Waterless coolant
Discussion
Hi
This is something that has come from Red Line's suppliers.
Many concerns have been raised to us in recent months regarding the effectiveness of Waterless coolants and the inherent dangers they may possess. We have spent some time researching the product and would like to make all our customers aware of our findings.
Waterless products are 100% glycol, some are 100% propylene glycol, and others are a mix of propylene glycol and ethylene glycol. They are slippery when spilled or leaked onto tarmac. Assuming a baseline friction co-efficient reference of 1.00 for dry pavement, the friction co-efficient of water is 0.65. The friction co-efficient of Waterless products is 0.16, four times less than water. Some race circuits in America are now prohibiting the use of engine coolant that contains ANY glycol due to this fact.
The other and more pressing reason that Waterless products are prohibited at race circuits is that they are flammable. With flash points in the range of 110-130°C if the Waterless coolant were released at or above the flash point, it could ignite. Coolant temperatures can be observed in this range during actual operating conditions, making this a real risk. Reports have also been made of damage caused by glycol coolant fuelled fires, in some instances, destroying whole cars and resulting in thousands of pounds worth of damage.
The NHRA rule change regarding glycol coolants was the result of a terrible fire where the competitor was using Waterless coolant in his car. The engine pushed a head gasket and the coolant caught fire which came under the seat resulting in a cockpit fire. Glycol coolants are now prohibited in the NHRA. In another case the Motorsport South Africa ASN prohibited the use of glycol on safety grounds “In the case of both cars and motorcycles, the use of glycol-based coolant additives is prohibited.”
In addition, the operational downside is the decreased ability to transfer heat compared to water based coolants. Waterless coolant should never be advised in applications where heat issues are apparent, Waterless coolants will only compound this problem as they lack the necessary heat transfer properties to provide a solution.
Although the product is a very good corrosion inhibitor, it will not adequately protect an engine when overheating. The Waterless coolants cannot transfer heat as efficiently as water, thus causing an engine to run hotter. The engine will continue to run hot until a critical component fails as the boiling point is so high.
To summarize:
Engines can run 45-60°C hotter (at the cylinder heads) with Waterless products.
Stabilized coolant temps are increased by 15-25°C, versus straight water with Water Wetter.
Specific heat capacity of Waterless products ranges from 0.64 to 0.68, or about half that of water.
Engine octane requirement is increased by 5-7 numbers reducing engine horsepower by 4-5%.
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 circuits are starting to prohibit Waterless products because they are flammable and cause a slippery surface hazard when leaked.
When speaking to a classic car specialist recently the subject of Waterless coolants was brought up.A Waterless coolant manufacturer had given them product sponsorship ahead of classic Le Mans 2012, in FP1 the car stopped on track with smoke billowing out of bonnet. On closer inspection the coolant had plasticized and warped the head, the coolant then passed through the head gasket hydraulic locking cylinder one. The damaged cause was very costly and ended the team’s weekend early, it is not a product they would recommend or use again.
Hope that helps
Cheers
Tim
This is something that has come from Red Line's suppliers.
Many concerns have been raised to us in recent months regarding the effectiveness of Waterless coolants and the inherent dangers they may possess. We have spent some time researching the product and would like to make all our customers aware of our findings.
Waterless products are 100% glycol, some are 100% propylene glycol, and others are a mix of propylene glycol and ethylene glycol. They are slippery when spilled or leaked onto tarmac. Assuming a baseline friction co-efficient reference of 1.00 for dry pavement, the friction co-efficient of water is 0.65. The friction co-efficient of Waterless products is 0.16, four times less than water. Some race circuits in America are now prohibiting the use of engine coolant that contains ANY glycol due to this fact.
The other and more pressing reason that Waterless products are prohibited at race circuits is that they are flammable. With flash points in the range of 110-130°C if the Waterless coolant were released at or above the flash point, it could ignite. Coolant temperatures can be observed in this range during actual operating conditions, making this a real risk. Reports have also been made of damage caused by glycol coolant fuelled fires, in some instances, destroying whole cars and resulting in thousands of pounds worth of damage.
