TX. In winter everything is find and dandy with water temps almost never going over 165.

But in summer on a 100 degree even with a BeCool Radiator, underbody panel for cooling, HD water pump, 160 thermo, etc. it gets dicy with the air on. I'm going to try the Evans stuff to see if it helps.

I just ordered a ram air intake and plan on using it just for added frontal area intake opening to see if that helps first. But Uncle GM wanted the LT cars to run hotter....... and they do.

 

What David had in mind, and what you are apparently forgetting, many of fuel and timing tables are not just affected by IAT, but by varying coolant temps as well.

If coolant temps are elevated with the use of NPG, at any given mode of operation, that becomes the new standard, by which, to adjust mapping in pcm.

 

We have been running the NPG for over a year now. We road race and drag race the car. It's a 396 stroker. To be clear, we have the whole system Evans says to use with a be-cool radiator and dual Spahl fans. On the raod course, it never ran over 200 degrees even pushing it hard. At the strip, we ran a 225 hit on nitrous routinely and would usually run in the 10.40 range. Coolant temps would hardly reach 180. Although giving coolant temps just for comparison, the real key is we found we could use more timing without detonation after switching to the NPG with the same fuel. I find that to be a benefit. Just my $.02

BTW, Karl, I was with Bryan Herter at Atco with you a few weeks ago. Give him a call and get my number if want to know more. Thanks.

Dave

 

Sounds good to me!

 

Not sure if we are talking apples to apples here or communicating very well at all. I thought this was a cooling discussion and not a tuning discussion. Excuse me if I missed something.

If you tune to a consistent water temperature (as you should), you tune to that temperature. Yes, for optimal tuning the tables should be readjusted for hotter and colder temps as the AFR may not be most advantageous at these temps.

Pretty easy to do on a dyno with a wide band checking the AFR at different coolant temps and tweak the tables accordingly. Once you stabilize the AFR you check if the engine likes a consistant AFR for making max power at that temp. Also takes a whole day……and if you really want to do it right, you tune each cylinder by exhaust temp after you have done the before tuning.

I’ve always found on LT series engines that they loose some power at higher engine temps even though you compensate by adjusting your temp enrichment tables. Also I’ve found you can spend a whole bunch of money and not really make enough to justify the time nor expense.

In terms of making power…….. It’s been my experience (which is not to say someone may have figured out something better) that LT engines like to be run hard around 160 degrees and hate higher temps.

Which is the case for Evans if it works as people say. Hey…… anything that helps……. Helps!

Glad to be educated and results debated on this forum. Bright Bunch and I thank everyone for enlightening me.

 

It has to do with what I considered, misleading and/or incomplete info, in your post, regardless of the original topic. OK, in reference to that original topic:

So, you are now discarding your previous findings/experiences?

EDIT 12-29: By that question, I am inferring, you are now abandoning your previous findings, findings you had considered valid, and going in a different direction, by suggesting NPG, with it's higher temps, may be a better alternative. I label that, an 'about face'. Appears as if you are confused and undecided, regardless of your previous testing. That, and/or you were unable to properly evaluate the information, that your testing had amassed.