Thread: Waterless Coolant

on a good engine its no more complicated process than changing out old coolant for fresh with a chemical flush with a pressure back wash. on a really good engine its as simple as a flush dry and change.

Dont judge the install process off of my post, thats an aboslute worst case scenario.

The issue of water in the waterless coolant varies but is generally considered bad.

there are a few differring waterless coolant systems Ignoring Air cooled, they are

soluable oil, (which is what Evans appears to be as it is miniscable to water)
This is old school stuff, its commonly used as cutting fluid and in situations where total loss of the coolant is at some point required to be acceptable, its generally the least toxic and depending on which type of oil it is has varying tolerances and methodology of dealing with excessive water. Some are permanently changed and loose their characteristics others only suffer dilution and can be "boiled down" to get back to normal concentrations. the former are typically eco friendly the latter less so.

Mineral oil, this is the same kind of oil as your engine oil, diesel fuel and older automatic transmission fluids. DOES NOT play well with water. emulsion causes all sorts of fun issues in the same way as engine oil getting into your normal cooling system.

Syntetic oils, same as new engine oils some are water tolerant but most systems that are designed to run this have a filtration system and seperator system designed to catch any water that the oil picks up and carries around.


all coolants have pros and cons that revolve around specific heat loading, viscosity, seal and component life, emulsion issues, toxicity when burnt, incompatibility with other engine related chemicals/gasses, flammability (not joking), toxicity, incompatibility with some metals. cost, service life, handling, and fractioning, electrolytic properties and corrosion inhibition.

This stuff has been discussed at length many times before in this forum.

Including some results from using it, failures, positives, MSDS etc.

In short - it is very flammable, it does build pressure (up to cap pressure) but won't "boil up" if the cap is undone when hot; but it will blow out at the original 15psi.

Boiling within pockets of the head does not happen in a correctly pressurised cooling system, and water is far more effective at removing hear from the head than glycol.

This gear is going to make the engine running above its usual temperature. As they admit by up to 7c

What they forget to tell you...

Rubber hoses are rated to max 130c and the closer you run them the quicker they perish/harden/crack (and fail).

Your engine bay temps will now also be higher - subjecting the ancillary items to a more sustained elevated temperature. Also shortening life...


If it was the ducks nuts I would run it, it's the sort of thing I do. If it was that good, our mine equipment would run it - it doesn't...

Found some of the data I came across:

Evans coolant is 100% propylene glycol...no water added. Cool thing is it doesn't boil until 360F. Thats great when you think about localized boiling around the cylinders causing hotspots with conventional...with Evans there's no way you're going to get hotspots in the combustion chamber that can possibly cause knock. Bad thing is propylene glycol's specific heat isn't all that great. That effectively makes your radiator act like its ***smaller than it really is***. That also means that when your engine makes a fixed amount of heat the Evans coolant temps will rise more than water will.

Evans coolant is 100% Propylene Glycol
The specific heat of propylene glycol is 2.5kJ/kg versus about 4.2kJ/kg for water.
That's a big difference.
It has 60% the thermal capacity of water kg for kg.

And this guys experience:

In the case directly relating to the OP..

He's updated his cooling capacity (excellent) and then crippling it with Glycol (not so excellent).

His vehicle would run better (cooling better) with just the improved radiator..

interesting point you raised there mentioning soluble oil Dave.

before the real advent of radiator coolants (jeez , I'm wheezin') and I was an apprentice fitter/machinist , we, (being the ratbags I raced around with at 100mph), added soluble oil to our radiators (thanks Rio Tinto).

I'm sure it worked well and better than Darling River water which we all grew up on.

Back in the day, my dad showed me a copy of a set of instructions for an old stationary engine from when he was a boy with a coolant tank on it that relied on a soluable oil solution as an antifreeze. it explained that it was normal for the water to steam off during operation and that all need be done was to top up the tank with fresh clean water.

Id scan it in but theres a couple of problems with that.

1. The stone tablets the instructions are carved into keep jamming the sheet feeder
2. they're too heavy for the glass on the flat bed scanner
3. they're too heavy to freight or to fit in cabin baggage.

Originally Posted by Witchdoctor

Take your heads out of the sand, their are other technologies out there other than what was made in 1948.

Interesting how people are often 'convinced' by marketing, perhaps that's why people in marketing get paid so much.

Isn't this 'new' technology basically........run neat ethylene glycol ? Not sure that that's a new idea.

There are pro's & cons but so far I've never had a problem using 'old' technology of an ethylene glycol mix, just be aware of the anti-corrosion additive being used and do some research.


Colin

Like that new LED technology and CCF technology which are more advanced than s bulb but proven to be causing issues with people in buildings - head aches etc..

A group has now been working towards a more efficient Filament bulb... But that's old tech.