DexCool

What experience have people in this group had with GM's dexcool. My sons Jimmy started to leak at the manifold and the dealer said it was because of the dexcool antifreeze used, of course GM said the dealer was wrong.

Jack

Reply to
Jack Hayes
Loading thread data ...

This has been one of the longest threads on this newsgroup.

Here is, in a nutshell, what I think we believe about DexCool: (I) Certain GM engines have problems that will likely lead to leakage, regardless of what coolant is used. These include certain 3800 V6's, and the 2.8,3.1,

3.4 V6's. The 3800 problem is different from the other series. It can leak because of a deteriorated plastic FI plenum and has nothing to do with Dexcool.

(II)The other V6 series most likely leaks because of (1) some basic design problems and (2) because of the use of a gasket which does not hold up well. It has been claimed that this happened when GM went to a gasket that no longer contained asbestos. Others claim Dexcool is involved. I rather doubt that Dexcool is the culprit, but others swear it is.

Reply to
<HLS

Reply to
Shep

Didn't Honda, Chrysler and Ford all nix Dexcool several years ago due to increased incidence of gasket leaks when testing the stuff? I thought I read that somewhere 4-5 (or more) years ago.

GM has a bad habit of allowing their corporate ego about a decision get between them and what the ultimate realities turn out to be (just personal experience). That could be the case here,...Dexcool be damned!

Reply to
jcr

I've been using it in my 1992 Escort ever since it became available. So far, so good, despite the 1.9L Ford engine rather than the nice 1.8L Mazda one.

I don't know what engine your son's Jimmy has, but if it's the 3.4L V-6, isn't there a secret warranty about the the famous intake manifold coolant leak problem?

Reply to
larry moe 'n curly

You might want to see if some hick will swap you his complete 1.8 engine, harnass, and ECM. There's got to be someone out there that thinks "Murican is better!' even in this specific instance.

Toyota MDT in MO

Reply to
Comboverfish

He should swap out something that roughly 14 years old and doing fine cause Jiponesse is better?

Reply to
Edward Strauss

I rarely drive the thing above 45 MPH anyway, and for 0-30 the 1.9L accelerates just as fast as the 1.8L. Plus the 1.9L doesn't bang valves if the timing belt fails. Rationalizing, rationalizing. :)

Reply to
larry moe 'n curly

You don't know much about these two engines, do you? Go ask someone that does know about the Ford 1.9. Ask them what a total piece of shit it is. Then try to find someone who can tell you one legitimate engineering problem with the 1.8 engine.

I do like some Jiponeese (sic) vehicles, I like some Domestics, too. Please reread where I typed "in this specific instance" to grasp the correct context of the message. Also factor in sarcasm, if that's possible.

Toyota MDT in MO

Reply to
Comboverfish

VERY bad. The stuff is highly aggressive to many gasket and seal materials, even those specifically (nominally) designed for it.

It was due to GM's shoddy design and build, *aggravated* by Dexcool.

Of course GM said the dealer was wrong. Dexcool is a real problem child for GM.

DS

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

I'm sure my 1986 Corolla wasn't designed specifically for Dex-cool, but I ran it in that car from the day it became available in retail stores until I sold the car 2 years ago. I never had external leaks (including crusting), sweet-smelling air from the vents, or a need to top off the overflow tank more than usual. This wasn't an exceptional case for Dex-cool because several company Chevy Novas and Geo Prizms (same engine as Corollas, but maybe GM radiators), were also run with Dex-cool, and a chemist who specializes in closed loop water cooling systems ran periodic checks and said the corrosion levels were low.

Reply to
rantonrave

what the outcome is on using any anti-freeze / coolant that is not

recommended for your car is possibly a gamble, but if you use the coolant

recommended you shouldn't expect trouble. but anymore you have to tie the

two together (car / coolant), it isn't as easy as it use to be, just grab a gallon and run.

and I didn't realize until just here recently that the silicate in the yellow jug of

prestone coolant was hostile to water pumps. this situation may not be peculiar to only prestone.

m h o =A0v =83e

Reply to
fiveiron

I'm no internet expert but why would you swap engines in a 14 year old car that runs fine?? Out in the country people run these cars into the ground. You would not believe the miles that are put on them. I don't need to ask anyone or grasp anything to know that you don't swap engines and related electronics in a 14 year old vehicle that is running fine. A 14 year old Escort especially. I would not have one of them but, that not the issue...

Reply to
Edward Strauss

Really? You come off as an internet expert...

One more time... It was a joke, but based on the fact that there are died in the wool loyalists out there who can't see that the 1.9 is a POS.

People who "run these into the ground" live with the burdon of replacing/reconditioning the head on a regular basis and just accepting unhealthy engine noises, coolant leaks, oil leaks, constant MIL on, etc.

Good for them. They are privy to a well-kept secret regarding the best engine in the world. (not just the most oversold piece of junk that is easy to get parts for because a great deal of them are in the junkyard)

Toyota MDT in MO

And the reply to your next post is "It was still just a joke, let it go".

Reply to
Comboverfish

and I didn't realize until just here recently that the silicate in the yellow jug of

prestone coolant was hostile to water pumps. this situation may not be peculiar to only prestone.

m h o v fe

Look...lets see if we can get it a little straighter. Silicate has always been in 'green' coolant and its purpose is as a corrosion inhibitor for aluminum parts.

Some water pumps have been made of aluminum.. Nicht wahr?

Silicate is not intended to protect iron or steel.

When excess silicate was used in a formulation, or when certain types of hard water were used to fill the radiator, silicate precipitation could be problematic. (Magnesium in the water is particularly incompatible.)

Precipitates are never good in a cooling system.. They can block radiators, AND they can be abrasive. MANY times I have seen radiators plugged with silicate precipitate. It is DIFFICULT to remove.

OAT technology, as used in Dexcool, did not contain silicates. That was seen to be an advantage in one sense, but probably did not provide the protection to aluminum parts that was desirable.

Therefore Hybrid OAT , or HOAT, evolved. HOAT contains silicate, but in reduced amounts compared with the older green formulas.

The city water here contains little magnesium or other hardness ions.

I have used green coolant in my Dodge van for a long time and there is no trace of a problem.

We used Dexcool in my wife's Buick because we knew the damn plenum was likely to go, and I didn't want chicken**** GM to have an arguing point in case the car were still in warranty. Now, that episode is over.

I would have no fear about changing to HOAT, or even to Green, now.

Reply to
<HLS

Really, I can accept that fact that not everyone shares my point of view. You seem to feel that your opinion has fact in it.

I believe it. If you feel that the 1.9 is a POS tell Ford. They might have some numbers to throw at you.

More opinion. Tell Ford, back it up. What percent of cars have the engine failures? When is the last time you been to the junkyard?? There is a hell of alot more than "Murican" cars in it...

Isn't it all....

Reply to
Edward Strauss

I wouldn't > own one and I have no sense of humor etc...

You are a joyous one, aren't you?! FYI, I just got off the phone with Ford, as instructed. They said they can't waste any time looking up stats for the venerable 1.9 as they're knee deep screwing up new engine designs.

The only reason I could see that you would have made the flip statement "I'm no internet expert, but..." is to imply that *I* was. You can't expect me to let that one go, considering all of the advice I give out on CAR REPAIR based on ACTUALLY REPAIRING CARS FOR A LIVING! What do you do here? Bitch about ballast resistors? Why don't you go to the Car and Driver forums if you want to talk about cars? Feel free to ask questions here about car repair if you want to. Hey, go to whatever forum would best match your field of expertise and dole out accurate info there. But to imply that I don't know car repair -- coming from you -- is pretty rich -and- quite petty.

Recap: The OP had already received satisfactory replies; he needed no more input. I made a response in good fun to a poster about his ride. He replied in good fun, actually agreeing. Smily emoticons were tossed out like candy at a parade. The fact that you've seriously replied 3 times to a fun post just floors me. I'm out.

Toyota MDT in MO

Reply to
Comboverfish

A person at work has a 1.8L Mazda Protege with slightly under 300,000 miles, no engine work. I don't see any blue smoke or smell hydrocarbons from it.

My 1.9L has less than 75K. How soon can I expect trouble with it? I read that Ford had redesigned the block to fix head gasket failures before the Ford/Mazda Escort was introduced in 1991, so if it still has head problems, it must have been absolutely awful in the earlier years. OTOH Ford also managed to cut 3 HP, despite introducing the welded tubing intake manifold, so maybe I shouldn't expect much.

Reply to
larry moe 'n curly

Ironically, these engines will burn oil eventually if you don't keep up the oil changes with regularity. This is commonly pointed out by import haters, but not a problem if you change your oil 4 times a year. These folks seem to prefer headgasket, cooling system, and lower engine failures every 100k to 150k because they save money on oil changes.

You said you drive it very gingerly, correct? If you don't run it like the average commuter driver, then you probably won't see the typical valve seat cracking/dropping problems that plague this engine. You can still expect premature waterpump leaks/failure, premature radiator leaks, oddball EFI and MIL problems, junk lifters, overheating and cooling fan/relay/circuit problems, etc. And that's just the engine-related stuff. I'm not a fan of the Escort, but did cut my teeth on them as a kid learning to fix cars, so they served a purpose for me.

I've told my two current Escort customers to get rid of their cars around 100,000 miles or before their second timing belt. They can get expensive to keep, unless you want to stack up reams of nagging problems and drive it into the ground. The 'little' problems these things typically amass are the kinds of problems that accelerate major breakdowns.

Toyota MDT in MO

Reply to
Comboverfish

If that is to insinuate that the 1.8L *is* an interference engine --- no, the 1.8 freewheels if the timing belt breaks.

That's a just-for-the-record-kind-of-thing.

Toyota MDT in MO

Reply to
Comboverfish

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.