 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / GMC Cars / February 2006Is dexcool nessesary?
My owners manual recommends dexcool. I would rather use regular antifreeze and change it more often. Do I have to use this stuff? Remove dashes "-----------" to e-mail. delik2-------------@shaw.ca No, but if you change from dexcool to the green stuff, you need to completely flush everything, you CANNOT mix red and green, dont know why thats what the dealer said. I had an engine replaced in my car in december and the pontiac dealer put green in it. > My owners manual recommends dexcool. I would rather use regular > antifreeze and change it more often. Do I have to use this stuff? > > Remove dashes "-----------" to e-mail. > > delik2-------------@shaw.ca >My owners manual recommends dexcool. I would rather use regular >antifreeze and change it more often. Do I have to use this stuff? > >Remove dashes "-----------" to e-mail. > >delik2-------------@shaw.ca No > My owners manual recommends dexcool. I would rather use regular > antifreeze and change it more often. Do I have to use this stuff? It's what is designed for your car. Do you know for certain that using a different type of coolant will not cause cavitation damage to the engine block, cylinder heads or other critical components? > > My owners manual recommends dexcool. I would rather use regular > > antifreeze and change it more often. Do I have to use this stuff? > > It's what is designed for your car. More horseshit...It was not 'designed for your car'. It was perhaps spec'ed for your car, but there is little difference between it and the 'green stuff', except for the composition of the corrosion inhibitor package. The glycol base is pretty much universal. Here is where you hit a snag...read your warranty carefully. If you are within warranty, and you find that Dexcool is required for you to maintain warranty, maybe you want to use the crap. If warranty is not an issue, maybe you don't.. It does NOT attack gaskets. That is total BS. The gaskets on certain GM models were crap in themselves.¨ They didn't need to be attacked. They gave up on their own. It is not the best corrosion inhibitive package in the world. The hybrid is better. > > > My owners manual recommends dexcool. I would rather use regular > > > antifreeze and change it more often. Do I have to use this stuff? > > > > It's what is designed for your car. > > More horseshit...It was not 'designed for your car'. Semantics. > It was perhaps spec'ed for your car, but there is little difference between > it > and the 'green stuff', except for the composition of the corrosion inhibitor > package. The glycol base is pretty much universal. Naturally, the corrosion inhibitor package is the least important reason to use it, right. Color is -so- much more important. > Here is where you hit a snag...read your warranty carefully. No snag. No GM vehicles. No GM warranty to read. > If you are > within warranty, and you find that Dexcool is required for you to maintain > warranty, maybe you want to use the crap. That's correct. > If warranty is not an issue, maybe you don't.. And the reasons for second guessing the engineers who designed the vehicle are? > It does NOT attack gaskets. > That is total BS. Where is this thread did I ever suggest such? > The gaskets on certain GM models were crap in > themselves.¨ You don't need to tell me this, I work on them every day. > They didn't need to be attacked. They gave up on their own. Indeed. > It is not the best corrosion inhibitive package in the world. The hybrid is > better. "But there is little difference between it and the green stuff." "aarcuda69062" <nonelson@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:nonelson- > And the reasons for second guessing the engineers who designed > the vehicle are? Engineers a.ses... The vehicle design has little to do with the corrosion inhibitor packages. Engineers are not worth a sh.t as chemists anyway. Dexcool was a bit of a mistake. > > It does NOT attack gaskets. > > That is total BS. > > Where is this thread did I ever suggest such? Whoever suggested you did?? > > The gaskets on certain GM models were crap in > > themselves.¨ [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > "But there is little difference between it and the green stuff." That isn't exactly what I said. The green stuff and the orange stuff are both glycol based coolants. The corrosion inhibitor package is somewhat different. The Dexcool was an attempt at a low silicate package based on organic acid inhibitors. It wasn't very good, some say. The hybrid package replaced some of the silicate that was removed in Dexcool. Some say it is better. The older green crap was the same coolant, basically, with a time tested corrosion inhibitor formula. It had its weaknesses too. > "aarcuda69062" <nonelson@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:nonelson- > > And the reasons for second guessing the engineers who designed > > the vehicle are? > > Engineers a.ses... Chemists have a.ses, should we second