Evans waterless coolant

[revilla]

It's this kind of failure that would worry me. This was when my top radiator hose let go last summer. No warning, luckily I was stationary turning round in a farm gateway when the cloud of steam went up as it went onto the primaries. No harm done, but with flammable coolant?

[garybee]

As experiments go I’m running evens and with the electric water pump, the system maintains 87c any thing over 90 sets of an alarm and light.

Initially on my freshly built engine the thermostat housing had a tiny weep with the odd drip straight onto #3 exhaust with no issues

I think the basis of this discussion is based of ones own risk assessment of using Evans, for me the anti corrosion higher boiling point in an old engine. 

I think this is the source of a lot of the difference of opinion.  We all look at the coolant gauge as that is our only source of information about engine temperature.  What we really care about however is the temperature of the block and cylinder head.  I suspect that we will find that this is higher with Evans.  

[aerobod - near CYYC]

One issue to be aware of in using propylene glycol in high concentrations is that it can have a negative affect on certain plastics. I have direct experience of a 25mm thick CPVC manifold on a datacentre chiller system using propylene glycol that cracked from the inside out in less than 2 years, causing a 10m high fountain of coolant and the need for a $1m replacement of the whole system due to the uncertainty of it's integrity. This issue has also been reported in fire suppression systems using this plastic and propylene glycol as the antifreeze in the water/foam mix, too.

From a heat transfer perspective, pure propylene glycol at 100°C will need about 53% higher flow rate than 50/50 ethylene glycol / water mix that in turn needs about 17% higher flow rate than pure water to achieve the same cooling effect. (At 100°C relative heat transfer factor for ethylene glycol is 0.25 compared with 0.21 for propylene glycol, specific heat of 100% ethylene glycol is 2.8kJ/kg/K compared with 3.6kJ/kg/K for 50/50 mix and 4.2kJ/kg/K for pure water).

[rj]

[garybee]

It would be great to see some experiments.

We know that the thermal capacity of Evans Waterless Coolant is less than that of conventional coolant. So I'd encourage you to concentrate on experiments that don't spend too much time on that, although you'll probably show it along the way. The more you can make your rig like a real Seven's engine the better. That could include using the same materials as in the block and radiator and getting the flow rates as similar as possible. The logical end point of that is doing the experiments on a real engine. The downside of that of course is the cost of the proprietary product. How much is a couple of engines' worth? I might put in my share...

... especially if we can turn the outcome into a wager with the winnings going to the Club charity. But I'd warn everyone joining in that we also already know that engines run hotter on Evans Waterless Coolant than on conventional coolant.

Jonathan

Testing will focus on the ability of the coolant system to carry heat away from an engine.

I don't agree that using an engine is the best way to do this.  I'm leaning more towards a more consistent heat source, possibly an electric heating element, much easier to measure how much heat is being dissipated that way.

[auyt]

Would not the process basically focus on time to cool a given volume using a standardized cooling process that can be repeated.

Even heating say a liter on the stove to 90 degrees C and putting in the fridge or just leaving it out isde and measure time to dissipate the the heat back to say 10 degrees C.

My guessing is the Evans will 35% slower followed by 50/50 mix at 25% and water last

Can we run a pole to see the result?

 

[Jonathan Kay]

Would not the process basically focus on time to cool a given volume using a standardized cooling process that can be repeated.

It depends on what you're trying to measure. We know the specific heat of the coolants under consideration. The *first approximation would give heat transfer capacity as being proportional to that. See the second paragraph of James' comment above or any of the previous occasions on which this has been discussed.

Even heating say a liter on the stove to 90 degrees C and putting in the fridge or just leaving it out isde and measure time to dissipate the the heat back to say 10 degrees C.

That's a very different setting from what the coolant is doing in a car.

And it leads to the fascinating Mpemba effect. Fascinating but irrelevant to cooling a Seven.

Jonathan

* Beyond that it would be possible to consider the metal/ coolant heat transfer in the block and the radiator (see "wetting agents"), the thermal conductivity, viscosity and density of the coolant, the rumoured local boiling etc. But the between-coolant effects of these on bulk heat transfer are probably small compared to those which depend on the differences in specific heat. And we know that engines using Evans Waterless Coolant run hotter than those using conventional coolant. An adequate model is always going to have to explain that.

[auyt]

There is always the complication of various engine structures aluminum head and block and aluminum and cast iron block.

Then there is the efficiency of cooling systems, be they passive or active (computer controlled electrical water pump) and radiator types which vary and computer controlled engine cooling via fuel injection increasing fuel to increase cooling of the combustion gasses and timing changes.

The latter doesn't exist of a webered engine antique engine design.

That is why trying to keep the experiment simple was important

Fun thing the Mpemba effect was discovered by an Indian school, and as a side line the 4th state of water https://www.iflscience.com/physics/new-quantum-state-water-discovered/

But Im getting of track.

[Jonathan Kay]

That is why trying to keep the experiment simple was important

If the "simple experiment" is the one described in #156 it would tell us very little about what happens in a car engine. The time taken for a jar of hot liquid to cool depends on a lot of factors including the convection caused by temperature differences within the fluid. But the heat transfer in a modern car engine is predominantly due to the bulk movement of the fluid caused by pumping not by convection in that sense.

The amount of heat stored in a jar of each of the different coolants is highly relevant to cooling a car engine. But other things being equal that's determined by the heat capacity. (In the jug model that's the volumetric heat capacity rather than the mass heat capacity (or specific heat).)

Jonathan

PS:

... the Mpemba effect was discovered by an Indian school...

If that's referring to Mpemba's own observations that was in Tanganyika.

[auyt]

I haven’t forgotten this thread/debate and I have been thinking about the comments from others and researching and evaluating further as I use the car.

Recently I did what I call the two pass blat I started early in fog 2c and finished in 22c

To be honest I wasn’t happy with temp in the range through parts of the run. As the car runs a Davis Craig electric water pump. I rang their tech guys. Very interesting conversation and to say he wasn’t complementary of Evans to any the least. His take was that it’s best use is in vintage unpressurised systems. Evans also puts the pump under more load reducing the life of the pump...

The key things that got me thinking were Evans viscosity is much greater than water and temp dispersant is significantly slower and pump load is a concern.

As mentioned the combustion issue in fires is also a concern and I found this article from the redline suppliers on a Piston heads post

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=140&t=1544974&mid=53383&%20nmt=waterless+coolant

This is something that has apparently 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.

As a rapup I am now seriously reconsidering it’s use.
 

[Jonathan Kay]

Thanks.

Interesting comment about the viscosity from the pump supplier. We've known that it is more viscous but not that it causes problems in practice.

Flammability and thermal capacity both discussed extensively above.

Engines can run 45-60°C hotter (at the cylinder heads) with Waterless products.

I haven't seen an estimate of that before.

Stabilized coolant temps are increased by 15-25°C, versus straight water with Water Wetter.

The elevated engine and coolant temperature is acknowledged by the manufacturer and supplier. That difference is higher than they quote but that makes sense because they usually compare it with the traditional mixture of water and ethylene glycol rather than water.

Jonathan
 

[auyt]

There are other complications I have read , in that due to the temp increase that a higher octane should be used to counteract the possible knocking. This is a concern for me, but I haven’t found any tell tail signs of it on the plugs as it’s hard to hear it over the car. One other odd thing is the heater is virtually ineffective. This I put down the viscosity.

[Jonathan Kay]

One other odd thing is the heater is virtually ineffective. This I put down the viscosity.

Are you sure that the valve is opening and that there isn't any air in there?

Jonathan

[revilla]

If it is bled properly, then than alone should be a big warning sign. If it's not carrying heat from the engine to the heater matrix very well, for whatever reason, there's a big question over whether it is carrying heat from the engine to the radiator.

[auyt]

Are you sure that the valve is opening and that there isn't any air in there?

Yes there was as I put another 500mls in the system even with the heater valve open and eventually stopped topping it up when no more appeared. Because EVANs doesn't expand  there is no self bleeding when the pressure in the systems unseats the cap and then draws it back. I did wonder if there was an internal leak but there were no signs of it. Odd advantage here is if it did have it doesnt eat bearing material.

there's a big question over whether it is carrying heat from the engine to the radiator.

Going by what REDLINES comments are, it does but not at the same rate as 50/50. I did notice that the temp would rise above the 87c when the engine was off, if it was when the coolant temp was below the set 87c I set on the DC controller. The DC system would not see this as once the engine is off and there is no power to the controller. Normally if the temp is above the +3c degrees trigger there is logic circuit in the controller that runs the pump and Fans until the coolant returns to 76c ( I really like this function)

Because this engine is LOTUS Twin Cam I have been following the discussions on LotusElan.net

and this is another interesting article from another Waterless coolant manufacturer test of EVANS

http://www.norosion.com/evanstest.htm

[Jonathan Kay]

...and this is another interesting artcle from another Waterless coolant manufacturer

http://www.norosion.com/evanstest.htm

I don't think that No-Rosion is waterless. Isn't it a corrosion inhibitor for traditional coolants?

Jonathan

[Jonathan Kay]

Because EVANs doesn't expand...

Is the bulk expansion lower than water + ethylene glycol?

Jonathan

[auyt]

No expansion noticed and the documents say it doesn't ... but there must be some as it did have pressure under the cap.
 

[anthonym]

I haven't noticed any expansion; and only a very small wush when releasing the expansion tank cap, which I take to be hot air being released.

(Testing it in Ford Mondeo MK11 Duratec, so it is an old car, for maybe a year now or longer, topped it up a little once only, not my Seven). Not really enthusiastic about putting it in my 7. No real hard evidence, just how I feel about it.

My heater/aircon seems to work. Whether it is the same as it ever was I don't know. - anthony

[auyt]

There is one other thing that I have have identified in that the cylinder head running at elevated temps that have been reported, has the effect of accelerating the annealing the cylinder head and on an old engine that can be as bad as the corrosion.

[admaraujo]

1- How many of the non-believers have ever used Evans?

2- How many Evans users, on BC, have returned to their previous coolant of choice?

[admaraujo]

1- How many of the non-believers have ever used Evans?

2- How many Evans users, on BC, have returned to their previous coolant of choice?

[auyt]

It would be good to do a survey on LS or other sights based on those questions

[NeilCSR]

Been running on waterless for two+ years now.  Still waiting for everything to go wrong, but it hasn't, so far.

However....  The long-standing coolant pressure problem is solved (rads weeped - tried and tested two, the pressure was that great);  it doesn't run any hotter - or seem to;  the heater works fine;  it's a CSR so heat build-up generally is a problem - but the use of waterless hasn't exacerbated that issue at all.

Before switching I took advice from tuners I respected, discussed issues voiced here and then went ahead.   To date it's been fine.  At worst, it's performing as it should, and delivering 234bhp / 186 lbft on the Northampton RR which isn't bad for a 200.

No desire to change back.

[rj]

I was intending to use it in my car as part of the new engine installation. In the end I did not because of the flamability issue, not because of the heat transfer abilities.