Waterless Engine Coolant
- Thread starter SkiFreak
- Start date
Due to it not containing water there is no chance of corrosion and components last longer
No pressure means less work on gaskets and less chance of blowing
And if it fancies you you can run at higher temperatures and push your engine harder... Although that's more of a racing application
No pressure means less work on gaskets and less chance of blowing
And if it fancies you you can run at higher temperatures and push your engine harder... Although that's more of a racing application
I put it in my jeep a year ago and like it a lot so far. If you call/email they have been very responsive and helpful. The purpose of it is not to solve overheating. It's more of a consistency and long term maintenance product. There's no long any pressure in your system so hoses and such last longer. There's no water so no corrosion. My temps which I monitor with a digital gauge have been much more consistent - not lower or higher than before.
I read up a bunch on it. It's been around a long time in the commercial truck market and is popular with racing.
I had to do a full flush anyway so I figured I would give it a try. It's cheaper than a lot of other mods we've all done
I read up a bunch on it. It's been around a long time in the commercial truck market and is popular with racing.
I had to do a full flush anyway so I figured I would give it a try. It's cheaper than a lot of other mods we've all done
Evans is awesome…
Most situations of overheating are only 10-20 degrees more than water glycol mixes can handle. Make sure your cooling system is in good condition first though, it won't fix a plugged rad. We have run it in big trucks, increased the fan stat cut in by 10 degrees so the engine can run a little hotter, and the fan does not cut in any where near as it does with the factory settings and coolant, this pays for the upgrade in fuel savings in the first month on a highway tractor. Engines are very happy to run at 210-230, efficiency does go up, conventional coolant is at it's limit though. It pretty much eliminates liner cavitation which can lead to pin holes in the cylinder liner, this was even an issue with the old 7.3 Fords. I run it in my own vehicles, my most notable difference is in my bike, I race a KTM 300 in the woods, most guys waste a lot of time and money with bigger rads, electric fans, higher pressure caps, and other common upgrades, I just run Evans, no steam ever! Another real bonus with Evans is the lack of expansion so a greatly reduced cooling system pressure when hot, no boiling coolant when you crack a rad cap, just a light relief of pressure, in my experience I'd say it feels like about 2 psi at 200 degrees. That's a huge safety factor you cannot get out of glycol.
Most situations of overheating are only 10-20 degrees more than water glycol mixes can handle. Make sure your cooling system is in good condition first though, it won't fix a plugged rad. We have run it in big trucks, increased the fan stat cut in by 10 degrees so the engine can run a little hotter, and the fan does not cut in any where near as it does with the factory settings and coolant, this pays for the upgrade in fuel savings in the first month on a highway tractor. Engines are very happy to run at 210-230, efficiency does go up, conventional coolant is at it's limit though. It pretty much eliminates liner cavitation which can lead to pin holes in the cylinder liner, this was even an issue with the old 7.3 Fords. I run it in my own vehicles, my most notable difference is in my bike, I race a KTM 300 in the woods, most guys waste a lot of time and money with bigger rads, electric fans, higher pressure caps, and other common upgrades, I just run Evans, no steam ever! Another real bonus with Evans is the lack of expansion so a greatly reduced cooling system pressure when hot, no boiling coolant when you crack a rad cap, just a light relief of pressure, in my experience I'd say it feels like about 2 psi at 200 degrees. That's a huge safety factor you cannot get out of glycol.
One issue to consider is that if you get a leak without a good supply of additional Evans on hand, you will have a problem if you add water to the Evans. You'll have to empty the whole system and dry it out or get the system hot enough to boil off the water without boiling off the Evans.
Aussie Iron
Explorer
Still wouldn't go there. You put a stick through the radiator and you're in for a lot of work just to get it home of the trail.
Water/glycol for me, increase the % glycol and you increase the boiling point. Worked with my F350 towing a 32ft. van.
Dan.
Water/glycol for me, increase the % glycol and you increase the boiling point. Worked with my F350 towing a 32ft. van.
Dan.
Quote from another forum:
Now this is for 1980's VWs:
Definitely don't run Evans coolant. The problem is that waterless (100% propylene glycol) coolant has a considerably lower specific heat than water, that is, it takes less heat energy to warm waterless coolant than a 50/50 antifreeze mix (which is less still than straight water). On a car with a cooling system that's too small for the hot summer already, you're reducing the capacity further by running Evans. Keep in mind that your radiator doesn't get rid of temperature (degrees), it has to get rid of heat energy (calories, joules, Btu, however you want to measure).
