Right; there are many design variations possible in radiators, each optimized for one variable or another. You know what radiators are about. [I didn't even consider water viscosity, because I never had to, until now].

Koolance is wrong on so many levels, it's not even funny. On one side, there's the marketing PR, and on the other there's the flawed technical info. I'm not a people-person, so I'm not going to venture an opinion on why Koolance is doing this, but I will gladly take on the technical innacuracies.

I just want to make sure that people can understand why the results posted cannot be interpreted as being applicable, under different conditions. In simpler terms, I want it to be known that the test results posted are no indication of how any of the radiators would perform for water cooling.

Of course it's obvious when one can demonstrate the difference under the proper test conditions, but only a few people have the ability to do that.

85 deg C would be the typical coolant temperature for my car. If my PC had an 85 deg C coolant temperature, I'd expect my CPU to suffer terminal heat damage, or throttle to a crawl.

If Koolance can use different testing conditions, then lets see some tests with ridiculous figures: 125 deg C coolant temperature (oil would have to be used), and 600 cfm airflow: that should make Koolance "The Supreme King of the Hill"...