guess them also? How about MDs, should we second guess hem because they have a.ses? What about the guy dealing Black Jack at the Potawatomi Bingo Casino, he has an a.s, should we second guess him also? Should we just second guess every one and every thing? (it would be a whole lot easier) > The vehicle design has little to do with the corrosion > inhibitor packages. Riiiight. > Engineers are not worth a sh.t as chemists anyway. Thanks for sharing that. > Dexcool was a bit of a mistake. Because? (looking for reasons other than that it isn't a product of your former employer) > > > It does NOT attack gaskets. > > > That is total BS. > > > > Where is this thread did I ever suggest such? > > Whoever suggested you did?? You did when you made it a part of [your] reply to one of my posts. > > > The gaskets on certain GM models were crap in > > > themselves.¨ [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > That isn't exactly what I said. Actually, it is. > The green stuff and the orange stuff are > both glycol based coolants. The corrosion inhibitor package is somewhat > different. Well, there you go. There must be a reason that they wanted a different corrosion inhibitor package. > The Dexcool was an attempt at a low silicate package based on > organic acid inhibitors. It wasn't very good, some say. The hybrid package > replaced some of the silicate that was removed in Dexcool. Some say it > is better. It very well may be. I haven't had a single heart attack since I switched my 95 Dakota over to G-05. > The older green crap was the same coolant, basically, with a time tested > corrosion inhibitor formula. It had its weaknesses too. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Exactly. Well then what's with the stuff that's supposed to mix with ANY color anti-freeze, which is made by one of the major anti-freeze mfgrs--maybe Prestone? Can't you just use that and forget about Dex-cool vs. green? And how much different could those two have been in the first place--since they later came out with something which was compatible with either one? > Well then what's with the stuff that's supposed to mix with ANY color > anti-freeze, which is made by one of the major anti-freeze mfgrs--maybe [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > place--since they later came out with something which was compatible > with either one? Fluid manufacturers make enormous claims about the suitability of their products. One can rarely go wrong by following the OEMs specifications when choosing which fluid to use. That said, if one wanted to use a coolant other than DexCool, I'd go with G-05 and avoid the 'fits all brands' types. > Fluid manufacturers make enormous claims about the suitability of > their products. Precisely - including GM with respect to DexCool. > One can rarely go wrong by following the OEMs specifications when > choosing which fluid to use. True - to a point. > That said, if one wanted to use a coolant other than DexCool, I'd > go with G-05 and avoid the 'fits all brands' types. I believe the problem with DexCool is that the intent of switching to it was to extend the maintenance free life of the cooling system. Hopefully, owners would no longer have to monitor and change coolant at frequent intervals. Hopefully, that component of the car could go for 100,000 miles with no attention. Isn't that what consumers clamor for? Sure as hell is - just look at all of the babble here about extending warranties and building cars that "don't break" for 100,000 miles. Where it all goes to hell is that the product (DexCool) does not deliver everything that the consumer was lead to believe was promised by it. It does not last for 100,000 miles with no attention. There are issues with it crudding up that are not a result of other engine issues. But even those issues still provide an improvement over the maintenance schedules of old. Today, people want to get in and drive. When required to actually look at something and possibly show it a little attention, they complain. The product proves not to allow the consumer to be as brain dead as they'd like to be and holy horror! Sure - there are issues with DexCool. GM probably should revise their stand on DexCool a bit, but they're in this game as much to sell more DexCool as they are to sell more cars. Oh holy horror again! The consumer may have to fork out >$100 for a complete flush and refill somewhere near 100,000 miles. Damn! I don't believe that DexCool offers anything over today's green coolants in terms of better protection. I don't believe it offers any less of a requirement for a watchful eye, but such are the realities of owning a car. I don't buy the line that it was designed for the car and the engineers know best. Green is as good as orange and the owner will *not* suffer any negative effects on the car (not talking warranty issues here) by using green from day one. It's coolant for the love of Pete. Use what you will and keep an eye on it.  Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > Sure - there are issues with DexCool. GM probably should revise their stand > on DexCool a bit, but they're in this game as much to sell more DexCool as > they are to sell more cars. GM doesn't manufacture DexCool, Texaco does. They'd make the same amount on sales no matter what coolant they specified. > Oh holy horror again! The consumer may have to > fork out >$100 for a complete flush and refill somewhere near 100,000 miles. > Damn! Or, he may have to purchase an expensive engine component that otherwise wouldn't have failed had it not been for the type of additive package in the specified coolant. There's a whole lot more to it than how often it needs to be changed. Cavitation damage due to the use of the wrong coolant can and has been marked in hours. > I don't believe that DexCool offers anything over today's green coolants in > terms of better protection. You should probably study up more on the causes of damage due to cavitation in the cooling system. Applying what the layman knows about what is a real and serious problem is disingenuous at best. > I don't believe it offers any less of a > requirement for a watchful eye, but such are the realities of owning a car. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > green from day one. It's coolant for the love of Pete. Use what you will > and keep an eye on it. Simplistic view noted... > > Sure - there are issues with DexCool. GM probably should revise their stand > > on DexCool a bit, but they're in this game as much to sell more DexCool as > > they are to sell more cars. > > GM doesn't manufacture DexCool, Texaco does. They'd make the > same amount on sales no matter what coolant they specified. Ok - I'll stand corrected on that with the exception that they do sell it and it's a profit point for them. > > Oh holy horror again! The consumer may have to > > fork out >$100 for a complete flush and refill somewhere near 100,000 miles. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > changed. Cavitation damage due to the use of the wrong coolant > can and has been marked in hours. What are you saying? Are you saying that DexCool offers better protection against cavitation? I hope not because DexCool lacks the nitrates and phosphates which provide quick layering to minimize the effects of cavitation. Having said that, though cavitation exists in all motors and DexCool has been shown in at least some studies to offer less protection than standard green used in America, literally tens of thousands - hundreds of thousands of cars are surviving quite well on DexCool. It does become more problematic than green is the level is allowed to drop, but that's a maintenance issue and is what I was talking about in my post. > > I don't believe that DexCool offers anything over today's green coolants in > > terms of better protection. > > You should probably study up more on the causes of damage due to > cavitation in the cooling system. Applying what the layman knows > about what is a real and serious problem is disingenuous at best. I think you need to review those facts. > > I don't believe it offers any less of a > > requirement for a watchful eye, but such are the realities of owning a car. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Simplistic view noted... Uninformed view also noted. You really need to *read* what is published on this great debate. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > > > Sure - there are issues with DexCool. GM probably should revise their > stand [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Ok - I'll stand corrected on that with the exception that they do sell it > and it's a profit point for them. Which part of "They'd make the same amount on sales no matter what coolant they specified." confuses you? > > > Oh holy horror again! The consumer may have to > > > fork out >$100 for a complete flush and refill somewhere near 100,000 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > What are you saying? Are you saying that DexCool offers better protection > against cavitation? Better than most generic green coolants, not as good as most (all) of the extreme service coolants, but then the issue -is- Dex versus 'green' isn't it? > I hope not because DexCool lacks the nitrates and > phosphates which provide quick layering to minimize the effects of > cavitation. Nitrates and phosphates aren't the only additives that protect against cavitation. > Having said that, though cavitation exists in all motors and > DexCool has been shown in at least some studies to offer less protection > than standard green used in America, It's also been shown that it (DexCool) varies by batch. > literally tens of thousands - hundreds > of thousands of cars are surviving quite well on DexCool. Exactly! > It does become > more problematic than green is the level is allowed to drop, but that's a > maintenance issue and is what I was talking about in my post. Then we agree. > > > I don't believe that DexCool offers anything over today's green coolants > in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I