While it is true that 100% PG will run no pressure and cause less stress on your hoses, it simply cannot move heat away from your engine as quickly as water or EG/water mix can. In order to move as much heat, you have to heat the PG to a higher temperature to get that heat away from the engine, causing your engine to run hotter. Since PG doesn't boil until 188C, you can get your engine all the way up to 188C with zero pressure--not exactly a good thing in an engine designed to run in the mid-90s. With a 20psi cap on, you could be well over 200C before you boiled the coolant. If higher boiling point alone were a good thing, I would put biodiesel (soybean oil ester) in my cooling system--its boiling point is over 200C
In a system with a HUGE radiator (say, a GM), it's probably not such a bad idea, but in systems that are a little small, MORE specific heat (e.g. as much water as you can run without running the risk of freezing) will cause it to run cooler. I ran my QSW on about 95% water, 5% glycol (for corrosion resistance) one summer. It ran noticeably cooler.
Here's the math for you... The specific heat of water (in cal/g or kcal/kg) is 1.0. Straight PG is 0.59, and the usual 50/50 EG/H2O mix is around 0.8. So, to oversimplify a little bit, if your 10-quart cooling system moves some amount of heat at a specific temperature, you'd need a 13.6 quart PG system or an 8-quart pure H2O system. Put another way, if your engine puts out enough heat to warm your 50/50 coolant by 10C, it would warm pure PG by 13.5C
Now this is for 1980's VWs:
Definitely don't run Evans coolant. The problem is that waterless (100% propylene glycol) coolant has a considerably lower specific heat than water, that is, it takes less heat energy to warm waterless coolant than a 50/50 antifreeze mix (which is less still than straight water). On a car with a cooling system that's too small for the hot summer already, you're reducing the capacity further by running Evans. Keep in mind that your radiator doesn't get rid of temperature (degrees), it has to get rid of heat energy (calories, joules, Btu, however you want to measure).
While it is true that 100% PG will run no pressure and cause less stress on your hoses, it simply cannot move heat away from your engine as quickly as water or EG/water mix can. In order to move as much heat, you have to heat the PG to a higher temperature to get that heat away from the engine, causing your engine to run hotter. Since PG doesn't boil until 188C, you can get your engine all the way up to 188C with zero pressure--not exactly a good thing in an engine designed to run in the mid-90s. With a 20psi cap on, you could be well over 200C before you boiled the coolant. If higher boiling point alone were a good thing, I would put biodiesel (soybean oil ester) in my cooling system--its boiling point is over 200C
In a system with a HUGE radiator (say, a GM), it's probably not such a bad idea, but in systems that are a little small, MORE specific heat (e.g. as much water as you can run without running the risk of freezing) will cause it to run cooler. I ran my QSW on about 95% water, 5% glycol (for corrosion resistance) one summer. It ran noticeably cooler.
Here's the math for you... The specific heat of water (in cal/g or kcal/kg) is 1.0. Straight PG is 0.59, and the usual 50/50 EG/H2O mix is around 0.8. So, to oversimplify a little bit, if your 10-quart cooling system moves some amount of heat at a specific temperature, you'd need a 13.6 quart PG system or an 8-quart pure H2O system. Put another way, if your engine puts out enough heat to warm your 50/50 coolant by 10C, it would warm pure PG by 13.5C
Not to sound like a salesperson for Evans but I had discussions with them about all these points. Their explanation was this:
Water is the best for transfer as we all know. The problem is local boiling or cavitation spots around the cylinders or heads that creat steam bubbles or gas which reduces the heat transfer. Since Evans doesn't have that issue it can absorb more heat even though on paper it is less capable. I certainly can't verify any of these claims but that is their explanation for those that care. I can say from my personal experience the temps are more consistent than they were with water in the system.
As to other arguments about it. We don't get upset about oil and transmission fluid not being compatible with water. They server a purpose and you deal with carrying spare. Worst case in an emergency I can put straight water in temporarily and get somewhere to do better repairs.
Water is the best for transfer as we all know. The problem is local boiling or cavitation spots around the cylinders or heads that creat steam bubbles or gas which reduces the heat transfer. Since Evans doesn't have that issue it can absorb more heat even though on paper it is less capable. I certainly can't verify any of these claims but that is their explanation for those that care. I can say from my personal experience the temps are more consistent than they were with water in the system.
As to other arguments about it. We don't get upset about oil and transmission fluid not being compatible with water. They server a purpose and you deal with carrying spare. Worst case in an emergency I can put straight water in temporarily and get somewhere to do better repairs.
thethePete
Explorer
Not to refute this entirely, but the objective is not to keep your engine as cool as possible. The objective is to maintain the preferred operating temperature, which happens to be pretty close to 190-200*F, which is why your t-stat is set to open right around that temperature. The closer you can get it to running that temperature the better your mileage and performance will be. Load causes heat, which can be a problem, that's why your cooling system has a rad that can transfer so much heat out of the system. If the objective was simply to keep the engine as cool as possible you wouldn't have a thermostat in it. An undersized cooling system is its own problem, as stated above, this stuff isn't a bandaid for a borked cooling system. It's meant for diesels and other applications where coolant acidity and cavitation are problems, regardless of their marketing literature. Being able to run a 'pressureless cooling system' is just a side benefit, if you will.
There is a reason that very high performance vehicles/track cars run straight water, or water+water wetter or equivalent. And it's not strictly due to track rules. If you don't care about freezing and you just want to keep your engine as cool as possible, pull your t-stat, run water+water wetter and wonder why your mileage and engine longevity just took a ****.
SkiFreak
Crazy Person
Well... it would seem that I have opened a can of worms by starting this thread.
I should clarify my original reason for asking for feedback on waterless engine coolant. It was not as a possible solution for overheating problems, it was simply as an alternative to using water+glycol.
I have read all of the replies given here and appreciated people's opinions on this product. As with nearly every product, there are pluses and minuses, and Evans waterless coolant is no exception here.
From what has been written I can surmise that in a properly functioning cooling system the Evans waterless coolant could be a viable alternative.
As has been highlighted... if a leak should occur out on the trail then you should be prepared for that by carrying some spare waterless coolant. Having said that, in a worst case scenario, the cooling system could be topped up with water to get you out of trouble, but that would ultimately be a little costly, as you would need to purge the system at some point to remove any water. I do not see that as a showstopper, but it would be a bit of a pain.
I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong here, but my understanding is that running an engine slightly hotter is not always detrimental. What is detrimental is the additional pressure in the cooling system that is associated with that extra heat. Often, a hotter engine will run more efficiently, but obviously there are limits.
The claims from Evans that their coolant reduces a cavitation effect, if true, cannot be overlooked as a major benefit to this product. Having a hydraulics background I know how damaging cavitation of any kind can be on a system, in fact, this was one of the key points I saw for this coolant being beneficial.
I would be happy to give this product a go, but the cost is something that is outside my current budget. If there were a money back guarantee if not satisfied I would probably jump at it, but that is not the case, so I will probably have to wait until everything else is completed on my camper before considering a change to this waterless coolant.
Still interested in any other comments on this stuff...
I should clarify my original reason for asking for feedback on waterless engine coolant. It was not as a possible solution for overheating problems, it was simply as an alternative to using water+glycol.
I have read all of the replies given here and appreciated people's opinions on this product. As with nearly every product, there are pluses and minuses, and Evans waterless coolant is no exception here.
From what has been written I can surmise that in a properly functioning cooling system the Evans waterless coolant could be a viable alternative.
As has been highlighted... if a leak should occur out on the trail then you should be prepared for that by carrying some spare waterless coolant. Having said that, in a worst case scenario, the cooling system could be topped up with water to get you out of trouble, but that would ultimately be a little costly, as you would need to purge the system at some point to remove any water. I do not see that as a showstopper, but it would be a bit of a pain.
I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong here, but my understanding is that running an engine slightly hotter is not always detrimental. What is detrimental is the additional pressure in the cooling system that is associated with that extra heat. Often, a hotter engine will run more efficiently, but obviously there are limits.
The claims from Evans that their coolant reduces a cavitation effect, if true, cannot be overlooked as a major benefit to this product. Having a hydraulics background I know how damaging cavitation of any kind can be on a system, in fact, this was one of the key points I saw for this coolant being beneficial.
I would be happy to give this product a go, but the cost is something that is outside my current budget. If there were a money back guarantee if not satisfied I would probably jump at it, but that is not the case, so I will probably have to wait until everything else is completed on my camper before considering a change to this waterless coolant.
Still interested in any other comments on this stuff...
Here is a consideration:
The following piston is out of my sons KX 85, on this piston there are:
16 2 hour hare scrambles for 32 race hours
3 motocross weekends for another 12.5 race hours
12 weekends of riding at 6 hours per weekend (very conservatively) 72 hours
5 practise days at the local track at 4 hours per day for 20 hours
Total 44.5 race hours and 92 hard riding hours, 116.5 hours total.
