Thread: Puma 2.2 Radiator Silicone hoses

Just be aware mate - Silicon Coolant hoses are more likely to leak from the ends...

Nature of their construction and fact they don't tend to 'bond' to the fitting...

Thanks Tombie.
I haven't heard that before, but was going to fit new T clamps as I know they are recommended. I wonder if this is why.
Hmmm, might just keep my OEM's which were replaced at 40K and just rely on silicone repair tape should they fail in the bush.
Nothing is simple, even the simple stuff!

Hi,

I got a set from here
Defender Puma TD4 2.2 TDCi Hose Set Late Version Black - AlliSport
except mine were blue. I hadn't heard about them leaking from the ends?.

I haven't fitted them - I bought them just in case one of the originals failed. Which I have heard that they do.

Kerry.

It's always been the potential for them to leak. Silicone doesn't 'bond' to the spigots like rubber so requires higher clamping pressures to try and make them seal and remain in place.

Originally Posted by rgty_kmj

Hi,



I got a set from here

Defender Puma TD4 2.2 TDCi Hose Set Late Version Black - AlliSport

except mine were blue. I hadn't heard about them leaking from the ends?.



I haven't fitted them - I bought them just in case one of the originals failed. Which I have heard that they do.



Kerry.

That's Turbo hoses.

We're discussing Coolant hoses..

Duh ! OK Yes my mistake - a symptom of skim reading everything these days due to time constraints.

Kerry

I won't worry about it. With the Evans waterless coolant and resultant lower cooling system pressures, the risk of a hose failure is a lot less.
Thanks fellas.
Ken

I really can't point out enough how much worse Evans is for cooling...

It's Specific Heat is only 60% of a quality 50/50 Glycol Mix.

It increases head temperature by 45-60 deg C..

It reduces nucleate boiling but does not remove it.

It's highly flammable (125c) - a leak onto a hot manifold or turbo is far more dangerous.

It's viscosity places additional stress on water pump and increases pressure through cooling system jackets / apertures due to this.

It is an aftermarket Propylene Glycol - it is hygroscopic; as it ages and draws moisture.. well

Here was the result of some testing of Evans Claims:

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

-Conversion costs of $259 if you do it yourself, or over $400 if you pay a shop to do it.

-97%+ removal of all previous coolant is mandatory in order to prevent corrosion.

-Inhibitor deposition occurs on aluminum surfaces, which could cause issues in some radiators.

-Engines run 115-140oF hotter (at the cylinder heads) with Evans products.

-Stabilized coolant temps are increased by 31-48oF, versus straight water with No-Rosion.

-Reprogramming ECU fan temp settings is mandatory to prevent the fan from running continuously.

-Specific heat capacity of Evans waterless products ranges from 0.64 to 0.68, or about half that of water.

-Engine octane requirement is increased by 5-7 numbers.

-Computerized ignition must retard engine timing by 8-10o to prevent trace knock.

-Engine horsepower is reduced by 4-5%.

-Accelerated recession of non-hardened valve seats in older engines is possible, due to brinelling.

-Viscosity is 3-4 times higher than what OEM water pumps are rated to accommodate.

-Coolant flow rate through radiator tubes is reduced by 20-25% due to the higher viscosity.

-Race tracks prohibit Evans products because they are flammable and slippery