A warning about Evans Waterless Coolants

-
TrailBeast

TrailBeast

AKA Mopars4us on Youtube
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Messages
22,491
Reaction score
12,030
Location
Arizona
At first glance the Evans products look pretty nice although somewhat expensive for coolant, but a real high boiling temp and no pressure in the cooling system from expansion like other coolants sounded pretty tempting.
BUT, after looking into it farther and some online research I found 2 major issue's with it.

NUMBER ONE, is that the chemicals in the Evans products sticks to and builds up on aluminum parts and this wouldn't be too big of a deal unless you have aluminum heads.
If used with aluminum heads that buildup on the surfaces causes the heat transfer from the head to the coolant to drop dramatically over time causing hot spots that make steam bubbles in the engine and therefore can cause crystallization of the aluminum. (Not good)

NUMBER TWO, is that with Evans coolant "iron and aluminum" cylinder head temperatures are higher by about 140 degrees.
This means one of the reasons people use aluminum heads (for lower octane usage without preignition) is pointless, as when the head temps get higher preignition becomes a problem even with aluminum heads.
I saw a 4-5 point increase in required octane rating simply because of the two traits of the Evans coolants.
One increase is immediate from higher head temps, and the other is a buildup over time but both eventually requiring higher octane fuel.

Anyone else seen this out there?
If for sure it's actually true, that's not good.
 
I haven't seen it, because I use regular old green anti freeze. I don't look for new ways to invent the wheel. I go with what's proven.

That said, moochas grassy *** for your information. Maybe now people will stick with something proven. ;)
 
Evans coolant is just a form of glycol that you don't add water to. So chemically, it is the same or similar base as regular antifreeze.

Glycol does not have as good a heat transfer as water, so the heat flow out of the heads is less and they will be hotter. This is a known factor. I have not read that they will be 140 degrees hotter, but maybe a few 10's of degrees hotter. However, the boiling point of glycols is a lot higher than water so the one supposed advantage of something like Evans is that local hot spots in the heads will not cause localizing boiling of the coolant as readily. This keeps the air in the coolant down and is part of the lower pressure in the system.

I have not ever read anything about Evans 'sticking' to the internals. But as a glycol, it is presumably going to break down over time to some degree or another with heat. So maybe that is what is going on... just speculating though.

Do you have any reference links to the supposed 'sticking' and build-up problems?
 
In Arizona you can just use Reverse Osmosis water and a good coolant additive.

Check out this article.
 
In Arizona you can just use Reverse Osmosis water and a good coolant additive.

Check out this test. They did a pretty thorough analysis:

Cooling System Additives - Turbo and High-Tech Performance Magazine

TurboMagazineCoolingResults.jpg
 
nm9stheham said:
Do you have any reference links to the supposed 'sticking' and build-up problems?
Click to expand...

The link posted above by Dubob was one of them.


Dubob said:
This article talks about a weight gain with the aluminum. Which infers a build up on the material. But they also appear to be a competitor.

No-Rosion Products Technical Questions and Answers
Click to expand...

autoxcuda said:
In Arizona you can just use Reverse Osmosis water and a good coolant additive.

Check out this test. They did a pretty thorough analysis:

Cooling System Additives - Turbo and High-Tech Performance Magazine

View attachment 1714936772
Click to expand...

That's what I did for now, but I need to flush this sucker and refill it with new.
After running for awhile the mag engine I have is kicking up some garbage (rust) in the coolant.
Thanks for the comparison.
 
I run regular water/antifreeze mix. 50/50 for winter running/winter storage (it covers most winter here, although we have seen it get below -40 with windchill, that generally doesn't apply to engines). In summer I go to a much lighter 30/70. This summer will be the first time I try straight water with maybe a water wetter type additive as the track requires. So I'm always keeping an eye stuff like this. Still trying to decide which additive to run.

Thanks for the info.
 
Pay attention to who is FUNDING the article. Ebooger has NEVER TESTED the produced. He admitted that. But what is even more appalling than not testing a product and bashing the product, is jumping on the web, and using a COMPETITORS testing, without checking on the COMPETITORS work!