The NHRA rule change regarding glycol coolants was the result of a terrible fire where the competitor was using Waterless coolant in his car. The engine pushed a head gasket and the coolant caught fire which came under the seat resulting in a cockpit fire. Glycol coolants are now prohibited in the NHRA. In another case the Motorsport South Africa ASN prohibited the use of glycol on safety grounds “In the case of both cars and motorcycles, the use of glycol-based coolant additives is prohibited.”
In addition, the operational downside is the decreased ability to transfer heat compared to water based coolants. Waterless coolant should never be advised in applications where heat issues are apparent, Waterless coolants will only compound this problem as they lack the necessary heat transfer properties to provide a solution.
Although the product is a very good corrosion inhibitor, it will not adequately protect an engine when overheating. The Waterless coolants cannot transfer heat as efficiently as water, thus causing an engine to run hotter. The engine will continue to run hot until a critical component fails as the boiling point is so high.
To summarize:
Engines can run 45-60°C hotter (at the cylinder heads) with Waterless products.
Stabilized coolant temps are increased by 15-25°C, versus straight water with Water Wetter.
Specific heat capacity of Waterless products ranges from 0.64 to 0.68, or about half that of water.
Engine octane requirement is increased by 5-7 numbers reducing engine horsepower by 4-5%.
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 circuits are starting to prohibit Waterless products because they are flammable and cause a slippery surface hazard when leaked.
When speaking to a classic car specialist recently the subject of Waterless coolants was brought up.A Waterless coolant manufacturer had given them product sponsorship ahead of classic Le Mans 2012, in FP1 the car stopped on track with smoke billowing out of bonnet. On closer inspection the coolant had plasticized and warped the head, the coolant then passed through the head gasket hydraulic locking cylinder one. The damaged cause was very costly and ended the team’s weekend early, it is not a product they would recommend or use again.
Hope that helps
Cheers
Tim
Thanks for that post, the numbers quoted are a bit higher than I've read on the manufacturer's websites but I suppose you could expect some cherry picking of results on both sides of the argument.
But the race decisions sound quite reasonable. I knew it was flammable but until your post thought that was one of those low risk things. Clearly it's not, so thanks for posting the explanation.
I'd decided against the product mainly because of cost and as someone else has posted, sometimes it's easier to pull out the radiator for some jobs. I'd also heard that because it was "slippery" there could be problems with hose joints weeping. Again not a big deal but the general aim is for reduced maintenance/increased reliability so that was another (minor) reason.
But the race decisions sound quite reasonable. I knew it was flammable but until your post thought that was one of those low risk things. Clearly it's not, so thanks for posting the explanation.
I'd decided against the product mainly because of cost and as someone else has posted, sometimes it's easier to pull out the radiator for some jobs. I'd also heard that because it was "slippery" there could be problems with hose joints weeping. Again not a big deal but the general aim is for reduced maintenance/increased reliability so that was another (minor) reason.
I get asked about these products all the time, and having read about the benefits...I just don't get it. If you have a cooling problem, and you don't have combustion gases in the water, you either need 1) More coolant 2) better cooling of the coolant.
When an engine is overheated, this usually shows up as piston skirt scuffing, or melted pistons / blown head gaskets due to detonation. I cannot see how a liquid that doesn't boil will help a frying engine. The oil film break down on the skirts, and the thermal expansion of the piston, cause the scuffing, and that is engine temperature related. Also, everything we know about the safety margins of an engine are based on a known operating temperature. If an engine is tested on the dyno at 80 degrees, then it can be set up so it doesn't detonate at 80 degrees. If the head casting is 120 degrees, it will turn the same engine into a self consuming cutting torch due to the blast furnace type environment now prevalent in the combustion chamber pre-igniting the fuel.
However the water won't boil....
When an engine is overheated, this usually shows up as piston skirt scuffing, or melted pistons / blown head gaskets due to detonation. I cannot see how a liquid that doesn't boil will help a frying engine. The oil film break down on the skirts, and the thermal expansion of the piston, cause the scuffing, and that is engine temperature related. Also, everything we know about the safety margins of an engine are based on a known operating temperature. If an engine is tested on the dyno at 80 degrees, then it can be set up so it doesn't detonate at 80 degrees. If the head casting is 120 degrees, it will turn the same engine into a self consuming cutting torch due to the blast furnace type environment now prevalent in the combustion chamber pre-igniting the fuel.
