Evans waterless coolant

[Mickey Dunlap]

Well, you actually have no idea of everything I have done, therefore, I suggest that you stop making assumptions and statements of any kind about me . I was a PRO motocross racer before I was a PRO 3 and 4 wheel racer and rode countless times in heavy mud at Saddleback and Carlsbad and elsewhere, and I also rode many Grand Prixs which were typically in the winter and it typically rained and was often muddy.

I also raced horrendously muddy 3 wheeler races like the Perris Grand Prix where it also rained all day . It was a 2 or 3 hour team race that I rode with Jimmie White and Donnie Luce at James Degaines request whom was the manager of Team Green at the time, however, Jimmie started and holeshot the race and we led from start to finish so there wasn't a bunch of bikes throwing mud in the rads but they still got extremely muddy and we never cleaned them off, and we not only finished the race without overheating, we won it and team honda was there so it wasn't like we could go easy on the bike and just cruise to the win.

In addition, I also know for a fact that Kawi did not use waterless coolant in any of their factory MX bikes while I was there and all the factory riders raced hundreds of races in heavy mud and their rads got filled with mud and they still not only seemed to finish the races using just 50/50 coolant, they also won many National Championships.

Kawasaki also didn't use waterless coolant in Larry Roesslers bikes and he is one of the winningest desert racers of all time.





I suggest you read my previous posta again very carefully . I never said that there was absolutely no benefit whatsoever to using a waterless coolant and I did not question the results of the testing you said you did, therefore, I really don't know why you seem to be trying to defend waterless coolant so adamantly.



PREVIOUS KAWASAKI INTERNATIONAL R & D PROJECT ENGINEER AND ATV DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR

LOL Sorry but we are talking about a whole different time with 4 stroke water cooled bikes making much more HP and a lot more moving parts. The heads on a 4 stroke are totally different inside the water jackets then a simple 2 stroke.

Now if you want to talk about the past I wouldn't say you were much of a pro ATC racer when you couldn't beat me at the MT Races when I was on a little 200x!


See you have to be up front! Now I never seen you race because you were behind me, but you can't call a lucky win at some local race, or hang off the shirt tails of Jimmy and Donny saying you were a pro racer just because you entered a race.

And yes Larry did use EVAN's in the GNCC races on his 4 stroke. I know for a fact when I was the Team manager for the Team Green ATV race team and we pitted right next to him and we were talking about oil and coolants. Quit living in the past and thinking you know everything about what works these days. I didn't get the job of building Kawasaki's 4 stroke and running the Team doing what worked 30 years ago! Try building a Mojave 250 into a 411cc and making it live for 2 hours of the toughest racing in the world today.

[3 Wheel Drive]

[barnett468]

LOL Sorry but we are talking about a whole different time with 4 stroke water cooled bikes making much more HP and a lot more moving parts. The heads on a 4 stroke are totally different inside the water jackets then a simple 2 stroke.

Now if you want to talk about the past I wouldn't say you were much of a pro ATC racer when you couldn't beat me at the MT Races when I was on a little 200x!

See you have to be up front! Now I never seen you race because you were behind me, but you can't call a lucky win at some local race, or hang off the shirt tails of Jimmy and Donny saying you were a pro racer just because you entered a race.

And yes Larry did use EVAN's in the GNCC races on his 4 stroke. I know for a fact when I was the Team manager for the Team Green ATV race team and we pitted right next to him and we were talking about oil and coolants. Quit living in the past and thinking you know everything about what works these days. I didn't get the job of building Kawasaki's 4 stroke and running the Team doing what worked 30 years ago! Try building a Mojave 250 into a 411cc and making it live for 2 hours of the toughest racing in the world today.

So you still feel a need to continue to attack me and some others after all these years and in spite of your self proclaimed religious conversion, that's xlnt, mickey, good job.

