lurch59

The expansion of the liquids is mostly irrelevant, it's really about maintaining higher pressures to avoid cavitation, boilover and hotspots, so of course it is always a good thing to avoid these things at 7-13 psi or 0 psi. Of course, you're at a disadvantage if your coolant only does this while pressurized, because let's be honest, how many of us have a radiator cap pressure tester and test our cap regularly? If it's not holding recommended pressure your coolant is not giving you the protection needed.
Making a 0 psi system by modifying the radiator cap has been easy in the engines I have converted.

lurch59

Propylene Glycol is GRAS (generally recognized as safe) as a food additive! I believe I have seen it in salad dressings...

Evan's recommends less than 5% water, with ideal being 1%-I've also seen 3% as being ideal.

Amsoil antifreeze recommends mixing with water, but it is propylene glycol based.

stc

I am really interested in understanding if this is really worth it looking at the responses!!

If I stay with the old fashion way what is the recommendation on the ratio of water to antifreeze?

Thanks,

Stephen

lurch59

Well, I think this is mostly about finding a loophole in the warranty. It's true that PGC is less efficient at giving up heat, but if the coolant is not boiling at the exhaust seat or in the head, that more than makes up for it. Boiling bubbles producing foam in the coolant really reduces heat transfer, which is the problem when operating on the ragged edge of the boiling point of traditional coolant. BTW, the efficiency of a radiator is related to the difference in temperature between radiator coolant temps and ambient air temps, so Evans pulls heat out of the engine more efficiently because it doesn't boil, and is more efficient at shedding it to ambient air because the radiator is hotter. I've not noticed any hotter temps after running Evans.

lurch59

Well, I think the supplemental coolant additives (SCA)flake off the walls of the cylinder, as they are present to form a sacrificial layer to the cylinder wall. (liner) The cavitation pulverizes the SCA's. This crud floats around damaging impellers and internal coolant pathways, which is why some install coolant filtration. Oh I'm aware that some of the crud is manufacturing scarf, but one can get precipitates to some degree...

lurch59

Do a google search, see my next post. I'm guessing you haven't looked into it much, or you would be agreeing with my statement....

lurch59

I'd say it depends on what you want your boiling point and freezing points to be, based first on manufacturers recommendation. Make sure your rad cap holds recommended pressure too. Most cars I've had recommended 50/50 mix

Mike Ward

I can find no such data. Your turn.

lurch59

I googled "What percentage of engine repairs are coolant system related" and the first website states "A majority of engine repairs are coolant system related" I came across the statistic I referred to, or something close, several times in my studies of coolants a couple years ago. If you really would like to know, call Evans and ask for independent data references. They're going to be the quickest reference, but I can also refer to Balwin filters web site and go thru their coolant tutorial, I found that to be quite helful.

John McGraw

Sure, but that is an issue with any coolant. That is why you check the DCA on a regular basis.



Regards, John McGraw

John McGraw

To equate the percentage of engine repairs due to cooling failures, with the benefits of any particular coolant, is a stretch at best!

Sure, engines break down when they overheat, that is a given. What I find fault with, is your assertion that PG is any better than EG as to keeping an engine cool. If a radiator hose blows, the engine is going to overheat, regardless of the coolant. A properly maintained cooling system will keep an engine cool, regardless of the coolant. The only real plus I see of PG, is it's low toxicity, but that is more than offset by it's high cost. Most of the studies that I have read on PG, also say that the life is shorter because of a higher oxidation rate, which forms acids, and higher head losses, because of the inherently higher viscosity. This would equate to lower coolant flow through the system.

If you like PG, I am surely not going to try and dissuade you from using it, as it will clearly do the job, but I do not believe that it is superior in all regards to EG antifreeze.

