My dad is currently building his custom GSX-R 600 and has recently spoke to me about this product. Having seen it in action from other bike users, and going direct to the manufacturer with questions, he is convinced that this latest version of their product is the future and gone are the days of ethylene glycol.

So what are the benefits:

Freezing point -40celsius, Boiling point 180celsius
One time thing ( never do a coolant change again )
Creates no pressure in the cooling system
No pressure means no burst hoses or pipes etc.
Re-useable ( if you buy another car, simply drain it out, flush the new car and put this back in).

In short, we have been offered a very good deal as my dad is planning on doing all his vehicles, and has asked if I'm interested too.

So i'm after some thoughts and opinions, anyone else done this conversions already? Have you ever heard of it? Any reasons you wouldn't do it now you know the benefits etc?

 

I've thought about using this before, general opinion on here seems anti though.

Higher running temps puts me off.

 

I think people have a misconception of what the higher running temps actually means..

Put simply, steam is the killer in a water based cooling system, so once water turns to steam it is no longer doing its job of cooling, in fact its having the adverse effect, and this is what creates pressure in the system, which is what can lead to problems…

So if the fluid can run hotter, then there is no steam in the system, therefore no pressure, which in turn means the pump works more effectively and under less strain, the fact that the fluid gets hotter, means the engine will run cooler.

 

I thought the pressure in the system helped raise the boiling point of the fluid ?

 

No, the pressure in the system is what is created from the fluid when it past the boiling point of water.

Have a read of this, taken from their site.

How it works
Water is an excellent fluid for cooling whilst in a liquid state, but when water turns to steam it has virtually no capacity for heat transfer. Evans is a superior fluid for transferring heat in engines because it remains in a liquid state until above 180°C. This article details the benefits of a significantly higher boiling point.

Within an engine cooling system the hottest surfaces are those adjacent to the combustion chamber, specifically the cylinder liners and cylinder head. In these hot spots water is likely to vaporise preventing efficient cooling and causing loss of performance and unnecessary engine damage (see physical limitations of water). When the coolant fails in this way the engine becomes even hotter causing more hot spots and more steam.

Evans waterless coolants will not boil around these engine hotspots maintaining efficient cooling performance even when the engine is put under extreme conditions. When water turns to steam it pressurises the cooling system putting strain on hoses and other components. The significantly higher boiling point of Evans coolants means 75% less pressure than water resulting in a less stressed cooling system.

Water contains oxygen which causes corrosion and also allows electrolytic activity which further damages engine metals (see chemical limitations of water). Evans waterless coolants eliminate corrosion and electrolytic activity significantly increasing the life of the engine.

 

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

Higher ron requirement for same knock protection - It's a no from me.....

 

Why don't manufacturers use this then ?

How often are coolant temps above 110/120 degrees ?

How expensive is it ?

Also the water may vaporize into steam but the coolant additives wont.
That's why you don't fill up with just water.

Water boils at 0 degrees in a vacuum 100 degrees at atmosphere, so 1.3 bar rad cap raises this to 107 degrees,


Above that your radiator cap would pop. No ?


Also everything taken from their site is gona say how great their product is.

And surely if the fluid is reaching much higher temps then hoses and seals are at risk ?
Because they are operating at temps above which they were designed for ?

Would be good to see proper independent tests, before i tried it in mine.

 

Thats an interesting read, thanks.

Thats the kind of information I was looking for, as I have seen videos and read reviews, but thats more in depth and explains in realistic terms

 

Apparently in recognition of how their products negatively impact coolant flow rates as a result of their high viscosity, Evans now sells high volume water pumps for various engines, to include the Chevrolet LS1/L6. These pumps provide 20% more flow that OEM units, which would be almost enough to overcompensate for the greater pump effort required to move their considerably more viscous coolant fluids.

There is speculation that, when OEM water pumps are used with viscous Evans waterless products, water pump life span could be reduced, and result in a greater frequency of water pump failures. Additional testing would be necessary in order to validate this.

There is also speculation that cylinder head temperature increases of 115-140oF as a result of using 100% glycol coolant may cause warping and related damage to cast iron heads in some engines. OEM engines are designed to be run at temperatures that are consistent with what is produced using coolant consisting of a 50/50 mix. The higher temperatures produced by 100% glycol coolant could increase the frequency of cast iron head damage. Again, additional testing would be necessary in order to validate this.

