|
Waterless Coolant?? At the risk of starting another of those "eye-rolling, here-we-go-again" threads (and by the way, I could not find any mention of this subject in the archives).........does anyone have any experience with the waterless coolants?? They claim to reduce / eliminate cavitation, localized hotspots, etc. Right now, I run a 50/50 mix of distilled water/coolant, but am intrigued by their claims. I know they are a bit more expensive, but that is not the question.http://fordbarn.com/forum/images/icons/icon5.gif
|
Re: Waterless Coolant?? Marcus, I'm thinking of trying this also for the same reasons you mentioned. Curious to see the replies.
|
Re: Waterless Coolant?? 7 Attachment(s)
In another side of what we do, we have used it in a 1909 Oakland that we had rebuilt the engine and increased the compression ratio and had the camshaft reground to a hotter grind all with the mindset so the owner could tour with it. It also had a 'marginal' radiator in it. The cost estimate at that time for a new radiator was over $5,000.00 so that option was being used as a last resort.
We used Evans brand, ...and although we did many things simultaneously to correct the heating issue --and to add to it, it did not overheat after we were done. I think that in a marginal application it would be OK but repairing the root problem on a Model-A makes better sense IMHO. Often times, overheating can be attributed to causes other than a poor radiator. . |
Re: Waterless Coolant?? The specific heat, or heat carrying capacity of waterless coolant is significantly lower.
Specific heats, in BTU/lb-deg.F: water @ 190F is 1.004. 50/50 (anti-freeze) @ 190F is 0.847 waterless coolant (100% glycols) @ 190F is 0.652 Your system, which includes factors such as contact surface area in the block and radiator remain constant. To 'move' the same quantity of heat energy from the block and out the radiator, waterless coolant needs to move at a faster rate through the system than water or 50/50. Since the pumping rate of an A (pump speed) will not be increased when you make the change, expect the equilibrium temperature reached cruising in a stock, no-thermostat A's in summer weather to be significantly higher, likely in the 195+ range where water would run 140-160. Lower specific heat (carrying capacity) of pure glycol coupled with the significant difference in viscosity between pure glycols and water mixes significantly reduces the cooling performance of an idling A stuck in summer traffic (welcome to Chicago!), Evans recommends running without a thermostat in an A, as the least restriction will really put it over the top. Even without the 'stat, you will probably run 210+ in bumper to bumper situations. To me this would be a bit too toasty for the coil, condenser, paint, unpressurized fuel, and me on the other side of that uninsulated firewall. I like my thermostat and would not want to give up the fast winter warmup to 180 or live with an engine that won't get much over 130 with the waterless coolant in winter without a thermostat, accumulating moisture in the crankcase and oil. If anyone has a hot-water heater, removing the throttled thermostat will also drop the heater circulation to nill as there will not be a point of flow velocity change that produces the needed slight pressure differential. Of course, this is only the negative side, for the positives read their website. |
Re: Waterless Coolant?? Mike, Excellent information, and I thank you - this is exactly what I was looking to receive. That said, consider the same question / scenario with the following: No thermostats in either a "A" or the flatmotor; never in bumper-to-bumper traffic except for the occasional parade, and the vast majority of driving in the 35-45 MPH range. Any additional thoughts that brings to mind??
|
Re: Waterless Coolant?? Everyone's situation and needs are different. It worked OK for Brent's '09 Oakland build. If you must, try it in one vehicle first. As Brent mentioned, if you have an overheating problem, address the root, not the symptom.
|
Re: Waterless Coolant?? Mike and Brent - Thank you; I apologize for not recognizing, and replying to, Brent's earlier response. I do not have an overheating problem.........I am just curious as to the practical benefits. None (knock on wood!) of my vehicles have ever had an overheating issue.......
|
Re: Waterless Coolant?? I have used the Evans brand in the past and will do so in the future. Frankly, it is superior in every way to the mixture variety.
