Evans waterless coolent

[Rick M.]

Just wondering if anyone has anything to say about Evans Waterless Coolants? In a recent Jay Leno's garage, he praised the product. I am thinking of purchasing the product for my C2 and would be interested in any comments that someone might have.

[Larry M.]

Re: Evans waterless coolent

This has come up in the past..........and the general consensus was not to use it. Check the archives to see if the earlier threads are still there.

I would simply use a 50/50 mix of Zerex G-05 and distilled water, and replace it every 5 years. The G-05 has a proven and outstanding track record for these older cars. This is what I currently use in my 1967.

Larry

[Jim D.]

Re: Evans waterless coolent

This has come up in the past..........and the general consensus was not to use it. Check the archives to see if the earlier threads are still there.

I would simply use a 50/50 mix of Zerex G-05 and distilled water, and replace it every 5 years. The G-05 has a proven and outstanding track record for these older cars. This is what I currently use in my 1967.

Larry

I use G-05 in all my cars. IMHO, it's the best on the market. As far as "celebrity endorsements", Caroll Shelby was the spokesman for Z-Max. Z-Max was successfully sued by the FTC for false and misleading advertising. The product was proven to be useless. Everyone has their price, including Jay and Caroll.

[Joe L.]

Re: Evans waterless coolent

All------


I also use and recommend Zerex G-05 for any Corvette that has any copper/brass with solder joint components in the cooling system. This includes ALL 1953-96 Corvettes. Zerex G-05 also meets GM standard 1825-M which is applicable to all 1963-94 Corvettes. I use a 60/40 mix, though, as it provides a little better boil-over protection and does not significantly affect cooling. Anything greater than 60/40 will reduce cooling effectiveness and I don't recommend it.

[Michael W.]

Re: Evans waterless coolent

Anything greater than 60/40 will reduce cooling effectiveness and I don't recommend it.

Joe has hit on the number 1 reason that waterless coolants are a significant downgrade to any car, especially Corvettes that have marginal cooling systems, and should therefore be avoided.

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

I urge you to read the entire document, but in part:

"Water has a specific heat capacity of 1.00. It transfers heat more effectively than any other fluid, and is therefore used as the reference fluid in the scientific measure of specific heat capacity. Comparatively, the specific heat capacity of the various glycol solutions in the Evans products ranges from 0.64 to 0.68. So they conduct roughly half as much heat as does water,"

The net effect of this inefficiency is that the car will most likely run hotter than with standard coolant.

The second major issue is that contrary to the manufacturer's claims, the cooling system pressure will NOT be reduced as compared to standard coolant. All liquids expand and contract with changes in temperature, waterless coolants are no different. The pressureless state they mention in various ads is achieved by modifying the cooling system to deliberately release the pressure generated by heat expansion. Quite deceptive.

A drawback in modifying the system to run in a pressureless state usually means that the coolant will come into contact with air in an overflow container or similar. Such contact runs the risk of contaminating the coolant with airborne moisture which will negate the whole purpose of using waterless coolants.

I wouldn't use such a product if you paid me.

[Joe L.]

Re: Evans waterless coolent

Joe has hit on the number 1 reason that waterless coolants are a significant downgrade to any car, especially Corvettes that have marginal cooling systems, and should therefore be avoided.

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

I urge you to read the entire document, but in part:

"Water has a specific heat capacity of 1.00. It transfers heat more effectively than any other fluid, and is therefore used as the reference fluid in the scientific measure of specific heat capacity. Comparatively, the specific heat capacity of the various glycol solutions in the Evans products ranges from 0.64 to 0.68. So they conduct roughly half as much heat as does water,"

The net effect of this inefficiency is that the car will most likely run hotter than with standard coolant.

The second major issue is that contrary to the manufacturer's claims, the cooling system pressure will NOT be reduced as compared to standard coolant. All liquids expand and contract with changes in temperature, waterless coolants are no different. The pressureless state they mention in various ads is achieved by modifying the cooling system to deliberately release the pressure generated by heat expansion. Quite deceptive.

A drawback in modifying the system to run in a pressureless state usually means that the coolant will come into contact with air in an overflow container or similar. Such contact runs the risk of contaminating the coolant with airborne moisture which will negate the whole purpose of using waterless coolants.

I wouldn't use such a product if you paid me.

Mike------


Absolutely. 100% water would be the best coolant as far as heat transfer goes. Unfortunately, we also need boil-over protection and corrosion protection (and, for some folks not including me, freezing protection).

[Michael W.]

Re: Evans waterless coolent

Mike------


Absolutely. 100% water would be the best coolant as far as heat transfer goes. Unfortunately, we also need boil-over protection and corrosion protection (and, for some folks not including me, freezing protection).

Right. Much like Goldilocks and the three bears, only one bowl of porridge would be just right. It's the one with a 50/50 or 60/40 mix of water and conventional coolant. The pure water and waterless coolant porridge bowls are not advisable.

[Joe L.]

Re: Evans waterless coolent

Right. Much like Goldilocks and the three bears, only one bowl of porridge would be just right. It's the one with a 50/50 or 60/40 mix of water and conventional coolant. The pure water and waterless coolant porridge bowls are not advisable.

Mike------


Many, many years ago (like about 40) a guy that I knew and and trusted told me that with an aluminum radiator I should use 100% coolant. Like a fool, I did it. BIG MISTAKE. The car ran VERY hot. I might have even done some damage during that "experiment".

[Mark E.]

Re: Evans waterless coolent

Who knows? This stuff may be an innovative new product.

But why bet your C2 on it? Let others try it, and check back in a few years. If adventurous, try it yourself on a beater for a few years first.

[Larry M.]

Re: Evans waterless coolent

Mark:

This is not a new product. It has been around for 10+ years..............maybe more.

Larry

[Keith B.]

Re: Evans waterless coolent

I thought this product was designed for drag racers so after a coolant failure clean up would be easier.

[Michael W.]

Re: Evans waterless coolent

Mark:

This is not a new product. It has been around for 10+ years..............maybe more.

Larry

Actually more than 70 years. First appeared in WWII.

[Jim L.]

Re: Evans waterless coolent

I thought this product was designed for drag racers so after a coolant failure clean up would be easier.

Water would be easier to clean up. In fact, in road racing, we are required to run water only so a coolant spill doesn't make the track slick.

[Larry M.]

Re: Evans waterless coolent

Actually more than 70 years. First appeared in WWII.

I won't argue, but a quick check of their website says 16 years. FWIW.

Larry

[Michael W.]

Re: Evans waterless coolent

I won't argue, but a quick check of their website says 16 years. FWIW.

Larry

That's when Evans brought out their own brand. The product was developed for aviation during the war.