I lost what little respect for ebooger I had. Then, in the last issue of the rag that ebooger writes for, someone from Evans wrote to ebooger, and rather than address Evans in a professional journalist way, he was a snarky jackass.

I have never run Evans coolant. But I'm going to this time. There is so much outright BULLSHIT about cooling out there, that I FORCED myself to do some study. Here is a bit of what I found.

Flow is EVERYTHING. It's all about FLOW. The second thing is AREA. You need as much cooling AREA as you can get. A bigger radiator is a better radiator.

The third thing is the number and size of cores. You can call any quality radiator manufacturer and they will tell you the same thing. More cores is NOT better. 2 cores of 1.5 inch diameter is better than 3 cores of 1 inch diameter. It's about FLOW. A 4 core radiator is even less efficient.

The other issue is PRESSURE. You MUST have pressure with ANY water based coolant to increase the boiling point. PRESSURE impedes FLOW, and that is bad. But, you MUST have PRESSURE with water based coolants.

After looking at all these things in more depth than I have posted here, I decided to try Evans coolant. I will post my results here, good or bad. I have done all I can do to increase flow, and decrease pressure. Evans works with almost ZERO pressure. Think about that, in and of itself! No pressure (or very little) will make the likelihood of a massive leak even less. Places less load on the head gaskets as far as sealing coolant.

I would say to anyone looking at cooling systems to spend some time and learn about fluid dynamics and heat transfer. Then make your decision.

BTW, the other thing I learned is the LIE of the thermostat! Most people think you need one to keep coolant in the radiator so it can dump heat. That is a LIE. It is a flow RESTRICTION, and we know RESTRICTION is bad. The only functions the thermostat has are to speed up cold start warm up, and keep the engine at a constant temperature so the heater functions correctly. Other than that, you don't need it.

Since I drive my crap all year round, in temps that get well below freezing and can get to zero (and yes I drive it when it's that cold) I may have to use a thermostat. Time will tell.

Do your own research, call people on the phone. Write out your questions down first, before you call and take notes. Most of every manufacturer I have dealt with would much rather you call them, rather then read comic books and unvetted web pages.
 
I use Evans in my 340 classic and after cleaning out the muck from years of the sluge due to the water mixed with the glycol (Before we learned about RO water) , I cleaned my system and run Evans and it does run much cooler and you can take the cap off after 30 minutes of running and it won't burp at all. Just my experience.
 
???? The t'stat is indeed a restriction. It helps to build pressure in the heads in particular and also in the block to some degree. That helps lessen the tendency for the coolant to locally boil in the heads. Guys who take out the t'stat and find hotter temps think it is due to too fast a flow (which would not make it hotter anyway), but it is due to the lower pressure inside the heads.

Block wear accelerates considerably with cold temps. This is a known thing, particularly in inline 6's where it is common to have bore wear in the coller #1 cylinder. It may makes sense to run with no-stat in a true race-only engine but not on the street, IMHO.

Thanks for the link DuBob. I had read that many moons ago when researching Evans. I took it with a big grain of salt due to it being a competitor.......

Sgaugian, that is interesting. Does it run cooler at the temp sensor or at the rad? I strongly suspect that if it is cooler at the temp sensor, then that is from cleaning out the system properly! All of the science behind Evans says things will run hotter, all else being equal.
 
nm9stheham said:
???? The t'stat is indeed a restriction. It helps to build pressure in the heads in particular and also in the block to some degree. That helps lessen the tendency for the coolant to locally boil in the heads. Guys who take out the t'stat and find hotter temps think it is due to too fast a flow (which would not make it hotter anyway), but it is due to the lower pressure inside the heads.

Block wear accelerates considerably with cold temps. This is a known thing, particularly in inline 6's where it is common to have bore wear in the coller #1 cylinder. It may makes sense to run with no-stat in a true race-only engine but not on the street, IMHO.

Thanks for the link DuBob. I had read that many moons ago when researching Evans. I took it with a big grain of salt due to it being a competitor.......

