Evan's NPG Coolant

[Morgan Wright]

I want to start a topic about the Evan's coolant because I didn't find one in any of the other forums. I converted my 1917 Buick E-49 last week and wonder what others have found.

 

Here are my results of changing from water/alcohol to Evans. I used an infrared thermometer to measure the temperatures on the top of the head, the radiator, and the crankcase. I measured the head in 4 places: front end, mid front (between 4th and 5th valve cages), mid rear (between 8th and 9th valve cages) and rear end. Measured the radiator in the middle of the front of it, and crankcase right at the serial number.

 

Outdoor temperature was 55 degrees. The car was idling, my car usually boils over if I let it idle for 15 minutes because there is no forward motion of the vehicle, but I had no way to measure all the temperatures when the car was moving.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With plain water:

 

......................front end.......mid front.......mid rear.........rear end .........radiator.........crank case

 

5 minutes.........140................156.................158.................149...................98..................65

10 minute.........193................185.................198.................195..................145..................92

14 minute........222................200................212.................219..................180.................114

 

It boiled over at 14 minutes and I shut it off

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With Evans

 

5 minutes..........174................170.................184..................210..................110.................117

10 minute..........200...............183.................210.................237...................129................137

15 minute..........213................198................221..................242..................152................157

20 minute.........218................203...............223..................250..................156...............163

[Morgan Wright]

I got 4 gallons of Evans NPG and an Evans E2190 refractometer. The E2196 is consumer grade, the E2190 is commercial grade for shops.

 

I ran the car until it was fully warmed up, and drained the radiator and pump, leaving the radiator cap off and both hoses off, so the heat of the engine would blow out some of the remaining water.

 

Next day I purged the system, I poured a half gallon of Evans into the upper coolant pipe so it would go into the engine block, with the water pump drain valve open. I collected what came back out the water pump. Then I poured that into the radiator and collected it again from the radiator drain cock.

 

Then I closed the drain valves and put 3 gallons of new Evans into the radiator and ran the car for a while.

 

Refractometer says:

 

New Evans 0% water

Stuff from the half gallon I used to purge system 8% water

What's in the car now 4% water

[Morgan Wright]

Then I took the half gallon that was 8% water (see above post) and put it into a soup pot.

 

I heated it up on a portable electric hot plate that I took outdoors (Evans is flammable and I didn't want a fire, or to breath the vapors, outdoors would be safer for both reasons). Around 180 to 200 degrees a lot of steam started to come out, by 220 to 230 degrees there was a great deal of visible activity at the bottom of the pot, sort of like boiling water, but smaller bubbles and much less vigorous, more of what I would expect to see if the water in the solution were boiling out of the Evan's. After 5 minutes I let it cool and tested it.....it had gone from 8% water to 3%.

 

Just to see what pure Evans looked like in the same situation, I put a quart of new (pure) Evans in a sauce pan....around 200 there was a small amount of what looked like steam but nothing like before, I figure it was just propylene glycol vapor. But there was NONE of the fizzling/boiling activity I saw in the other experiment. I heated it to 270, still nothing. So now I know what pure Evans looks like when you heat it, and I returned the solution with 3% water (formerly 8% water) into the original pot. I heated it first to 230 until the sizzling from the bottom slowed to almost stopping, about 10 minutes. Then heated it to 270 and waited about 5 more minutes until the activity was almost gone. I cooled it and now it's only 1% water!

 

So it's possible to remove most of the water from Evans by simply heating it to 220 to 270 for 15 or 20 minutes or so. It was 8% water and now only 1%.

[hidden_hunter]

It seems to be running much hotter than with just plain water? I'm curious if that would cause damage?

[Matt Harwood]

That engine is running much too hot. Something is wrong. Your radiator and/or cooling passages are probably partially blocked with rust and crud. Evans Coolant is not a solution or a fix for cars that run hot and will likely make it run even hotter because it is inferior to water as a thermal transfer medium. So while the coolant isn't boiling and it probably doesn't get steam pockets, it's not going to reject the heat as efficiently in the radiator, particularly an ancient radiator, and temperatures are only going to go up because the cooling system won't be able to stabilize. The temperatures you show above are MUCH too hot, regardless of coolant and are surely skewed to the low side by mild ambient temperatures--almost any car will keep its cool on a 55-degree day. How does it handle an 80-degree day while driving at speed, which is when it will most often be driven? I bet it runs 20 degrees hotter under load rather than sitting at idle.

