Waterless Coolant - Any experience?

[Vanny]

Seems to be getting a bit of a plug at the moment (I mean generally in the automotive world, not just Kitch ) and some of the claims seem brilliant.

From the MSDS for the Evans offering, its just ethylene glycol and propylene glycol and some inhibitor as I understand it?

Now going back a bit to what I remember from school, I recall glycol having around ~1/3 heat capacity of water and 1/3 thermal conductance of water and is much thicker than water resulting in a huge efficiency drop in getting heat out of the system. This being the reason why it's not used in extreme temperature applications like water cooling systems and heavy duty heating systems. In fact the only time I've ever seen it used on an industrial/commercial scale is in sub 20c ambient temperature conditions.

I can see benefits for cooler running classic vehicles when the boiling point is higher and thus pressure lower, and the considerably lower corrosion rates (although it doesn't eliminate corrosion), but for high temperature engines it seems like a bad idea?

So does anyone have any back to back (vs water) performance experience with it in hot engine applications?

[MULLEY]

I thought le man cars were using this waterless coolant? I have no experience or knowledge of this stuff, but it does sound good. The only downside i can see is that if a hose splits & you drop your coolant, that's a very expensive problem

[Vanny]

if a hose splits & you drop your coolant, that's a very expensive problem

Even with all new hoses this is still my biggest worry, the Evans stuff is around £65 for 5 litres, the BX system takes between 9 and 11 litres from memory, so you're talking around £130 if something lets go.

And what happens when you need to drain the system down to get access to something (like changing the exhaust manifold on the valver), it's not clear from the Evans site if it can be simply filtered and reused or if it should be disposed of and new fitted.

[Kitch]

I don't get bogged down too much in the chemistry of the stuff, I just use it in the workshop (and peddle it on our FB page!) The boiling point of water is very close to the operating temp of most engines - it's wrong, when you think about it.

The stuff is witchcraft, that's all I can say.

This is my daily Saxo, straight after the Evans was fitted (132bhp, before anyone asks):

http://youtu.be/z9MW9FxamUE

As I see it, the drawbacks are:

1 - Less efficient as a thermal conductor than water, so the car runs a little hotter (though there are counterpoints to this)
2 - More expensive per L than standard anti-freeze (though again, there are valid counter-arguements)
3 - Tearjerker if you lose it as Mulley points out (though guess what, there's a counterpoint again!)
4 - I've struggled to find any more, in the real everyday Joe Bloggs world.

Benefits:

1 - Less efficient as thermal conductor than water, which means the car reaches N.O.T. faster, which helps reduce engine wear as the oil will also heat faster. It's also not an issue that it'll run slightly hotter, as it's perfectly happy doing this (some Land Rovers in the off-road racing world run at 120degrees during competition, with no issue).
2 - More expensive per L than anti-freeze, until you consider that it's lifetime coolant. You never need to buy any more (unless you contaminate or lose it) and you can even drain it from one car and use it in another, provided you prep the car correctly.
3 - Less likely to lose it in the first place, as it doesn't pressurise at N.O.T., meaning none of our rare, old, hard to find rubber coolant hoses are swelling up. That also means you can remove the rad cap at 100degrees, no bother, which is safer if nothing else.
4 - No water, so no corrosion. It won't magically remove corrosion, but it does kill it at source.
5 - Non-toxic, so we're thinking of the children.
6 - No steam pockets building around cylinder liners, things like that. Keeps the temperature more even across the metallic surfaces.
7 - If you do end up with a pressurised system, it's an indication that you have a blown head gasket or something, meaning you know your car has an issue much sooner than normal.
8 - There are more, but I don't want to sound like an advert on here. My company now stocks the stuff, but loads of companies much closer to the vast majority of you do too. That said, if anyone wants some I'll see if I can beat some of the eBay prices.


Basically, if the estate had been running it, my weekend at the NEC would have been very different

[Kitch]

if a hose splits & you drop your coolant, that's a very expensive problem

Even with all new hoses this is still my biggest worry, the Evans stuff is around £65 for 5 litres, the BX system takes between 9 and 11 litres from memory, so you're talking around £130 if something lets go.

And what happens when you need to drain the system down to get access to something (like changing the exhaust manifold on the valver), it's not clear from the Evans site if it can be simply filtered and reused or if it should be disposed of and new fitted.

BX 16v is specced at 7L in my book, which means you'd need 7L of coolant, and 7L of prep fluid. You need to run the prep fluid first, as it essentially sucks all the water out of the system. If you can keep the water content below 3%, you can re-use the prep fluid again.

If you need to drain the system, you drain into a clean bucket, and reuse it (no need for prep again, that's only used to go from water to Evans). You don't need to filter it, but I'd personally drain it hot through a coffee filter or something. You never need to get rid of it - it's lifetime coolant. Jay Leno runs it in some of his cars, some of which have been using it for 15years without maintenance.

[Kitch]

And....if you did sell your car, or were going to scrap it or whatever, you drain the coolant out, stick normal coolant back in and keep your Evans to one side to use in another car.

[Vanny]

Found an interesting review which seemed quite honest and detailed about the comparison, but is from a competitor

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

I think ultimately it doesn't offer me good value for money, on a car that gets pulled apart a lot. But if I had a proper classic it would be a no brainer!

In terms of getting the water out, its easy enough to get 99% of the water out, use the same process as a refrigeration system, boiling point of water is 100c only at atmospheric pressure. Drop the pressure by drawing a vacuum and water will boil off at a much lower temperature. Obviously doing this on a rubber pipe wont work as it will collapse, but its easy to do on a radiator or engine block.

[MULLEY]

I read the NR report & started thinking, perhaps not, then i found the following rebuttle about NR's results, so who the fuck knows eh???

http://www.scimitarweb.co.uk/sgwrs/view ... 2&start=15

Its the 3rd reply down which needs reading.

[Tinkley]

Mmmmm, waterless cooling, sounds like air cooling....

worked OK for my old Morini!.

[Vanny]

I read the NR report & started thinking, perhaps not, then i found the following rebuttle about NR's results, so who knows eh???

http://www.scimitarweb.co.uk/sgwrs/view ... 2&start=15

Its the 3rd reply down which needs reading.

I do find it rather interesting that finding any of the 'technical documents' that are referred to either by No-Rosion or Evans is simply impossible. The Evans website provides practically no technical content without serious digging.

The engineer in me wants to do back to back testing myself, to prove the benefits one way or another.

[MULLEY]

The over riding issue which appears to be in the debate is that the waterless runs at a higher temperature. My limited understanding is that, when they are talking about the temperature, are they actually measuring the engine temperature, or the actual fluid temperature? If the waterless is at a higher temperature, doesn't this mean its able to absorb more heat from the engine, therefore its actually making the engine run at a lower temperature?

[Kitch]

The over riding issue which appears to be in the debate is that the waterless runs at a higher temperature. My limited understanding is that, when they are talking about the temperature, are they actually measuring the engine temperature, or the actual fluid temperature? If the waterless is at a higher temperature, doesn't this mean its able to absorb more heat from the engine, therefore its actually making the engine run at a lower temperature?

It's less efficient as a thermal conductor than water, so it will be removing less heat than water would, while being heated up a bit more in the process (it's about 64% less efficient) it's a bit of both really. The engine is running hotter, and the coolant is hotter. The difference is that it can now run hotter, and without getting extreme, will be better for it.

The limitation of engine running temps over the years has always been the fact that the fluid used to cool them loses its shit at about the same point the engine wants to run. This stuff basically rewrites the rules - I'm running it in the Saxo, and yet in the back of my mind I think I've got water in there.

On that note, finally received my refractometer yesterday and tested the Saxo - 54.2% Brix, which is a result given that I basically threw the stuff in!