Evans waterless coolant

[elie boone]

One can take this a step further, if you would have a light oil that has the same physical proportions as water ( as easy to pump arround ) that would be much better, no boiling or corrosion any more and it would last longer.

[Jonathan Kay]

Is that a subtle (early) 911 plug, elie?

:-)

Jonathan

[elie boone]

JK, not really, just a cheeky comment, it may be a brilliant product but why is it not a OEM fitment if it's so much more performant ? a manufactor would be able to use smaller waterways in the engine and smaller radiator = less cost and a lighter car

[Simon.Rogers]

No one has said its better at carrying heat than water.

Evans have never claimed that fact.

As I set out above the manufacturers stay away as there would be a dramatic loss in replacement parts required from corrosion.

[elie boone]

No water no overheating ? and they mostly compare to cheap or low quality anti freeze also if you mix anti freeze concentrate 50/50 with water you may even loose effectivity.30 to 40 % is more common. If a modern engine brakes down it's most likely electronic related rather than a rusty part, in fact the waterpump from a 2000 Duratec had no rust at all on the inside, not bad for a 13 year old motor that had hardley any maintenence telling from the smell of the oil ( burnt )

[Jonathan Kay]

... it may be a brilliant product but why is it not a OEM fitment if it's so much more performant ? a manufactor would be able to use smaller waterways in the engine and smaller radiator = less cost and a lighter car

That comment about early 911s was harking back to Setright's wonderful observation that all car engines are air-cooled but some interpose another fluid. And I still haven't found the original since our discussion of VW Transporters.

Is it possible to design much better cooling systems? In the last throes of very high performance piston engines for aircraft we saw evaporative cooling, 100% ethylene glycol and thrust generation from the waste heat. (All of those were studied in the development of the Spitfire and Merlin and are therefore very well documented.)

In highly specialised cars there's a load of cold water without a radiator in drag racing, and the use of pure water in some racing cars. I think the latter is to get the greatest thermal capacity in a setting where freezing isn't a risk because you're prepared to drain frequently. Has anyone used waste heat from the cooling system to blow aerodynamic surfaces (as with F1 exhausts) or to generate thrust?

But the most widely used technique is to use both oil and water as intermediate fluids. The 911 engines were the best and most persistent attempt to only use oil in a road car. This discussion prompted me to have a look at how they worked. They all had something like a radiator although the early ones hid it away. The exposed piping was responsible for quite a lot of the loss. But as the power went up they moved to bigger "external" radiators. And eventually they had to add the second fluid.

Are there any estimates on how much heat goes which way in high-powered 7s with oil coolers?

I don't think you could produce a radical design with big gains around waterways and radiator size based on propylene glycol: the thermal capacity is too low. But are there any other exotic fluids that would make it possible? Perhaps using a phase change?

Or any good recent articles on heat management in F1 engines? In the days when I was interested there was an interview with someone who was designing a new F1 engine from scratch for a new formula, and his view was that heat management was the first thing to be considered. It might have been Duckworth and was certainly after the DFV era.

Jonathan

 

 

 

[garybee]

I've been out of the loop for a while so this may be old news but if not...

Below is a 'cut and paste' originally posted on Pistonheads by 'opieoilman' :-

"Hi

This is something that has come from Red Line's suppliers.

