The Triumph Dolomite Club - Discussion Forum

Hmmm...forgive me for not going through all the posts Ian, but why does it need to be external and not the normal in house one, flow restriction?

As mine is ostensibly a 200 bhp Sprint/track car, I'm hoping it will create more heat than a road going 1850, and therefore need a greater rate of heat dissipation?

So I'm thinking I might get away with not having the thermostat......and actually, I've just re-read your opening post, you use Evans waterless coolant which causes an engine to run cooler anyway doesn't it?

Am I right in thinking that the thread in the inlet manifold for the temp sender is 5/8 UNF with a flat sealing face?

The best is to read all the posts.

Jeroen

shaunroche wrote:you use Evans waterless coolant which causes an engine to run cooler anyway doesn't it?

I use Powercool 180, the running temperature is exactly the same as it is with water.





Ian.

sprint95m wrote:I use Powercool 180, the running temperature is exactly the same as it is with water.
Ian.

However it doesn't pressurise like water does it? Therefore less stress on the system generally.

That is correct,
it doesn't pressurise like water, instead it stays at atmospheric pressure..

You can remove the header tank/expansion bottle cap when the engine is hot!



Ian.

I plan on doing mine as soon as the water pump intermittent trickle is sorted.

There are many claims for the Evan's waterless coolant but one thing they don't claim is that your engine will run cooler. And its quite right. It won't. It will run hotter given a straight swap from ethylene glycol 20% concentration to EWC.

And the reason is quite clear from the physics of the stuff which I reckon is propylene glycol.

The specific heat of Propylene glycol is lower than plain water.
The thermal conductivity is lower.
And worst of all the viscosity is a lot higher at room temp;

I've got this is two of my daily drivers.
The M.G. runs slightly hotter but the Kenlowe is running for a long time dragging the temperature down.
The 1850 runs at 80 deg C in the Autumn / Winter but a long motorway run when the outside temperature is in the 80's ( Farenheight ) the engine temp rises to 92 deg C.
And yes I try and keep the engine revs down until the engine is fully warmed up to reduce the stress on the 1850 water pump.

One big plus point for EWC... I needed to remove the capilliary sensor on the M.G. last week. A steel fitting in a cast iron head. It came straight out with no sweat ! Usually it is a real pain, because it rusts in.
And as has been noted, the lack of system pressure is the big plus point.
HTH,
Tony.

It is worth noting that Tony uses a different version of Evans waterless coolant, namely the Classic Cool type,
whereas I am using Power Cool 180.
With PC180 I found absolutely no difference in the running temperature.

Dolomites use a syphoning system for the expansion tank, namely coolant is drawn back into the engine as the engine cools.
The use of EWC Classic or Vintage is not recommended for these systems, which I find puzzling since the coolant doesn't expand
in the first place!

Since they have alloy cylinder heads (and a few other alloy components), Power Cool 180 is recommended for slant four engines.


Quite why Evans have so many different formulations for the European market compared to their home market in North America also puzzles me….?





Ian.

A few thoughts on the basic physics of this...

The Evans stuff can only function without pressurisation because it has a much higher boiling point, like brake fluid.

Ethylene Glycol at 20% does not , so needs to run at higher than atmospheric pressure - up to 13psi is supposedly possible from the radiator cap spring valve.

The ability to remove heat from the system is down to as Tony says the specific heat capacity of the coolant and its thermal conductivity. The Evans stuff is lower in both cases than the EG bluecol 20%.

However in tough conditions of high load and ambient temp the ability of the radiator to loose heat is going to be the most critical thing. Lots of us will have rads that aren't as good as they should be, so attempting to improve the situation with coolant changes is unlikely to work that well, and going in the direction of the Evans stuff will only help in as much as it is less likely to boil over and vent off through an ineffective rad cap. It looks to me that it will actually reduce the effectiveness of the cooling system because of the lower specific heat capacity and conductivity. So I'd move that its a pretty expensive and potentially ineffective solution.

Sums can be done and experiments tried, but for me the best bang for your buck is a thermostat check, decent flush out, then a rad recore if you still have issues, not forgetting the pretty rare case of an impellor not doing the job....

Jonners

You analysis overlooks two huge difference between Evans coolant and water Jonners.
Unlike water, Evans coolant isn't prone to localised boiling (cavitation).
EWC doesn't cause corrosion of metal parts, it will last the life of the vehicle without ever silting up a radiator.


The biggest user of EWC in North America is the heavy goods industry,
you cannot put much more strain on a cooling system than hauling heavy loads up hills .