I really think you should stop now before you bury yourself too much deeper and possibly go back and read some of the parts of whatever bible you claim to read and preach the sayings of and find the ones that pertain to ego and doing unto others as you would have them do unto you and so on, providing these teachings are in the one you claim to read because you seem to have forgotten some of these teachings as can be seen in your post here and some of the comments you made in the thread below as well as in several other posts you have made but I don't want to bore people by posting them.

http://www.3wheelerworld.com/showthr...highlight=dyno


You are also now trashing this thread with your off topic, personal attack on me but very few seem to care how many threads get trashed around here so feel free to continue to pontificate and bloviate to your hearts content about things that aren't relevant to a threads topic . In spite of your comments, I am still going to be much kinder to you than you ever were to me and try to simplify some things for you that you don't seem to understand

James Degain was in charge of Team Green . James Degain personally asked me to ride the Perris Grand Prix with Jimmy and Donnie . I did NOT ask him . James and Kawasaki are in the business of winning races . James had several other people he could have asked but for whatever reason he asked me . Perhaps he asked me to tp ride with Jimmy and Donnie just give all the other racers a chance including the factory honda racers because I was so pathetically slow . He also knew that Honda would be there with their FACTORY RIDERS . Now, if you think that Honda's factory riders are slouches or that Jimmy and Donnie are slouches and we all just happened to ride way over our heads that day to beat the factory Honda riders, you should have easily been able to beat them yourself on a continuous basis which in FACT you did not, or did I miss something . Oh that's it, I missed the headlines saying that Mickey Dunlap won the 3 wheeler 250 National Championship . Perhaps you could post a copy of that headline so we can all be awed by the magnificence that is the great mickey dunlap.

As far as trying to discredit me as a PRO 3 wheel racer and saying that I am attempting to "hang my shirt tails off Jimmy and Donnie", I have news for you there also . I won the last big PRO 3 wheeler short track race at Saddleback over at least 30 other riders INCLUDING Jimmy White and some TEAM HONDA RIDERS and I did it on our pre-production test bike with a box stock chassis, box stock forks, stock rear axle with wheel spacers and a nearly stock swingarm that I reinforced and modified to move the axle carrier back around 3/4" . Both James Degain and Bruce Stjernstrom from Team Green were there at that race and made a little fun of Jimmy afterwards because I beat him.

I also won a 3 wheel race at Carslbad Raceway called "Comotion By The Ocean" and won the holeshot contest they had by holeshotting both motos and have the T shirt they gave away to the winner of that contest to prove it.

I also got second at a 3 wheel race they held at the Los Angeles Colliseum on my bent up bike with my half numb arm.

I finished in the top 10 at the 3 wheel race they had in Big Bear which also had Jimmy White, Donnie Luce, Marty Hart, Dean Sundahl, Mike Coe, John Neary and several other top racers in it and if I recall correctly, there were at least 30 riders in that race . James Degain was also at that race cheering me on, lol.

I did all the above on the same bike with the same stock specs and the same tires that Jimmy gave me at a race in the stadium at San Diego which I also holeshot and John Neary has the video to prove it and you even asked John for a copy of that video . I was also probably the oldest racer at the time and "The Geezer" still seemed to be able to be fast enough to beat many others in the PRO class on a consistent basis . Just how many others can say that?

Here is another FACT fer ya. I would have done better at all the races if I had used a longer swing arm and done some other mods to the bike and I was offered a swing arm and other parts from the mfg's but I deliberately ran it nearly stock because I was NOT trying to beat everyone and be the fastest rider, nor did I ever have any illusions that I would . I was simply using the bike as a test bed to garner information that might be useful for future production models and just racing for the FUN OF IT . Hell, I was so lackadaisical about racing 3 wheelers that while you and others were out practicing or eating healthy or hitting the gym etc, I was out pounding beers and partying . In fact, I had a decent hangover when I rode the Big Bear race and still finished in the top 10 on my nearly stock chassis TECATE...The Most Powerful 3 Wheeler In The Universe.

Oh, I almost forgot, I was also asked by both Dave Miller and Harry Klemm to test a top end kit that they both made for a 3 wheeler, which I did, and they could have just as easily asked Jimmy, or Donnie, or Chris White to do it so I guess they asked me because they wanted to see how slow it was .

