Who all is using Evans Coolant?

[jdbubb at verizon.net (Dan Bubb)]

As far as I can tell Evans is simply Propylene glycol. Refered to as 
Non-aqueous Propylene glycol on Evans' site, but that just means it has no 
water.
I believe it's a well known fact that as you increase the percentage of 
Ethylene glycol (normal anti-freeze) in your cooling system that the system 
becomes less efficient. This is because ethylene glycol has a heat capacity 
that is about 2/3 of water. In other words it only takes 2/3 as much heat to 
raise a fixed quantity by a given amount of temperature.
To retain the heat transfer capability common sense says you'd need to pump 
the coolant 50% faster to maintain the same temps if you went from 100% 
water to 100% ethylene glycol.
As it turns out ethylene glycol and propylene glycol both have approximately 
the same heat capacity.
The good news is propylene glycol doesn't boil till 350 degrees IIRC, so it 
can stand the higher temp IF it's non-aqueous and if you don't mind your 
engine running hotter. The other good news is it won't turn to steam at 
local hot spots inside the engine so the local hot spots will receive better 
cooling.
That's Evans' claim to fame as far as I can tell. It helps keep the engine 
from having localized hot spots typically near the combustion chamber which 
could potentially result in less pinging or knock.
So, it keeps the hot spots at a more average temperature. But, the average 
temperture is actually higher unless you modify your car to pump a lot more 
coolant. I've seen a lot of people comment that changing over makes both 
coolant and oil temps generally higher.
As I said, my car has limited capacity, so I wouldn't use it and I also go 
out of my way to make sure that I use the minimum amount of anti-freeze 
(just enough for corrosion protection) in the summer to maximize my car's 
heat transfer capability.
One other thought. Sierra is propylene glycol. Why not just fill up your 
system with that, use no water, and save yourself a bunch of money???
Hope you don't mind me bringing this back on list.
Dan

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Utley" <fahrvegnugen@cox.net>
Subject: RE: Who all is using Evans Coolant?


-snip-

>
> On the Evans, I would honestly be interested in why you believe the Evans 
> is
> not as efficient as water/antifreeze.  Everything I have read so far
> contradicts that, but I am always willing to learn something.  :)
>
> Thanks for the response...
>
> David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: scirocco-l-bounces+fahrvegnugen=cox.net@scirocco.org
> [mailto:scirocco-l-bounces+fahrvegnugen=cox.net@scirocco.org]On Behalf Of
> Dan Bubb
> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 5:44 PM
> To: scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> Subject: Re: Who all is using Evans Coolant?
>
> I'm not running Evans since my car has inadequate cooling (525mm radiator,
> AC, 2.0L 8V and a bunch of  other heavy stuff that I appreciate) and Evans
> has lower heat transfer capability. It may be good at eliminating hot 
> spots
> in the head, but the overall heat capacity and heat transfer capability is
> lower than a thin antifreeze/water mix.
> Anyway, nobody believes me when I say your engine should be running about 
> 45
> degrees advance while cruising down the highway. 32 or there abouts at WOT
> at 3000 RPM and above. (None-turbo that is!!!).
> This is the factory map for an 86-88 Audi 10V, 2.2L 5 cyl turbo engine. 
> The
> combustion chambers and piston crowns are the same as any 8V with 
> variations
> only in CR.
> If you have programmable ignition then this would be a good starting 
> point.
> If your engine's NA then chop off anything above 1.01 bar.
> This map is virtually what I've been running with a 10:1 CR engine in the 
> NA
> range.
>
> MAC11 Premium Fuel BTDC
> MAP
> 1.50         22 24 24 24 24 25 25 23 23 22 23 24 25 31 30 30
> 1.43         22 24 24 24 24 25 25 23 23 22 23 24 25 31 30 30
> 1.35         22 24 24 24 24 25 25 23 23 23 24 25 26 32 32 32
> 1.29         22 24 24 24 24 25 26 24 25 25 26 28 26 33 34 34
> 1.22         22 24 24 24 22 25 26 25 27 26 27 28 27 33 34 34
> 1.15         22 24 24 23 22 26 26 25 28 27 28 28 28 33 34 34
> 1.08         22 24 22 23 24 28 27 29 29 29 29 29 29 33 35 35
> 1.01         24 25 24 25 27 30 28 30 32 32 32 32 32 36 38 38
> 0.94         25 22 25 29 32 34 30 33 34 34 34 34 34 38 40 40
> 0.87         26 27 30 31 33 36 35 37 37 37 37 36 35 40 42 42
> 0.80         26 32 33 34 37 38 38 40 40 39 39 40 39 42 45 45
> 0.73         30 34 33 34 39 42 42 44 45 44 44 44 44 45 48 47
> 0.66         34 34 34 35 39 42 44 46 48 48 47 45 46 47 50 50
> 0.60         31 33 35 36 41 44 45 48 50 50 50 47 48 50 50 52
> 0.50         26 31 38 41 43 45 46 48 50 50 50 47 48 50 52 52
> 0.40         22 30 42 44 46 46 46 48 50 50 50 50 50 52 52 52
> RPM> 1000 1325 1675 2000 2375 2675 3000 3325 3675 4000 4325 4675 5000
> 5500 6000 6375
>
> As an additional note, I'd like to point out that if you're running a 
> forced
> induction engine it's almost impossible to run too much advance under 
> boost
> with 93 octane. Max power is attained just short of pinging in this
> situation.
> With a normally aspirated engine, especially a lower CR engine like the 
> JH,
> you can advance the ignition past the point of maximum power without
> pinging.
> Course it will feel damn peppy at lower revs, but max power can suffer.
> Both NGP Racing and TT have told me that best ignition timing for an 8V is
> around 32 degrees at WOT for an NA engine which is pretty much what the
> above map shows at 1.0 bar absolute pressure.
> Last point. Higher CR obviously means less advance for maximum power for a
> given octane rating.
> my <.02
> Dan
>
>
> From: "Don Walter" <dswalterwi@gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 3:37 PM
>
>
> I'm running Evans. I put it in when the system was completely empty during
> my rebuild. I have an extra gallon sitting around at $25.00/gal.
> I did not put in a special metal gasket, I am using the OEM from TT.
> I ripped out the entire CIS-E system including the knock box and computer
> and distributor and replaced it with a Electromotive TEC II.
> I am still running normally aspirated with no forced induction.
> I have an 8x8 grid for timing advance based on MAP and RPM's
> MAP
> 100 12 17 30 30 28 28 28 28
> 90 12 17 30 30 28 28 28 28
> 85 12 17 32 30 30 30 30 30
> 70 12 17 32 30 30 30 30 30
> 60 12 17 32 30 30 30 30 30
> 50 12 17 32 30 30 30 30 30
> 40 12 17 34 32 32 32 32 32
> 30 12 17 34 34 34 34 34 34
> RPM>816 1628 2440 3252 4064 4876 5688 7000
>
> On 7/19/05, David Utley <fahrvegnugen@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> I would like to keep track so that if I have problems or questions later
>> on, I can ask directly instead of asking the whole list...
>>
>> Of those that are using it, what sort of FI/Ignition system do you have? 
>> I
>> am curious to know who has done what with CIS-E FI and the knock-box
>> Ignition. What basic advance do you run?
>>
>> Thanks for your time...
>>
>> David
>>