Fact and fiction on intercooler/aftercooler design
12-17-2005, 09:18 PM
#46
Developer
To put intercoolers in series is actually to re-introduce new, cold fluid again half way down the cooler.
Consider that the greatest efficiency occurs when there is the greatest temperature differential. That would be in the first few inches of the intercooler - when the air is at its hottest and the water is at its coolest.
But - if the intercooler is long (instead of wide) the air and the water get closer and closer to matching temp (Zero efficiency)
So - the idea of two intercoolers in series is a good one (if you have the space for it) because you get to add fresh cold water again and start all over...
Consider that the greatest efficiency occurs when there is the greatest temperature differential. That would be in the first few inches of the intercooler - when the air is at its hottest and the water is at its coolest.
But - if the intercooler is long (instead of wide) the air and the water get closer and closer to matching temp (Zero efficiency)
So - the idea of two intercoolers in series is a good one (if you have the space for it) because you get to add fresh cold water again and start all over...
12-17-2005, 11:01 PM
#47
Nordschleife Master
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Not close enough to VIR.
Posts: 9,429
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Sorry, I meant heat exchangers. You have the pump on one side and the heat exchanger on the other. If you're concerned about the flow and capacity of the heat exchanger, why not add a second one next to the pump? Would that be overkill with no benefit for regular use?
12-18-2005, 10:15 AM
#48
Developer
If you had room for two heat exchangers - or if you do not have room for a large enough primary heat exchanger - I'd do two heat exchangers - sure.
The rule of thumb is to have more sq in of surface area in your heat exchanger than you do in your intercooler. Then (all else being equal) you can get rid of the heat faster than you can soak it up.
If you succeed at that - you have just made a refringerator! (But one that uses water and not freon) If you have ever moved a 'fridge and seen the entire back of it is covered in tubing and fins... yet the cooler witih the box is small. Good example of being able to dissipate more heat than it can even take in.
But - the 928 is a little tight for room.
If you hang all this stuff in front of the radiator, then you feed your radiator and (oil cooler within it) hot air.... I did not like the sound of that. We went to just behind-the-headlights with ours in order to get cool fresh air.
The water pump fits behind the headlight on one side, the heat exchanger on the other. BUT - you still have to allow the headlight to swing up and down.... there is not as much room there as you might think.
But fortunately - we get a large heat exchanger in there (see picture above) that allows us to get it done with just one heat exchanger and not two.
The rule of thumb is to have more sq in of surface area in your heat exchanger than you do in your intercooler. Then (all else being equal) you can get rid of the heat faster than you can soak it up.
If you succeed at that - you have just made a refringerator! (But one that uses water and not freon) If you have ever moved a 'fridge and seen the entire back of it is covered in tubing and fins... yet the cooler witih the box is small. Good example of being able to dissipate more heat than it can even take in.
But - the 928 is a little tight for room.
If you hang all this stuff in front of the radiator, then you feed your radiator and (oil cooler within it) hot air.... I did not like the sound of that. We went to just behind-the-headlights with ours in order to get cool fresh air.
The water pump fits behind the headlight on one side, the heat exchanger on the other. BUT - you still have to allow the headlight to swing up and down.... there is not as much room there as you might think.
But fortunately - we get a large heat exchanger in there (see picture above) that allows us to get it done with just one heat exchanger and not two.
12-18-2005, 10:27 AM
#49
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 716
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now just hold on a minute here. I don't disagree that the AW can perform, but you have to look at the whole picture. With the AW system, you have the heated charge air that heats up the aluminum and copper core which is in direct contact with the water on the other side. Heat transfer here is great...but the issue is the water is simply a holding mechanism for the heat...not the end place where you dump the heat. In offshore racing, air to water is a clear winner, because the ocean or lake is besically an infinite supply of very cold water. Back to the closed loop system, because this is what we are talking about here right? Unless some of you are tanking 100 gallons of ice water behind the car.
So the first step, you have stored the heat in the water....now you pump it to the front of the car for unload to atmosphere. Here the water must heat the aluminum or copper and then the ambient air must take the heat away....this is the final point of heat dump. Claiming that the water pulls the heat out faster and this makes the system more efficient is meaningless in this example...because you have to re-exchange it again at the front of the car...a two step heat transfer process. The statement does hold true for air to water where the water is the end dump point for the heat. No arguement there. Closed loop a/w the liquid is just used to move the heat....it is not the point of final heat dump.
So, let's say both your heat exchangers operate at 85% efficiency on the a/w and you have a properly sized a/a system that operates at 80%. We can assume the air to air here is 80%, but you have to look at the efficiency of each heat exchanger on the A/W system...Ntot=Ni*N2. 0.85*0.85=0.72. So in this case you have two intercoolers being compared with two higher efficient exchangers on a two step process, and the other with a lower efficiency one step process. The single step here is the superior setup. Of course this is just an example.
In the closed loop a/w system you have to realize that the water is nothing more than a storage point for the heat for unload to atmosphere through yet another heat exchanger. For this reason the properly sized air to air is more efficient. If you could get 100% heat transfer from the liquid to the metal in both exchangers then it would be higher efficiency...but 100% is not possible.
Now, there are benefits to a/w. It has a smaller build, potentially lower pressure drop. Those are the two I can think of. The negatives are lower efficiency, specifically when run hard for long periods of time, and more complex. A water leak on an a/w system could be very bad.
As I stated earlier, Bell suggests a best effort closed loop A/W IC system will offer 65% efficiency. Typical proper A/W can yield 75+% all day long.
Long pipes are nothing to worry about. The majority of losses come from the roughness on the walls of the pipe. In the case of the Goldmember, I installed 12 psig springs in the wastegates. The car would make 10 psig most of the time, unless it was really hot outside. 2 psig across the system including the large A/W intercooler.
Those pacific NW photos are neat. I can say my new system will look absolutely nothing like that. Did anybody ever get specs on the output of that car?
So the first step, you have stored the heat in the water....now you pump it to the front of the car for unload to atmosphere. Here the water must heat the aluminum or copper and then the ambient air must take the heat away....this is the final point of heat dump. Claiming that the water pulls the heat out faster and this makes the system more efficient is meaningless in this example...because you have to re-exchange it again at the front of the car...a two step heat transfer process. The statement does hold true for air to water where the water is the end dump point for the heat. No arguement there. Closed loop a/w the liquid is just used to move the heat....it is not the point of final heat dump.
So, let's say both your heat exchangers operate at 85% efficiency on the a/w and you have a properly sized a/a system that operates at 80%. We can assume the air to air here is 80%, but you have to look at the efficiency of each heat exchanger on the A/W system...Ntot=Ni*N2. 0.85*0.85=0.72. So in this case you have two intercoolers being compared with two higher efficient exchangers on a two step process, and the other with a lower efficiency one step process. The single step here is the superior setup. Of course this is just an example.
In the closed loop a/w system you have to realize that the water is nothing more than a storage point for the heat for unload to atmosphere through yet another heat exchanger. For this reason the properly sized air to air is more efficient. If you could get 100% heat transfer from the liquid to the metal in both exchangers then it would be higher efficiency...but 100% is not possible.
Now, there are benefits to a/w. It has a smaller build, potentially lower pressure drop. Those are the two I can think of. The negatives are lower efficiency, specifically when run hard for long periods of time, and more complex. A water leak on an a/w system could be very bad.
As I stated earlier, Bell suggests a best effort closed loop A/W IC system will offer 65% efficiency. Typical proper A/W can yield 75+% all day long.
Long pipes are nothing to worry about. The majority of losses come from the roughness on the walls of the pipe. In the case of the Goldmember, I installed 12 psig springs in the wastegates. The car would make 10 psig most of the time, unless it was really hot outside. 2 psig across the system including the large A/W intercooler.
Those pacific NW photos are neat. I can say my new system will look absolutely nothing like that. Did anybody ever get specs on the output of that car?
12-18-2005, 03:17 PM
#50
Developer
It seems that the folks at Bell Intercooler disagree with you, John.
(They make our intercoolers to my specs for us)
Here is a quote from their site:
Both systems (A2A and A2W) ultimately dump heat to atmosphere. Their ultimate exchange rate is affected by whatever the ambient temperature is that day.
Offshore racers use A2W because the ocean water is much colder than the air in summer. It is the colder medium.