As far as you attempting to "educate" me on ANY differences between a 2 stroke cylinder head and a 4 stroke one, you can save your breath because until around 2 years ago, by your own admission in a post on the site, you didn't even know that back cutting some intake valves would increase air flow . I knew this back in 1970.

As far as Larry Roessler using waterless coolant, I will say AGAIN that he did NOT use it while I worked at Kawi . I have no idea what he did after that.

I will also say for THE SECOND TIME now, that I never said waterless coolant was useless or doubted the results you got when testing it because I happen to know what waterless coolant does, and in fact, I used long before the Evans coolant came out, so again, you are vigorously defending Evans waterless coolant against a comment that no one, including myself ever made which seems very odd to me.

You are also avoiding answering my question about the difference between Evans and regular coolant . Until you answer that you have no basis for your claim that it is not nearly the same as regular coolant.



PREVIOUS KAWASAKI INTERNATIONAL R & D PROJECT ENGINEER AND ATV DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR

[barnett468]

Now if you want to talk about the past I wouldn't say you were much of a pro ATC racer when you couldn't beat me at the MT Races when I was on a little 200x! See you have to be up front! Now I never seen you race because you were behind me,...

So you are all proud about beating the oldest 3 wheel rider at the race, whom was on a nearly stock bike, in what was probably only the 4th or 5th time he ever raced a 3 wheeler, with your 200 which was probably the fastest 200 4 stroke 3 wheeler in the world . My God Mr. Dunlap sir, you are sooo awesome, that is certainly the greatest accomplishment I have ever heard of.



Oh, by the way, did you win that race?


FROM LEFT TO RIGHT AT THE BIG BEAR RACE

That's funny, I seem to be near the front and you are nowhere in sight.

KAWI - Jimmy White ......... 31
KAWI - Donnie Luce .......... 53 . On far left
HONDA - Mike Coe ............ 23
HONDA - Marty Hart ........... 7
KAWI - Mike Lillevig ........... 29 . Behind Mike Coe and Marty Hart
UNKNOWN ........................ ?
HONDA - Dean Sundahl ..... 34
KAWI - Unknown ............. 196 . You can see just a small bit of him behind and to the right of Dean . I think he was another Team Green rider . Maybe Chris White.





PREVIOUS KAWASAKI INTERNATIONAL R & D PROJECT ENGINEER AND ATV DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR

[bkm]

I couldn't find a plural verion, but you get the picture.

[ironchop]

Celebrity DeathMatch!

Let's get it on!!



Sent from my Z958 using Tapatalk

[Ranvier]

You guys can still race in 2017 and settle this. Maybe find a coolant sponsor....

[Mickey Dunlap]

EVAN's coolant works better then anything you will ever run everyone. Try it and you will never go back to anything else.

[barnett468]

EVAN's coolant works better then anything you will ever run everyone. Try it and you will never go back to anything else.

Please explain in detail for us how you know this and please also post any documents such as MSDS's and/or scientific and/or personal test results that support your claim so that we can learn something new.



PREVIOUS KAWASAKI INTERNATIONAL R & D PROJECT ENGINEER AND ATV DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR

Still waiting for the proof other than the manufacturers advertising claims.



PREVIOUS KAWASAKI INTERNATIONAL R & D PROJECT ENGINEER AND ATV DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR

[bkm]

Still waiting for the proof other than the manufacturers advertising claims.



PREVIOUS KAWASAKI INTERNATIONAL R & D PROJECT ENGINEER AND ATV DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR

https://youtu.be/UXoNE14U_zM

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[ironchop]

https://youtu.be/1-mOKMq19zU


Sent from my Z958 using Tapatalk

[Mickey Dunlap]

EVANS coolant cools better, I tested it and it fixed GAS GAS 450 over heating problems, nothing else worked. There is no reason to get into a big pissing contest with some that just wants to fight. I don't make long post, I don't have to, I say what I know and that's it. I didn't read any of the big long post because then I would have to go back and deal with a lot of stuff that doesn't mean anything I care about I'm sure. If you are reading this just buy the EVAN's and you will be very happy.