Because Evans waterless products are 100% glycol, they are slippery when spilled or leaked onto pavement. Assuming a baseline friction co-efficient reference of 1.00 for dry pavement, the friction co-efficient of water, and water with No-Rosion, is 0.65. (No-Rosion does not appreciably alter the friction co-efficient of water, when used at the proper dose.) The friction co-efficient of Evans products is 0.16. Evans products are 4 times more slippery than water. Race tracks now ban the use of engine coolant that contains ANY glycol. Instead, they require engines to run straight water coolant. This is one of the reasons why the Evans products can not be used in the engines of vehicles that are operated on a race track




What i pick up from that is


Possible waterpump failure as its more viscous
Possible head failure due to warping and higher tems
Also not allowed at tracks due to being slippy when spilled

 

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Conversion costs of $259 if you do it yourself, or over $400 if you pay a shop to do it.

97%+ removal of all previous coolant is mandatory in order to prevent corrosion.

Inhibitor deposition occurs on aluminum surfaces, which could cause issues in some radiators.

Engines run 115-140oF hotter (at the cylinder heads) with Evans products.

Stabilized coolant temps are increased by 31-48oF, versus straight water with No-Rosion.

Reprogramming ECU fan temp settings is mandatory to prevent the fan from running continuously.

Specific heat capacity of Evans waterless products ranges from 0.64 to 0.68, or about half that of water.

Engine octane requirement is increased by 5-7 numbers.

Computerized ignition must retard engine timing by 8-10o to prevent trace knock.

Engine horsepower is reduced by 4-5%.

Accelerated recession of non-hardened valve seats in older engines is possible, due to brinelling.

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 tracks prohibit Evans products because they are flammable and slippery when spilled.


What material are our blocks ?
Is it an aluminium alloy ?

 

I believe so… The only point to counter on is the viscosity, as it thins to the same as water when it starts warming up.

As I said thats a very interesting read, I've also passed this onto my dad before he makes an order. There's more to look into than the initially meets they eye, hence why forums are great

 

Yea some things sound too good to be true,

But if it was proved reliable and better who wouldn't switch ?

 

The thing I mentioned to my dad was I had genuinely never heard of it before, but there are videos of people who have done the conversion, and do it on camera for all to see, then put the vehicles through extreme testing, following up with compression checks and looking inside the heads, and they all look perfectly fine afterwards….

It certainly makes some interesting points on both sides of the fence.

 

Question is will it be reliable for 100k miles like the original set up SUPPOSED to be.

 

personally have seen far too many issues arising from its use to even think of using - a high quality, correctly specced Coolant will do a far better job and be cheaper to boot

(can happily assist with both recommends and pricing 0191-4103770)

 

They used it on Wheeler Dealers so it must be good....

 

I've considered this. One thing put me off...engines without a drain on the engine block.

I know there is this pre-treatment stuff you put in to get rid of the existing coolant, but I don't buy it. Because either way, without flushing/draining/flushing three or four times, there will still be water in there somewhere.

Now if it were dry-fill (new/rebuilt )or a engine I can drain the block and matrix etc then yes, Id use it.

I've actually started using de-ionised water to dilute the antifreeze on the Jag. Probably overkill as its spent most of its life on tap water and murky-green high silicate/borate antifreeze and god knows how many sachets of "barrs leaks" that was put in by the main dealerships added during every odd service. So I'll just stick to my 2 yearly changes....the drain tap has a lever so all you do is lift the bonnet and turn the lever...its actually quicker to change the coolant that it is the oil!

 

Re: water pump failures:

Most coolant pumps I see that fail do so in two ways:

Seal leaks
Bearing fails due to above.

The bearing doesn't run in coolant, its separated by a seal. If that fails the grease gets washed out, bearing corrodes and wears, then fails.

The bearing is under more force by the belt that anything else.

The only other type of pump failure is the impeller spinning free of the shaft. This was noted on cars (such as Fords, and Ford era Jags etc) that had plastic water pump impellers pressed onto a steel shaft...these used to fail with normal coolant. So my logic is if the car is a model prone to pump impeller failure, then yes a more viscous coolant would make it more likely to fail. However most cars that had these kinds of pump problems usual would have a replacement pump with a updated design.