I have just spent an inordinate amount of time reading the numerous opinions on Jag Lovers about Evans Waterless Coolant. Most, if not all, of the people who held negative opinions (based mainly on cooling capacity or cost) had never used it. As far as I could tell, everyone who had used it was very satisfied. What I would like to know is there anyone who has used Evans Coolant who has had a bad experience with it, or who would not use it again?
Bob Curran
snake oil in my humble opinion.
Thanks, but I am looking for the experience of people who have actually used Evans Waterless and have first hand knowledge.
I looked on the Mercedes site I occasionally go to. One person related their experience. He likes the stuff but also said it made their engine run hotter.
Post #12 in the below thread.
https://mbworld.org/forums/e-class-w212/430158-waterless-engine-coolant.html
And Post #2 in this thread. The link in that post is interesting.
https://mbworld.org/forums/c-class-w204/531843-waterless-coolants.html
I used it. In a rebuilt high compression 4.2, my shop swears by Evans. For awhile it was fine, my car around 75-80*C. Then one day I was driving down the highway and my car started to overheat. I pulled over and got a tow home, figured I blew a hose and lost it all. Got home, and the coolant was full. No idea what happened. Drove it a few more times car was running a bit warm still, OK but I was freaked out by it.
Dumped it, flushed the system with royal flush, and put in Water / AF. Runs now at 68*C and haven’t had a single problem since.
It’s fine in my opinion, but it doesn’t cool as well as water. I also drive my car every week so no worries about corrosion, etc. And it’s expensive and slimey. Water for me.
With no exceptions I know of, that’s the reports I have heard.
Not sure of any advantage, over good ol’ fashioned DI water and standard glycol AF.
The rep in the clip with Leno made an interesting point. He admitted that an engine would run hotter, but pointed out that thermodynamic efficiency improves as operating temp increases. [That’s a fundamental physical law for heat engines, BTW.] So an engine designed to run hot might use this coolant simply because it can function at temps that are too high for water.
I was amused at the Merc forum…one bloke thought that all liquids contained water, while another thought that water was an element.
Sadly…NOT surprised.
Bob,
I haven’t used it, but just like you are doing now I put a lot of thought into using it. I have just recently finished a full rebuild of my 1800 Fiat spider engine and it is completely dry, the best time to try it.
There are three main reasons I decided against it. The system will run hotter and head temperatures increase, the fluid is more viscous and gives a lot more resistance to flow (harder work for the pump and robs power) but lastly was the flammability issue. That was the killer for me.
Hope it helps.
Matt
It’s flammable?
Put that down as a never, for me!!!
I thought he was just referencing the Earth, Fire, Wind and Water concept of four elements and would then make reference to The Fifth Element. He missed that opportunity though.
I have to admit that I am intrigued but on the fence. My car is completely apart so there are no issues regarding flushing the system. Perhaps foolishly, I rebuilt the radiator with a new core which duplicates the original. If the radiator was not so prominent (as it is on an E-Type), I would have put in a modern core, but on an XK the radiator is fully exposed as soon as you pop the hood. The same goes for an electronic fan. It is a clear improvement but would be such an obvious deviation from original, and can always be added later. In addition, the XK system should only be pressurized to 4 lbs, with the heater core perhaps being the weakest link in the chain. If the Evans waterless would work as advertised, it would be a nice enhancement for an original cooling system in an XK, but that is a serious “if.”
Used it, coolant leaked everywhere. Spoke to Evans who told me I needed to have my engine machined down to finer surface finishes. Wasn’t told that beforehand and wasn’t written in the fine print. Went back to regular coolant. Not worth the hassle.
Have yet to read anything to disabuse me that this stuff, in a regularly- and well-maintained engine, is anything but a solution in search of a problem.
Pun intended.
Came to the same conclusion, worrying about some non-existent corrosion. This stuff causing the problems, such as having to carry evans in the boot for all the leaks I was having. 
Trevor,
This is interesting. I have a freshly rebuilt engine, almost new everything, and I have a slow ooze out of the back of the block between the head and the block. I never would have thought it could have been because of the Evans? Where did you experience your leaks? As soon as you added water did the leaks stop?
I am at my wits end here and am about ready to pull the head. I’ve torqued, re-torqued, replaced the chrome acorn nuts with ARP open nuts, torqued, re-check the torque and still have a leak…
We have used it here on the island of Madeira.
It initially sounds great - no corrosion, and doesn’t boil until 200c or something like that.
We have found two issues in practice.
While the problem with the first is obvious - on a new build, this seems fine, the second is not so obvious, so I will expand.
Specific Heat capacity is the amount of energy it takes to raise the temperature of a substance by 1 degree c.
Now, bear with me, I cannot remember the exact numbers - they are not hard to find if you want to see them, but plain water is something like 10 Joules of energy per degree per kilogram.
50/50 coolant is something like 8.6
Evans is something like 6
So, Evans will take onboard 40% less energy per kilogram than Water (for the same temperature rise.
If your cooling system has 20% spare cooling capacity, or you live in northern climbs, then this is fine.
If your cooling system is a bit touch and go, and it’s a warm climate, then the cooling system will run hotter.
But hey, that’s OK, because Evans doesn’t boil until 200c or something, right?
Correct, it doesn’t, but by the time it has boiled, you have already cooked your engine.
We have had an offroad racer ignoring his gauge, thinking that the evans coolant would save the day, but in reality, he overheated the motor and cooked the oil.
Evans is fine if you have this spare cooling capability, but we find that cars run hotter on it, because they dont have the spare capacity available to use the lower heat capacity fluid.
Note - this is also why adding water to an overheating car can sort the issue out for a while, the higher SHC of the fresh water improves the cooling efficiency.
On the island here, we dont need anti-freeze, we need anti-corrosion.
I’m still hunting for an anti-corrosion additive that is cheaper than normal coolant!
Probably explains why no OEM (not even makers of exotica like McLaren, who don’t mind paying for gold foil heat insulation) uses Evans.
Dave
Even though you don’t need anti-freeze, overall (and we NEED IT HERE, year-round, so my experience goes back 60+ years) changed periodically, it’s the best corrosion preventer I know.
Why not just ask the rep why you can’t fit 88’c thermostats in place of the regular 82’c thermostats then? That’d shut him up pretty quick.
If Evans coolant had a higher specific heat capacity than the next best alternative, then it may have some merit, but as the opposite is true, it is by virtue of that fact alone, part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Fit a bigger radiator or more powerful fans. Spending money on hardware is a permanent fix, whereas spending money on a consumable can only ever be a temporary fix.
With regard to the note at the top of the thread that people who have fitted this generally do not complain about it, remember the Emperor’s New Clothes - if you spend money on something, you are unlikely to then advertise your own stupidity.
kind regards
Marek
