EVANS Waterless Coolant
Discussion
Less effective than water and anti freeze than dispersing the heat which means the engine and oil will be hotter . Its also a pain having to religiously cleanse all trace of the existing coolant . I met an agent some years back at the NEC show , I did a little research and decided for me it was pointless .I think it pretty much guaranteed that this will have been covered on here many times before .
Thanks for the replies, I saw the other threads (admittedly after starting my own!) but was more interested from a classics perspective.
On their website they have Jay Leno running through his usage of the stuff and I’ve a car that’s dry in bits I could use it on, every image of the same vehicle being restored shows horrendous corrosion within the pipes etc….
On their website they have Jay Leno running through his usage of the stuff and I’ve a car that’s dry in bits I could use it on, every image of the same vehicle being restored shows horrendous corrosion within the pipes etc….
People who use it generally seem happy with it - but the question you have to ask is how often do you end up draining your cooling system for reasons other than changing the glycol fluid as its old?
Personally I seem to have to take the rad. out every couple of years for one job or another and with no drain tap that just means bottom hose off/fluid everywhere. Just messy with glycol, very expensive with waterless.
Personally I seem to have to take the rad. out every couple of years for one job or another and with no drain tap that just means bottom hose off/fluid everywhere. Just messy with glycol, very expensive with waterless.
I converted my MX5 years ago. Don't regret it one iota. I converted mainly because of the lack of pressurisation; attractive for older modern classics, that have lots of plastics in the cooling system. I'm convinced it saved my engine one two occasions, when the electric fan failed in hot weather, and the temperature gague was on the far right for a significant time, and when a thermostat stuck partially closed.
I used a MX5 specialist to do the conversion. The flushing agent can be reused on two cars, that can reduce the cost. Overall cost to convert was about £100. In an emergency, you can top off with water. It does take a bit more effort to bleed/burp. When it was first done, the engine did run a bit hot, but bleeding it myself has resulted in perfectly fine indicated temperatured. I am aware that the factory temperature gauge will be dampened.
I used a MX5 specialist to do the conversion. The flushing agent can be reused on two cars, that can reduce the cost. Overall cost to convert was about £100. In an emergency, you can top off with water. It does take a bit more effort to bleed/burp. When it was first done, the engine did run a bit hot, but bleeding it myself has resulted in perfectly fine indicated temperatured. I am aware that the factory temperature gauge will be dampened.
Good point about the radiator removal and thanks for the other responses.
The video states you can capture and reuse the fluid as it doesn’t degrade with age, if you were in the position to need to drain the system. I could also add a drain spur at this point for that reason.
It’s more limiting pressure I’m keen on, my car was marginal when new for cooling and I’m hoping these advances might play into lower pressure and much reduced corrosion.
They state the fluid will outlast the car so adding up the antifreeze over several change cycles versus this appeals.
The video states you can capture and reuse the fluid as it doesn’t degrade with age, if you were in the position to need to drain the system. I could also add a drain spur at this point for that reason.
It’s more limiting pressure I’m keen on, my car was marginal when new for cooling and I’m hoping these advances might play into lower pressure and much reduced corrosion.
They state the fluid will outlast the car so adding up the antifreeze over several change cycles versus this appeals.
If your car has marginal cooling when new then Evans is certainly not the solution.
As an earlier poster notes, it has LESS cooling capacity than a water/glycol mix. So in a capable cooling system the engine will likely run a little warmer. In a cooling system which is margin then the engine will overheat.
I have two friends who have tried in in light aircraft (Rotax engined, so water cooled). Both went back to conventional fluid as on the ground (when the airflow through the admittedly small radiators is low), they both overheated.
As an earlier poster notes, it has LESS cooling capacity than a water/glycol mix. So in a capable cooling system the engine will likely run a little warmer. In a cooling system which is margin then the engine will overheat.
I have two friends who have tried in in light aircraft (Rotax engined, so water cooled). Both went back to conventional fluid as on the ground (when the airflow through the admittedly small radiators is low), they both overheated.
Elderly said:
…. and as it’s an oil based fluid within a hot engine compartment I’d be concerned about the possible fire risk if there was a leak from a hose.
Yes its very flammable, but then so is petrol.As said before it doesnt cool as well, it isnt a cure for a faulty cooling system, and corrosion wont be a problem with the right amount of antifreeze
richhead said:
Elderly said:
…. and as it’s an oil based fluid within a hot engine compartment I’d be concerned about the possible fire risk if there was a leak from a hose.
Yes its very flammable, but then so is petrol.aeropilot said:
But on older type classic cars, I've had more instances of water leaks from failed hoses or rad splits, than fuel leaks from carbs or fuel lines, so there is a potential increased risk.
Tend to agree, and the risk is cumulative as well - using flammable coolant just adds another fire-risk to those already present through the presence of fuel and brake fluid. Personally, I fail to see the upside of it, especially given the product's reduced ability to remove heat from the engine compared to a water/glycol mix.The advantages and disadvantages of using pure glycol vs a solution with water were being explored with a degree of urgency in WW2, and Rolls-Royce's engineers changed the Merlin from pure glycol to a water/glycol solution not least because it reduced cylinder head temperatures with a consequent reduction in the risk of burning out exhaust valves, with the accompanying benefit of greatly reduced fire risk.
9xxNick said:
aeropilot said:
But on older type classic cars, I've had more instances of water leaks from failed hoses or rad splits, than fuel leaks from carbs or fuel lines, so there is a potential increased risk.
Tend to agree, and the risk is cumulative as well - using flammable coolant just adds another fire-risk to those already present through the presence of fuel and brake fluid. Personally, I fail to see the upside of it, especially given the product's reduced ability to remove heat from the engine compared to a water/glycol mix.The advantages and disadvantages of using pure glycol vs a solution with water were being explored with a degree of urgency in WW2, and Rolls-Royce's engineers changed the Merlin from pure glycol to a water/glycol solution not least because it reduced cylinder head temperatures with a consequent reduction in the risk of burning out exhaust valves, with the accompanying benefit of greatly reduced fire risk.
RR changed from 100% to 80/20 mix during the Battle of Britain, from the experiences there, due to non-sealing glycol and fuel tanks and many burned pilots.
Introduction of self sealing tanks and the 80/20 mix greatly reduced pilot burn injuries from the tanks between pilot and engine.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff