Jump to content

Dex-cool® Coolant Ruins Gaskets?

tcr1016

Recommended Posts

tcr1016 Enthusiast

tcr1016

Posted
Posted

I read that the DEX-COOL® coolant has been known to ruin gaskets and seals in a forum. Is this true??? I just bought my truck with 56,000 miles and want to change all fluids, but am worried about what I read about DEX-COOL® coolant. I have the state required GMC warrenty till 100K miles, so I do not want to void the warrenty.

 

What coolant do most use without voiding the warrenty, and what intervals do you change it??

dlstewart01 Senior Enthusiast

dlstewart01

Posted
Posted

There were problems with poor quality gaskets in V6s that deteriated with Dexcool. That was 1995 through 2003. At that time the gaskets were updated. There was a class action lawsuit on this. NO v8 trucks were included in this. Anyway no coolant goes through the 4.8/5.3/6 liter intakes.

 

Every one is going to it. Ford is in the process of changing to Dex-Cool now.

 

Dex-Cool IS one of the most friendly coolants towards metals and corrosion.....

 

Dexcool probably has better performance on aluminum, steel, and iron and a longer life than most any other coolant. It has no silicates or phosphates to form solid abrasives (I don't think this is a big issue really) and is pretty tolerate of tap water that's not too low quality. It's pretty cheap and easy to find. Plus if your car has Dexcool already it's good to stay with the same formula if you can especially during the warranty period.

 

My wife and I have nearly 3/4 of a million miles on Dexcool without any issues what so ever.

 

But it don't mix with the green coolant. That will turn it to sludge.

AGT Enthusiast

AGT

Posted
Posted

I know what he is talking about. Knew people with the 3400 engines and they did get gasket issues. Some GM tried to make nice...others had to prove it was because of the coolant. Turns out not the coolant but the gasket and they were made of cheaper corkboard like material

AGT Enthusiast

AGT

Posted
Posted

Not too much of a myth. You should have seen the coolant after the gasket failed. Like a milkshake or something

dlstewart01 Senior Enthusiast

dlstewart01

Posted
Posted
Not too much of a myth. You should have seen the coolant after the gasket failed. Like a milkshake or something

 

Coolant and oil do not mix well, regardless the brand of the coolant. One of the early problems before sealed systems was Dex-Cool does not like air. People are lazy and would not service the system, it would get a leak and would fail. of course no one wants to admit to being lazy so it was always the coolant.

 

Like I posted before, the early V6 gaskets were very cheaply made and did not hold up well. That was changed in 2004...

Z45 Senior Enthusiast

Z45

Posted
Posted

I never had a problem with a GM engine and Dexcool.

 

While I was working (retired) my last truck was a 1999 K2500 HD Suburban (Special DOT fleet) and I drove that truck for 100,000+ miles in about 3.5 yrs, idled is continually all day (GPS) surveying roadways in heavy traffic. I was not allowed to do any maintenance on the truck but watched the places I took it to for service. The coolant was never changed and I know for a fact at 100,000+- the Dexcool looked just as it did at 2 miles when I picked the truck up at the motor pool in Sept 1998. I also know for certain that no one ever removed the radiator cap in the time I had the truck and I kept at my home. There were only about 3 weeks out of the year (vacation) that the truck was not run 8-10 hr a day.

ColoradoSkiCountry Senior Enthusiast

ColoradoSkiCountry

Posted
Posted

Folks, the problem is that while it may look in ok status, appearances can be deceiving. It's all about the acidity. Acidity forms from age, even in a sealed system, even if you've never had to touch the stuff.

 

