It’s a fact of life that behavior is strongly influenced by what people believe, whether true or not. Numerous examples from history bear this out. For example, sailors were once fearful of sailing outside the sight of land lest they would fall off the edge of the world. In the early 19th century, the train was considered dangerous because it was believed that if you moved faster than 25 miles per hour, you would be travelling too fast to breathe. At a later date, the New York Times warned that electric light may cause blindness. Microwave ovens, automobiles and airplanes have had equally vociferous opponents. Looking back, it’s easy to laugh at some of the things people so firmly believed. But these people were not stupid. They were simply misinformed. In many instances they had simply drawn conclusions before all the facts were in. How easy it is to make the same mistake today. In our own time, synthetic motor oils have been the object of numerous misconceptions held by the general public. Many people, including some mechanics who ought to know better, have been misled by persistent myths that need to be addressed.

Parameters of the Debate

Synthetic lubricants are fuel efficient, extended life lubricants manufactured from select basestocks and special purpose additives. In contrast to petroleum oils which are pumped from the earth and refined, synthetics are custom-designed in the laboratory, with each phase of their molecular construction programmed to produce, in effect, the ideal lubricant. In responding to the objections most commonly raised against synthetics it is important to establish the parameters of the debate. When speaking of synthetic motor oils, this article is defending the synthetic lubricants which have been formulated to meet the performance standards set by the American Petroleum Institute (API). (The first such synthetic motor oil to meet these industry-accepted tests for defining engine oil properties and performance characteristics was AMSOIL 100% Synthetic 10W-40 in 1972.) Many people with questions about synthetics haven’t known where to turn to get correct information. Is it super oil or snake oil? Some enthusiasts will swear that synthetics are capable of raising your specialty car from the dead. On the other hand, the next fellow asserts that synthetics will send your beloved car to an early grave. Where’s the truth in all this? In an effort to set the record straight, we’ve assembled here ten of the more persistent myths about synthetic motor oils to see how they stack up against the facts. 

Myth #1: Synthetic motor oils damage seals.

Untrue. It would be foolhardy for lubricant manufacturers to build a product that is incompatible with seals. The composition of seals presents problems that both petroleum oils and synthetics must overcome. Made from elastomers, seals are inherently difficult to standardize. Ultimately it is the additive mix in oil that counts. Additives to control seal swell, shrinkage and hardening are required, whether it be a synthetic or petroleum product that is being produced. 

Myth #2: Synthetics are too thin to stay in the engine.

Untrue. In order for a lubricant to be classified in any SAE grade (10W-30, 10W-40, etc.) it has to meet certain guidelines with regard to viscosity (“thickness”). For example, it makes no difference whether it’s 10W-40 petroleum or 10W-40 synthetic, at -25 degrees centigrade (-13F) and 100 degrees centigrade (212 degrees F) the oil has to maintain a standardized viscosity or it can’t be rated a 10W-40. 

Myth #3: Synthetics cause cars to use more oil.

Untrue. Synthetic motor oils are intended for use in mechanically sound engines, that is, engines that don’t leak. In such engines, oil consumption will actually be reduced. First, because of the lower volatility of synlubes. Second, because of the better sealing characteristics between piston rings and cylinder walls. And finally, because of the superior oxidation stability (i.e. resistance of synthetics against reacting with oxygen at high temperatures.) 

Myth #4: Synthetic lubricants are not compatible with petroleum.

Untrue. The synthesized hydrocarbons, polyalphaolefins, diesters and other materials that form the base stocks of high-quality name brand synthetics are fully compatible with petroleum oils. In the old days, some companies used untested ingredients that were not compatible, causing quality synlubes to suffer a bum rap. Fortunately, those days are long gone. Compatibility is something to keep in mind, however, whether using petroleum oils or synthetics. It is usually best to use the same oil for topping off that you have been running in the engine. That is, it is preferable to not mix your oils, even if it is Valvoline or Quaker State you are using. The reason is this: the functions of additives blended for specific characteristics can be offset when oils with different additive packages are put together. For optimal performance, it is better to use the same oil throughout. 

Myth #5: Synthetic lubricants are not readily available.

Untrue. This may have been the case two decades ago when AMSOIL and Mobil 1 were the only real choices, but today nearly every major oil company has added a synthetic product to their lines. This in itself is a testament to the value synthetics offer. 

Myth #6: Synthetic lubricants produce sludge.

Untrue. In point of fact, synthetic motor oils are more sludge resistant than their petroleum counterparts, resisting the effects of high temperature and oxidation. In the presence of high temperatures, two things happen. First, an oil’s lighter ingredients boil off, making the oil thicker. Second, many of the complex chemicals found naturally in petroleum basestocks begin to react with each other, forming sludges, gums and varnishes. One result is a loss of fluidity at low temperatures, slowing the timely flow of oil to the engine for vital component protection. Further negative effects of thickened oil include the restriction of oil flow into critical areas, greater wear and loss of fuel economy. 

Because of their higher flash points, and their ability to withstand evaporation loss and oxidation, synthetics are much more resistant to sludge development. 

Two other causes of sludge — ingested dirt and water dilution — can be a problem in any kind of oil, whether petroleum or synthetic. These are problems with the air filtration system and the cooling system respectively, not the oil. 

Myth #7: Synthetics can’t be used with catalytic converters or oxygen sensors.