The quick-and-dirty method of intercooler measurement is:
Efficiency = Temp Removed / Temp Added
For example: If the ambient temperature is 80 degrees, and the temp at the intercooler inlet is (Temp In) is 190 degrees, then the supercharger has raised the temp of the air by 110 degrees (Temp Added). If at the outlet the temperature has been reduced to 110 degrees (Temp Out) then it has removed 80 degrees (Temp Removed). In this example, the efficiency is :
Efficiency = 80 / 110 = .727, or 73%
I have temperature sensors before-and-after the intercooler to measure temp of air in and air out. That example above is from my race car log, and those measurements were made after many contiguous laps. If I take one hot lap and come in, I have recorded intercooler efficiency as high as 90% - but that's only because the water system had not heat-soaked yet.
(They make our intercoolers to my specs for us)
Here is a quote from their site:
What ranges of efficiency can be expected from an intercooler?
A typical air-to-air intercooler for a street application achieves between 60% and 70% efficiency, an excellent/optimum design for road racing can approach close to 90% efficiency, but requires an adequate "budget!”
Typically, a liquid-to-air intercooler achieves higher efficiencies than an air-to-air intercooler, starting at 75% efficiency and reaching peaks of 95% efficiency. Another advantage is the optional use of ice as a coolant, which is the only way to reduce the charge-air temperature below the ambient air temperature.
A typical air-to-air intercooler for a street application achieves between 60% and 70% efficiency, an excellent/optimum design for road racing can approach close to 90% efficiency, but requires an adequate "budget!”
Typically, a liquid-to-air intercooler achieves higher efficiencies than an air-to-air intercooler, starting at 75% efficiency and reaching peaks of 95% efficiency. Another advantage is the optional use of ice as a coolant, which is the only way to reduce the charge-air temperature below the ambient air temperature.
Both systems (A2A and A2W) ultimately dump heat to atmosphere. Their ultimate exchange rate is affected by whatever the ambient temperature is that day.
Offshore racers use A2W because the ocean water is much colder than the air in summer. It is the colder medium.
The quick-and-dirty method of intercooler measurement is:
Efficiency = Temp Removed / Temp Added
For example: If the ambient temperature is 80 degrees, and the temp at the intercooler inlet is (Temp In) is 190 degrees, then the supercharger has raised the temp of the air by 110 degrees (Temp Added). If at the outlet the temperature has been reduced to 110 degrees (Temp Out) then it has removed 80 degrees (Temp Removed). In this example, the efficiency is :
Efficiency = 80 / 110 = .727, or 73%
I have temperature sensors before-and-after the intercooler to measure temp of air in and air out. That example above is from my race car log, and those measurements were made after many contiguous laps. If I take one hot lap and come in, I have recorded intercooler efficiency as high as 90% - but that's only because the water system had not heat-soaked yet.
12-18-2005, 04:32 PM
#51
Developer
Long pipes are nothing to worry about. The majority of losses come from the roughness on the walls of the pipe.
There is a pressure loss even in a straight piece of pipe/hose/tube, caused by the boundry layer of the fluid dragging on the inner wall of the pipe/hose/tube.
For most automotive applications, the losses are so much greater at weld fillets and hose connections and elbows in the system that they are measured and focused on. The losses in a straight run of pipe are so small when you are running from the front of the motor to the back of the motor that nobody bothers to compute them.
But - from the back of the car (rear-mounted turbo) all the way to the front? Now I think the run is long enough that it will be a factor. I expect a significant pressure drop from the turbo of a rear-mounted turbo to the engine.
That alone does not meen that the development of the RMT should stop. Hell no. If they can reliably generate 4-5 psi at the engine with good throittle response and driveability, its still a successful install.
This is not to
12-18-2005, 10:46 PM
#52
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 716
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure that efficiency statement is based on chilling the water down, not based on a closed loop system running full tilt. Not pratical for a street car and there is no way any of these closed loop systems make sustained 90+%. Gerhard and Corky also build my charge coolers. Here is a statement right off of the Bell Website.
"How can an air-to-air intercooler be more efficient than a water based intercooler?
