Show whole topic
Oct 03, 2015 9:08 am
Oct 03, 2015 9:08 am
Subject: Re: Waterless Coolant
DANGER WATERLESS COOLANT!
I have had the most dreadful time using Evans waterless coolant. My engine is on the third rebuild since using it. I have done some basic research on the web. The scientific report by No-Rosion have carried out comes to the following conclusions
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.
© Copyright 2012 Applied Chemical Specialties, Inc.
Evans is 10 times more viscous than water and will not pass through a honeycomb radiator or fine tubed radiator fast enough to cool your engine properly. the 20-25% reduction in flow rate is for modern wet core radiators and not prewar radiators. It will cause catastrophic damage to your pistons and bores with no warning. The temperature gauge will not rise significantly before smoke appears from under the dashboard and your engine will need a rebuild. This tends to occur on long motorway hills.
I am currently asking Evans to show me the research done in order to call their coolant 'Vintage', and so far they have not been able to produce any evidence at all that their product cools as well as water or is suitable for Vintage vehicles.
My repairs have cost over £8000 so far and I have requested compensation.
They are not taking my complaint seriously yet, and I feel that I have a duty to warn other waterless coolant users and potential users.
James Mann
DANGER WATERLESS COOLANT!
I have had the most dreadful time using Evans waterless coolant. My engine is on the third rebuild since using it. I have done some basic research on the web. The scientific report by No-Rosion have carried out comes to the following conclusions
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.
© Copyright 2012 Applied Chemical Specialties, Inc.
Evans is 10 times more viscous than water and will not pass through a honeycomb radiator or fine tubed radiator fast enough to cool your engine properly. the 20-25% reduction in flow rate is for modern wet core radiators and not prewar radiators. It will cause catastrophic damage to your pistons and bores with no warning. The temperature gauge will not rise significantly before smoke appears from under the dashboard and your engine will need a rebuild. This tends to occur on long motorway hills.
I am currently asking Evans to show me the research done in order to call their coolant 'Vintage', and so far they have not been able to produce any evidence at all that their product cools as well as water or is suitable for Vintage vehicles.
My repairs have cost over £8000 so far and I have requested compensation.
They are not taking my complaint seriously yet, and I feel that I have a duty to warn other waterless coolant users and potential users.
James Mann