However the water won't boil....
aeropilot said:
Funnily enough, I watched an episode of Wheeler Dealers on Quest only a week or so again (pretty sure it was the one with the red TR6) and Edd China was extolling the virtues of waterless coolant and that it was the greatest think since sliced bread, yadda, yadda.........
This was the first I'd ever heard of waterless coolant (back when the show was first aired).I remember thinking at the time that it was impressive stuff, but why would you bother? Surely if your engine and cooling system are in good condition, then the traditional water/antifreeze mix is perfectly sufficient?
Waterless coolant seems to be one of those 'solution to a problem that doesn't exist' innovations IMO. Not to mention the expense of the stuff and the associated messing around with flushing the existing system etc.
Now I know it's flammable (thanks PH!) and can lead to higher under bonnet temperatures, then there is no way I'd consider using it.
I looked at it for my Lotus Carlton, my car runs in the tropics and is at or near 100c the moment it is in traffic, it then hold 100 to 105, under pressure the water is good to say a max of 120, and I liked the idea that the car would not 'boil over' until say 150 with waterless.
Problem i had were 1 the water less is thermally less efficient than water, something like 70% so the the engine would run temperature higher all the time.
2 OK it would not 'boil over' but the rest of the engine was designed to be around 100 not around say 115. I decided to keep with the water and just make sure my cooling system operated as designed with water.
The other week I also had my race car running at high 90's instead of its usual 88, due to re-positioning of the oil cooler. the loss in power was huge, asked a few question in the engine subsection on here and no one was surprised by this.
My position is while the engine will not boil, it will (probably) run at higher temp and the higher temp may in itself be a problem.
Problem i had were 1 the water less is thermally less efficient than water, something like 70% so the the engine would run temperature higher all the time.
2 OK it would not 'boil over' but the rest of the engine was designed to be around 100 not around say 115. I decided to keep with the water and just make sure my cooling system operated as designed with water.
The other week I also had my race car running at high 90's instead of its usual 88, due to re-positioning of the oil cooler. the loss in power was huge, asked a few question in the engine subsection on here and no one was surprised by this.
My position is while the engine will not boil, it will (probably) run at higher temp and the higher temp may in itself be a problem.
lowdrag said:
Someone said to me, when I was thinking about the stuff "what if you get a leak while on a run and need to top up"? It made me think; I need to buy the flushing product and the waterless liquid all over again, and it ain't cheap. I'll stick with that old-fashioned antifreeze!
We had the same discussion only yesterday, in emergencies water can be sourced/begged/found in ditches, waterless less so.Hmmm... interesting and somewhat alarming thread!
I've got a car with Evans waterless - put in by the previous owner. It's in a Busso V6, mid-mounted and the inflammable thing has got me more than a bit nervous. It's not a particularly easy car to get out of quickly... :-/
I'll be recommissioning the car soon, and may junk this coolant and get a better water-based cooling system sorted.
But the Evans site stops short of saying exactly what it is - I presume it's the same glycol stuff?
I've got a car with Evans waterless - put in by the previous owner. It's in a Busso V6, mid-mounted and the inflammable thing has got me more than a bit nervous. It's not a particularly easy car to get out of quickly... :-/
I'll be recommissioning the car soon, and may junk this coolant and get a better water-based cooling system sorted.
But the Evans site stops short of saying exactly what it is - I presume it's the same glycol stuff?
http://www.norosion.com/evanstest.htm
may be of interest as it does say what is in Evans waterless coolant. Note the account is a bit biased as they are a competitor in one sense to Evans, but I think it is basically correct.
may be of interest as it does say what is in Evans waterless coolant. Note the account is a bit biased as they are a competitor in one sense to Evans, but I think it is basically correct.
Acidity, high head temperatures, much less cooling propensity, water pump failures, and above all the need to achieve a 97% rate of Evans fluid, so less than 3% of the old water-based coolant remaining before filling, all this leaves me in no doubt that this is going to prove to be one of the car world's greatest cons. Thank you for posting that, and I also took time to read the No-Rosion site too, which contained one very specific point as far as my cars are concerned "The answer is simple. If you are not experiencing overheating, No-Rosion is recommended. Or, if your vehicle has a cooling system with less than 7 lbs pressure, No-Rosion is recommended. This is because HyperKuhl may foam when used in low-pressure coolant applications. I think that many of us here will have low-pressure cooling systems.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff