Evans waterless coolant

[revilla]

I think the difference that John Milner is referring to is down to the (relative) lack of pressurisation of the cooling system. Water based systems operate under high pressure as the coolant is locally above its boiling point at atmospheric pressure. In theory the waterless coolants shouldn't pressurise to the same extent and therefore leaks will tend to just ooze rather than be forced out under pressure.

[Jonathan Kay]

Wouldn't that make them harder to spot?

Jonathan

[Mechanical Moz]

I think, in the case of small leaks that may only occur at operating temperature and pressure, traditional coolant escapes as steam whereas waterless coolant will leave a tell tale trail of liquid.  If the leak is small enough to only cause a gradual loss of coolant chances are leaking liquid will be picked up on earlier than the falling level.

[LesG]

Well, as this thread has been resurrected, it's probably time I gave you my promised results after a year of use in my K.

There's not much to report tbh! I have sprinted and hillclimbed, and blatted on public roads. I don't have a manual fan override switch, and am using the standard CC plastic-ended radiator (much lightness), along with a prrt conversion. I can honestly say I've had no problems from the cooling system at all, no leaks, and the coolant looks the same as when I first put it in.

[Jonathan Kay]

Thanks

Jonathan

[CaterBram]

Appraching 2 years in use, mix of sprints, hill climbs and general use. No negative issues to report.

Evans coolant still clear as the day it went in.

had to drain the system a couple of times for other issues as i've been playing with various bits.

Just drained out into a washing up bowl, covered with clingfilm and then poor back in when ready. 

When I did the conversion I bought a 5litre extra just in case, and still have 5 litre......

from past experience I think I would not have put standard coolant back in and i'm probably now about at a break even point from a cost point of view...

 

 

[Jonathan Kay]

Have you noticed an increase in coolant temperature/ the fan running more?

Jonathan

[Jonathan Kay]

In one of the other current threads there's a discussion of inhibitors. With a K (aluminium) engine I'd replace the coolant frequently whether it's water-based or waterless in order to be sure the inhibitors were there.

Jonathan

[CharlesElliott]

I'm still struggling with what the advantage is. I've used red coolant for some years in my race car (no override switch, standard radiator, spends most of its life at 5K rpm+) and I can also say that I've had no issues at all.

 

[Jonathan Kay]

Yes. It's all because of the lack of evidence.

The discussion gets into a cycle... putative physical and chemical advantages, then "it works" then "but so does the traditional coolant". 

I think we would know by now if there were significant problems with silicone hoses on any of the options.

It would take a bit of time but it's not too hard to study corrosion in different types of engine. But that's part of my general annoyance with the manufacturer's site... it never quite gets to decent experiments (let alone independent experiments) and the results. Why not?

Jonathan

[CaterBram]

I originally changed to Evan's as I had high temperature & pressure issues on the Zetec during high RPM runs and was trying to solve them.

This was eventually traced to windage issues on the sump I was using, however during the process I did find that the Evans Coolant appeared to give me more stable temperatures at a lower equilibrimium point on both water and oil.

Changing the sump ultimatly cured the issue but i've stayed with Evans now it's installed.

The fundemental Evans premise with corrosion is that by reducing the water content the potential for corrosion is reduced, thereby the corrosion inhibitors which are present are not exhausted.

If a system is either filled with evans from new or correctly flushed prior to filling then corrosion potential is either eliminated or at least significantly reduced.

I've not stripped the engine to verify this but where I used to find discoloured coolant with significant solids residue, I don't see that when emptying evans out of the system. 

[Jonathan Kay]

the Evans Coolant appeared to give me more stable temperatures at a lower equilibrimium point on both water and oil.

I don't know how to reconcile that with the lower thermal capacity of Evans waterless coolant. The manufacturer's site says that you should expect higher running temperatures.

The fundemental Evans premise with corrosion is that by reducing the water content the potential for corrosion is reduced, thereby the corrosion inhibitors which are present are not exhausted.

The bit about "potential for corrosion" is waffle, it's actual corrosion that matters. Do inhibitors get consumed by inhibiting corrosion or by other processes, which may depend on time and heat? Does this differ between inhibitors?

where I used to find discoloured coolant with significant solids residue, I don't see that when emptying evans out of the system. 

Thanks. It's exactly that sort of test that should have been done by now. If I were a manufacturer I'd have gone to an independent laboratory and repeated that under controlled circumstances. 

I don't suppose we could ask you to switch back and see if the solids reappear?

Jonathan

 

[CaterBram]

not a chance, happy with what i've gone.

It works for me, I think like a lot of things with 7's we all have different opinions and thoughts quick often with no concrete evidence behind what we think, but then we would not be a car club without it :-)

[Mrp]

At the risk of upsetting one of the most prolific posters on Blatchat !

Perhaps you need to let this one go Jonathan and let people make their own conclusion.

Mrp

[Roadsport06]

All JK is looking for is independent evidence rather than some of the nonsense out there with some trying to explain the benefits of this stuff in scientific language but not using scientific method. If this was a medical treatment it wouldn't be licenced as it appears little has been done to prove it is better.

[John Vine]

All JK is looking for is independent evidence...

Exactly so.  Me too. 

JV 

[Jonathan Kay]

Two updates.