Untrue. There is no difference between synthetic and petroleum oils in regards to these components. Both synthetic and petroleum motor oils are similar compounds and neither is damaging to catalytic converters or oxygen sensors. 

Myth#8: Synthetics void warranties.

Untrue. No major manufacturer of automobiles specifically bans the use of synthetic lubricants. In point of fact, increasing numbers of high performance cars are arriving on showroom floors with synthetic motor oils as factory fill. New vehicle warranties are based upon the use of oils meeting specific API Service Classifications (for example, SG/CE). Synthetic lubricants which meet current API Service requirements are perfectly suited for use in any vehicle without affecting the validity of the new car warranty. In point of fact, in the twenty-five years that AMSOIL Synthetic Lubricants have been used in extended service situations, over billions of miles of actual driving, these oils have not been faulted once for voiding an automaker’s warranty. 

Myth #9: Synthetics last forever.

Untrue. Although some experts feel that synthetic basestocks themselves can be used forever, it is well known that eventually the additives will falter and cause the oil to require changing. Moisture, fuel dilution and acids (the by-products of combustion) tend to use up additives in an oil, allowing degradation to occur. However, by “topping off”, additives can be replenished. Through good filtration and periodic oil analysis, synthetic engine oils protect an engine for lengths of time far beyond the capability of non-synthetics. 

Myth #10: Synthetics are too expensive.

Untrue. Tests and experience have proven that synthetics can greatly extend drain intervals, provide better fuel economy, reduce engine wear and enable vehicles to operate with greater reliability. All these elements combine to make synthetic engine oils more economical than conventional non-synthetics. In Europe, synthetics have enjoyed increasing acceptance as car buyers look first to performance and long term value rather than initial price. As more sophisticated technology places greater demands on today’s motor oils, we will no doubt see an increasing re-evaluation of oil buying habits in this country as well. 

Conclusion

Since their inception, manufacturers of synthetic motor oils have sought to educate the public about the facts regarding synthetics, and the need for consumers to make their lubrication purchasing decisions based on quality rather than price. As was the case with microwave ovens or electric lights, a highly technological improvement must often overcome a fair amount of public skepticism and consumer inertia before it is embraced by the general population. But the word is getting out as a growing number of motorists worldwide experience the benefits of synthetic lubrication. The wave of the future, in auto lubes, is well under way.

My name is Tim Samaras, and I chase the most powerful storms on the planet. My passion and research is to intercept tornadoes in progress and deploy small probes directly in their path to record the extreme weather conditions inside the tornado core. Last year our team measured the largest barometric pressure drop ever recorded on June 24, 2003 of over 100 millibars as it destroyed the small hamlet of Manchester, South Dakota. The data has revealed several “secrets” of the inside of a violent tornado. I’m also featured in the April 2004 issue of National Geographic magazine, where a photographer was with me during the deployments and has captured some of the most astounding tornado images ever on film.

Every year my pursuit takes me to the great plains where I journey over 35,000 miles over 12 states within a period of two months. Using a petroleum-based motor oil, I used to change my motor oil every couple of days! Based upon these frequent changes, I decided to switch to AMSOIL synthetic motor oil, where I have extended my oil changes to over 7,500 miles! My vehicle has already seen some incredible abuse so far this year with over 15 tornadoes intercepted, where I’ve only had to change the oil three times, as my vehicle has already accumulated over 24,000 miles in May alone!

Tim Samaras

*The National Geographic series “Explorer” on the National Geographic Channel aired the new show called “Secrets of the Tornado” on Sunday evening, September 18th. The show featured the research/probe deployment work of AMSOIL sponsored storm chaser Tim Samaras and his colleagues over the past couple of years

In all engines hot metal in contact with coolant causes localized boiling called nucleate boiling at critical metal temperature locations in the engine. Nucleate boiling is a very efficient way to remove heat as the heat of vaporization is so high. This boiling forms vapor which is later recondensed back into liquid when the vapor reaches the appropriate temperature. For ethylene glycol and water (EGW) systems, the recondensation of vapor takes place generally in the radiator. Since vapor by volume from a 50/50 solution of EGW is more than 98% water vapor under one atmosphere of gauge pressure (14.0 PSIG), the water will not recondense until the temperature of the coolant is below the boiling point of water at the system pressure. During moderate loads and ambient temperature conditions, that temperature is normally seen inside the radiator. As the temperature of the coolant rises under stressed conditions, that vapor does not recondense even inside the radiator. Most engine designers and test engineers are unaware that vapor is in fact being generated and recondensed continuously inside the engine cooling system.

As a result of localized boiling, there is a layer of vapor which can build up on the surface of the hot metal within the coolant jackets. That layer keeps the coolant from coming in contact with the hot metal surface. The temperature of the metal covered by the vapor pocket increases, causing a “hot spot”. The hotter the spot, the more vapor produced, the larger the vapor pocket becomes, and the higher this critical metal temperature rises. These “hot spots” become so hot that they become secondary “spark plugs” or ignition points and are the cause of engine performance limitations (ignition instability) and emission problems. Thus it has been an important goal of the Evans Cooling System to reduce the vapor build-up on the hot metal surface and reduce or eliminate “hot spots”.

Vapor, which is created from localized boiling, actually affects the cooling efficiency of the engine. Large amounts of vapor in the cooling system decrease the amount of liquid to metal contact throughout the cooling system, reducing the ability of the cooling system to remove heat.

In addition as the engine and cooling system is used under stressed conditions or in higher ambient temperature locations, coolant temperatures typically rise above 220° F. As EGW coolant temperatures increase above 220° F, the vapor which is generated cannot be recondensed efficiently inside the system and can be seen as cloudy coolant. Often at about 220° F the pump starts to cavitate and the flow rate of the coolant starts decreasing , increasing further the temperature of the coolant. This results in additional cavitation and the loss of coolant through overflow vents. Evans has developed computerized models of EGW cooling systems which generate vapor tables plotting this phenomenon. These theoretical vapor tables track empirical test data very accurately and are proof that vapor is constantly being generated and recondensed. The vapor tables also allow for accurate design predictions of system components size requirements identified during dynamometer testing.

In examining the vapor generation it became apparent that water is the reason for such a high amount of vapor production within the engine with resultant “hot spots”. Water is the cause of cavitation. Water is the reason for requiring pressurized cooling systems to elevate the acceptable operating coolant temperatures above the boiling point of water. Even so the coolant temperatures cannot exceed 224°F for pressurized water. Therefore the use of water as a coolant requires adding poisonous ethylene glycol to raise the pressurized boiling point to 250° and decrease the freezing point. Water has been found to be the reason that additives used for corrosion deplete and “fall out”, causing limited coolant life. Water is also the cause of corrosion of parts inside the cooling system and in some systems the resultant accumulation of high concentrations of lead and other heavy metals in the coolant after prolonged use. The solution was to remove the water from the coolant.

In choosing the proper replacement coolant Jack Evans, the inventor, attempted to solve a number of problems: the toxicity/waste stream environmental issue, the cavitation issue, the corrosive coolant issue, the heavy metal deposit issue, the depletion of additives issue, the liquid to metal contact or “hot spot” issue and the overheat issue.

Non-Aqueous Propylene Glycol (NPG) with additives to protect metal surfaces was chosen as the replacement liquid. Because of the specific heat and specific gravity differences between NPG and EGW coolants, it is theoretically necessary to increase NPG’s coolant flow approximately 27% over that for EGW to remove equal amounts of heat from the engine. In actual application however, where current cooling systems produce significant amounts of vapor, less flow increase can provide the same, and even increased, heat rejection. Since there is no water in the system to cause cavitation of pumps, the increased speed is easily achieved. The flow can be further increased to provide even better cooling of the engine. The physics of why NPG cooling allows for higher engine performance can be best understood by looking at how the vapor is managed.

Bubble Size: The size of the bubbles formed on the hot metal surface, which then break off into the liquid, directly affect the size of the vapor buildup on the metal surface. Nucleate boiling produces bubbles, the size of which depends on a liquid characteristic known as surface tension. Lower surface tension and directly proportional cohesive characteristics produce smaller surface layer bubble sizes. NPG has lower surface tension and lower cohesive tendencies than EGW.

Another fluid characteristic which works in favor of decreasing bubble size is the difference in vapor pressure. The vapor pressure of water is 100 times that of NPG (vapor by volume from a 50/50 solution of EGW is more than 98% water vapor under one atmosphere of gauge pressure).

The more turbulent flow of the NPG system produces shear forces which tend to shear bubbles into smaller bubbles at the metal surface.

Heat of Vaporization Cal/Mole: Another characteristic, which determines the amount of vapor generated in changing a liquid to a gas when a given weight of liquid changes to a vapor, is called the Heat of Vaporization. When the heat transferred from the hot metal surface vaporizes liquid it does so according to the heat of vaporization. NPG has a heat of vaporization of 12,500 Cal/Mole compared to 9,720 for EGW. Simply stated, each vapor bubble of NPG coolant carries 29% more calories (heat) than a vapor bubble of EGW coolant. Therefore NPG generates less vapor by volume and will displace less coolant from the surface than will EGW for the same amount of heat transferred.

Reduction of “hot spots”: Obviously if the vapor bubbles condense back into liquid rapidly there is less vapor traveling through the cooling system. Less vapor means higher metal to liquid contact. The fact that NPG generates less vapor for the same heat transfer helps here also (See Below; “h Molar Heat of Vaporization:”).

Compared to NPG, water vapor from the EGW condenses at a lower temperature and hence is not fully condensed until it is in the radiator. However the temperature of NPG in the cooling system is considerably below its saturation temperature (boiling point), readily condensing NPG vapor back into the liquid locally. Evans has been able to ensure that all NPG vapor generated inside the engine rapidly condenses back into liquid before the coolant leaves the engine.

Small bubble sizes assists here also as the smaller the bubble the lower the ratio of vapor volume to bubble surface area (the recondensation occurs at the liquid/gas interface, the surface of the bubble).

Reduction of “hot spots” & turbulent coolant flow: Turbulent flow of the coolant increases coolant scrubbing of the vapor from the surface of the metal, thereby improving the wetting of the metal surface by the coolant.