[barnett468]

EVANS coolant cools better, I tested it and it fixed GAS GAS 450 over heating problems, nothing else worked.

It cools better than what?

EXACATLY what else did you HONESTLY try?

There is no reason to get into a big pissing contest with some that just wants to fight.

Well since you are the one whom went off topic and unnecessarily attacked me and tried in vain to discredit my PRO level racing ability, it is clearly you whom initiated a problem where none previously existed, therefore, I suggest you go take a very loooong look in the mirror and a very looong read of your bible and perhaps even go to church today instead of spending time on a 3 wheeler site attacking someones racing ability for absolutely no valid reason.

I don't make long post, I don't have to, I say what I know and that's it.

Well you certainly made a moderately long post trying to discredit my PRO level racing ability and obviously didn't know jack about it other than that you beat me at a Mickey Thompson race and you don't even know what happened to me there, thereforem you are once again contradicting yourself but that's no surprise to most long term members here now.

I didn't read any of the big long post because then I would have to go back and deal with a lot of stuff that doesn't mean anything I care about I'm sure.

That's one of the funniest things I have ever seen you post . You are obviously obsessed with my PRO level racing ability for some reason, otherwise you would not have tried to discredit it . I'm betting you read ever single word I posted then tried to think of a way you could reply to my post and not look like the religious hypocrite you appear to be to me and many others here.


PREVIOUS KAWASAKI INTERNATIONAL R & D PROJECT ENGINEER AND ATV DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR

[barnett468]

.
To get back to this topic, I am posting the info below for those that are interested in using Evans or any other watereless coolant so they can make a more informed decision on what they prefer to run . Again, I am not beating on Evans and I never claimed that it has zero benefit, however, ALL waterless coolant is in fact a band that compensates for problems with a cooling system . This does not mean that these products are bad, and in fact, bandaids are sometimes necessary because it is not always possible or feasible to correct the problem they address . Octane booster and race gas etc are also bandaids in one way in that they combat detonation on high compression engines.

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

EVANS WATERLESS COOLANT: OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH RESULTS

Evans offers several different iterations of their waterless coolant products. Each is 100% glycol. Some are 100% propylene glycol, and others are a mix of propylene glycol and ethylene glycol.

The premise of their marketing is that, by excluding water from coolant, certain benefits can be achieved. Some of their advertised claims are: little to no pressure change during heat/cool cycles, less corrosivity, extended coolant life, less nucleate boiling, greater heat transfer, and improved performance. In our research, we evaluated each of these claims.

We ran Evans waterless coolant through ASTM D1384 tests, and compared the weight losses due to corrosion (in milligrams) to that of No-Rosion for each of the metals tested:

Metal ..... Evans Coolant ..... No-Rosion .... ASTM Max

Copper .......... 2 ..................... 1 ............... 10
Solder ..........12 ..................... 0 ............... 30
Brass ............ 2 ..................... 2 ............... 10
Steel ............ 0 ..................... 0 ................ 10
Cast Iron ...... 1 ..................... 0 ................ 10
Aluminum .... -7* ................... 0 ................ 30

* A negative weight loss indicates a weight gain.

The product provides very good overall rates of corrosion protection, and passed ASTM D1384. The only concerns were: (a) the relatively high rate of corrosion for solder, and (b) the net gain in weight on aluminum. Inspection of the aluminum test coupon indicated inhibitor deposition from the Evans product. In a cooling system, this can cause problems. Inhibitor deposition causes hot-spots to develop on metal heat exchange surfaces. This can cause granular fatigue in aluminum radiators, and result in stress cracks and failures, depending on the thickness of the metal.

It is important to note that this level of corrosion protection can only be achieved if the coolant consists of 97%-100% Evans coolant. If only 3% or more of coolant previously used in the system remains, the corrosion resistance of Evans coolant is lost. When this happens, water combines with the glycol in the Evans coolant to form glycolic acid. The result is reduction in coolant pH, and corresponding corrosion problems.

