On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:32:40 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"wf3h" wrote in message
...
Is FWC a significant advantage vs RWC? Seems to me it is...I remember
seeing the Chesapeake being sucked into my engine at low tide on the
Elk River. Although this would happen to a heat exchanger in a FWC
engine, the long term damage of corrosion, etc. seems much less.

Is it worth making a decision regarding 2 comparable boats if 1 is FWC
vs RWC?

FWC is always a plus. The engine can be run at better operating temps,
giving better fuel consumption numbers. RWC engines, in salt have to run
below designed operation temps as salt will precipitate out at the higher
temps. Plus lots less corrosion problems and easier to winterize. I do
not drain my engine for cold weather, just check the antifreeze.

To nitpick just a little:
It isn't salt that precipitates out inside the cooling passages in the
block. It's carbonates, notably calcium. And it isn't really
antifreeze, its function in all cases is to raise the boiling point,
while freezing is often not an issue. I just call it glycol. A trivia
note: 90% glycol freezes at -90 F while the pure stuff freezes at 8
above. However it wouldn't matter if it did, it isn't water, and
doesn't expand when it freezes. 50/50 will get you all the boiling
point you need, while the pure stuff is a lofty 410. You can't get
away with pure water in a modern car, you would boil it all out in no
time. Coolant, not antifreeze. Not that it matters. You ask for
antifreeze when you need some glycol to raise the boiling point. At
one time they used methanol/water mix in the winter, and plain water
in the summer, when all the alcohol would boil away. You used to have
a 140 F thermostat for winter, 180 for summer.

Casady