Now there have been countless experts (mechanics) who have seen what the acidity can do (even from the Dexcool) who STRONGLY suggest changing this FAR more often then 100,000 miles, most will say 30,000. I strongly suggest having the acidity level checked on a YEARLY basis.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      www.enginelabs.com/news/what-i-learned-today-bearing-clearances-vs-oil-viscosities/     www.enginelabs.com/news/oil-viscosity-can-the-numbers-be-misleading/ The Big Lie… Coming full circle to the reason Lake discusses the Porsche engines in particular. Based on the 2000 samples in the SPEEDiagnostix database, increasing the oil viscosity in these engines, even those run on the track, showed no significant difference in results.   The smoking gun was in the oil chemistry. That is where the data shows higher instances of more wear. Molybdenum was the key; the higher the amount, the less the wear. Speed postulates that higher viscosity oils have more thickeners to artificially inflate their viscosity numbers. These thickeners lose viscosity under shear, and the result is that not all oils of the same viscosity have the same shear stability.   Having enough viscosity is the most important characteristic, but according to Speed, once that required viscosity level is reached, additive chemistry matters more than additional viscosity. Speed also states, oil pressure problems on the racetrack aren’t a viscosity problem; it’s an oiling system problem. Running a thicker oil is just a band-aid for an underlying oiling system problem.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled II?   Viscosity on the decline by various means. Heat on the rise making that worse. Engine RPM in the tank. Smaller motors with more boost trying to emulate an electric motor. Full torque, zero rpm. Then we will triple the OCI. Argh.    But wait....there is more. LSPI has pushed a shift from Ca to Mg and as that cost more PLUS the run to lower sulfur compounds the TBN is moving in the wrong direction for the increased OCI's demanded.    That not being enough to placate a demand for a parameter they can't measure the other sulfur bearing compounds are also under attack. That would be zinc and phosphorus sulfonate compounds. To some degree those are being replaced with boron esters and others, i.e. titanium ect. All of which have shorter service lives. And there there is the "Secrete Sauce" marketing for AW adds that 'Can't be detected by UOA's" but trust me because I (the blenders) never ever lie.    Spoiler alert; ALL additives are sacrificial! Smaller amounts of the old blended with less robust versions of the new do not equal longer service lives. So what are the blenders recommending? Wait for it.......   MOVING THE GOAL POSTS! OMG      Let's declare the long standing TAN/TBN crossover irrelevant and tell people that soot is a great 'graphite' based lubricant which can aid tribo films. Wait, what? Let's declare that the standards used for oxidation and nitration were to conservative and can be expanded. Let's tell them that because GDI fuel dilution, although being a VISCOSITY KILLER and an acid generator is actually okay because we have better base oils that limit viscosity failure limits. (Said knowing this is measured in fractions of a centipoise and in bases not commonly used in shelf oils)   Lying from the heart is not just the new normal but we have a public, a very young public, that is so ignorant of the facts and so sure of their "RESEARCH" into AI driven models base in regurgitated  instead of scientific research based unvarnished, peer reviewed FACTS that the incoming guard is loosing their grip on reality and the OEM's are tickled pink while the blends bend the knee.    You have an ever limited set of tools to work with. And sooner or later those will be taken from you as the API and the EPA strangle the last remaining fluids from the system. What you have left is your wits. If you care to use them.    At some point in the very near future it will not longer be possible to do "What is best for the machine", and be replaced with "The best you have access too". You WILL be rewarded with half the life and twice the cost. That isn't that hard to predict.         
    • Chuck FB
      Software Update

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      I trust you saw the other comment where he knew what he was talking about !. Yes, these darned newer vehicles with all their so smart they are stupid technology, goes and drains the battery down. As you might see my other comment, I installed a Noco 5 battery tender under the hood and at this point still have the cord routed so I have to lift the hood and then plug it in but am typically parked in a garage or a shed so its not risking the engine hood in the wind. That way I am assured or hopefully so of not finding I have a battery drawn down and can't even start the truck and that also damages the battery to draw it down too far. 
    • Chuck FB
      Software Update

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      I guess no surprise my guesses were wrong !, at least now I know if I ever happen to see it grayed out in my own truck as to what is going on.    I never happened to catch my truck with it grayed out, it seemed every time I would test to see if there was an update it never found anything and yet more than once I would check to see if there was an update and there was nothing, then a day later or even that same morning I would drive to town and after more than one engine shut down in town as I did my errands it would pop up that there is an update now ready to install and the only place I have a connection to the internet is at home by wifi so its not as if it grabbed the download while driving. I don't trust these new vehicles due to all the crap they can decide to do while sitting for some days not running and run the battery down so most of the time if I know the truck will sit for a few days I plug in the battery tender I have mounted under the hood and so the only time the truck must have downloaded software was when it was sitting in the garage where the signal is awful but I have that tender plugged in and somehow it managed to download it. I honestly detest all this crap, way to easy to leave a person stranded.    Since I don't trust any of it I don't do the install of the already downloaded software until I get home and sometimes have even sat in the truck to watch what its doing as its going through the process to its conclusion as its not like it is set up that it will tell you the next time you fire up the engine that the update that was initialed actually installed or installed properly. Yes I can go into the updates and see the list. After I go through the install where I feel its safe to do so in case it breaks down as a result, I will plug in the battery tender after the fact to recharge as I don't know how much power its taking just to do the install and that can take a while for it to install. 
    • nfisherman
      Software Update

      By nfisherman · Posted

      Thanks for the reply. All settings were correct and the engine was off, as it was supposed to be. It turned out to be something simple. I took a drive for about an hour. I must have had a low battery without knowing it. The voltage gauge on the display looked ok. At the end of my drive, I shut off the engine and the update prompt came up and it updated normally. It’s ironic because one of the features of the update is a reduction of battery drain. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...