It can prove problematic to fully remove 97%+ of coolant from a system. But doing so is mandatory in order to meet the Evans conversion requirement. It is a difficult, tedious process. Engine block frost plugs must be removed, the radiator must be disconnected, hoses evacuated, etc. In our testing, when we followed the Evans procedure for complete removal of coolant for our various test vehicles, the average observed removal rate was 94%. This would not be acceptable for conversion to the Evans products.

To aid in this process, Evans sells a conversion fluid that can be used to facilitate more effective removal of previous coolant. It costs $34 per gallon. In most systems, one gallon is enough. But larger systems will require two gallons. Evans also has a list of authorized conversion centers, where vehicles can be taken, and mechanics perform the conversion process for you. We found typical conversion costs $150-$180 in labor, plus a minimum of one gallon of conversion fluid at a cost of $34 per gallon.

When we followed Evans directions for conversion, and did it ourselves, we were able to successfully achieve the required 97%+ coolant removal in about 60% of our test vehicles. Certainly it could be achieved by dismantling the engine. But we considered that to be beyond the scope of our testing. Most consumers using the product would also probably consider the idea of dismantling their engine to facilitate a change in coolant type to be excessive.

After proper conversion to the Evans products, the average temperature of engine cylinder heads increased by 115-140oF, versus running with No-Rosion and water.

The reason for hotter cylinder heads relates to the specific heat capacity of these different fluids. 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, or water with No-Rosion. (No-Rosion does not alter the specific heat capacity of water.)

Cylinder head temperatures of 115-140oF hotter with the Evans products translates to a stabilized bulk coolant temperature increase of 31-48oF, as compared to No-Rosion and water.

As case in point, conversion of a Chevrolet LS-1 engine from No-Rosion and water to Evans Waterless Coolant resulted in an increase of 128oF at the cylinder heads. We saw a stabilized bulk coolant temperature of 192oF with water and No-Rosion, and 236oF with the Evans product. So the temperature increased by 44oF after converting to the Evans product.

By having engine cylinder head temperatures 128oF hotter with the Evans product, a number of performance setbacks were observed: (1) the octane requirement was increased by 5-7 numbers, (2) the computerized ignition system retarded timing by 8-10o to avoid trace knock, (3) horsepower was correspondingly reduced by 4-5%, as confirmed on a chassis dyno.

In our pre-1970s test vehicles, we also saw evidence of increased recession rates of non-hardened valve seats. When cylinder head temperatures are elevated to this degree, brinelling damage can occur. This is a process in which the metal seat softens due to heat that is beyond what it was originally designed to tolerate. Recession therefore occurs at an accelerated rate. Valve seat brinelling is seen in engines of vehicles built prior to the early 1970s, after they have been allowed to run too hot, for too long.

Conversion to Evans products also requires reprogramming of ECUs in modern vehicles with electric fans. Most vehicle ECUs are programmed to turn the fan on at a coolant temperature of 200-210oF, and turn the fan off at 180-190oF. Because engines run so much hotter with Evans coolant, the ECU must be reprogrammed to an Evans-recommended turn-on temperature of 230oF, and an Evans-recommended turn-off temperature of 215oF. Without reprogramming the ECU, the fans would run continuously.

Evans advertises a number of performance benefits in the area of reduced coolant nucleate boiling. In our research, we found that with proper conversion to the Evans product, its elevated boiling point did yield a 46% reduction in localized cylinder head nucleate boiling. However, even with this reduction in nucleate boiling, there were no observable enhancements in engine performance. This was due to the fact that the specific heat capacity of the 100% glycol coolant was not sufficient enough to translate into any meaningful temperature reduction.

Comparatively, when used in straight water coolant, the high cloud point surfactants in No-Rosion achieve a 39% reduction in the size of localized nucleate bubbles. Smaller bubbles release quicker from the hot surface of the cylinder head, resulting in enhanced overall contact with the metal. Because water has a higher specific heat capacity than glycol, it is better able to translate this into meaningful temperature reduction. For this reason, No-Rosion achieves a net reduction in cylinder head temperatures, versus a net increase in cylinder head temperatures when Evans products are used.

