The coolant system temperature will actually read hotter than before. This is because XF+ coolant will typically run your engine 22° cooler than with ethylene glycol and water mix. This extra heat pulled from the engine is deposited into the radiators. This is why your radiators will show the increased heat. Besides running it for boil over reasons, XF+ is non-corrosive, so you never have to change the fluid. If you do have to drain your radiators for some reason, capture the coolant so you can return it to your radiator. If you did have to add water to it in an emergency, you can. It begins to loose some of it's efficiency and non-corrosiveness the more water you add, but it will get you home.
If the engine is cooler, how would the radiators be hotter? I think that defies the laws of physics...
When we have tested the coolant we read two different temperatures from engine to radiator, possibly because the radiators were unable to evacuate the heat.
At first I thought this a bogus statement also. However, if the XF coolant is indeed more efficient in absorbing/releasing heat I guess it would grab more heat on every pass thru the engine and release more going thru the rads. The thermostat has a role here also though?? 22deg cooler might not always be a good thing if it prevents the oil ever getting up to 212. Interesting stuff. .
If the radiators (and thus the coolant inside them) are hotter than the engine, won't they just heat the engine up to their temperature? I am sure that coolant works well, but something is dubious here...
I would have to ask Ty for the specifications on the 630 exactly, but on my Kymco engine, oil temps are between 320 -350 degrees. Even at 212 degrees for the coolant, your oil is typically atleast 302 degrees without an oil cooler.
There is a higher surface area to cool with the XF because there is no cavitation, hot spots or vapor release in the heated metal conact areas. Therefor Xf+ can pull more heat from the metal jacketed areas than with a water mix.
I'm saying IF it's able to absorb/release heat more efficiently than regular coolant that explanation would work. But if the coolant exits the rads at a higher temp than normal the engine is running at a higher temp. @Tinken, Are you sure your oil isn't running 220-250? I've never seen a oil temp gauge that reads to 350 (except for harleys). Coolant usually runs ~190, oil ~220. .
The radiator is never hotter than the engine. The engine is the heat source and the radiator is the heat releasing device. The engine is the hottest folowed by the coolant and then the radiator for the heat transfer to occur in the correct direction. Here is a simple model. Engine Coolant (thermal transfer) Radiator If the engine is making the same amount of heat and the thermal transfer increases then the engine will be a lower temperature. The heat has to go somewhere so the radiator will get hotter.
I think some people were misunderstanding, thinking there's no way the radiators could be hotter than then engine, but that's not was said, just that the engine would run cooler, and the radiators would run hotter.
On the Kymco 449/511 engine yes, up to 350 degrees. I believe Ty used an actual guage but I use a laser gauge. We found the 310's ran up there too. Anyway, was just trying to help, Xf+ works very well and you never have to change it out, it is a lifetime coolant.
I read these as the radiator being hotter than the engine: I wonder if the issue is more related to the difference between internal and external engine temperatures. We think of the engine as being one big chunk of metal at the same temperature, but it seems feasible that some portions of the cooling jacket (where it is adjacent to the combustion chamber, for example) will be hotter than the "bulk" engine temperature. Perhaps the XF+ picks up more energy from here than a traditional coolant, and thus transfer that to the radiator, thus making the radiator look like it is "cooler" than the engine. One this is for certain: the coolant temperature in the engine is not cooler than the coolant temp in the radiator (or the radiators themselves). It might be feasible that the surface temp of the engine is cooler than the surface temp of the radiators though.
Just trust me when I say that you're overthinking it The XF, or other similar coolants, simply allow the cooling system to function normally at higher temps, where water would be boiling off and you would be losing cooling capacity. It's not that the thermal capacity of the coolant is higher, it's just that it doesn't vaporize until much higher temps.
I agree with RDTCU. In chemistry I believe that water has the highest heat absorption capacity (other than ammonia). Additives like anti-freeze are necessary but reduce cooling ability slightly. In a cooling system the pressure must be increased to increase the boiling point of the coolant, hence 15psi rad caps. The waterless coolant is neat in that it does not boil and therefore does not run at pressure, so it maintains its heat absorption at high temps, temps where regular coolant is starting to micro-boil and loose its cohesive contact surface with the inside of the engine. I have been meaning to try some in my single-track bike as it is usually in a constant state of boil/cooldown on tough rides. Cam.
I agree, except Tinken has indicated that they have data showing that the engine is at a LOWER temperature...
It WILL stay at a lower temp compared to with a water-glycol coolant if it is over the boiling point of the traditional coolant at the given cap pressure. Meaning there's not much difference until you get the motor hot-hot. Once you start boiling coolant, engine temps will skyrocket, but if you can't reach the boiling point, it will plateau.
Our data did show two different temps, but it could of been entry and exit point calcs. All of our race bikes and our personal bikes run XF coolant mainly for dependability, we add it and basically we aren't bothered with it again. There is no corosion, so the radiators, pumps and cylinder orfices remain clear like new. Less headaches for a couple dollars more.
