Evans waterless coolant

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have read a story about a fellow Tbird owner that used the stuff and was very disappointed in its performance , A new rebuilt engine and the stuff turned brown & and made a mess in the coolant passages .
 
Originally Posted By: JDW
I have read a story about a fellow Tbird owner that used the stuff and was very disappointed in its performance , A new rebuilt engine and the stuff turned brown & and made a mess in the coolant passages .
you cant mix any antifreeze or water with it. ill assume the tbird guy didnt get it all out.
 
I would say it is ideal when doing a fresh engine build making sure you completely remove all the remaining coolant/water from the heater core.

I have really considered it when I get the engine finished in my 95 Mustang. Supposedly it is legal for use on road courses that do not allow anti-freeze. It is also recommended by Darton when installed their sleeves.
 
Quote:
After proper conversion to the Evans products, the average temperature of engine cylinder heads increased by 115-140oF, versus running with No-Rosion and water.

The reason for hotter cylinder heads relates to the specific heat capacity of these different fluids. Water has a specific heat capacity of 1.00. It transfers heat more effectively than any other fluid, and is therefore used as the reference fluid in the scientific measure of specific heat capacity. Comparatively, the specific heat capacity of the various glycol solutions in the Evans products ranges from 0.64 to 0.68. So they conduct roughly half as much heat as does water, or water with No-Rosion. (No-Rosion does not alter the specific heat capacity of water.)

Cylinder head temperatures of 115-140oF hotter with the Evans products translates to a stabilized bulk coolant temperature increase of 31-48oF, as compared to No-Rosion and water.

As case in point, conversion of a Chevrolet LS-1 engine from No-Rosion and water to Evans Waterless Coolant resulted in an increase of 128oF at the cylinder heads. We saw a stabilized bulk coolant temperature of 192oF with water and No-Rosion, and 236oF with the Evans product. So the temperature increased by 44oF after converting to the Evans product.

By having engine cylinder head temperatures 128oF hotter with the Evans product, a number of performance setbacks were observed: (1) the octane requirement was increased by 5-7 numbers, (2) the computerized ignition system retarded timing by 8-10o to avoid trace knock, (3) horsepower was correspondingly reduced by 4-5%, as confirmed on a chassis dyno.


Test results
 
Last edited:
^^^^Yep.

My engine is an example of exactly this issue. Severe timing retard at the slightest hint of spark knock in an effort to protect those fragile pistons with that top ring all the way up high for emissions.

Anything that could reduce the cylinder head temp is an EXCELLENT improvement as long as gasket compatibility is not an issue...
 
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
... Supposedly it is legal for use on road courses that do not allow anti-freeze...


The test results article says it's glycol and slippery, just like anti-freeze, so it won't be allowed on a road course. The poor heat capacity will also cause your engine to run way too hot as well.
 
Originally Posted By: jaj
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
... Supposedly it is legal for use on road courses that do not allow anti-freeze...


The test results article says it's glycol and slippery, just like anti-freeze, so it won't be allowed on a road course. The poor heat capacity will also cause your engine to run way too hot as well.


They have a special version that is legal for competition use. Might just stick with a more conventional setup since in reality I won't be taking it to a HPDE as often as I would like.
 
Originally Posted By: Franklim
Hi, has anyone try Evans waterless coolant ?? Any comments ??

It's a quick way to overheat your engine head(s) and take out some valves.

Thermodynamic Heat Transfer Rates

The only liquids better than water as a coolant in an engine for heat transfer would be mercury and sodium. For obvious reasons they're not practical.

Water scores a .58, while the Evans coolant is less than half that.

You encounter the same problem you do when you overdo the ethylene glycol antifreeze - the engine can't shed heat through the radiator via the coolant, and the head(s) got too hot.

- pinging

- burnt valves

- sludge

- lubrication failure

and so and so on.
 
I've known a few people who ran it. However they had it set up and specified, it was done so that they could run older engines without pressurizing the cooling system. They seemed happy with it in all iron engines. But I also know they were meticulous on the changeover to ensure cleanliness.
 
Their water pumps are pretty good, as they make some very productive changes to the stock units (for LS1s at least).

They ARE pricey though.
frown.gif
 
Quote:
After proper conversion to the Evans products, the average temperature of engine cylinder heads increased by 115-140oF, versus running with No-Rosion and water.

The reason for hotter cylinder heads relates to the specific heat capacity of these different fluids. Water has a specific heat capacity of 1.00. It transfers heat more effectively than any other fluid, and is therefore used as the reference fluid in the scientific measure of specific heat capacity. Comparatively, the specific heat capacity of the various glycol solutions in the Evans products ranges from 0.64 to 0.68. So they conduct roughly half as much heat as does water, or water with No-Rosion. (No-Rosion does not alter the specific heat capacity of water.)



They don't have that quite right. Specific heat is a measure of how much energy the coolant can adsorb and has no relation to how well (or fast) it may transfer to another surface or conduct heat within the fluid. Heat transfer coefficient and thermal conductivity are the respective measurements for these parameters. Thermal conductivity is relatively unimportant for a cooling system operating under a turbulent regime. The heat transfer coefficient is most important and its well know water has a high heat transfer coefficient, much higher than glycol.
 
Some years ago, I used it for quite a while in an Mitsubishi engine in a Caravan. I feel it worked well. But, don't try it unless you are something like a perfectionist and do it right. Also, if a hose ruptures when you are on the road, you will have to start over again. The advantage is not that the overall head temperatures will fall, but that it handles temperature spikes in isolated spots, which can be up to 1700 degrees in a racing engine, much better than the water mixture. I also feel that its degree of success will be different for different engine types.

I currently use either Sierra or Prestone's version of a PG product in 2 old vehicles. These products are mixed with water and offer no cooling advantage (actually a slight disadvantage). The only reason I use them is that the vehicles have been burning a little bit of coolant in the engine for years (I would guess due to a head gasket pin hole leak), and the PG will not damage the engine like EG will.
 
I would also like to add that I believe Jay Leno uses it a lot in his antique vehicles. Getting rid of the water is great for cutting down on the corrosion. And for Jay, money is no object.
 
Originally Posted By: trynew
The advantage is not that the overall head temperatures will fall, but that it handles temperature spikes in isolated spots, which can be up to 1700 degrees in a racing engine


I assume you are talking 1700 degrees F there. Aluminium melts at ~1200 F. How do you get a combustion hot spot greater than the melting point of the head (I don't know of any relevant racing classes that still use Iron heads)?
 
Sorry for the poorly written post. The flame temperatures can reach 1700 degrees F in a racing engine. The metal would not get that hot because the 1700 degrees would only occur for a fraction of 1 of the 4 strokes and the surrounding metal would quickly bleed off heat so I would guess the average would be 400 to 500 degrees.

I am not certain what the surface temperature of the combustion chamber would be for that fraction of a second of combustion, though. Maybe the surface molecules would liquefy, or at least soften, but quickly solidify into the same shape without adversely affecting the piston top or combustion chamber.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top