After some admirable persistence we know the following:

"Well, I had a long chat yesterday with a charming gentleman from Evans (UK).  In summary:

• Evans do not use OAT inhibitors (including 2-EHA) in their waterless coolants, due to the need for solubility in non-aqueous solvents
• He was unable to say (for IP and commercial reasons) what inhibitors they did use, but explained that the formulation differed according to the type of engine the coolant was designed for
• For old engines (with a high brass/copper/iron content) he recommended Vintage Cool, provided that the engine has a coolant pump (that is, not a thermo-siphon design) to cope with the higher viscosity
• Evans coolants are fully compatible with, and do not harm, silicone hoses, seals etc (claim based on extensive testing)"

And Evans' UK website has been completely redesigned. The biggest difference I can find is that the claim for increased engine power seems to have gone. This may be related to the following from the Advertising Standards Authority:

After consideration by the ASA of complaints received, the following companies and organisations agreed to amend or withdraw advertising without the need for a formal investigation:

Hydra Technologies Ltd t/a Evans Cooling Systems UK 28 January 2015.

Jonathan

 

 

[keybaud]

Ignoring the type of liquid used in a cooling system, the coolant's purpose is to transfer heat. Anything else it does is a side-effect, beneficial or otherwise.

Waterless based solutions are not as effective at transferring heat, but offer beneficial side-effects, such as reduced corrosion and reduced pressure (so less chance of hoses blowing). They also boil at a higher temperature, so can be used for an engine that runs hot, but deliberately making an engine run hotter will require more thought than just using waterless coolant, as the oil viscocity will now be reduced.

Note 1: If they transfer heat slower than water, this means that they not only take it away from the engine at a reduced rate, they also give it off at a reduced rate at the radiator, but if the engine termperature is the same for both types of coolant, then the water mix is not working at its full capacity. Bad analogy: I use a 10Kg bucket to carry 5Kg of sand and I then use a 5Kg bucket to carry 5Kg of sand, the sand transfer rate is the same, despite the smaller bucket.

My personal opinion: Snake oil in a pretty bottle. It's primary function (for normal cars, inc 7s) isn't as good as water based coolants, but it looks pretty and gives users something to talk about down the pub.

P.S. If it has a lower thermal capacity and you get a leak, you'll hit problems with waterless coolants quicker than with water-based ones.

 

[bigdog]

Having owned a carriage company at one time in my life. I was checking into the waterless coolant for my truck. Which used a 16 liter Caterpillar diesel engine. It was my understanding when the waterless coolant was first developed. The main intended use was in Diesels. As diesels do benefit from & are more efficient when operating at higher temps. So the WC would be very beneficial as it does not form steam bubbles next to the hot cylinder walls at higher temps. Said steam bubbles are a really bad thing. As the WC is so long lived, It would have been a definite plus in my case, As my truck would be driven about 120,000 miles per year.

I don't imagine that a petrol engine would benefit much from a higher operating temp. Especially if one has a carbureted engine.

[Simon.Rogers]

I am told the other benefit of running hotter in Diesels is that the fan need not switch on so regularly.

Running a fan on a truck costs huge BHP so this is how the engine also becomes more efficient.

I don't have a problem with the thermal efficiency.

I would rather not run under pressure.  If I do get a leak on a day I can tape it up and continue,

I won't get any corrosion.

I don#t think anyone has ever argued its more efficient.  It also runs hotter because it can take heat away by not boiling close to the liner.  Boiled water is a gas and can not carry the heat,  This is a significant contributing factor to the increase in the temp of the coolant leaving the engine.

I'll stick with mine.

 

[Mark Durrant]

Evans coolant works for and I will be sticking with it

[Nigel Fox]

Simon,

I've spent almost 50 years operating thermal power stations. It's disappointing to learn that boiled water cannot carry heat. I may take tomorrow off to figure out how these things work.

[Simon.Rogers]

Nigel you have by far more knowledge than me

i am only repeating what I was told and the little physics I can recall.

next time we meet I will bring a cup of coffee and sit and listen as I really would like to know.

i wasn't trying to say that steam does not carry heat.  What I had been told and it seemed logical was that if the water boiled locally and therefore formed a thin area of gas let's say around the top of the liner this was less efficient than another liquid (irrelevant of type) that remained a liquid and hence in contact with said liner and even though less efficient than water can continue to remove heat.

thats what had been explained to me.

all I can say in reality is that I get absolutely no pressurisation in the system.  Whether that is good or bad I can not answer but it feels safer to me.

more thane happy to learn otherwise.

[Jonathan Kay]

A lot of the Evans claims rely on the existence and effects of local boiling. I don't think this happens to any significant extent in most 7 engines in usual operation. One of the reasons for this scepticism is the lack of evidence presented by Evans. 

Engines probably run hotter (as stated by Evans) because of the lower thermal capacity than water or water and ethylene glycol. 

I haven't seen any measurements of pressure in the liquid coolant. Some of the benefits claimed on the old website depended on this. Again I don't understand why Evans don't present any data on this. There may be a reduction of pressure in the gas space (compared to water or water and ethylene glycol) but that's a different matter. 

Jonathan

PS: I'm recirculating the arguments in the multiple threads on this, but it is coolant... :-)

 

[Simon.Rogers]

Jonathan.

I am not particularly interested in the if,but, maybe and prove it about Evans any longer.

I have my own experience to fall back on that it does in fact work to reduce pressurization.  As do other members who have logged data that it helps their engine.

Others may feel different.

However I meet up at events with Nigel regularly and I will listen and learn from his experience.

I may end up with Nuclear Cooling :-)