Sgaugian, that is interesting. Does it run cooler at the temp sensor or at the rad? I strongly suspect that if it is cooler at the temp sensor, then that is from cleaning out the system properly! All of the science behind Evans says things will run hotter, all else being equal.
Click to expand...

Pretty much exactly how I see it.
We know varied or cold running temps = increased engine wear
Evans runs hotter so the engine could very well need a timing change or higher grade fuel. (or both)
One of the chemicals involved build up on aluminum after time blocking heat transfer.
These are facts no matter who the funding for the article came from.

Oh, and plus I know how my Wife would react to cooking any water out of it on the stove if I ever need to do that. :D
 
TrailBeast said:
Pretty much exactly how I see it.
We know varied or cold running temps = increased engine wear
Evans runs hotter so the engine could very well need a timing change or higher grade fuel. (or both)
One of the chemicals involved build up on aluminum after time blocking heat transfer.
These are facts no matter who the funding for the article came from.

Oh, and plus I know how my Wife would react to cooking any water out of it on the stove if I ever need to do that. :D
Click to expand...


What proof do you have that Evans runs hotter? I can tell you the trend in non emissions performance is to LOWER engine temps and HIGHER compression ratios.

The wear comes from inconsistent temps.

I may end up running a T stat, but it won't be because of performance. It will because I can't get temp in the engine.

Low coolant temps and thinner oils makes horsepower.
 
yellow rose said:
What proof do you have that Evans runs hotter? I can tell you the trend in non emissions performance is to LOWER engine temps and HIGHER compression ratios.

The wear comes from inconsistent temps.

I may end up running a T stat, but it won't be because of performance. It will because I can't get temp in the engine.

Low coolant temps and thinner oils makes horsepower.
Click to expand...

Consistent temps lessen wear for sure, and thinner oil makes horsepower.
We agree on that.
Not everyone is out to trade horsepower for reliability and longevity.
The facts are that neither one of us apparently knows the deal with Evans coolants for sure, and that's one of the reasons I brought it up.
Unless you know for sure and just haven't told me. :D
 
Well I can say this first hand. I see all the time where it is said that straight water is the best cooler. That's just not true. Anti freeze also has anti boiling agents. That means that where water might find a hot spot and turn to steam, anti freeze will not. While water MAY be better at dissipating heat, if it is not there and turned into steam, it is useless.
 
RustyRatRod said:
Well I can say this first hand. I see all the time where it is said that straight water is the best cooler. That's just not true. Anti freeze also has anti boiling agents. That means that where water might find a hot spot and turn to steam, anti freeze will not. While water MAY be better at dissipating heat, if it is not there and turned into steam, it is useless.
Click to expand...

This is exactly why I decided on a coolant mix with water instead of the waterless route.
I could run pure antifreeze and do what it seems to me that Evans does, but for a heck of a lot less cash AND better cooling I'll stick with the proven Ethylene Glycol and "High Quality H2o" like the Water boy says.
 
By far the Evans runs much cooler and my needle never goes over half way even idling for 1/2 in the driveway (Drops lower under driving conditions) . As I said before I can take the cap off while it has been running there for 1/2 hours and the cap comes right off no burned hands.
 
sgaugian said:
By far the Evans runs much cooler and my needle never goes over half way even idling for 1/2 in the driveway (Drops lower under driving conditions) . As I said before I can take the cap off while it has been running there for 1/2 hours and the cap comes right off no burned hands.
Click to expand...

Understood.
What I saw said "The heads run hotter with Evans" and "The one chemical builds up on aluminum creating a heat transfer barrier".
I don't run, or plan to run aluminum heads or an aluminum radiator either one so that part doesn't matter in my case.
But you can bet I'd like to know for sure about the heads running hotter because that part does matter to me.
I don't want to end up having to run premium gas just to have Evans coolant.

So even though your system runs cooler overall, it doesn't answer the concern about higher head temps specifically.

