DrD123

If I were in grad school, I would definitely take some liberties with the analytical equipment in the lab and do so - hell, I probably could have convinced my advisor it was a good idea and done so with their blessing - however, running personal stuff at work is more than sort of frowned upon. It gets annoying when you have so many folks that are just going "don't use it because it's a bad idea" or "I know it's the same as product x because... well, I just know" and so on. Lots of hypotheses/stories that are more or less compelling depending on who tells them, but zero hard data.

Sorry - been on vacation for 3 weeks in New England You absolutely, positively do not need oxygen for corrosion to go - you need 1. an anode/anodic reaction - that's the corrosion/oxidation reaction 2. a cathode/cathodic reaction - that's the reduction reaction that supports the oxidation reaction (here's a spoiler - oxygen reduction is just 1 of a gazillion different possibilities) 3. an electrical path between the anode and cathode (these can be separate regions on the same metal surface, or in the case of galvanic corrosion, will be the electrical contact between the two parts, and why electrical isolation is key when dissimilar metals are used together) 4. an ionic path between the anode and cathode (that's through the coolant, in this case) for the oxidation reaction, please try and remember that oxidation refers to a positive change in the oxidation state of the metal (so from Al metal to Al(3+) as an example for the cathodic reaction, you can reduce dissolved oxygen (tends to be dominant reaction in aerated aqueous solutions) or you can reduce water, or reduce ions in solution (e.g., the hydronium ion is usually the one in acidic solutions, can also be reducing other metal ions in solution, organic ions in solution, etc. - there are a myriad of potentials, depending on what happens to be thermodynamically viable in the solution) So once again, unless you live in some screwed up fantasy land, you do not need oxygen for corrosion to go, or for oxidation to take place (again - oxidation doesn't mean forming an oxide) and inside your engine absolutely, positively is a place where you can get corrosion without any dissolved oxygen - you only need the water (reduce the water - H2O + e- -> H + OH- - often referred to as the hydrogen evolution reaction, or HER) Why you are suggesting it's a "special case" where oxygen isn't needed for corrosion is beyond me - perhaps pick up a corrosion text and do some book learnin' Working on cars does not even kinda sorta prepare you for a debate on corrosion science. (your comments sort of scream Dunning-Kruger effect... just sayin')

Glad you got it sorted. Amazon is getting better, but there's still a lot of counterfeit crap on there.

Did the rpm drop go away, too? You should try cleaning your old one and see if it functions properly after that (always good to have a spare!)

Not arguing if it's good or bad, or debating anything, really. Simply indicating Subaru says as step one for every single engine they make is to add coolant conditioner when replacing the coolant. That's a strong statement from a company that has a lot to loose if they screw it up. Trying to find actual data to support that it's helpful or not, and can't seem to get past a couple folks continuously spouting opinions about why it's bad, and that it has to be a specific Holts product because some youtube guy said it was. Is anyone saying that? Subaru is definitely saying you are supposed to add it whenever you change the coolant in every engine they make - every single one. In terms of does Subaru care about their customers, I would think any manufacturer that values brand loyalty, etc. cares quite a bit about their customers. If the chemistry of the conditioner isn't proprietary, please, provide the data! Opinions (biased or not) are great, but ultimately just that. Data actually answers the question - be it empirical evidence of damage caused by the conditioner, or benefits brought by the conditioner, or analytical data showing it's the same as whatever product your internet person says it is. (in your video, they even point out it's a different size container - so with the radweld, you add twice as much to a system as subaru wants you to add of the conditioner, apparently)

So if you weren't posting the image to suggest they were the same product because they were both in a blue container from Holts, why exactly did you post it? so? You thinking subaru makes any of their chemicals? oil, coolant, etc.? Not likely - almost all are going to go to a manufacturer that does that sort of thing, and order up something that fits the bill for what they need. In this case, Subaru used holts, who makes a variety of their own products - it's certainly possible the conditioner is one of those, and equally possible it's a custom blend of stuff - without data, we don't know. Pretty much all modern engine oil looks very similar out of the bottle - is it all the same? You really need something more quantitative than a visual assessment to answer the "is it the same" question.

yeah - when it comes to long term reliability, I'll go with a manufacturer who actually pays the price when things fail over a mechanic - sorry - they design and have to guarantee long term reliability of the system. Subaru, the manufacturer and one standing behind the vehicles, is recommending it in every single engine they have produced for 20+ years. Nice try - you absolutely, positively do not need dissolved oxygen to support corrosion of aluminum in water - you only need the water (water reduction will support aluminum corrosion just fine). Plus, in a system with other reactive species in it, there are other cathodic reactions besides oxygen reduction which would likely play a major role, anyway. Without delving into solution chemistry and flow rates, suffice to say there are other things going on in the ocean, and absolutely you have heavy corrosion of both iron and aluminum in the ocean, even deep (there's always a heavy corrosion product layer when things are recovered). Delving further into your nonsense, coupling aluminum to other metals, particularly more noble materials like steel - is particularly bad - without isolating the materials electrically, or using proper inhibitors, significant galvanic corrosion of the aluminum will result - again you need no dissolved oxygen for it to go - the water is plenty. (if you want more info, pick up pretty much any corrosion textbook and read)