Other Technical Considerations:

• Boiling Point: 369° F for NPG versus 224° F for 50/50 “EGW” ethylene glycol and water (at atmospheric pressure – 0.0 psig) – benefits include elimination of afterboil and overheating, allowing temperature excursions above those for EGW, faster recondensation of vapor inside the engine, low (2.0 – 4.0 PSIG) or non-pressurized system, no coolant loss operating in high ambient temperatures, and the capability to increase thermostat temperature settings if desired.
• Molar Heat of Vaporization: 12,500 Cals/Mole for NPG versus 9,720 Cals/Mole for EGW – benefits include faster recondensation because less vapor is produced, and a reduction of hot spots because of improved liquid to metal contact. All of which eliminate the occurrence of “Film Boiling” and the accumulation of excessive surface vapor.
• Surface Tension: 35 Dynes/Cm for NPG versus 56 Dynes/Cm for EGW — benefits include small vapor bubble sizes, allowing for faster recondensation of vapor and increased liquid to metal interface, and decreased area of nucleate boiling centers, again increasing liquid to metal interface.
• Freezing Point: -70° F for NPG versus -38° F for EGW. NPG does not freeze, it crystallizes and supercools (contracts slightly and becomes a viscous slurry).
• Toxicity: EGW is considered a hazardous waste whereas NPG is not as PG is used as a food additive and pharmaceutical base fluid.
• Vapor Pressure: 590 mm of Hg for EGW at 212° F versus 18 mm of Hg for NPG. This is the major reason for the dramatic decrease in cylinder liner and pump cavitation. Although most vehicles overheat at EGW coolant temperatures of approximately 250° F (pressurized to 13.0 psig), the non-aqueous coolant can tolerate temperatures above 350° F. Although using higher coolant temperatures can introduce other problems, (i.e.: increased oil temperatures) the NPG will allow the possibility of increasing coolant temperatures with all the resultant performance improvements as those problems are addressed and resolved. EGW is temperature constrained only by the physics of the liquid.

Over the years engineers have solved many of the problems of using EGW at the limits of its physical properties. The same can be expected to happen with NPG, allowing full use of NPG’s high boiling point. Currently, however, most all NPG conversions are operated at traditional thermostat settings (180° – 200°F) with the high temperature capabilities of NPG utilized as a “safety measure”.

Important Benefits of NPG Coolant:

For Gasoline Engines:

• Higher Gasoline Efficiency
• Reduces Emissions
• Higher Compression & Power
• Knock Reduction
• Improved Octane Tolerance (lower octane fuel usable).
• Reduction of Hot Spots (Critical Metal Temperatures)

For Diesel Engines:

• Higher Fuel Efficiency
• Lower Particulate Emissions
• Higher Power
• Reduction of Hot Spots (Critical Metal Temperatures)
• Elimanation of overheating and after-boil
• Elimination of Cylinder wall and pump cavitation
• Elimination of corrosion on cooling system parts
• Significant Reduction of Coolant Leaks; NPG operates at a low (i.e.; 4.0 – 7.0 PSIG ) or atmospheric pressure.
• Not a Hazardous or Dangerous Waste.
• Long Life, Stable Coolant. Increased from 40,000 (with EGW) to more than 400,000 miles. The system has been tested to 400,000 miles in a Class 8 Detroit Diesel engine running at North American Van Lines. After 400,000 miles additives have decreased by only 11%, still within initial manufacturing tolerances for the coolant.
• Fleet applications: decreased maintenance requirements and costs.

 

Secondary Benefits of NPG Coolant:

For Gasoline Engines:

• Non-pressurized: (or low pressure, i.e. 4.0 psig) decreased leaks, lower pressure parts, decrease of thermal flexing or cycling (component life extended), elimination of accidents resulting from accidental removal of radiator caps from hot engines.
• Allows for a totally closed system (Hermetically Sealed) requiring no service checks and is not subject to contamination.
• Improved stability of engine operating temperatures.
• Improved aerodynamic styling. The radiator no longer needs to be higher than the engine and can be placed anywhere.
• Weight reduction possible if higher coolant temperatures are used. Smaller radiators, less coolant, light-weight metals (such as magnesium for engines), small cooling jackets in the engine, smaller fans.
• Decreased duty cycle of coolant fan for the same coolant temperature by allowing for higher temperature excursions for short intervals with no adverse effects on the engine.
• Faster combustion chamber metal surface warm-up, CO reduced in start-up (liners get hot faster) mostly because of lower specific heat of cold NPG.
• Elimination of premature spark plug failure and head cracking by better cooling of head.
• Reduction or elimination of pre-ignition and detonation:
  • Reduce head distortion and cracking at high compression and supercharged / turbocharged boost levels.
  • Reduce head gasket fire ring failure.
  • Reduce piston dome and ring failure.
  • Reduce valve face sinking (“tuliping”).
  • Reduce rod bearing failure (caused by cylinder pressure, detonation related, spikes).

For Gasoline Engines:

• Non-pressurized (or low pressure, i.e. 4.0 psig) system provides fewer leaks, lower pressure parts, decrease of thermal flexing or cycling (extended component life) and elimination of accidents resulting from accidental removal of radiator caps from hot engines.
• Elimination of Cylinder Liner Cavitation allowing for reduction of thickness of cylinder liners with the following benefits:
  • Weight and critical engine dimension reduction.
  • Better cooling of piston cylinder wall surfaces.
• Totally closed system requiring no service checks and no contamination.
• Weight reduction if higher coolant temperatures are used with smaller radiators, less coolant, smaller cooling jackets in the engine, and smaller fans.
• Decreased duty cycle of coolant fan for the same coolant temperature by allowing for higher temperature excursions for short intervals with no adverse affects on the engine.
• Faster combustion chamber metal surface warm up of cylinder liners & combustion domes provides lower emissions, improved gas mileage.
• Eliminates frequent maintenance checks of coolant additives and subsequent adjusting of additive levels.
• Reduction of coolant disposal costs as no coolant needs to be replaced (limits of coolant life have not yet been found. Some vehicles have been tested up to 500,000 miles).