Factory recommended piston replacement interval is 20 hours.
I pull the pipe, spark plug, and drop a camera inside the cylinder after every race while servicing preventatively.
If you know anything about a 85CC 2 stoke motocross bike, that is pretty darn good, they can be hard on top ends. The engine is substantially smaller and, much higher performing than the mentioned VW engine. It is jetted pretty much perfectly, hence the lack of any carbon on the piston, so cylinder temp is not on the edge, but not far from it. We run Evans coolant for the stability and to prevent overheating which will pretty much wipe out a 2 stroke piston and cylinder, we also run Amsoil Dominator race oil, we run this stuff in everything.
So here is a consideration, especially for those hot summer days, you blow a fan belt off and don't notice it in time, especially in an older vehicle without warning lights or shut downs, your engine hits 250 or 260 before you realize it, but you don't blow all your coolant out, you are able to let your engine cool down and continue on for short bursts if nothing else, and your engine is really no worse for wear. In my case i was able to drive my F-650 with a C7 Cat 60 KM's down the highway to the next town where I could repair my failed fan clutch, the temp gauge sat at 250 with the warning light on steady, but that's where it sat, no tow bill, no replacing coolant that boiled over. And I was on a seriously busy highway with no room to be messing with a broken down truck. Who would disagree that it's a pretty good safety advantage?
So if you are doing a rebuild, a restoration, a cooling system upgrade why not throw it in? Rely on your rig to the point that an overheating situation could endanger your life? I'd say use it. If your trying to fix an overheating problem, fix the source of the problem, don't band aid it.
KX85 piston:
My F-650 and the derelict fan hub that got a couple of 3/8 bolts drilled through it to lock it up after it failed:
http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/images/attach/jpg.gif
http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/images/attach/jpg.gif
The following piston is out of my sons KX 85, on this piston there are:
16 2 hour hare scrambles for 32 race hours
3 motocross weekends for another 12.5 race hours
12 weekends of riding at 6 hours per weekend (very conservatively) 72 hours
5 practise days at the local track at 4 hours per day for 20 hours
Total 44.5 race hours and 92 hard riding hours, 116.5 hours total.
Factory recommended piston replacement interval is 20 hours.
I pull the pipe, spark plug, and drop a camera inside the cylinder after every race while servicing preventatively.
If you know anything about a 85CC 2 stoke motocross bike, that is pretty darn good, they can be hard on top ends. The engine is substantially smaller and, much higher performing than the mentioned VW engine. It is jetted pretty much perfectly, hence the lack of any carbon on the piston, so cylinder temp is not on the edge, but not far from it. We run Evans coolant for the stability and to prevent overheating which will pretty much wipe out a 2 stroke piston and cylinder, we also run Amsoil Dominator race oil, we run this stuff in everything.
So here is a consideration, especially for those hot summer days, you blow a fan belt off and don't notice it in time, especially in an older vehicle without warning lights or shut downs, your engine hits 250 or 260 before you realize it, but you don't blow all your coolant out, you are able to let your engine cool down and continue on for short bursts if nothing else, and your engine is really no worse for wear. In my case i was able to drive my F-650 with a C7 Cat 60 KM's down the highway to the next town where I could repair my failed fan clutch, the temp gauge sat at 250 with the warning light on steady, but that's where it sat, no tow bill, no replacing coolant that boiled over. And I was on a seriously busy highway with no room to be messing with a broken down truck. Who would disagree that it's a pretty good safety advantage?
So if you are doing a rebuild, a restoration, a cooling system upgrade why not throw it in? Rely on your rig to the point that an overheating situation could endanger your life? I'd say use it. If your trying to fix an overheating problem, fix the source of the problem, don't band aid it.
KX85 piston:
My F-650 and the derelict fan hub that got a couple of 3/8 bolts drilled through it to lock it up after it failed:
http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/images/attach/jpg.gif
http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/images/attach/jpg.gif
Attachments
Most of people who say it won't work with out trying it are just stuck in their ways
It's like still using paper maps instead of running a GPS... Both do the same job... Both have their pros and cons but because paper maps have been used for hundreds of years people assume that paper maps are the best form of navigation
It's the same with this... In ten years this stuff might be in vehicles from the factory!
It's like still using paper maps instead of running a GPS... Both do the same job... Both have their pros and cons but because paper maps have been used for hundreds of years people assume that paper maps are the best form of navigation
It's the same with this... In ten years this stuff might be in vehicles from the factory!