Also, how hot is your oil (not just the crankcase) after a drive? That engine probably has a huge crankcase made of aluminum and holds what, 7 or 8 quarts? If that quantity of oil out in the wind  gets above 160 or 180 degrees in a car of that vintage, you definitely have a problem. 220 degree oil temperatures and you're knocking on failure of conventional oil and at 240-250 degrees even synthetic will start to break down. Oil is a secondary coolant in old cars, which is why the crankcases are so large and hold so much oil. But at those temperatures, you're already seeing the outer limits of what it can handle.

 

I'd strongly recommend cleaning out the cooling passages and addressing any issues in the radiator before trying to assess the efficacy of Evans Coolant in your car. It has to be healthy before any real baseline can be determined.

[alsancle]

31 minutes ago, Matt Harwood said:

That engine is running much too hot. Something is wrong. Your radiator and/or cooling passages are probably partially blocked with rust and crud. Evans Coolant is not a solution or a fix for cars that run hot and will likely make it run even hotter because it is inferior to water as a thermal transfer medium. So while the coolant isn't boiling and it probably doesn't get steam pockets, it's not going to reject the heat as efficiently in the radiator, particularly an ancient radiator, and temperatures are only going to go up because the cooling system won't be able to stabilize. The temperatures you show above are MUCH too hot, regardless of coolant and are surely skewed to the low side by mild ambient temperatures--almost any car will keep its cool on a 55-degree day. How does it handle an 80-degree day while driving at speed, which is when it will most often be driven? I bet it runs 20 degrees hotter under load rather than sitting at idle.

Also, how hot is your oil (not just the crankcase) after a drive? That engine probably has a huge crankcase made of aluminum and holds what, 7 or 8 quarts? If that quantity of oil out in the wind  gets above 160 or 180 degrees in a car of that vintage, you definitely have a problem. 220 degree oil temperatures and you're knocking on failure of conventional oil and at 240-250 degrees even synthetic will start to break down. Oil is a secondary coolant in old cars, which is why the crankcases are so large and hold so much oil. But at those temperatures, you're already seeing the outer limits of what it can handle.

 

I'd strongly recommend cleaning out the cooling passages and addressing any issues in the radiator before trying to assess the efficacy of Evans Coolant in your car. It has to be healthy before any real baseline can be determined.

 

 

Matt,

 

Did you do run the evaporust through your Lincoln?   I would recommend that as a good reasonably cheap first step that may cure a bunch of issues.

[Matt Harwood]

37 minutes ago, alsancle said:

Matt,

 

Did you do run the evaporust through your Lincoln?   I would recommend that as a good reasonably cheap first step that may cure a bunch of issues.

 

?

[F&J]

48 minutes ago, Matt Harwood said:

That engine is running much too hot. Something is wrong. Your radiator and/or cooling passages are probably partially blocked with rust and crud. Evans Coolant is not a solution or a fix for cars that run hot

 

5 hours ago, hidden_hunter said:

I'm curious if that would cause damage?

Agree 100%.    I assume it's the neglected barn find in the avatar picture?  if so, everything is suspect as far as overheating causes. 

 

First normal diagnosis step is to feel the front face of the radiator for temperature variations on every spot on the face.  If that shows cool spots and some hot spots, flow test the radiator by quickly pulling off the lower hose to see how fast the water drains.  The very senior Model A guys say the Ford radiator must drain the bulk of it's water in 4-5 seconds as a backyard bench test.  (draining just the radiator, not connected to the engine)

 

I know the following is a very poor comparison as to potential damage, but worth the read:

 

My son just bought a very sought after mid 80s Ford compact diesel 4wd bucket tractor for scrap price from original 84 year owner,  who said he took the head off and found cracks like he heard about on the internet.  Long story shortened,  he was chasing overheating; a new water pump was tried, then he assumed a cracked head, so he added copper based block sealer.   Still overheated so he took it apart and saw two tiny surface cracks near the injectors, so he sold it as junk.

 

We took the head to a engine shop friend who said he thought the cracks were superficial, and advised to test run it first before spending $500-600 on crack pinning.  Sure enough, I tested the head with gasoline and the cracks were dry, then when assembled and running, it failed the radiator face temp test badly, and failed the drain test.  My son cleaned the radiator out, and it now runs cool.   We can't prove the surface cracks in two of the 3 cylinder chambers were from constant overheating, but it's possible.