There are two significant fuel saving techniques for Heavy Duty Engines:

1. Use Evans Waterless HD Thermal Coolant to reduce fan-on time.
2. Use Evans Waterless HD Thermal Coolant to increase the thermostat temperature.

The following points provide case studies and reports to explain how Evans increases fuel efficiency.

A.  The engine fan is a significant consumer of fuel.

 

It is well-known that the fans for heavy duty diesel engines draw considerable horsepower.  Cummins, for example, in its MPG Guide (February 2007), discloses that the fan for an ISX engine draws 17, 26, 37, 52 and 70  HP at 1300, 1500, 1700, 1900 and 2100 RPM, respectively.  These horsepower numbers may be converted to fuel rates by the following methodology:

1 horsepower equals 2545 BTU/hour

1 gallon of diesel fuel contains about 139,000 BTU.

In a diesel engine, about 1/3 of the energy in diesel fuel is converted to horsepower.  Each horsepower produced therefore requires a delivery of 7635 (three times 2545) BTU per hour from the fuel.

Each fan horsepower therefore requires a fuel rate of 7635/139000 = .055 gallon per hour.

The per hour fuel rates required by the Cummins ISX engine radiator fan for various engine speeds are shown below.

 

It is clear that minimizing fan operation leads directly to significant fuel savings.  In the typical stock configuration, a fan clutch engages the fan in the coolant temperature range of 200^o to 210^o F.  This report describes how Evans waterless HD thermal coolant (“HDTC”) enables the fan temperature to be safely raised, reducing fan-on time and resulting in reduced fuel consumption.  When the fan-on temperature is raised, there is always a fuel savings.

A case study – The fan-on temperature was raised to 230^o F.  Fuel consumption dropped 5.5% during the spring 2008 test period and 8.5% during the summer 2008 test period.

The tests were conducted in Connecticut on two 2006 Mack Model MR688 trucks, both equipped similarly and having Mack E7 350 horsepower engines.  One truck was retrofitted and the other kept in the stock configuration (water-based coolant and stock fan settings) for comparison.  Both trucks were operated under similar conditions.  (More information is available upon request.)

From Fuel Economy Report dated April 29, 2008 (Spring Period)
The following data was collected during April 2008

Baseline data from Control truck:



Eninge Hours:
27.6 hrs
A


Fan-on Hours:
8.0 hrs
B


Fuel Consumed during Period:
131 gal
C


Baseline Fuel Rate (C/A):
4.75 gal/hr
D


(1) Avg engine baseline HP (D * 18.2):
86.38 hp
E


Avg horsepower as percent of rated HP (E / 350):
24.7%
F


Percent of time fan is on (B/A):
29%
G




Data from Test Truck



Engine Hours:
25.2 hrs
H


Fan-on Hours:
2.5 hrs
J


Percent of time fan is on (J/H):
9.9%
K




Percent reduction in fan-on time using 230F vs 205F turn-on (1-(K/G)): 65.8%



Estimated engine RPM when fan is on:
1550 RPM
L


(2) Fan HP at est avg engine RPM when fan on:
25.1 hp
M


Fan HP as a percent of avg engine HP (M/E):
29.1%
N


Percent of baseline fuel used by fan during baseline (G*N):
8.43%
P


Percent of baseline fuel used by fan after retrofit (K*N):
2.88%
Q




Percentage of fuel saved by reduced fan-on time (P-Q): 5.54%

(1) 1 gal diesel fuel has 139,000 btu.  1/3 of the BTU's become horsepower.
    1 BTU/hour = 0.000393 HP
    Each gal/hour makes an average of (0.000393 *(139,000/3)) = 18.2 horsepower.

(2) According to Borg Warner the fan draws 50HP @ 1950 engine RPM, assuming a
    pulley ratio of 1.77 (the crank pulley is approx. 9.5" dia; the fan pulley
    is approx 5.5" dia).
    By Fan Law #3, the fan HP at L RPM = 50 times (L/1950)^3

 

From Fuel Economy Report dated July 11, 2008 (Summer Period)
The following data was collected late June-early July 2008

Baseline data from Control truck:



Eninge Hours:
151.2 hrs
A


Fan-on Hours:
77.2 hrs
B


Fuel Consumed during Period:
781 gal
C


Baseline Fuel Rate (C/A):
5.17 gal/hr
D


(1) Avg engine baseline HP (D * 18.2):
94.01 hp
E


Avg horsepower as percent of rated HP (E / 350):
26.9%
F


Percent of time fan is on (B/A):
51.1%
G




Data from Test Truck



Engine Hours:
133.8 hrs
H


Fan-on Hours:
25.5 hrs
J


Percent of time fan is on (J/H):
19.1%
K




Percent reduction in fan-on time using 230F vs 205F turn-on (1-(K/G)): 62.7%



Estimated engine RPM when fan is on:
1550 RPM
L


(2) Fan HP at est avg engine RPM when fan on:
25.1 hp
M


Fan HP as a percent of avg engine HP (M/E):
26.7%
N


Percent of baseline fuel used by fan during baseline (G*N):
13.64%
P


Percent of baseline fuel used by fan after retrofit (K*N):
5.09%
Q




Percentage of fuel saved by reduced fan-on time (SUMMER)  (P-Q): 8.55%

(1) 1 gal diesel fuel has 139,000 btu.  1/3 of the BTU's become horsepower.
    1 BTU/hour = 0.000393 HP
    Each gal/hour makes an average of (0.000393 *(139,000/3)) = 18.2 horsepower.