Many concerns have been raised to us in recent months regarding the effectiveness of Waterless coolants and the inherent dangers they may possess. We have spent some time researching the product and would like to make all our customers aware of our findings.
Waterless products are 100% glycol, some are 100% propylene glycol, and others are a mix of propylene glycol and ethylene glycol. They are slippery when spilled or leaked onto tarmac. Assuming a baseline friction co-efficient reference of 1.00 for dry pavement, the friction co-efficient of water is 0.65. The friction co-efficient of Waterless products is 0.16, four times less than water. Some race circuits in America are now prohibiting the use of engine coolant that contains ANY glycol due to this fact.
The other and more pressing reason that Waterless products are prohibited at race circuits is that they are flammable. With flash points in the range of 110-130°C if the Waterless coolant were released at or above the flash point, it could ignite. Coolant temperatures can be observed in this range during actual operating conditions, making this a real risk. Reports have also been made of damage caused by glycol coolant fuelled fires, in some instances, destroying whole cars and resulting in thousands of pounds worth of damage.
The NHRA rule change regarding glycol coolants was the result of a terrible fire where the competitor was using Waterless coolant in his car. The engine pushed a head gasket and the coolant caught fire which came under the seat resulting in a cockpit fire. Glycol coolants are now prohibited in the NHRA. In another case the Motorsport South Africa ASN prohibited the use of glycol on safety grounds “In the case of both cars and motorcycles, the use of glycol-based coolant additives is prohibited.”
In addition, the operational downside is the decreased ability to transfer heat compared to water based coolants. Waterless coolant should never be advised in applications where heat issues are apparent, Waterless coolants will only compound this problem as they lack the necessary heat transfer properties to provide a solution.
Although the product is a very good corrosion inhibitor, it will not adequately protect an engine when overheating. The Waterless coolants cannot transfer heat as efficiently as water, thus causing an engine to run hotter. The engine will continue to run hot until a critical component fails as the boiling point is so high.
To summarize:
Engines can run 45-60°C hotter (at the cylinder heads) with Waterless products.
Stabilized coolant temps are increased by 15-25°C, versus straight water with Water Wetter.
Specific heat capacity of Waterless products ranges from 0.64 to 0.68, or about half that of water.
Engine octane requirement is increased by 5-7 numbers reducing engine horsepower by 4-5%.
Viscosity is 3-4 times higher than what OEM water pumps are rated to accommodate.
Coolant flow rate through radiator tubes is reduced by 20-25% due to the higher viscosity.
Race circuits are starting to prohibit Waterless products because they are flammable and cause a slippery surface hazard when leaked.
When speaking to a classic car specialist recently the subject of Waterless coolants was brought up.A Waterless coolant manufacturer had given them product sponsorship ahead of classic Le Mans 2012, in FP1 the car stopped on track with smoke billowing out of bonnet. On closer inspection the coolant had plasticized and warped the head, the coolant then passed through the head gasket hydraulic locking cylinder one. The damaged cause was very costly and ended the team’s weekend early, it is not a product they would recommend or use again.

Hope that helps

Cheers

Tim"

 

 

[Simon.Rogers]

Gary

Old storey re written!  That has been around in the US for years.

I have forwarded it on to Evans for theyr response.

[Simon.Rogers]

Have a read of the complete thread particularly the funny chap at the bottom of page 2. 

PH Thread

 

[John Vine]

Have a read of the complete thread....

I've just done that -- thanks for pointer.

 

For me, the most relevant comment came from the fellow who said:

Now, I would like to see a test of regular concentrate antifreeze vs waterless coolants

That's precisely what's missing at the moment.  There are views and opinions being thrown about like confetti, but practically a complete absence of evidence -- by which I mean, results from independent lab tests. 

In a former incarnation, I spent many happy years in the research labs of a multi-national chemical company.  If I'd proposed to my superiors that we should market a product without any independent supporting evidence that it worked, and why it worked, I'd have likely been at the sharp end of a P45. 

JV

[Simon.Rogers]

I don't particularly care anymore.  There are so many who know better that are not part of the industry.  Who do not work in chemicals or whatever spouting off on many "other" forums that to try and argue the case is pointless.

If you trust it as I do for the peace of mind you do not get localised boiling - I have first hand experience that it will go to 127deg with no pressurisation, and observed by others when I opened the rad cap!  - then use it if not carry on with whatever you use.

I am happy that the likes of Honda works MotoX, KTM, LeMans teams etc etc all use it - the list is growing - see their website.

 

[John Vine]

I don't particularly care anymore.

That's a pity.  It suggests you don't believe the scientific method has any role to play in assessing the merits (or otherwise) of Evans' coolants.

I have to say I remain sceptical about some of the claimed benefits, especially when considering the physics -- viscosity and specific heat, for example.  As for the chemistry, I don't have enough information to form a conclusion either way.  The MSDS states that the main component is ethylene glycol at 66-70%. The other main component appears to be propylene glycol (about 30%).  The inhibitor package (less than 2%) is not published -- it's proprietary information, Evans say. However, they have already stated that it doesn't include 2-EHA, but does contain an enzyme blocker (presumably to render the EG component less toxic).

Although I'm sceptical for the moment, I'm also 100% willing to change my mind should compelling evidence appear -- after all, that's the very essence of the scientific method!

JV

[Simon.Rogers]

John

I think you have miss interpreted my post.

I believe in the stuff - I have used it for 4 years.  

No issues but of course I can not reference anything as I did no back to back tests.

I understand all the technical arguments but I "don't care about" all the comments on the forums from people who have not used it or in particular are posting negative stories written by manufactureres of other products.

I have seen direct communications between the companies concerned and I will not post them as they are not mine to post.

Thats what I am fed up about.  So I will continue to use it as the one overiding thing I can prove and I think is extremely beneficial is the lack of pressurisation!

[garybee]

I see I can still count on the usual snidey comments if I post something you don't agree with Simon. I saw something that appeared to highlight possible concerns with a product that some members in the club use. After having a look on here to see if anyone had commented I put it up to invite comment. Not to score points over anyone, simply to ensure that if there was an issue then anyone using it was aware.  

It bothers me a little that as soon as anyone posts a negative perception about this product, someone with an interest in selling it is straight there to read the sales brochure at them which he has clearly swallowed whole without question.  In combination with this, receiving sales emails from your business after only ever having contact with you as competition secretary doesn't give me great feelings about your objectivity.

[john milner]

From what I have read I am of the opinion that the only real world benefit is next to no pressurisation and that anything else is mumbo jumbo salestalk. Reduced pressurisation is of great interest to me but I am not sure it offsets the cost.

[Jonathan Kay]

This issue is bubbling up in another thread. I'd much rather we continued it here to avoid the need for repetition... 

Jonathan

[CharlesElliott]

I'll summarise

- there is a lack of independent science or verification behind the claims

- some people believe that it is better than coolant

- some people believe that it is no better than coolant

- some people believe that it is worse than coolant

Charles

[dikko]

I've used it on my little formula Ford Simon. I found it efficient and trouble-free. What I did discover - and the reason I used it - is that it will not cure a problem. The car was overheating after a few laps with water. I tried Evans and it was better but not the answer. The cure was a larger alli Rad. Both water and Evans worked well.

As Evans doesn't pressurize and with the other advantages re maintenance-free I would have said Evans was the one to go for.

[cj247]

I've used Evans waterless coolant on my K series for about 3 years after I had problems with it overheating in traffic. Since then I've had no issues & it hasn't affected the silicone hoses.

[Jonathan Kay]

Although I'm sceptical for the moment, I'm also 100% willing to change my mind should compelling evidence appear -- after all, that's the very essence of the scientific method!

I'm unconvinced by what's been presented so far, either from observations or from plausibility.

How would a user know if it had reduced "hot spots"?

Jonathan

[anthonym]

further to my post here: https://www.lotus7.club/forum/techtalk/waterless-coolant-1 

I just set fire to some Evans Waterless coolant. Much to my surprise.

A saucer, a little coolant sufficient to cover the floor of the saucer. 

Two matches, held to and then placed in the coolant. Nothing.

Two more matches, tried to set the liquid alight. Nothing. 

Returned to reading these threads, having left the lit matches burning in the coolant (on the cooker hotplate just in case)

After some time a small fire catches the corner of my eye. The whole saucer is burning nicely, like a bowl of paraffin. 

Now then, how hot does my engine get? 100 deg c or a bit more maybe. 

How hot is a match? Google my fickle friend says:

The temperature of a burning match is 600 to 800 degrees Celsius. 

Ok, in 16 years I cannot think of a time ever, including HGF and 100% coolant loss, where my V6 Duratec Mondeo has achieved 60 to 800 deg c.

All that said, I do NOT like the idea that it is flammable: never occurred to me.

Hot spots, ...

Anthony 

[Jonathan Kay]

Evans' comments on this.

We did discuss flammability but I think it was in one of the other threads. I don't think it adds a major risk as long as it's within the circuit but it could just if leaked onto flame or exhausts or some electrical fault. And I don't think we've heard of relevant incidents.

(But trivial compared to petrol.)

Jonathan (Crossed with John's because I was trying to get my mind round flash points etc.)

[John Vine]

You have just demonstrated one of the problems associated with glycol coolants.  It's not the internal engine temperature that you should be worried about but rather the temperature of the exhaust system, especially the primaries.  This is reportedly the main reason why glycols are disliked (banned, even) in certain racing circles.

JV

[Jonathan Kay]

You have just demonstrated one of the problems associated with glycol coolants.

Definition, please. Are you including ethylene glycol in that?

Thanks

Jonathan

[John Vine]

Oh yes.  The reported bans cover EG as well as PG, including when mixed with water in any proportions.

ETA: Such bans appear to be concerned with two things: flammability and on-track "slipperiness".

JV