[alsancle]

4 hours ago, Matt Harwood said:

 

?

 

For some reason I thought you ran evaporust through the block on your V12 to clean it out.  I'm probably misremembering.

[Matt Harwood]

1 minute ago, alsancle said:

 

For some reason I thought you ran evaporust through the block on your V12 to clean it out.  I'm probably misremembering.

 

I definitely did. It is I who must be confused--I could have sworn you commented on the pump system I rigged to do it. Sorry.

[Rusty_OToole]

Jay Leno loves the Evans product and uses it in all his water cooled cars, but reports they typically run 10 degrees hotter. But, the Evans does not boil away and does not cause rust or damage the cooling system the way water can. He uses it to preserve his motors and for long term reliability.  I have never used it so have no opinion of my own.

[Morgan Wright]

On 9/30/2020 at 8:56 AM, Matt Harwood said:

That engine is running much too hot. Something is wrong. Your radiator and/or cooling passages are probably partially blocked with rust and crud. 

Also, how hot is your oil (not just the crankcase) after a drive? 

 

I'd strongly recommend cleaning out the cooling passages and addressing any issues in the radiator before trying to assess the efficacy of Evans Coolant in your car. It has to be healthy before any real baseline can be determined.

These are not engine temperatures (temperature of the coolant). These are IR temperatures of the metal on the top of the head. Different parts of an engine have different temperatures. The exhaust manifold is 600 degrees, the crank case was 114. I read someplace that the top of the piston is 1,300 degrees. The temperature at the top of the head is way higher than the coolant.

 

Not too much oil gets in the combustion chamber, and what does is burned up. I'm sure it never gets anywhere near head temperatures.

 

I cleaned out the block and radiator 2 years ago. Yes it does run hotter with Evans, but modern engines with pressure caps and antifreeze with a boiling point of 248 and much higher with the pressure cap on run just fine and last 300,000 miles. Steam locomotive engines run at 250 and last 1,000,000 miles

.

Edited April 5, 2021 by Morgan Wright (see edit history)

[m-mman]

I like the Evans coolant. I have it in my 1929 Cad and my 1959 Lincoln.

I have heard (and this sounds strange but maybe. . ?) that the Evans coolant "runs" hotter, or samples hotter, or makes the dash gauge go higher because it does a better job of pulling the heat away from the metal and therefore makes the sensors move more. 

[MochetVelo]

I wrote to Evans several years ago, and they said they did not recommend using their coolant in non-pressurized systems. However, it seems many people (Including Leno) do.

 

Phil

[Hubert_25-25]

Morgan, 

    I am glad to see that you are trying Evans in your Buick.  I know you were having overheating issues.  Has that problem resolved itself? 

I am running Evans in my 1925 Buick Standard Touring.  I think all the temperature data you have is throwing off what a person would normally see on a single temperature gauge if they had one in the car.  So I am posting my experience using Evans and providing a link regarding installing an inexpensive temperature gauge that flips under the dash when the car is shown.  One other note.  The Buick has a spark plug cover, so the temperature pick up is out of the air flow.  On some engines it would need to be mounted at the rear of the block, and likely covered with insulating material as it is not in the fluid and air flow over the sensor will effect the reading.     Hugh

 

  

I am using Evans waterless coolant in my 1925 Buick.  I like the idea of a lifetime coolant, and that it will not boil over.   So far I am pleased with how it performs.   My 2002 Porsche 911 also had lifetime antifreeze from the factory so it is a good technology.     It seems to be doing a good job with managing the temperature.

Normal operating temperature is 185F.  If I shut off the engine, it will creep above 205F.  Once the car is started, it brings the temperature back down.  Below are notes about long term use - written after 600 miles on the car.   

I bought this on Amazon so it was delivered to the house.  You need at least 3 gallons, but the deal is buy 4 gal for $168 & free shipping.  You will need a little extra for occasional topping up.  I keep the empty jugs in case I need to drain the radiator to service something.   Filter it thru a coffee filter or paper towel and pour it back in.   Same thing I did on the Porsche when the water pump went out at 45,000 miles.     

Now is really the time to use waterless since the system is dry.  Just pour it in.  If you wanted to make the switch later, you still can, so there is no wrong answer for when to start using it.  If you lost it all on the road and had to use water, you can boil it off later and reuse what is still good.  