For an aging system, it's not at all uncommon for corrosion inhibitor demand to increase, either due to corrosion initiation within the system that wasn't effectively suppressed by the original inhibitor package (in most closed systems, you monitor and add inhibitor as the system operates and the inhibitor is consumed or decomposes - obviously you can't do that in a car) - also, when doing a drain and fill, you never really get everything out, so there would be some residual stuff in there. Were it me, for a low maintenance system like a car cooling system, I would be inclined to make similar recommendations for a reduced time period. Exactly! It would be great to have either an analysis of the products or even empirical evidence showing damage to the system that can be conclusively demonstrated to be from the conditioner

Well, since literally all of their products are in the same container, some of them blue, some black, etc., that tells you absolutely, positively nothing.

as posted above, in a coolant system where someone added the conditioner, while there was some guck in the overflow, the coolant system was clean upon disassembly so your argument is that aluminum doesn't corrode in water with a low dissolved oxygen content? that, I am afraid, is 100% incorrect. There are a number of other viable cathodic reactions that will support corrosion in a deaerated system (even in 100% pure, zero dissolved oxygen water, corrosion can go on aluminum - there are other metals where it can't - copper being one, but aluminum will corrode just fine). The oxygen introduced by an air bubble is going to be somewhat small (considering the size of the bubble, the number of things that will consume oxygen as it makes its way into the water, and the relatively slow transfer rate into the water) was there decreased cooling system efficiency? seems unlikely you'd film the inside of the radiator - it would more likely collect at dead spaces/reduced flow regions, I would think - would be really cool to see actual data/images... if the coolant system were all crapped up, and lots of folks with blown engines were seeing that, it would get attention - just like other pattern failures - and given how litigious our society is, there would eventually be some enterprising lawyers who put together a class action suit. It's called out as a requirement for literally every vehicle Subaru has sold for the past 20 years or more! Seriously? I listen to data, which is what I was hoping would come out of this thread - I spoke about opinions earlier in the thread.

How do we know it doesn't? adding air wouldn't deplete a corrosion inhibitor, but air+heat (well, oxygen+heat) could get a leak preventing additive to start to agglomerate, but it would likely take more than just a little air+heat to do that. (in terms of bleeding, I've found the 5th gen to bleed very easily - filling, squeezing the upper/lower radiator hoses to push out bubbles, then close it up, fill the overflow, and the system will let out any residual air after a trip or two, then just fill the overflow bottle back up to full and you are good to go. Blown up from the conditioner? If the conditioner were the issue and killing engines, one would think there would be a class action suit similar to the spun bearing one for the WRX/STi with the EJ25... if the conditioner were gumming things up, causing overheating, etc. it should be pretty straightforward to see that, then Subaru would be in a pretty tough position since they specify it for all of their engines...

there are also fuses in the engine compartment.

Injector cleaner (if you have issues with fouling on injectors or valves) takes time - if you see any effect (I wouldn't expect it to impact your current issue based on the code) it's going to be after you run a fair portion of a treated tank of fuel through the engine.

It's stated in all the Subaru factory service manuals for late model (post 2002) Subarus I have (through 2019 for the Legacy/Outback, through 2015 for the Impreza, through 2020 for the WRX/STi, through 2019 for the forester, through 2020 for the BRZ, and through 2014 for the Tribeca) all have add the conditioner as step 1 of the coolant refill procedure. Its definitely called out in the 11 Legacy owners manual (I haven't checked others - I just collect service manuals) - so it's definitely specified by subaru for cars which specify the super coolant.

Service manual says first check for leaks in the exhaust, then intake, then fuel pressure, then the coolant temperature sensor, then the MAF sensor for mass air flow and air temperature

I'll second the throttle body cleaning - for the CEL, did you pull the code?