(2) According to Borg Warner the fan draws 50HP @ 1950 engine RPM, assuming a
    pulley ratio of 1.77 (the crank pulley is approx. 9.5" dia; the fan pulley
    is approx 5.5" dia).
    By Fan Law #3, the fan HP at L RPM = 50 times (L/1950)^3

The fuel economy figures shown above are for a trash-hauling truck.  Refuse trucks repeatedly start and stop and frequently perform service in circumstances that lack ram air.  A truck’s use and its working environment determine the amount of baseline fan-on time.  The greater the baseline fan-on time, the greater are the opportunities for reductions in fan-on time.

B.  Additional Fuel Economy is Available by Increasing the Actuation Temperature of the Coolant Thermostats to 230° F.

In January 2009 Auburn University’s PAVE Research Institute at Opelika, Alabama performed a fuel consumption test according to SAE J1321 (TMC RP-1102) Type II procedures under the direction of technical consultant Bob Rosenthal.  Use of Evans waterless coolant and 230° F thermostats showed a fuel economy improvement of 3.04 percent!

The test was conducted with the coolant fans of both the test truck and the control truck locked 100% “on” in order to eliminate the fan from being a variable.  In other words, the 3.04 percent improvement in fuel economy from using the 215° F thermostats is in addition to whatever savings are obtained by increasing the fan temperature to 230° F.

The full SAE Type II test report is available from PAVE’s website here.

 

C.  A discussion of what Evans Waterless HDTC is and how it works as compared to water-based coolants:

All commercially available automotive antifreezes and coolants (more than 250 brands), except Evans coolants, are water-based.  Water is good because it is cheap and because it has excellent thermal conductivity in its liquid state.  On the other hand, water is a poor choice because the boiling point of water is too low.  There is very little separation between the operating temperature of the coolant and the boiling point of water (for the pressure of the system).  The boiling point of water is the failure temperature for a cooling system using a water-based coolant because water vapor has almost no thermal conductivity.  Water is aggressive toward cooling system metals.  Water acts as an electrolyte, promoting electrolysis between dissimilar metals within the cooling system.

Although water-based coolants are mostly 50% glycol and 50% water, the failure temperature is the boiling point of water, not the boiling point of the mixture.  Some locations within the cylinder head generate so much heat that some of the nearby coolant boils, even though the bulk coolant is below the boiling point of the mixture of glycol and water.  When local coolant boils, the resulting vapor is nearly 100% water vapor because of fractional distillation.  The water portion is far more volatile and is liberated as water vapor.  The glycol portion remains in the solution.

If the coolant that is surrounding the water vapor is above the boiling point of water, the water vapor cannot condense.  Under this condition, the water vapor makes an insulating barrier between hot metal and liquid coolant, causing the temperature of the metal to spike to high levels.  Graph 2 compares the thermal conductivity of Evans Waterless HDTC to the liquid and vapor phases of 50%/50% EGW.

Water-based coolant must be kept cold enough to avoid pump cavitation.  Action of the coolant pump creates a low pressure area at the pump inlet.  Pump cavitation occurs when coolant near its boiling point encounters the low pressure area and flash vaporizes within the pump.  The gas pocket in the pump causes the pump to stop functioning and coolant circulation to stop.  Coolant pump cavitation leads directly to catastrophic cooling system failure with the coolant being expelled from the system as steam pressure exceeds the pressure relief setting of the cap.

Water-based coolant must be kept cold enough to avoid afterboil.  Afterboil occurs after shut-down of a stressed engine when the coolant is near its boiling point and residual heat remains in the cylinder head or in an auxiliary circuit such as an EGR cooler.  Upon shut-down the coolant pump ceases to circulate coolant through the cooling system.  Residual heat boils the stagnant coolant, making steam pressure that exceeds the pressure relief setting of the cap.  Coolant is pushed out of the system.

 

A cooling system using water-based coolants is burdened by the requirement to keep the coolant below the boiling point of water for the pressure of the system under all operating conditions and after shut-down.  This task is difficult because the coolant frequently operates close to the boiling point of water.

The primary purpose of any engine cooling system is to keep engine metal temperatures under control.  In order to accomplish that with water-based coolant, significant energy must be expended to keep the coolant cold enough so that it remains functional.  The most important operational feature of Evans Waterless HDTC is its huge separation between the operating temperature and the boiling point of the coolant, on the order of at least 100^o F.  [HDTC boils at 375^o F (at atmospheric pressure) and freezes below -70^o F.]

Graph 3 compares the boiling points of HDTC, 50/50 EGW and water:

 

The huge separation between the operating temperature and the boiling point of Evans HDTC unlocks a Reserve Capacity that already exists in systems designed for water-based coolants.  Any cooling system designed to keep coolant below the boiling point of water for the pressure of the system under all operating conditions and after shut-down is liberated from those requirements when the coolant is changed to Evans HDTC.  The same sized cooling system can accommodate a broader range of temperatures safely.  When ambient temperatures happen to be higher, there are no failures due to the boiling point of water.  In a 100^o F environment a radiator that is 230^o F can dissipate 22% more heat than the same one at 205^o F.