One advantage that I see is that one day I drove my car 100 miles.   For an extended time, I was running just over 45 mph.  This is basically tops for the car.  I have an electronic temperature pick up on the head (which I also suggest as they are only $50 and you can flip it under the dash).  Normally on short trips I am reading 200F.  For a long stretch at speed, my reading on the head was steady at 218 degrees F.  It will rise briefly when you come to a stop.  Would I be boiling over with 50/50 mix - possibly or darn close.  I would at some point notice corrosion near the motometer over time, or down where the overflow tube outlet is.   My radiator shell did have rust on the metal under the radiator and at the base of the shell.  I don't worry about any rust forming on my nickel plated shell or the metal between the radiator and the shell anymore.  Ideally a thermostat would open at 165F or 190F and my car would run around 200F, but this is a non pressurized system and no thermostat.  My temperature alarm is set for 250F.   No alarm on the motometer.  At less than 250F I may get a little more heightened awareness, but I am not concerned.  

 

Fact: A coolant mixture of 50% water and 50% ethylene glycol has a boiling point of 223 degrees. A system with a 15 psi cap will add 45 degrees for a final boiling point of 268 degrees. The real purpose of pressurizing is to give drivers a higher operating zone in case of extreme conditions.

 

I don't know how normal this 218F operating temperature is.  I can still retard my spark and hand crank the car.  Advancing the timing further will make the engine run cooler by some amount.  If my honeycomb radiator (which looks clean in and out) is marginal, I have a fix that allows me to keep using it.  Not interested in spending $3,000 to recore it with another honeycomb.  This operating temperature may all be completely normal in Texas. 

I am not sure how well the thermometer that sits on the top of the radiator really works.  I can't see it at night.   The Evans won't boil so I do not know how well it would pick up a real hot engine.  The thermometer seems to be working with the Evans, but the bulb is up in the vapor space and not in contact with the liquid.  Maybe I should solder a little wire on it so it actually touches the fluid?  At 218F the motometer showed an elevated temperature from normal, but not up in the danger circle.  Not a lot of data on this as few have a temperature indicator.      

I do fill my radiator maybe 1/4" above the tubes.  If I ever see dry tubes I add fluid.  I leave space for thermal expansion as I don't want to push any out the overflow. 

 

This is the link to the temperature display and alarm

 

 

Edited October 4, 2020 by Hubert_25-25 (see edit history)

[Morgan Wright]

My overheating issues were because of foaming and coolant loss, which I solved by adding denatured alcohol, but during long cruises the alcohol would evaporate and I would get foaming again without knowing it, until the car overheated and I found I was 2 gallons low! Adding alcohol to the water and I was fine again, but the costs $15 a gallon and I was sick of spending the money.

 

To fix the problem I have to get a new water pump shaft which I'm not into doing. Everything on my car is original except tires, battery, and fan belt. All the engine parts are coated with black oxide or covered with 100 year old soot and oil, the suspension has 80 year old horse poop and mud. It's a true POF car, that's how I want it to stay. A shiny new stainless water pump shaft would look weird surrounded by all the rusty parts.

 

So far Evans is great. I've taken it on long cruses, even going up huge hills, without any problem whatsoever, because it doesn't foam. The hill leading up to my house is 0.5 miles of 8 degree (14%) grade which I never even attempted before. Yesterday she flew up that hill for the first time, and wasn't even hot at the top, I could touch the head with my bare hand. Longer cruises are in the planning stage. The overheating I get during idle is just an idle thing, these cars need forward motion to cool the radiator, the fan by itself isn't enough (no fan shroud, etc.)

[Hubert_25-25]

Morgan, 

     Good to hear that you are making steady progress on reliability of your Buick.  You could do the water pump shaft and then a treatment or covering to the exposed metal to give a rusty appearance.  I know how creative you are.  Lots of covering options or chemicals that will bring out the rust in the stainless as you can tape off the rest of the shaft and treat only the exposed section.  Just saying.  

     I am surprised at any overheating at idle.  My engine runs around 400 rpm, and if I fully retard the timing it runs 300 rpm.  The leather belt and fan seem adequate along with all the water in the system to keep the car cool when there is minimal piston firing.  Have you opened the water pump.  Maybe the impellor has less than adequate vanes from corrosion?  Dean Tryon has been casting new impellors in brass.     Hugh

[JV Puleo]

Why does the water pump shaft have to be stainless? It wasn't to begin with. Using a good grade of ground carbon steel like 1144 Stressproof would work fine. 99% of the deterioration in water pumps comes from electrolytic corrosion, not wear. The steel shaft lasted 100 years...unless you are planning to live for another 100 years I don't see what the problem is and a steel shaft will take on a proper color in the exposed areas quite rapidly.

