Evans waterless coolant

[Wiz_kid53]

has anyone used this? I have access to it through work for free so the cost is not a factor for me however I don't have an unlimited supply, but im wondering if it will lower actual operating temps. I think that I will see higher coolant temps due to the increased thermal efficiency of the evans which theoretically should mean lower engine operating temps due to the fact that more energy was removed from the block?? as much as I would love to test before and after im not sure I want to do that on a motor I have a lot of money into, also I don't have the instrumentation on my engine to do an accurate comparison. I would be interested to see what the delta T is across the radiator. does someone have an idea for a small scale test? if its reasonable I would be willing to do the test at work and record the data for a graphed out comparison of the two, I would do evans first so there is no water present in the system and then try again with 50/50 coolant. this would need a secondary fluid (oil) to compare the operating temps. I instrument/test things for a living so I can get what ever temps, record and graph all data but a little help with the actual small scale set up would be nice. can even test against distilled water with water wetter, but anyone have ideas to bounce? this would obviously require two pumps and some sort of water to water heat exchanger

[MadBill]

There's way more to it than just a drain, flush and fill. Rather than trying to summarize here, Google shows 170,000 hits for 'waterless coolant' and tellingly, 250,000 for 'Evans coolant problems'.

[statsystems]

I use it.

Once I got over the sticker shock I bit the bullet and used it.

My engine was brand new so I didn't have to do the flush. Just poured it in. It works very well.


I like that it doesn't build any pressure and yet it still doesn't overheat. Going to be 95 tomorrow (20 degrees hotter than average) so I'm going to go out and see if I can get it to overheat.


I've never looked, but I ASSume some of the complaints are that guys think it will fix cooling issues. That's not what it's for. I called and talked to them several times and built my cooling system per their directions.

[grandsport51]

I used it o n a 1965 Grandsport Corvette replica, I had a MK IV Pro Stock std deck block at 4.40 x3.76 475 CID and was worried about

overheating with the big block Modine radiator.

I thought the idea was brilliant and the Evans antifreeze

eliminating nucleate boiling seemed like a great concept

I followed Evans Directions and used the vehicle in summers for 3 years,

it was pretty cool after a dragstrip run the temp would climb by 20 -25F

but never more . I had no problems with the product and would recommend it . I believe that complaints came from high costs

and not following Evans directions.

The coolant was supposedly developed for the 92 LT 1 and GM backed out of using it

Evans sued GM and won and started selling it retail.

Dave B

[Wiz_kid53]

There's way more to it than just a drain, flush and fill. Rather than trying to summarize here, Google shows 170,000 hits for 'waterless coolant' and tellingly, 250,000 for 'Evans coolant problems'.

im not asking how to run it and i have not been able to find any of the questions i want answered, only people guessing. that's the whole reason i asked here. i want definitive evidence and this is the place to get it.

[Wiz_kid53]

I use it.

Once I got over the sticker shock I bit the bullet and used it.

My engine was brand new so I didn't have to do the flush. Just poured it in. It works very well.


I like that it doesn't build any pressure and yet it still doesn't overheat. Going to be 95 tomorrow (20 degrees hotter than average) so I'm going to go out and see if I can get it to overheat.


I've never looked, but I ASSume some of the complaints are that guys think it will fix cooling issues. That's not what it's for. I called and talked to them several times and built my cooling system per their directions.

i run pretty cool at 180 right now but i was thinking this would lower the oil temps or possibly even the actual block it self a little more due to not having the boiling issues and "theoretically" for every 10 degrees you can drop your coolant temps you can run 1/4 point more compression safely which would benefit me at 11:1 on pump gas. also i like that the drastic temp swings aren't an issue with evans when you start flogging your motor.

[Wiz_kid53]

what I really want to know is if anyone has done a before and after comparison after switching to evans. like running coolant you had coolant temps of 185 and oil temps of 210 but after switching you had coolant temps of 195 and oil temps of 200. additional info would be nice like intake temps, head temp, etc etc before and after

[Rob R]

Something to consider,
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.

[jacksoni]

Great write up RPO- SCTA has also banned such coolants (after a fire) for Bonneville/ LSR events.

[Wiz_kid53]

yeah thanks for that info! I believe we have some data here from some testing in the past that gives a small comparison of the evans and regular coolant, if I can find it ill have to post it. I suppose if its not legal to run at the track the discussion is pointless then lol

[statsystems]

Something to consider,
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.

Hmmmm. One post and all this? I've read it before. Most of it is propaganda.

BTW, almost all tracks don't want you to run any type of antifreeze.

I've seen most of this copy and paste on another web site. It was a competitor of Evans.

The OP should do his own research on not let some single post influence you decision.

[BILL-C]

My only experience with the Evans coolant was a bad one. My biggest custo mer tried it in their shop vintage race car at the US Vintage grand prix at watkins glen 4 or 5 years ago. Right off the trailer the driver complained that the engine was "a little off" and was running a little warmer than expected on both water and oil temps. After spending many many hours of replacing parts and checking everything we could think of over the course of 2 frustrating days at the track, we noticed that the evans coolant smelled burnt. We drained the evans and replaced with water and 1 bottle of water wetter. Driver reported back " all fixed". Never gave it any more thought till now.

[xanadu]

Something to consider,
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.

Hmmmm. One post and all this? I've read it before. Most of it is propaganda.

BTW, almost all tracks don't want you to run any type of antifreeze.

I've seen most of this copy and paste on another web site. It was a competitor of Evans.

The OP should do his own research on not let some single post influence you decision.

Well said.
I use Evans coolant with no troubles at all in many different designed engine cooling systems.

[kimosabi]

Exactly why would anyone want a coolant with a higher boiling point and raise operating temps??? Why would you want the waterless coolant?

If answers are "I don't really know" and "I don't know", what's the point. Well other than just spending money that is. You want to pay more for coolant?

[xanadu]

OK I'll bite. How does this raise operating temps? Seriously. You young players go and study a bit more on the floor and in real world scenarios. And if you have sincere questions about the quality and integrity of this product, try talking with an Evans coolant rep. I have found them to be extremely helpful....
I have my own method in converting a previous water system to a waterless. It would not be much different to what the masses out there do.
PS
Ive had a bad week with apprentices