Evans HDTC prevents hot spots in the engine.  The huge separation between the operating temperature and the boiling point of Evans HDTC, on the order of at least 100^o F, provides an environment where any locally generated coolant vapor immediately condenses into adjacent liquid coolant.  Vapor cannot build into an insulating barrier and contact between hot metal and liquid coolant is maintained at all times.  Metal temperatures are under control at all times.

Evans HDTC prevents afterboil because of the huge separation between the operating temperature and the boiling point of Evans HDTC.  After shut-down, the coolant acts as a heat sink into which heat from hot metal parts of the cooling system can dissipate.  Boiling is avoided and there is no build-up of pressure to force coolant out of the system.  Stresses on cylinder heads and EGR heat exchangers are avoided as metal temperatures are kept under control.

Evans HDTC prevents pump cavitation, again because of the huge separation between the operating temperature and the boiling point of Evans HDTC.  The low pressure area of the coolant pump is never at a low enough pressure to flash vaporize Evans HDTC.  The pump never gets vapor bound and has the capability to pump coolant over a broader range of temperatures.

Evans HDTC prevents cylinder liner cavitation erosion in heavy duty engines.  As the piston moves inside the cylinder there is vibration of the liner.  The vibration of the liner against the coolant alternately makes low and high pressures.  In systems using water-based coolant, vapor is created by flash vaporization during the low pressure instant.  During the adjacent high pressure instant, the vapor collapses against the cylinder liner.  This action is repeated at the frequency of the vibration, causing an attack against the metal liner.  Cavitation erosion of the liner is a consequence of this action.

With Evans HDTC there is a huge separation between the operating temperature and the boiling point, on the order of at least 100^o F.  The operating temperature of the coolant is so much lower than the boiling point of the coolant that the flash vaporization does not occur during the low pressure instant and so there is no collapse of vapor during the high pressure instant.  In this manner, cavitation erosion is avoided.  In a recognized test (the “John Deere Engine Cavitation Test”) performed in April 2009 by a third-party laboratory, the results using Evans HDTC were so good that no water-based coolant formulations, even ELC formulations, regardless of additives or SCAs, come close.

Evans HDTC waterless coolant is an engineered fluid formulated from a proprietary blend of glycols and compatible additives.  It will last the life of the engine as long as it does not become contaminated with water.  The coolant does not require supplementary coolant additives (SCA’s) or filters that release additives.  It contains no additive that requires water to dissolve the additive or to enable the additive to function.

In heavy duty diesel applications the water content is required to be no more than 3 percent.  The most preferred installation of the coolant is into a dry engine and radiator.  The water content can readily be determined by use of a refractometer.  Any “Brix scale” refractometer may be used if it includes the range 50-60 degrees Brix.  The following are refractometer readings of Evans HDTC with corresponding percentages of water content:

Brix Reading
Percent Water


55.70
0


55.00
1


54.70
2


54.40
3


54.00
4


53.50
5

Evans HDTC is low in oral toxicity.  Although HDTC contains ethylene glycol, it also contains a substance that inhibits the metabolism of ethylene glycol, preventing its toxic metabolites from forming.  In tests on rats according to EPA regulations, no rats died eating the ethylene glycol/inhibitor combination, even in quantities that completely filled the stomachs of the rats, indicating a very low toxicity.  Evans HDTC carries ethylene glycol warnings on its packaging because of the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission requirement that all products containing over 10 percent ethylene glycol carry such warnings.  Permission to waive the labeling requirement requires proof of safety by in-vitro testing on human tissue.  The in-vitro testing is underway and is expected to be completed during 2009.

 

D.  Maximizing the Fuel Economy Potential Means 215° F Thermostats, 230° F Fan-On Temperature, and Reprogramming of the ECM

Raising the thermostat temperature to 215^o F requires the use of prototype thermostats that Evans Cooling Systems can arrange to provide.  At 215^o F there is huge separation between the boiling point of the coolant and the operating temperature of the coolant.  The engine will not overheat and there will be no loss of control of metal temperatures.

Low fan temperature settings cause extended “fan-on” intervals as compared to higher fan temperature settings because heat transfers more efficiently from a hotter radiator to the ambient air than from a cooler radiator.  The fan does not have to run as long to transfer the same amount of heat.  With Evans HDTC there is ample capacity for the coolant to absorb residual heat from both the cylinder head and the EGR cooler without causing boiling or afterboil problems.  With HDTC the fan temperature can be safely increased to 230^o F, reducing the “fan-on” time. 

The engine’s ECM requires re-programming of several items in order for the system to function without interference.  In addition to the fan-on temperature, the fan-off temperature must be adjusted upward.  De-rating and automatic shut-down temperatures must also be increased.  The following temperature settings would be reasonable:

Fan-on
230o F


Fan-off
220o F


Derating
235o F


Shut-down
240o F

 

E.  Why Aren’t the Engine OEMs Already Using Waterless Coolants?

In the foregoing it is explained how the features of Evans HDTC are superior to water-based coolants and how HDTC enables innovative techniques that save fuel.  This section addresses the question, “If HDTC is so great, why is its use not widespread throughout the heavy duty engine industry?”  In simple terms, the engine OEMs have been comfortable with existing cooling system arrangements.  If no OEM moves, then no OEM has to.  Everybody uses giant radiators and amazingly powerful radiator fans.  OEMs have their own private-label products and at least one OEM has a major subsidiary producing its recommended consumables.