[Morgan Wright]

2 hours ago, JV Puleo said:

Why does the water pump shaft have to be stainless? It wasn't to begin with. Using a good grade of ground carbon steel like 1144 Stressproof would work fine. 99% of the deterioration in water pumps comes from electrolytic corrosion, not wear. The steel shaft lasted 100 years...unless you are planning to live for another 100 years I don't see what the problem is and a steel shaft will take on a proper color in the exposed areas quite rapidly.

 

When I pulled out the old (90 year old) packing, the part of the shaft where the packing was was much much thinner than the rest of the shaft. I'm guessing here but if the shaft was 1/2 inch diameter, that part was like 3/8. Huge difference, I think this car has a lot of miles on it. It was a postal rural route carrier's car when it was new, and they put a lot of miles on cars. 

 

Anyway, today I drove the car 8 miles. Four miles out and 4 miles back. When I got back the results were (on the same chart I used before)

 

......................front end.......mid front.......mid rear.........rear end .........radiator.........crank case

 

.........................148................135.................138.................139...................110..................126

 

The 4 miles out were mostly uphill and so the return trip was mainly downhill, and outdoor temperature was 47, so that might explain these cool temperatures, but I don't expect to see a problem in the summer. Maybe I should have checked the temperatures at the top of the hills. The foaming problem is a thing of the past, rust will never happen, I can forget about the cooling system now, except to filter and dessicate the stuff that drips out of the packing nut, and return it to the radiator.

[Morgan Wright]

On 10/10/2020 at 12:53 AM, Hubert_25-25 said:

 

     I am surprised at any overheating at idle.  My engine runs around 400 rpm, and if I fully retard the timing it runs 300 rpm.  The leather belt and fan seem adequate along with all the water in the system to keep the car cool when there is minimal piston firing.

 

The problem was not at idle, it was when the car had no forward motion. With the car going 35 in 3rd the engine speed is barely above idle, but it's like having a 35 MPH wind blowing on the radiator. But when it sat and there is no wind blowing on the radiator, it overheated after 15 minutes.

[JV Puleo]

I had a similar experience with a 1910 REO... The corrosion to the shaft is the natural, and unavoidable result of the differing metals involved and the water acting as an electrolyte. The good news is that this takes a very long time...if you replace the shaft with a piece of ordinary steel it will not wear out in your lifetime.

 

But, it is extremely likely that your radiator, and probably the water passages in the block, are partially blocked...the car should not overheat at idle if it ran all day, much less than 15 minutes and the Evans coolant is just a band-aid covering up a more serious problem.

Edited October 12, 2020 by JV Puleo (see edit history)

[Terry Harper]

Quote

When I pulled out the old (90 year old) packing, the part of the shaft where the packing was was much much thinner than the rest of the shaft. I'm guessing here but if the shaft was 1/2 inch diameter, that part was like 3/8. Huge difference, I think this car has a lot of miles on it. It was a postal rural route carrier's car when it was new, and they put a lot of miles on cars. 

 

That's typical packing gland wear from over tightening. The shape of the gland acts to create a narrow wedge of packing material against the shaft. Over time, with people wrenching on it to stop the drips rather than replace the packing, it grooves the shaft. With properly applied packing, and a shaft in good condition, it should take very little torque on the nut to make it drip free. However, for some reason people think reefing down the nut with every ounce of strength is going to solve the problem. Interestingly Abner Doble in his steam engine designs advocated flat seats for packing glands just for that reason. He also used segmented packing (for lack of another term) i.e. stacking multiple rings of square section packing.  The theory being that when under compression the pressure from the "upsetting" of the packing was over a larger area of the shaft rather than a narrow wedge.

 

I agree with J.V. that motor should run cool as can be while setting still. If the radiator is partially blocked or the passages are silted or restricted all the fancy coolant in the world won't solve the problem. Your talking big bucks in rings etc. (or far worse) if you don't get to the root of the problem.

Edited October 12, 2020 by Terry Harper (see edit history)

[MikeC5]

Is it detrimental to run a thermostat in a non-pressurized system?  I've had an in-line 160 degree t-stat in my '25 Dodge for several years and haven't had any problems (with regular coolant/water mix).  When I had the radiator re-cored (with a semi-modern core material), it would barely show on the motometer unless it was a pretty warm day, so I added the stat.  I can't imagine the thermostat pressurizes the system in any significant way.  I would guess as the coolant expands as it warms, it can still expand into the radiator via the lower hose, although you do have the 'weight' of the water in the rad back-pressuring the block to some degree.

Edited October 12, 2020 by MikeC5 (see edit history)

[JV Puleo]

No...

And your experience with your Dodge pretty much proves the point.

 

Oddly enough I'm working on just that sort of problem right now, water pumps in a 1920 Cadillac. This was the first American car with thermostatically controlled heating. The thermostats are built into the water pumps and, unlike the modern variety, they restrict flow on the input side. The original parts aren't working, apparently damaged by a "less than sympathetic" so-called rebuild. I will be removing them and fitting in-line thermostats on the output hoses but this brings up an important point...

 

Before the adoption of thermostats the capacity and flow rate of the radiator had to be carefully balanced with the capacity of the pump. Everything except the ambient temperature could be calculated but, because the makers couldn't predict the temperature the car would be operated at they were always calculated to over cool...as if the car was going to be crossing Death Valley in the high Summer. When new, they almost never reached what we would consider optimum operating temperature under normal conditions. This has been mitigated a little in modern times because most cars are running with partially occluded radiators and blocks. Overheating in period had more to do with running with the spark retarded, using in too low a gear, revving the engine and spinning tires trying to get out of the mud or pulling up a long hill. Leaky gland nuts and lost coolant were probably a big contributor too. There is no reason to assume most motorists paid much more attention to those things than modern ones do. As late as 1920 - and even later, many, if not most cars were being sold to people who barely knew how to drive and certainly were unaware of the finer points of handling a motor.

 

In the case of the early Cadillac V-8, it is effectively two 4-cylinder motors with a common radiator and each of the pumps has an impeller 1" greater in diameter than it should have were there no thermostat. The car also has a new radiator...so it never gets hot unless the coolant leaks out.

Edited October 13, 2020 by JV Puleo (see edit history)

[alsancle]

I'll bring this back to the top.   I was on the phone the other day with a very well known and respected restorer who I don't want  to name but he does lurk here and maybe he can first hand post.  

 

So,  consider this hearsay, but he runs Evans in all his cars.   We are talking super high end stuff.   He had two points,  the first was that any engine with mixed metallurgy was screwed running  a antifreeze-water mix because the chemical reactions.   Second, if your cooling system is running correctly the high temp that it will run at should not be a problem.    The second point is kind of critical to the whole problem.

 

My last car that I was trying to work through the running hot problems I had to eliminate using Evans because that extra 10 degrees was potentially a problem.   20 years ago this car ran cool, but in the last few had started to run hot.   Flushing a bunch of times with Evaporust helped,  but ultimately it needed a new radiator and everything else was trying to get around the real issue.     

Also, I think if I was running Evans for the last 20 years,  I would have prevented the metal issues I ran in to with the combination of aluminum and steel in the engine.

In conclusion,  I'm going to move my cars over to Evans and I guess I can report back on how it goes.

[c49er]

With Evan's coolant if you have the slightest leak or over flow you sure will smell it.

And smell it more and more and more in your garage or shop.

A smell you will always remember.

[Larry Schramm]

On 4/5/2021 at 9:22 AM, alsancle said:

Also, I think if I was running Evans for the last 20 years,  I would have prevented the metal issues I ran in to with the combination of aluminum and steel in the engine.

In conclusion,  I'm going to move my cars over to Evans and I guess I can report back on how it goes.

 

The coolants of today are much different than the newer ones today.  The coolants used 20+ years ago did not have the chemistry to prevent interaction of the different metals in the cooling system, ie. aluminum, iron, brass, etc.. the the coolants today protect for. Modern coolants today are much better.

[Matt Harwood]

I just drained the Evans from my '29 Cadillac and replaced it with regular coolant. I gave it a good, honest try and was a believer in the product. It worked well enough with no issues other than running about 10 degrees hotter on the gauge, which was a non-issue (165 instead of 155). The biggest issue was topping it off--unless I carried a bottle of Evans with me I was SOL if I needed coolant on the road and the Cadillac doesn't have any good storage space unless I strapped the trunk on. I've made my pro/con arguments before, but after using Evans in a way that I would call "successful" I have gone back to a 70/30 combination of purified water and anti-freeze plus No-Rosion in all my old cars. 70/30 is good down to like 7 degrees, it provides anti-rust and lubrication, it's easy to top off in the field, and the No-Rosion keeps the innards sparkling clean, all for about 20% of the cost of Evans (which they just raised from $32/gallon when I did my Cadillac to like $47/gallon).

 

It certainly works as advertised, but is it worth the added expense and maintenance hassles? Meh.

[alsancle]

7 minutes ago, Matt Harwood said:

I just drained the Evans from my '29 Cadillac and replaced it with regular coolant. I gave it a good, honest try and was a believer in the product. It worked well enough with no issues other than running about 10 degrees hotter on the gauge, which was a non-issue (165 instead of 155). The biggest issue was topping it off--unless I carried a bottle of Evans with me I was SOL if I needed coolant on the road and the Cadillac doesn't have any good storage space unless I strapped the trunk on. I've made my pro/con arguments before, but after using Evans in a way that I would call "successful" I have gone back to a 70/30 combination of purified water and anti-freeze plus No-Rosion in all my old cars. 70/30 is good down to like 7 degrees, it provides anti-rust and lubrication, it's easy to top off in the field, and the No-Rosion keeps the innards sparkling clean, all for about 20% of the cost of Evans (which they just raised from $32/gallon when I did my Cadillac to like $47/gallon).

 

It certainly works as advertised, but is it worth the added expense and maintenance hassles? Meh.

 

Thanks for the update Matt.  My interest in Evans is that the last metallurgical problem I had ran me somewhere around 15k.   I was not running No-Rosion or the like and the antifreeze mix was from 20 years ago.

[Larry Schramm]

On 4/9/2021 at 10:09 AM, alsancle said:

 

Thanks for the update Matt.  My interest in Evans is that the last metallurgical problem I had ran me somewhere around 15k.   I was not running No-Rosion or the like and the antifreeze mix was from 20 years ago.

 

If you would like to see the difference in coolant from years past, look up 1984 VW van coolant issues.  VW had huge corrosion issues in the early vans until they changed the chemistry of the coolant.  The area of the cast iron sleeves that mated to the aluminum block and heads would corrode and start leaking.

 

Look here: https://www.gowesty.com/tech-article-details.php?id=39  And there are a lot more articles on the issue. 

[Hubert_25-25]

I have a client with 15 collector cars from 1904 and the newest is 1934.  Half of these cars are hand crank start, and most of these very early cars are thermosiphon cooling.  Thermosiphon is not recommended for Evans.  Many of these cars had green antifreeze and we are in the process of flushing and refilling the cooling systems with Green Zerex.   Green Zerex now has a 5 year label on it, so there must be some change from the 2 year life of past formulas.  After draining the antifreeze, when I remove the lower hose and use a water hose to flush the block, I get a lot of rusty sediment that has settled out in the bottom of the radiator and the water jacket.  Once all the flushes are complete and I have done a dozen flushes on some vehicles, its 50/50 mix (green Zerex and distilled water).  Still I am less concerned about rust than I am aluminum scavenging.  

 

There is one exception to the cars.  She has a 1909 Rambler 7 passenger touring car.  The antifreeze looked ugly.  The antifreee had eaten a hole into the outlet elbow and in the past had removed most of the inlet aluminum which now sports a brass insert and a JB weld type repair.  This is a very rare and expensive antique.  I am in the process of repairing the water pump and she will be into this job for several thousand dollars.  I know if the owner took the car to a specialist shop, numbers like Alsancle mentioned of $15K would not surprise me if a water pump needed to be recast and then machined.  

 

In this case, I plan to use Evans after the repairs because this is a historical piece and I want to ensure there is 0 further corrosion.   I plan to repair this original casting and there is no telling what the old metallurgy is.  

 

On my 1925 Buick, I check my fluid levels before I go on any drives and top off if necessary before I leave.  I lose very little fluid on drives and sitting so I won't fault the Evans for a car needing a new water pump shaft or a packing adjustment.  I do not have room to carry a gallon of antifreeze either, and if I needed to carry that much, I have big problems.  A quart bottle is easy to carry.  I also figure that if I have a problem on the road, I will add water if necessary.  When I complete the trip I will drain the coolant, put the Evans in a pot, boil off the water, and reuse it. 

 

So I do not recommend Evans for every car, but certain ones do draw me into using modern technologies.  

 

Hugh