I am not at all adverse to spending more money for a product that has clear, benefits to my application, but I do not find PG to have such benefits. I do not have issues with my cooling systems, so I have no need to spend several times the cost of my current coolant, to fix a problem that does not exist. I have no doubt that it works well for you, but what I do doubt, is that your cooling system works well because of the PG. A problem cooling system is going to be a problem cooling system, and I have never seen any evidence (marketing hype excluded), that such a problem can be fixed by changing to a different coolant.



Regards, John McGraw

Mike Ward

If that's the depth of your 'research' and given your apparent willingness to blindly accept such 'data' as proof, you fall into the demographics targeted by all the snake oil vendors.

I Googled 'what percentage of gullible people believe that everything they read is true' and the interweebs said it's 100%.

Good luck.

lurch59

Mike, are you having a bad day?

Why is this percentage important to you? Whether it is 50% or 70%, it's not a material fact and won't be an issue for most of the people on this forum, considering all the other potential benefits to the coolant.

I am not going to do your research for you, and I don't care if you believe me because I don't make one cent off Evans coolant. I did the research for myself and didn't keep a bibliography because I'm not writing a book. I do know a little about you though, assuming you are not fibbing, you haven't done the research and are argumentative.

I believe everyone should do their own research, and make up their own mind. I simply made points for everyone to consider that they may not have considered before. Hot rods run hot, Corvettes run hot, they're not cheap and this coolant may be an answer, or at least part of it.

Mike Ward

No I'm not.

JohnZ

No, they don't, and no "answer" is required when there's no question to begin with; you are fervently seeking a problem that doesn't exist in order to apply an expensive "solution" that's unnecessary.

Here's all you need to know about Corvette cooling systems:

http://www.lbfun.com/warehouse/tech_...em/cooling.pdf

The cures for cooling system issues don't come in bottles - they come in boxes.

lurch59

That's funny....

lurch59

But this is exactly my point, SCA's are added to protect against cavitation due to water being present in the coolant. If there is no water, there is no cavitation, and no need to check the coolant additives. Similarly the corrosion inhibitors, added to protect against the corrosive effects of the water, wear out and need to be replaced. With Evans, there is no need to check the additives, perhaps you can check for water contamination with a refractometer, but it's likely not needed after the initial install.

lurch59

The issue being addressed is the pros and cons of waterless coolants versus traditional coolants. I personally don't see it as being expensive, when you consider that I never have to change coolant again, ever. It's not just the expense of replacing the coolant every few years, my time is worth money, and I don't want to mess with coolant changes. The water in the coolant is corrosive, which is why the additive packages are called corrosion inhibitors, not corrosion preventers. There is electrolysis, which corrodes dissimilar metals. I just had a local mechanic in my office and we were discussing the Evans coolant, he thinks it is a great idea because you can't get a low pH because there is no water present. Low pH's are corrosive. I've replaced several heater cores due to corrosion and subsequent leaking, and it's a hassle. There is also the issue of hot spots near the exhaust seat because the temps are so close to the boiling points of traditional coolant even under recommended pressures.

I've seen a dyno sheet where the only parameter change was switching to Evan's and the engine picked up a bit of torque across the entire curve. That idea might be of interest to members of this forum. The theory is that even temps contribute to better flame front travel.

I am currently having Mark at VortecPro assemble an engine, and I will be there for the dyno. I'll ask him to pull back to back dyno runs, one with traditional coolant and one with Evan's, and post the results if it of general interest to the forum.

Mike Ward

No it isn't.

vetsvette2002

You do realize that before you can run with the Evans, the cooling system and engine must be flushed completely of the old coolant.

Unless all test runs have the results corrected to SAE standards your back to back results are not worth much for data or proof of gaining horsepower over conventional coolant.

And yes you will still need expansion room even with Evans coolant. Or get a bucket to catch the outflow of hot coolant.

We (where I work for a living) ran tests for over two years at a customer's request, they paid the bills too, on using Evans. They're not now and will not be in the future be using Evans. But hey, they only design and build engines and vehicles for a living and we test, develop, certify them for our living. Draw your own conclusions.