Cylinder head temperatures in our test engines ranged from 650oF to over 980oF. The Evans products have boiling points in the range of 369-375oF at 0 psi pressure. Straight water coolant with No-Rosion has a boiling point of 250oF at 15 psi. The interface between the cylinder head and engine coolant is the location of nucleate boiling. It does not matter whether coolant has a boiling of 375oF, or 250oF. Either way, nucleate boiling occurs. The fact that Evans coolant has a boiling point that is 125oF higher than water is not enough to completely prevent nucleate boiling. The only way this could be achieved would be through the use of coolant having a boiling point higher than the cylinder head temperatures, in the range of 650-980oF.

(As an interesting side note, research is currently underway regarding the efficacy of glycerine as engine coolant. It’s extremely high boiling point of 554oF may offer benefits for future cooling applications.)

It is important to realize that straight water has a high surface tension of 72 Dynes/cm2. When added at the proper dose, No-Rosion reduces the surface tension of water to 26 Dynes/cm2. Through this reduction in coolant surface tension, No-Rosion has the ability to alter the localized dynamics of heat exchange in cylinder heads, despite the fact that water has a lower boiling point than glycol. Comparatively, Evans coolants have surface tension in the range of 36-44 Dynes/cm2.

In their advertising, Evans makes the claim that Evans NPG Coolant can maintain a substantially vapor free liquid to metal contact (nucleate vapor only) at all coolant temperatures and engine loads. In our research, we did not find this to be an accurate statement. As already referenced, we did observe a reduction of nucleate boiling with the Evans product. But we did not observe a substantially vapor free condition of nucleate boiling, as advertised by Evans. This was confirmed in laboratory simulations, utilizing an electric heat source that produced metal temperatures in the range 650-980oF.

Further contributing to cylinder head temperature elevation is the fact that Evans waterless products are considerably more viscous than water, or a 50/50 mix. At operating temperatures, water, and water with No-Rosion, has a viscosity of 0.28 cp. (No-Rosion does not alter the viscosity of water.) A 50/50 mix has a viscosity of 0.70 cp. The Evans products have viscosities of 2.3 to 2.8 cp. In other words, Evans waterless products are almost 10 times more viscous than water coolant, and 3-4 times more viscous than a 50/50 mix. This creates significant drag on water pumps. OEM auto manufacturers design water pumps for the viscosity of a 50/50 mix.

In our research, we observed a 20-25% reduction in coolant flow through radiator tubes when Evans waterless products were used. This is a direct result of Evans products higher viscosity. As coolant flow rates through radiator tubes drop, the ability of coolant to transfer heat via the radiator has a corresponding drop as well.

Coolants decreased ability to transfer heat at lower flow rates is a result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as best expressed in the following the equation:

Q = M x Cp x ΔT

Where: Q is the heat load

M is the mass flow rate of coolant

Cp is the specific heat capacity of coolant

ΔT is the change in temperature of coolant in the radiator

Apparently in recognition of how their products negatively impact coolant flow rates as a result of their high viscosity, Evans now sells high volume water pumps for various engines, to include the Chevrolet LS1/L6. These pumps provide 20% more flow that OEM units, which would be almost enough to overcompensate for the greater pump effort required to move their considerably more viscous coolant fluids.

There is speculation that, when OEM water pumps are used with viscous Evans waterless products, water pump life span could be reduced, and result in a greater frequency of water pump failures. Additional testing would be necessary in order to validate this.

There is also speculation that cylinder head temperature increases of 115-140oF as a result of using 100% glycol coolant may cause warping and related damage to cast iron heads in some engines. OEM engines are designed to be run at temperatures that are consistent with what is produced using coolant consisting of a 50/50 mix. The higher temperatures produced by 100% glycol coolant could increase the frequency of cast iron head damage. Again, additional testing would be necessary in order to validate this.