There is an overwhelming quantity of ambient air available to cool an air-to-air core relative to the charge air thru the inside of the intercooler (The iced down water intercooler is the only exception to this argument.). At just 60 mph, with a 300 bhp engine at full tilt, the ambient air available to cool the intercooler is about ten times the amount of charge air needed to make the 300 hp. Whereas the water intercooler largely stores the heat in the water until off throttle allows a reverse exchange. Some heat is expelled from a front water cooler, but the temperature difference between the water and ambient air is not large enough to drive out much heat. Another way to view the situation is that ultimately the heat removed from the air charge must go into the atmosphere regardless of whether it's from an air intercooler or a water based intercooler. The problem with the water intercooler is that the heat has more barriers to cross to reach the atmosphere than the air intercooler. Like it or not, each barrier represents a resistance to the transfer of heat. The net result; more barriers, less heat transfer"
I believe this confirms what I said earlier. I put a lot of faith into Bell's statements. Today, his text and work is long standing and he is quoted everywhere. He also serves as an expert in a lot of lawsuit cases. 30+ years of experience and still going strong. I beleive the 90% statement needs clarification on their site. Also remember, he builds both types of coolers and tha A/W has gained popularity because A/W based coolers are easier to fit. Afterall, it is a business, right? I'd build both as well!
All that piping and the negativity surrounding it is an old wives tale. The turbocharger can fill up that space very quickly. In fact, I have calculated th intake path on the twin turbo cars at over 700 cubic inches. One would think you could never fill it all up to make boost. Not so, the mass flow rate out of the turbo is very high and it fills that volume up in no time flat. I also can't agree with the 1 psi pressure drop for every elbow. Studied a lot of fluid mechanics and have even written some CFD programs myself. It is all based on the type of flow and the losses surrounding the type of tubing. The bends don't account for nearly as much as you might think. In fact most fluid mechanics texts will tell you that losses due to curves and transitions fall into the category of minor losses. Most times the major losses are associated with longer pipes, this is true. Still, you have to do what you have to do to make it fit and every application is different and unique. Pressure losses are a function of the reynolds number and many other factors. It takes quite a while to analyze an entire piping system. Quicker to just build it and measure the drops.
To figure it all out you have to look at things like the Reynolds number, Colebrook Formula and/or the Moody Chart. There is no way to make a definitive statement without looking at every example in depth. In my case, there were a lot of bends and I can tell you there was no more than 2 or so psig across the system...system being exit of compressor to intake manifold. That is totally acceptable given what the car is used for.
"How can an air-to-air intercooler be more efficient than a water based intercooler?
There is an overwhelming quantity of ambient air available to cool an air-to-air core relative to the charge air thru the inside of the intercooler (The iced down water intercooler is the only exception to this argument.). At just 60 mph, with a 300 bhp engine at full tilt, the ambient air available to cool the intercooler is about ten times the amount of charge air needed to make the 300 hp. Whereas the water intercooler largely stores the heat in the water until off throttle allows a reverse exchange. Some heat is expelled from a front water cooler, but the temperature difference between the water and ambient air is not large enough to drive out much heat. Another way to view the situation is that ultimately the heat removed from the air charge must go into the atmosphere regardless of whether it's from an air intercooler or a water based intercooler. The problem with the water intercooler is that the heat has more barriers to cross to reach the atmosphere than the air intercooler. Like it or not, each barrier represents a resistance to the transfer of heat. The net result; more barriers, less heat transfer"
I believe this confirms what I said earlier. I put a lot of faith into Bell's statements. Today, his text and work is long standing and he is quoted everywhere. He also serves as an expert in a lot of lawsuit cases. 30+ years of experience and still going strong. I beleive the 90% statement needs clarification on their site. Also remember, he builds both types of coolers and tha A/W has gained popularity because A/W based coolers are easier to fit. Afterall, it is a business, right? I'd build both as well!
All that piping and the negativity surrounding it is an old wives tale. The turbocharger can fill up that space very quickly. In fact, I have calculated th intake path on the twin turbo cars at over 700 cubic inches. One would think you could never fill it all up to make boost. Not so, the mass flow rate out of the turbo is very high and it fills that volume up in no time flat. I also can't agree with the 1 psi pressure drop for every elbow. Studied a lot of fluid mechanics and have even written some CFD programs myself. It is all based on the type of flow and the losses surrounding the type of tubing. The bends don't account for nearly as much as you might think. In fact most fluid mechanics texts will tell you that losses due to curves and transitions fall into the category of minor losses. Most times the major losses are associated with longer pipes, this is true. Still, you have to do what you have to do to make it fit and every application is different and unique. Pressure losses are a function of the reynolds number and many other factors. It takes quite a while to analyze an entire piping system. Quicker to just build it and measure the drops.
To figure it all out you have to look at things like the Reynolds number, Colebrook Formula and/or the Moody Chart. There is no way to make a definitive statement without looking at every example in depth. In my case, there were a lot of bends and I can tell you there was no more than 2 or so psig across the system...system being exit of compressor to intake manifold. That is totally acceptable given what the car is used for.