OEMs have requirements for coolant that fit only water-based blends.  The ASTM testing methods for coolants are usable only for water-based products.  Evans HDTC can pass ASTM standards but the test methods require modifications appropriate for waterless coolants.  The factor keeping the OEMs in control of coolants for their engines has been the engine warranty.  The threat of engine warranty invalidation has been the club by which the OEMs control their customers.  But something has changed.

The change is the economic value of fuel economy.  Five-dollar diesel was a wake-up call; the price has come down but the memory persists.  Fleet owners are deciding that it is not worth thousands of dollars per truck per year to keep water-based coolant cold enough to maintain functionality.  They are weighing the value of their engine warranties and deciding if that value is more important than thousands per truck annually in fuel savings. On a dollars and cents basis, the fuel savings trump warranty risk (particularly since Evans HDTC, higher temperature or not, won’t harm the engine).

The OEMs will eventually come around, but Evans Cooling Systems is working with fleet owners who want these savings now, not in 5 or 10 years.  In the future large fleets will be specifying equipment to be delivered with Evans HDTC in the cooling system and to be equipped with 215^o F thermostats and programmed for fan-on at 230^o F. 

As it becomes known that engines protected with HDTC waterless coolant aren’t rusty inside, aren’t caked with baked-on coolant additives, and don’t have cylinder liners  damaged by cavitation erosion, vehicle resale value will increase.   Fleet owners using Evans HDTC will get premium prices when it is time to sell.

Introduction

The uninformed have always assumed that AMSOIL synthetic lubricants were more expensive than conventional products. It is true that the initial cost is higher than most petroleum-based products, but an investment in AMSOIL synthetic lubricants is an investment in your business. AMSOIL saves businesses money by improving fuel economy, reducing maintenance costs and downtime, and extending drain intervals.

Reduced Maintenance

Because AMSOIL lubricants are superior to conventional products, equipment maintenance is needed less often. The unsurpassed protection, cleaning and cooling properties of AMSOIL keep moving parts looking and working like new, reducing equipment malfunctions and failures.

Extended Drain Intervals

Extended drain intervals are key to improving

bottom lines. Changing fluids less often means buying them less often. It also means equipment is in the shop less often, reducing maintenance needs and downtime and improving efficiency.

Less maintenance and extended drains mean less downtime, and less downtime means equipment is working more often and getting more done. It also means less time spent working on equipment when there are other things to be done.

Longer Lasting Equipment

AMSOIL products improve equipment’s durability because they provide superior protection. Less wear, stress and strain on moving parts allows equipment to last longer, reducing replacement costs.

Better Fuel Economy

Fuel economy is becoming more important with each passing year. Gas and diesel prices keep rising, putting a major strain on businesses that rely on vehicles and heavy equipment in their daily operations. AMSOIL synthetic lubricants improve fuel economy by allowing moving parts to move more freely,

using less energy and creating less friction than when conventional lubricants are used. The use of AMSOIL synthetic motor oil, gear lubes and

transmission fluids can have a profound impact on fuel economy. Industry tests demonstrate an average conservative decrease in fuel consumption by two to five percent by switching to synthetic lubricants. Many AMSOIL customers report even larger gains in fuel economy. Doesn’t seem like much? Imagine a fleet of 100 class 8 vehicles running an average 120,000 miles per year at an average 6.5 mpg with diesel fuel at $4.29 a gallon. Using those numbers, the fleet spends $7,920,000.00 on fuel annually. A switch to AMSOIL products improves the fleet’s mpg by 4 percent, reducing fuel costs to $7,603,200.00. That’s a savings of $316,800.00, enough for 73,846 gallons of fuel.  Read More

Waste Oil Disposal

Extended drain intervals also prevent the disposal of additional waste oil. Disposing of used oil is typically costly and barrels of used oil take up a great deal of space in the shop. A fleet of 60 vehicles using conventional oil and conventional oil change intervals produces 1,080 gallons of waste oil every year. By switching to AMSOIL, that same fleet would produce only 360 gallons of waste oil per year. Less waste oil means lower disposal costs, more shop

space and a cleaner environment.

Money Saved

The most important aspect of these benefits is that they save businesses money. Better fuel economy, reduced maintenance, longer lasting equipment, less money spent on oil and less waste oil all provide significant savings.

 

 

See how switching to AMSOIL has saved one company tens of thousands of dollars per year.

 

 Guardian Pest Control is a family-owned and operated firm located in Duluth, Minn. The company offers programs and services to residential, commercial and industrial clients that include integrated pest management, organic pest management, rodent control, bird management and many more. Guardian’s fleet of over 60 vehicles provides service to urban and rural areas in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and the eastern Dakotas. The varied levels of severe service Guardian’s trucks face on a daily basis made them an obvious choice for a field study. Using conventional petroleum oil and conventional oil drain intervals, changing oil in its entire fleet cost Guardian $11,505.60 per year, not counting labor. After switching to AMSOIL synthetic motor oils, changing oil in the same fleet costs Guardian only $7,659.00 per year, without labor. That’s a savings of $3,846.60 per year on oil costs alone. The Gasoline Engine Case Study With Guardian Pest Control (G2244) provides details on the study and demonstrates how switching to AMSOIL Synthetic Motor Oils has saved Guardian Pest control tens of thousands of dollars on a yearly basis.