Because Evans waterless products are 100% glycol, they are slippery when spilled or leaked onto pavement. Assuming a baseline friction co-efficient reference of 1.00 for dry pavement, the friction co-efficient of water, and water with No-Rosion, is 0.65. (No-Rosion does not appreciably alter the friction co-efficient of water, when used at the proper dose.) The friction co-efficient of Evans products is 0.16. Evans products are 4 times more slippery than water. Race tracks now ban the use of engine coolant that contains ANY glycol. Instead, they require engines to run straight water coolant. This is one of the reasons why the Evans products can not be used in the engines of vehicles that are operated on a race track.

The other reason that Evans products are prohibited at race tracks is that they are flammable. They have flash points in the range of 225-232oF. This means that if Evans coolant were released at or above the flash point, it could ignite. Because we observed coolant temperatures in this range during actual operating conditions, this is a real risk. On a comparative basis, straight water with No-Rosion has no flash point, and is not flammable at any temperature.

The cost of Evans waterless coolant is about $225 for an average 4 gallon cooling system. If you were to pay an authorized Evans conversion center to perform it for you, it costs another $150-$180 in labor, and $34 for the conversion fluid. So the do-it-yourselfer will pay a total of about $259. Consumers who have the shop do it for them will pay as much as $439.

On a comparative basis, water is free. No-Rosion costs $10.00 per bottle at retail. The proper dose of No-Rosion for straight water coolant requires two bottles, at a total cost of $20.00.

Are there engine cooling systems that will benefit from the physical properties of Evans waterless coolant? Absolutely. As a case in point, we have worked with a car collector who owns a 1931 Rolls-Royce Phantom II. It is powered by a 12-cylinder, Rolls-Royce Merlin aircraft engine, taken from a WWII P51 Mustang. The engine displaces 1,649 cubic inches, and creates an estimated 1,100 horsepower. Because this engine was originally designed to be operated in an airplane that flies at altitude, where the air is very cool, it has some significant cooling challenges when used in a vehicular application. The cooling system is essentially non-pressurized. So water coolant will boil at only 212oF, instead of the 250oF that it would boil at if the system were pressurized to 15 psi. Using water coolant results in boiling and engine overheating. This is the perfect application for Evans waterless coolant because of its high boiling point, even at zero pressure.

But how many of us drive a car with a 1,100 horsepower Merlin WWII airplane engine taken from a P51 Mustang?


SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Conversion costs of $259 if you do it yourself, or over $400 if you pay a shop to do it.

97%+ removal of all previous coolant is mandatory in order to prevent corrosion.

Inhibitor deposition occurs on aluminum surfaces, which could cause issues in some radiators.

Engines run 115-140oF hotter (at the cylinder heads) with Evans products.

Stabilized coolant temps are increased by 31-48oF, versus straight water with No-Rosion.

Reprogramming ECU fan temp settings is mandatory to prevent the fan from running continuously.

Specific heat capacity of Evans waterless products ranges from 0.64 to 0.68, or about half that of water.

Engine octane requirement is increased by 5-7 numbers.

Computerized ignition must retard engine timing by 8-10o to prevent trace knock.

Engine horsepower is reduced by 4-5%.

Accelerated recession of non-hardened valve seats in older engines is possible, due to brinelling.

Viscosity is 3-4 times higher than what OEM water pumps are rated to accommodate.

Coolant flow rate through radiator tubes is reduced by 20-25% due to the higher viscosity.

Race tracks prohibit Evans products because they are flammable and slippery when spilled.



© Copyright 2012 Applied Chemical Specialties, Inc.




PREVIOUS KAWASAKI INTERNATIONAL R & D PROJECT ENGINEER AND ATV DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR

[ironchop]

You just copy-pasted all that from No-rosions website.

So you are trying to convince us all that the competitors own laboratory and performance comparison testing, that is purported to be unbiased I am sure, is somehow any more believable than Evans own claims?

The giveaway was the copyright at the bottom of all that for Applied Chemical Specialties Inc. which I quickly recognized as the company who makes No-rosion


Sent from my Z958 using Tapatalk