Ian.

The localised boiling I surely addressed by mentioning the higher boiling point I would have thought?

I would accept that if used from day 1 the corrosion inhibiting properties might stop radiators silting up, but most of us have had 30 odd years or more of hard water and lime scale build up in the South of the UK which is probably the biggest reason for making our cooling systems less effective. This effect can be cured by using distilled water, which is a lot cheaper with 20% bluecol.

Ive found the anti corrosion additives in Bluecol to be pretty effective.

So I maintain my view that EWC is good stuff but wont cure an already struggling cooling system. Given its expense I can think of better ways of using that money, and the thought of loosing it all on a hose failure is more than a tightwad like me can bare. Its bad enough loosing the bluecol...

Jonners

sprint95m wrote:It is worth noting that Tony uses a different version of Evans waterless coolant, namely the Classic Cool type,
whereas I am using Power Cool 180.
With PC180 I found absolutely no difference in the running temperature.
Dolomites use a syphoning system for the expansion tank, namely coolant is drawn back into the engine as the engine cools.
The use of EWC Classic or Vintage is not recommended for these systems, which I find puzzling since the coolant doesn't expand
in the first place!
Since they have alloy cylinder heads (and a few other alloy components), Power Cool 180 is recommended for slant four engines.
Quite why Evans have so many different formulations for the European market compared to their home market in North America also puzzles me….?
Ian.

Couple of points to reply to here; and then some Physics !
Pay attention at the back of the class !

The Thermo-syphon system that Evans mention in their data sheets I reckon refers to the older style of veteran / vintage car that didn't have a water pump. Hot coolant water in the block simply rose up to the highest point, was cooled in a tall radiator, sinks to the bottom and recycles. That's why they have tall bonnet lines and enormous capacity cooling systems.

Now you can get a bit more info; from the Dow website. A very reputable company that supplies Industrial Consumers with a large range of quality well-specified products.
And they have a good web-site with a lot of relevant info;

http://msdssearch.dow.com/PublishedLite ... age=GetDoc

" A guide to Glycols" which are the compounds I reckon we are looking at.
Now Evans don't tell us what the base material of their waterless coolants are.
But it doesn't take too much science to deduce it is Propylene glycol ( Look at the characteristics they do publish)
Boiling point 180 deg C,
Non poisonous etc; etc;
So to take Ian's question of what the difference is between the various formulations.

There is Propylene Glycol B.P. = 180 deg C
Di-propylene Glycol BP = 232 deg C
Tri-propylene GlycolBP = 265 deg C

Since Evans make no claim on increased boiling point for the other variants above 180 deg C we can assume all their base products are Propylene Glycol.
Lets go with this for now.

However there is an interesting section in the above link on " Material Compatibility " About 2/3 of the way down. See Fig 21 on page 41.
This gives corrosion guidance for Propylene glycol on various materials vs temperature. And this indicates that compatibility with brass, copper, carbon steel, is not good and aluminium is only slightly better. So the figure of 20mils ( American) equates to ) 0.508mm per year. Note the Rating 3 should be ">20 mils year" to make sense of the note.
Quite a surprise this data.

So we can deduce that the differences between the Evan's Classic Cool, the Vintage Cool , the Auto Cool and the Power cool is simply the additive formulation to reduce or eliminate the problems of material compatibility listed above which has obviously been researched quite well.

So we end up with from the Evan's website.
http://www.evanscoolants.co.uk/

Classic Cool 180 . Green formulation. O.K. for cast iron, carbon steel, copper, aluminium.
( so O.K. for MGB / Dolomite slant 4. etc.

Vintage Cool. Purple formulation. O.K. for cast iron, Copper, brass.
So O.K. for MGB but not Dolomite slant 4.

AutoCool ( for moderns). Green formulation again. O.K. on Cast iron, copper, steel, aluminium. O.K. MGB & Dolomite slant 4.

Power Cool 180. Red formulation. O.K. on Aluminium, steel, copper. No mention of cast iron so probably not for MGB or Dolomite slant 4.

H.T.H.

Mmmm, so none of them compatible with brass rad/aluminiumhead/steel block?

Hi Karlos, Thanks for the reminder. Yes, you are quite right, the radiator header tank and the water-pump cage are both brass.
I think the 1850 block is cast iron rather than steel though.
I think the soldering may be a tin/ lead alloy as well ?
I'll ask the question of Evan's , unless Ian has done so already ?
Tony.