Evans waterless coolant

[Jonathan Kay]

Thanks

Jonathan

[anthonym]

Primaries. Hmm. I arrived at the point of experimenting with Waterless Coolant because a component of my Mondeo Mk2 water pump sliced a hole in its housing. I discovered the problem when there was steam everywhere because the leaking coolant was pouring on to my

primaries. 

oops. And there was me thinking it was the exhaust touching the deep snow I had been driving in (a week or three ago, since disappeared).  

Incidentally, the chat (in threads here) about the inhibitors (the package): on youtube there are a couple of vids by Jay Leno  with the Evans Coolant US marketing man. Many years use of the product. They (principally because I cannot remember which) said that the reason rust is no longer a problem is because there is no water, not because of the (small) inhibitor package, which is present to manage any remaining water presence; this being defined as less than 3% if the installation is to be classified as "acceptable". 

I suppose my car(s) being 16 years old it's a bit late.

I find the idea of flammable glycol falling on to my R500 primaries to be somewhat chilling. 

Anthony

 

 

and for any pedants, "rust" is my sense of humour, I mean of course damage caused by water, but I forget the word. Corrosion?

[John Vine]

and for any pedants, "rust" is my sense of humour, I mean of course damage caused by water, but I forget the word. Corrosion?

Well, "rust" (an oxide of iron) is very likely the correct term when applied to some of those big American-muscle iron engines that Jay Leno appears to favour (or should that read "favor"?).

IIRC, the inhibitor package in Evans (about 2% by vol) serves two functions: it suppresses corrosion caused by water, and it mitigates the toxic nature of ethylene glycol.

JV

[anthonym]

toxic? Evans Marketing chap in that video says you can practically drink it it's so not toxic. It's there for all to hear. 

Yes 2% sound right.

If it's bollo I'd like to know.

 

need someone with a fire extinguisher to drop some Evans onto some hot primaries.. I have a pic somewhere, on the two Steves' rolling road..  I was amazed. Might be on here somewhere

 

need to find that pic

[Jonathan Kay]

Ethylene glycol (as in most engines) is highly toxic to humans and some products have a strongly bitter additive as a countermeasure.

Don't we think that Evans Waterless Coolant is mostly propylene glycol, which is much less toxic? It might vary across their different products.

Jonathan

[Jonathan Kay]

Many years use of the product. They (principally because I cannot remember which) said that the reason rust is no longer a problem is because there is no water...

I haven't been able to find any comparative studies of corrosion.

If I were Evans I'd sponsor some randomised trials in fleets with an independent trusted evaluator.

Jonathan

[anthonym]

so, fancy pouring some coolant on that? 

I don't. No idea what temperature that is, somewhat more than 100 deg c

edit: context is rolling road ecu mapping at the two steves, engine howling at well over 7k rpm.

at present I am doing more doing than thinking...

[Jonathan Kay]

500 to 1000°C.

Jonathan

[SM25T]

Cherry red ....

[anthonym]

zo, 800 deg c was it? the flashpoint. edit: no 600-800 was a lighted match temp

[John Vine]

toxic? Evans Marketing chap in that video says you can practically drink it it's so not toxic. It's there for all to hear.

Yes, I heard that too.  I think there are only two ways it could fairly be described as non-toxic:

Either it's almost entirely propylene glycol (PG),

or it's a mixture of ethylene glycol (EG) and PG, plus some form of enzyme blocker to inhibit the metabolism of the highly poisonous EG.

There's also some evidence that simply adding PG to EG will diminish the toxicity in the same way that an enzyme blocker does, but without the blocker.  I think that was the original research finding of the founder of the Evans enterprise.  I don't know if it's credible, however.  Perhaps JK could comment?

 

Don't we think that Evans Waterless Coolant is mostly propylene glycol, which is much less toxic? It might vary across their different products.

Looking at some of the MSDS info, it seems that quite a few Evans coolants contain around 65-70% EG.

JV

[anthonym]

I have a vague recollection about hearing one can/could drink anti-freeze, which is why they make it taste horrid (and no, on this occasion I have not tasted it). These comments that it's toxic surprised me. Does "toxic" mean it can damage my paintwork? Or just me if I drink it. Can't say I recall spilled anti-freeze damaging my paint; unlike battery acid :(

The mix: "It might vary across their different products."

I believe I have read that too: now I am curious how the mix alters properties.

 

[Paul McKenzie]

Ethylene Glycol - don't drink unless you're down on your luck and /or Russian

http://www.hrpworld.com/store/media/media/manufacturer/evans/pdfs/Evans%20Waterless%20Powersports%20Engine%20Coolant.pdf

 

 

[John Vine]

That MSDS is interesting.  It states that Evans Waterless Powersports Engine Coolant contains  2-EHA (2-Ethylhexanoic acid), an OAT inhibitor that the Evans UK people told me a while ago they do NOT use.

Re toxicity, this MSDS for Powersports-R claims the coolant is non-toxic.  Because the "blend of synthetic diols" is sure to include a large proportion of EG, they include an ADH enzyme blocker.  Without such an additive, I don't see how anything containing EG could ever be described as non-toxic.  

I'd be interested to know what blocker they use.  Such information as Evans provide is generally described either as proprietary or under the patented trademark "DeTox". 

Any thoughts, JK?  Could it be Fomepizole?  Or would that be prohibitively expensive? 

JV

[john milner]

Strange how they class it as non-toxic and then go on to describe how dangerous the stuff is. I assume that their definition of non-toxic means it may make you ill in some way but it shouldn't kill an accidentally exposed healthy adult if treated quickly. Regular coolant/anti-freeze is a well known domestic cat killer.

 

2. COMPOSITION / INFORMATION ON PRODUCT COMPONENTS
CONCENTRATION R PHASES CLASSIFICATION
Patented blend of synthetic diols with ADH Enzyme blocker 100% Not Classified Non‐Toxic
and non‐aqueous corrosion Inhibitors for I.C. engines See NB 1) & 2) below
1) Not a hazardous mixture according to Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008.
2) This substance is not classified as dangerous according to Directive 67/548/EEC.

4. FIRST AID MEASURES
Health effects ‐ Eyes Wash eyes promptly and rinse for 15 minutes. Get medical attention.
Health effects ‐ Skin Remove affected person from source of contamination. Wash skin with soap or mild detergent.
Health effects ‐ Ingestion Get medical attention. Rinse mouth thoroughly. DO NOT induce vomiting.
First Aid ‐ Inhalation Remove person to fresh air at once. Perform artificial respiration if breathing
has stopped. Keep the affected person warm and at rest. Get medical attention.

8. EXPOSURE CONTROL/PERSONAL PROTECTION
Engineering Control Measures Engineering methods to prevent or control exposure are preferred.
Methods include process or personnel enclosure, mechanical
ventilation (dilution and local exhaust), and control of process conditions.
Respiratory Protection Respiratory protection if there is a risk of exposure to high vapour concentrations.
Hand Protection PVC gloves
Eye Protection Chemical goggles or face shield must be worn.
Body protection Wear overall or apron.

11. TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Acute Toxicity LD 50/oral/rat:>20000 mg/kg
Irritancy ‐ Eyes This material is irritating to mucous membrane/eyes.
Irritancy ‐ Skin This material is non‐irritant (Draize test) to the skin.

 

[Paul McKenzie]

John,

You'll never find the risk phrases for 'Patented blend of synthetic diols' in the European regs., that's why it's not classified.  However if you were to reveal that those diols include EG then that would be a whole different matter, and you might well classify the formulation in the same way as the US-derived msds.

Also the fact that it contains a substance that might be loosely called an 'antidote' has no bearing on the toxicity of the other components of the mixture. 

[John Vine]

I fear some of their marketing people might be over-simplifying or misrepresenting facts.

For example, the Evans UK website states:

"Evans Waterless Coolants are patented synthetic non-toxic liquids blended with a non-aqueous proprietary inhibitor package."

Well, on the assumption that a major component of their coolants is EG (as attested in their MSDS publications), the statement above is simply incorrect.  What they should have said is something along the lines of: "Evans Waterless Coolants are patented synthetic liquids, rendered non-toxic by the addition of an enzyme blocker" (as they do say in the MSDS quoted above).

Certainly, PG (possibly around 20-30% of their coolants) is generally regarded as non-toxic, but let's be clear: EG is a million miles away from being non-toxic. On the contrary, a dose of 1500mg/kg (say 120g for an 80kg adult) is reckoned to be fatal to humans.  Indeed, on the same website, Evans recognize this toxicity when they state: "[traditional coolants are]...usually 50% Toxic Ethylene Glycol" .

Regular coolant/anti-freeze is a well known domestic cat killer.

It certainly is, and children too (albeit in larger doses, and even when bittering agents are added).

JV

 

 

 

[John Vine]

Thanks, Paul. 

So, are they hiding behind the word "patented"? 

The other thing that interests me is the inclusion of the ADH enzyme blocker.  I've always understood that these were prescribed after someone had drunk EG (or methanol, for that matter), rather than as a protective agent prior to drinking the stuff.

Also the fact that it contains a substance that might be loosely called an 'antidote' has no bearing on the toxicity of the other components of the mixture.

But that seems to be Evans' justification for describing their coolants as "non-toxic".  Are they simply playing at semantics?

JV

[Paul McKenzie]

Yes, you would be amazed at what you see on msds's.  Back in the 70's and early 80's msds's were very rudimentary and often used the phraseology 'patented blends' to disguise the components from potential competitors ..particularly used to be the case with US based companies.  Nowadays you don't see it too often and in this case it's the US company who are being more explicit. Even so we sometimes find that even the biggest corporations sometimes get their classifications wrong, but they are not deliberately evasive.

[TomB]

Ok, simple question, but I anticipate a far from simple answer.

Should I fill my 1.8 k series with this stuff, given there is no coolant in the car at present? 

Ive got silicone hoses, it's a standard Supersport, albeit with SLR TB, used almost entirely on road. Last year I only did 1500 miles due to a new baby. I've got a new bottle of the red OAT antifreeze ready to go in the garage, just wondering if it's a good opportunity? 

[paul richards]

Tom

If you decide on Evans Waterless I have about 8 litres at a good price.

 

 

[Jonathan Kay]

Should I fill my 1.8 k series with this stuff, given there is no coolant in the car at present?

I choose not to.

Jonathan

 

 

[John Vine]

Should I fill my 1.8 k series with this stuff, given there is no coolant in the car at present? 

I don't use the stuff either, as I've yet to see any quantified and independently-verified benefits over and above a well-maintained standard system with a 50/50 water/OAT-coolant. 

JV

[Mark Durrant]

I have used it for the past 2 years with no issues and see no reason to revert to a 50/50 water/OAT-coolant

[Simon.Rogers]

I have used it for the last 5 years and will be refilling the Busa after a rebuild with exactly the same stuff I took out.  I recovered approx 80% of the coolant and it looks just like the new stuff in the bottle.