12-18-2005, 11:43 PM
#53
Captain Obvious
Super User
Super User
I understand how in the AW IC, the heat has to be transfered over multiple mediums, but water has 100s of times the ability to transfer heat when compared to the AA IC. This has to count for alot. You can achive the same temp drops in both systems, but with the AW the heat exchanger infront of the rad would be fraction of the size when compared to an AA IC. What if the AW heat exchanger is another radiator sized unit? That shold be more than enough to bring the cooling system near ambient.
For a turbo system to have 2 psi drop at only 12psi is quiet a bit. I know you didn't have much choice on the pipe routing for the Goldmemeber build, but for a turbo, this much loss is quiet a bit.
For a turbo system to have 2 psi drop at only 12psi is quiet a bit. I know you didn't have much choice on the pipe routing for the Goldmemeber build, but for a turbo, this much loss is quiet a bit.
12-18-2005, 11:57 PM
#54
Addict
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Green Bay Wisconsin
Posts: 951
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Imo000
I understand how in the AW IC, the heat has to be transfered over multiple mediums, but water has 100s of times the ability to transfer heat when compared to the AA IC. This has to count for alot. You can achive the same temp drops in both systems, but with the AW the heat exchanger infront of the rad would be fraction of the size when compared to an AA IC. What if the AW heat exchanger is another radiator sized unit? That shold be more than enough to bring the cooling system near ambient.
For a turbo system to have 2 psi drop at only 12psi is quiet a bit. I know you didn't have much choice on the pipe routing for the Goldmemeber build, but for a turbo, this much loss is quiet a bit.
For a turbo system to have 2 psi drop at only 12psi is quiet a bit. I know you didn't have much choice on the pipe routing for the Goldmemeber build, but for a turbo, this much loss is quiet a bit.
AW is perfect for the street given the time the media has to recover through the smaller radiator. This is a very efficient system. On the track?? My first thought would be AA because I would be concerned with heat soak of the AW system. I could be proven wrong if someone were to test and document the specifics of an AW system. I think Carl has done some of this already.
12-19-2005, 12:00 AM
#55
Nordschleife Master
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Not close enough to VIR.
Posts: 9,429
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
The big advantage I see in AWICs is that you can put them anywhere you want. You can install more than one. You can increase the size. The piping is smaller and easier to route. And you can change all of that without running lots of big pipe to a big intercooler risking an increase in pressure drop.
12-19-2005, 12:03 AM
#56
Nordschleife Master
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Not close enough to VIR.
Posts: 9,429
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by Tim Murphy
My first thought would be AA because I would be concerned with heat soak of the AW system. I could be proven wrong if someone were to test and document the specifics of an AW system. I think Carl has done some of this already.
12-19-2005, 10:40 AM
#57
Rennlist Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Here is some info and photo on the new "SuperCooler" Intercooler that is planned to be used on the 2007 Ford Lightning pickup (BTW, which has always had the intercooler in the V of the engine with no issues just like OEM SC installs from GM, Ford, Jag, MB, Nissan, Land Rover and many, many more). You can also see from the photo it uses a dual cold ram air system (via the hood)... no sucking of hot air from under the hood like some aftermarket systems do.
*******
Designer John Coletti’s team fit the SVT Lightning concept with an all-aluminum, 5.4-liter DOHC supercharged and intercooled V-8 engine conservatively rated at 500 horsepower and 500 foot pounds of torque. And while they were at it, they invented and patented a speed secret for those times when even that much power just isn’t enough. Ford’s patented SuperCooler technology cleverly provides a special burst of power for the SVT Lightning concept. Traditional intercoolers dissipate heat from the supercharged air by circulating coolant through a front-mounted, air-cooled radiator. With the SuperCooler system, the vehicle’s air conditioning system is used to chill a small storage tank of coolant to about 30 degrees Fahrenheit. On demand, the SuperCooler system switches the intercooler flow from its normal circulation and dumps the chilled coolant into the engine’s intercooler. In turn, the intercooler dissipates up to 20 percent more heat from the charge air – resulting in a denser air charge.
*****
Additional Comments from Motor Trend Article:
Although sources within SVT say this system can deliver 50 transient horsepower per 30-45-second burst, experts in the supercharging realm claim the system could actually boost output by 75-100 horsepower under the right conditions.