If you run the Evans brand coolant, you will not have to worry about boiling your coolant so the coolant stays in direct contact with the hot metal carrying away the heat much more efficiently than the mixtures do. In addition, you don't have to worry about the coolant boiling out of the radiator. |
Re: Waterless Coolant?? 28ACoupe: I am curious - was this use in a stock A Model or perhaps a flathead? I ask because I know of several who use the Evans brand in their drag cars.......
|
Re: Waterless Coolant?? I am using and have used Evans in all of my cars-Model A and otherwise. It is a great product-especially if you have a system using mixed-metal components such as an aluminum head on a cast iron block with a copper head gasket. It will not corrode and will prevent the corrosion that normal anti-freeze and plain water will cause. Also, if regular anti-freeze leaks into your engine's oil, it will eat up babbitt. Evans will not ( I have a main bearing cap that has been completely submerged in a jar of Evans for nearly 10 years now and hasn't effected the babbitt at all). The other advantage is that it will last longer and protect longer than regular antifreeze. Yes, the boiling point is higher, but like the other posts mention, you should cure your overheating first before using any Evans type of coolant. Another potential disadvantage is that Evans can not be mixed with water and/or traditional anti-freeze (unless it is a real emergency, but then the system will have to be cleaned out again). So if you have a car that is prone to overheating or just prone to throwing water out of the overflow, Evans would not be a good choice for you. But again, that's a problem that should be remedied anyway. Awhile back, I had an early car that had a 7 gallon cooling system and one of the car's biggest problems was the engine would take forever to get to operating temperature-especially on a 70 degree or colder day. Restrictor plates and an aftermarket thermostat did nothing to solve the problem. When I converted it to Evans, the engine almost immediately warmed up to a good operating temperature even on a cold day. The reason is Evans, when it is cold, remains somewhat thick which allows it to warm up faster than normal water or anti-freeze. As it gets warmer it thins out and the heat dissipates. I learned about Evans over 15 years ago from friends that were using it on early cars that were driving in the Great American race. Evans has been around a lot longer than that for modern race car and industrial applications.
|
Re: Waterless Coolant?? gz: Very interesting, thank you! Curious, however: why do you have a bearing cap submerged in Evans - just to prove the point, or some other reason? Also, I live in Mississippi, and have no concerns about "warm up" - GRIN!
|
Re: Waterless Coolant?? Stock Model A engine and cooling system. No thermostat, no aftermarket radiator and no overheating ever even just puttering around in the middle of summer.
Quote:
|
Re: Waterless Coolant?? Antifreeze removes most paints.
|
Re: Waterless Coolant?? 42.00 a gallon for the coolant and 35.00 a gallon for the flush to get started.
|
Re: Waterless Coolant?? If you are starting with a fresh build, you don't need the flush.
Also, the coolant is lifetime so, unlike traditional coolant mixture, you don't have to replace it unless you have a system failure of some kind. Also, with regards to MikeK's rather scientific post above, which was well written and factual, it was not complete. The cooling capacities listed only apply to direct coolant to metal conditions. The 50/50 mixes have a vapor barrier once the engine reaches operating temp that greatly reduces the mix's capacity for carrying away the heat. The Evan's product does not suffer from this issue so it maintains it's cooling capability far beyond the point when the mix's fail. |
Re: Waterless Coolant?? Quote:
If you want to go down the slippery and complicated road of cooling capacity, (1) The thermal transfer rate of pure glycols is less than 30% that of pure water. (2) A 50/50 mix has 90% the transfer rate of pure water if contact is maintained. That 'if' is where the confusion arises. There is NO "vapor barrier" with 50/50 (or straight water) unless the engine operating temperature reaches a point above the vaporization threshold (boiling point) of the coolant. Only at that point will capacity be reduced. If you have a 180 thermostat (operating temperature) in a non-pressurized system you are well below that point. Until that point is reached, water and 50/50 will beat the cooling capacity pants off pure glycol as a coolant medium. WHEN that point is reached, the driver gets a big hint (steam!) and usually reacts quickly. If not, the engine will heat rapidly and the difference in expansion rates between Aluminum pistons and the block will lead to seizure. Running straight glycol (Evans) will not produce any steam and will simply continue to permit operation well past the 212 threshold of a non-pressurized cooling system. You still can easily reach a much higher temperature that will seize pistons and score cylinders. Race engines run much larger piston/bore clearances to permit very high temperature excursions without seizure. By using the waterless stuff in an engine built with clearances for high temperatures you avoid the need to run an extremely high coolant system pressure that will blow hoses and gaskets, and boil-over after shutdown. THAT is the benefit of waterless coolant. |
Re: Waterless Coolant?? Having spoken directly to the engineers at Evans regarding this, I can say that again, you are only partially correct. Give them a call and get the correct info. If you would like, I can provide you with the phone number.
Yes, the system may be at 180, but, the temps at the cylinders are much higher. |
Re: Waterless Coolant?? Quote:
|
Re: Waterless Coolant?? Bill - There is actually a cost advantage over the long term. The coolant is lifetime so no need to replace it, unlike mixtures.
|
Re: Waterless Coolant?? Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:18 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.