Did the timing belt (idlers, tensioner, thermostat, plugs, serpentine belt, and some other stuff - didn't do water pump because only 74k miles and it's a GT so water pump is a bit involved...) - the drivers side cams were... well... a bit of an ordeal. The lower one in particular... I purchased an ebay special cam lock tool and it didn't fit into the allen keys (they are 10mm, these were 10.05 to 10.1 depending on the face) futzed around with that for a bit, then tried to do it without (ha ha) for waaaaaaaaaaaay too long, then filed the cam lock tool so that it fit, then things were a lot easier. Some advice for anyone doing it - it's a lot easier to get the belt on if you leave the bottom large idler (the smooth one) and the small idler off until the end (or install them, then remove them like I did after struggling - either way works...) - once I got everything on, I checked the timing more than a couple of times (roll the crank pulley over two revolutions - check everything... wash rinse and repeat just to be sure... then maybe do it again... I used a torque solution crank pulley tool and two breaker bars to remove/install the crank bolt. the half inch drive square isn't very square any more, but it got the job done! I used the kit from 6starbernie for the belt (mitsuboshi), idlers (NSK and Koyo), and tensioner (subaru), then went OEM for the serpentine belt, thermostat, coolant, and anything else I am forgetting. All the OEM bearings were still pretty smooth, but spinning out grease. Tensioner was definitely leaking, and the belt was leaving lots of belt dust inside the timing covers, so glad I went with time (well, time plus a year or so - I think it's supposed to be 105 months, which is 8 years 9 months, and the car turns 10 in September) Always a happy sound when you fire it up and it works perfectly! It was 102 today and I don't have AC in my garage... conditions were less than ideal, but I had the time and had planned to do it, so...

If you start the car, let it run for 5-10s, then turn it off and start it back up again does it still do it? Seems solid while it's running - are any accessories on? AC, maybe?

I was thinking just run the two samples side by side via ICP-MS without trying to run down what's what in the spectra, you would definitely see if the same things are in both, or if there are differences.

Subaru is saying put it in every engine they sell when changing the coolant - literally every single solitary engine they sell. Even if it's a stop leak, nothing should happen until there it sees air+heat. What have you seen? obvious it's been in there means what? performance problem? coolant system gummed up? water pump failure? Folks generally have strong opinions both ways when it comes to additives - I was really hoping through this thread to get actual information, rather than just random opinions. The post above is very interesting, and suggests that's why Subaru says to add it to the radiator rather than the overflow - in the overflow you have air+heat, so things will start crashing out if there are stop-leak sort of additives in there. That the coolant system was clean is also consistent with that. (of course, even adding it to the radiator, if it's well mixed in the system you'd expect some exchange into the overflow, so it will get gross, I am guessing!)

Why? I'm just looking for data, one way or the other, that shows if it's worth doing. Lots of folks have strong negative opinions, others have positive. If it's so bad, why? Have you seen damage and can share images, etc. that show a failure because of the conditioner?

No shocker there (I enjoyed the video) - face coverings don't do jack to protect you, the idea was to reduce potential for infected folks to infect others. While clearly an uninfected person doesn't need one, there are asymptomatic folks out there, so the thought is to deal with that. I'd really be interested to know the numbers for asymptomatic vs. symptomatic

Seriously? read your own post above That sure sounds like you were saying it was a corrosion inhibitor... I absolutely am, and absolutely can interpret them - I'm thinking it's not me who has no idea what they are actually reading... You have just got to be kidding! Sodium hydroxide (alkaline pH in general) is really, really bad for aluminum. Seriously? I'm not claiming it's good/bad - I was asking for data, empirical or otherwise, that shows it's a problem. You're the one getting all hot and bothered because someone didn't read your post and take it as gospel. I'm asking, and you're offering an opinion - opinions are like assholes - everyone has one, and they all stink. Hence - data! again - zero actual data - no pictures, nothing. You can find a gazillion posts where they say it did nothing, and a few here and there where they say it killed their car. Don't know - that's a subaru question. All I pointed out is that they list it as step 1 for every engine in every service manual I have looked at through 2020. (Legacy, WRX/STi, Forester, and BRZ) That's a pretty strong statement from a manufacturer. Wow - you really do have your panties all in a bunch! Insults and everything. Here's a thought - why don't you actually read what I posted. I am not claiming it's good or bad, necessary or not - just curious what other folks opinions were. All I have repeated is the info on the websites and datasheets.

I'm trying to see if anyone has found issues like that, but haven't come across anything - did you have your coolant system messed up by it? If you have seen others report the same and can share the links, that would be great! Nothing really jumped out at me as something that's definitely going to crash out of solution on the msds listings, but they only are going to mention stuff that's hazardous (well - they can list more, but that's all they have to list) - the video above indicates they think it's ginger root, but that's not on the msds forms, nor would it have to be as it's non-hazardous

That's interesting! in the 2012 manual, it doesn't really say anything - for changing your coolant, they deleted all of the instructions and just say "It may be difficult to change the coolant. Have the coolant changed by your SUBARU dealer if necessary." so not real helpful! (it's definitely there in the 2011 manual, though!) However, in pretty much every Subaru service manual, for every engine through MY20 that I have it says to add it, so I think it's safe to say Subaru thinks you should use it!