think you need to review those facts. I have, numerous times over the years since DexCool has been introduced. The bottom line is; follow the instructions until those instructions are revised. > > > I don't believe it offers any less of a > > > requirement for a watchful eye, but such are the realities of owning a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Uninformed view also noted. You really need to *read* what is published on > this great debate. Oh, I have. > > > > Sure - there are issues with DexCool. GM probably should revise their > > stand [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Which part of "They'd make the same amount on sales no matter > what coolant they specified." confuses you? What the hell does that have to do with what I said, or are you just trying to be argumentative? > > > > Oh holy horror again! The consumer may have to > > > > fork out >$100 for a complete flush and refill somewhere near 100,000 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > (all) of the extreme service coolants, but then the issue -is- > Dex versus 'green' isn't it? Then why argue with my point above if that's what you believe? The trueth about DecCool is that it does not protect against cavitation as well as nitrates and phosephates. They protect much sooner - within a fraction of the mileage of DexCool. Not to say that DexCool offers substandard protection though. Even Ford Motor Company's own study stated that for the consumer the difference is not all that noteworthy if proper maintenance is practiced. > > I hope not because DexCool lacks the nitrates and > > phosphates which provide quick layering to minimize the effects of > > cavitation. > > Nitrates and phosphates aren't the only additives that protect > against cavitation. But they are the better when compared to DexCool. > > Having said that, though cavitation exists in all motors and > > DexCool has been shown in at least some studies to offer less protection > > than standard green used in America, > > It's also been shown that it (DexCool) varies by batch. Meaning??? > > literally tens of thousands - hundreds > > of thousands of cars are surviving quite well on DexCool. > > Exactly! A point which is completely consistent with my original post - that you took exception with. > > It does become > > more problematic than green is the level is allowed to drop, but that's a > > maintenance issue and is what I was talking about in my post. > > Then we agree. I believe we do, but you may have misunderstood my original post. > > > > I don't believe that DexCool offers anything over today's green coolants > > in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The bottom line is; follow the instructions until those > instructions are revised. As I stated in my original post - pretty much. I'm not sure why there appears to be a disagreement here. It seems we are both saying the same thing, but somehow this got off track. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > > > > GM doesn't manufacture DexCool, Texaco does. They'd make the > > > > same amount on sales no matter what coolant they specified. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > What the hell does that have to do with what I said, or are you just trying > to be argumentative? It has everything to do with what you said. You seem to think that the only coolant GM could make money from is DexCool. GM has no exclusive in the market WRT DexCool sales. > > > What are you saying? Are you saying that DexCool offers better > protection [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Then why argue with my point above if that's what you believe? Because that is what I believe and not what you (apparently) believe. > The trueth about DecCool is that it does not protect against cavitation as well as > nitrates and phosephates. They protect much sooner - within a fraction of > the mileage of DexCool. Not to say that DexCool offers substandard > protection though. Even Ford Motor Company's own study stated that for the > consumer the difference is not all that noteworthy if proper maintenance is > practiced. Yet Ford is now using HOAT coolants which have more in common with DexCool than they do with conventional green coolants. > > > I hope not because DexCool lacks the nitrates and > > > phosphates which provide quick layering to minimize the effects of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > But they are the better when compared to DexCool. To a point, yes, but there is a marked difference seen on aluminum components that have been in service using DexCool compared to what used to be seen in years prior to DexCool's introduction. > > > Having said that, though cavitation exists in all motors and > > > DexCool has been shown in at least some studies to offer less protection [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Meaning??? Meaning that the results of the studies that you mention have been known to vary depending on the batch of DexCool being tested. Speaks more of the QC during the manufacture than it does as a blanket indictment of DexCool itself. > > > literally tens of thousands - hundreds > > > of thousands of cars are surviving quite well on DexCool. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > A point which is completely consistent with my original post - that you took > exception with. I take exception with it because I've seen first hand the effects of using conventional green coolant on vehicles that originally came with DexCool, the DexCool being changed out early in the vehicles life because of the myth and hearsay that goes along with something 'different' and unfamiliar. > > > It does become > > > more problematic than green is the level is allowed to drop, but that's [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I believe we do, but you may have misunderstood my original post. This is usenet after all. > > > > > I don't believe that DexCool offers anything over today's green > coolants [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I'm not sure why there appears to be a disagreement here. It seems we are > both saying the same thing, but somehow this got off track. May well be, but the point needs reinforcing because the days of walking in and buying what ever is on sale can and often does result in disastrous consequences be it coolant, motor oil, gear lube, transmission fluid, chassis grease, brake fluid, etc... > > I'm not sure why there appears to be a disagreement here. It seems we are > > both saying the same thing, but somehow this got off track. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > result in disastrous consequences be it coolant, motor oil, > gear lube, transmission fluid, chassis grease, brake fluid, etc... I just checked the Haynes type manual for my wife's 97 LeSabre.( Yes, I will certainly consider the source.) The manual says that either green or orange coolant may be used but they must not be mixed. And, I agree with the latter part. At my friendly local Autozone today I saw a chart saying that orange must be used, so I discussed it with the counter person. He said that the orange had a corrosion inhibitor for aluminum, which the green did not contain. (Wrong! The green has always contained silicate for aluminum protection. The orange relied on the organic acid salts, which did not really give the protection that was optimal Hence, Hybrid OAT technology which has silicates, although in reduced quantities, was introduced.) No type of chemical corrosion inhibitor is really a first line defense against cavitation. Cavitation is mechanically initiated rather than simply electrochemical. A really GOOD adsorptive film type inhibitor can give a little bit of a mechanical barrier to the cavitation damage, but not a lot. The key is to prevent the cavitation in the first place, or use alloys which are better capable of handling it. Keeping air or gas out of the system helps and the defoamer part of the package can also help. Erosion corrosion can also be a problem. It is often confused with cavitation, but isn't the same. A chemical inhibitor has a better chance of yielding decent results if erosion is caused only by liquid (clear, no particulates) flow. I agree with Aarcuda that you can't just walk in and substitute whatever is on sale these days. I learned the hard way some years ago that when GM said power steering fluid and not ATF, they meant it. I am not sure how firmly behind the DexCool they really are. But it really doesn't make that much difference. The wiser bird uses what he has to use to keep his warranty intact, and he services his car on schedule or better. When the car is out of warranty, or when you think you know better than the manufacturer, then you can try anything you want. What is G-05 and why would it be preferable to Dex-cool or the "universal" antifreeze? What is G-05 and why would it be preferable to Dex-cool or the "universal" antifreeze? and google says: Zerex G-05 is a low-silicate, low-pH, phosphate-free, pre-charged formula that is designed to protect automotive and diesel engines from rust and corrosion. Zerex G05 is approved by Ford and by Daimler-Chrysler for worldwide applications including all MTU and Mercedes engines. > What is G-05 and why would it be preferable to Dex-cool or the > "universal" antifreeze? > Because? > (looking for reasons other than that it isn't a product of your > former employer) Actually, we did buy the OAT corrosion inhibitor package and include it in one of our products, Aarcuda. The reason was that OAT was biodegradable and of low environmental toxicity. Some of the components of the older packages are neither. The product, in our application which is essentially the same as an automotive coolant application, was inferior to the traditional packages. Government rules encouraged its use, not performance. > My owners manual recommends dexcool. I would rather use regular > antifreeze and change it more often. Do I have to use this stuff? No, and in fact you're better off not using it. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.