The SuperCooler is surprisingly easy to use: When the green lamp illuminates on the dash (indicating the system is ready), just mash the throttle to the floor and the refrigerated coolant floods the intercooler for a nitrous-oxide effect, without the environmental hazards of laughing gas.
******
*******
Designer John Coletti’s team fit the SVT Lightning concept with an all-aluminum, 5.4-liter DOHC supercharged and intercooled V-8 engine conservatively rated at 500 horsepower and 500 foot pounds of torque. And while they were at it, they invented and patented a speed secret for those times when even that much power just isn’t enough. Ford’s patented SuperCooler technology cleverly provides a special burst of power for the SVT Lightning concept. Traditional intercoolers dissipate heat from the supercharged air by circulating coolant through a front-mounted, air-cooled radiator. With the SuperCooler system, the vehicle’s air conditioning system is used to chill a small storage tank of coolant to about 30 degrees Fahrenheit. On demand, the SuperCooler system switches the intercooler flow from its normal circulation and dumps the chilled coolant into the engine’s intercooler. In turn, the intercooler dissipates up to 20 percent more heat from the charge air – resulting in a denser air charge.
*****
Additional Comments from Motor Trend Article:
Although sources within SVT say this system can deliver 50 transient horsepower per 30-45-second burst, experts in the supercharging realm claim the system could actually boost output by 75-100 horsepower under the right conditions.
The SuperCooler is surprisingly easy to use: When the green lamp illuminates on the dash (indicating the system is ready), just mash the throttle to the floor and the refrigerated coolant floods the intercooler for a nitrous-oxide effect, without the environmental hazards of laughing gas.
******
__________________
David Roberts
2010 Jaguar XKR Coupe - 510HP Stock - Liquid Silver Metallic
928 Owners Club Co-Founder
Rennlist 928 Forum Main Sponsor
www.928gt.com
928 Specialists on Facebook - 928Specialists
Sharks in the Mountains on Facebook - 928SITM
David Roberts
2010 Jaguar XKR Coupe - 510HP Stock - Liquid Silver Metallic
928 Owners Club Co-Founder
Rennlist 928 Forum Main Sponsor
www.928gt.com
928 Specialists on Facebook - 928Specialists
Sharks in the Mountains on Facebook - 928SITM
Last edited by DR; 12-19-2005 at 11:13 AM.
12-19-2005, 11:17 AM
#58
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Clearwater Beach, Florida
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tim Murphy
Right on AW is perfect for the street given the time the media has to recover through the smaller radiator. This is a very efficient system. On the track?? My first thought would be AA because I would be concerned with heat soak of the AW system. I could be proven wrong if someone were to test and document the specifics of an AW system. I think Carl has done some of this already.
AW is perfect for the street given the time the media has to recover through the smaller radiator. This is a very efficient system. On the track?? My first thought would be AA because I would be concerned with heat soak of the AW system. I could be proven wrong if someone were to test and document the specifics of an AW system. I think Carl has done some of this already.
12-19-2005, 11:17 AM
#59
Rennlist Member
Dave Lomus turned me on to this site http://www.absoluteradiator.com/Intercoolers.asp. Does anyone have pics of this type of hardware installed.
12-19-2005, 11:30 AM
#60
Rennlist Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Hi Tarek,
>One of my projects is an A/W system..
Yes, I know as I have seen your intercooler and its a "BIG UN" :-)
>.and I'm concerned with heat soaking in hot Florida at low speeds or in traffic.
>Does anyone have input or data on A/W systems in hot climates?
For a "normal" person at low speeds and/or in traffic you would not be "on boost" or running hard enough for it to really matter... Keep in mind I said a "normal" person and I have seen how you drive in traffic so this it may not apply to you :-) Come to think of it now I understand why you are getting such a big A/W intercooler!
>One of my projects is an A/W system..
Yes, I know as I have seen your intercooler and its a "BIG UN" :-)
>.and I'm concerned with heat soaking in hot Florida at low speeds or in traffic.
>Does anyone have input or data on A/W systems in hot climates?
For a "normal" person at low speeds and/or in traffic you would not be "on boost" or running hard enough for it to really matter... Keep in mind I said a "normal" person and I have seen how you drive in traffic so this it may not apply to you :-) Come to think of it now I understand why you are getting such a big A/W intercooler!