I'm not saying the stuff I read was right, but that if it is right then I have a problem with using it.
It would benefit others to know if that is the case also if they are on the edge of needing better fuel already, as an increase in heads temp could cause detonation on the lower grade fuel they currently are able to run.
 
It sounds like the same problems I saw with engines where people ran too high a concentration of the good ole green stuff. Poor heat transfer and hot spots causing detonation and engine run on.....
 
The stuff probably does what it's intended to do, but IMO it's another product hell bent on sapping unnecessary money from your wallet.

Good old ethylene glycol has been around a LONG time and works great. If you have trouble keeping something cool with it, you have something else WRONG. That's pretty much the long and short of it.
 
TrailBeast said:
Consistent temps lessen wear for sure, and thinner oil makes horsepower.
We agree on that.
Not everyone is out to trade horsepower for reliability and longevity.
The facts are that neither one of us apparently knows the deal with Evans coolants for sure, and that's one of the reasons I brought it up.
Unless you know for sure and just haven't told me. :D
Click to expand...


I said I'm finishing my crap now. I said I'll post results, good or bad.

I also said, ebooger and evidently, some of us on here, went to a COMPETITORS web site and believed every last word but didn't actually verify anything.


The thing about Evans coolant is, if you are NOT going to listen to what THEY say, and do your cooling system the way THEY tell you, how can you expect results? You can't have a restricted system (you can say the same thing for any coolant system), you don't need a pressure cap, you need to keep pump speed up, not lower it and a couple more things I forget at the moment.

I'm running my compression ratio fairly high for a PG DD and one of the ways to make that feasible is to lower coolant temp. That's why I looked at Evans. Cool temperatures don't wear out cast iron. Uneven temps can, but it's usually piss poor material that causes it. Every 2.8 Chevy I ever did had big ridges in th front cylinders. You could tell when honing them they were butter soft. I'd venture to say that not all those 2.8 chevies were using Evans coolant, yet they were wore out. The inline 6's are bad about it too, but most are soft as well. And since most folks hit the key, and have the thing in reverse before the second cylinder fires, I have no doubt what some of the block wear issues are caused by.
 
Most 2.8 engines I've ever seen had a crack in the block from an outside corner head bolt. They were bad about it. Also terrible about leakin water in through the intake gaskets. GM could have gone without makin that one.
 
Even Evans says on their site that engines will run hotter, not cooler, with their product. Of course, they say it is just a few 10's of degrees, so the truth is probably between 10 and 150 degrees... LOL. If your engine runs cooler with Evans over a 50/50 mix.. then something else changed at the same time.
 
yellow rose said:
I said I'm finishing my crap now. I said I'll post results, good or bad.

I also said, ebooger and evidently, some of us on here, went to a COMPETITORS web site and believed every last word but didn't actually verify anything.
Click to expand...

And at the end of my post I asked and said,
Anyone else seen this out there?
If for sure it's actually true, that's not good.

But go right ahead and defend the heck out of something you have no personal experience with.
It makes zero difference to me, because until I ask somewhere that no one gets butthurt about the question and I find out for sure I won't use it.
 
TrailBeast said:
And at the end of my post I asked and said,
Anyone else seen this out there?
If for sure it's actually true, that's not good.

But go right ahead and defend the heck out of something you have no personal experience with.
It makes zero difference to me, because until I ask somewhere that no one gets butthurt about the question and I find out for sure I won't use it.[/QUOTE


Patience. I do my homework very well before I spend my money, so I'm fairly confident in saying what ebooger published about Evans coolant is bull crap. He's in the biz, he SHOULD have tested it.

I will test it, and I'll post the results here. And it won't cost you a thin dime. It's the cheap asses who sit around and wait for the rest of us to test things out that slow progress. Those same people ***** about the cost of oil, but never paid to test it. Or fuel. Or fuel additives.

I'll have to go to the site to see what they are talking about their coolant running hotter. I don't usually base anything off web sites. I actually pick up the phone and call them. If I see something wierd, like it's going to increase coolant temp, that would be a DIRECT CONTRADICTION to what I was told by Evans on the phone.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top