AO

Ryan-
I believe one of the enticements about the Raptor SCer is that it's oil is self-contained, whereas on the Vortech, you need to plumb it in. I cannot say if one is better than the other. The Raptor may help to bring the cost of the kits down a bit which is a plus, but they are hardly "proven" in the real world - although Carl seems to have confidence in them.

RyanPerrella

Thank you Andrew for answering my simple question. The question wasnt meant as any type of insult, there was nothing behind the question. I do think the name is silly though.

Russ,

Please dont feel the need to continue to post immediately after all of my posts. If you dont like my opinion, you can click to ignore me and you wont see my posts. Of course your free to your opinion as am I, but I am not going to continue to go back and forth with you. I am not addressing only you.

Cheers

Z

The majority of the intercooler water is stored outside the engine compartment, so that reservoir of it is not directly exposed to underhood heat. The water does get pumped through the intercooler that's in the engine compartment though, so would pick up some heat there, just like the fuel picks up some heat from getting constantly circulated through the fuel rails and back to the tank. The outside of the intercooler that's exposed to the underhood heat has a relatively low surface area to absorb heat. As long as the heat exchanger is able to remove that heat faster than the outside of the intercooler can absorb it, the water will stay cool. If you open the hood after a drive, the intercooler will be the coolest thing in the engine compartment.

There is some degree of heat that is being absorbed by the intercooler, and unnecessarily having to be removed by the heat exchanger. Since I can get kind of obsessive about that kind of stuff, I like the idea of insulating the outside of the intercooler. The top of the intercooler is already pretty much insulated by the foam pad on the bottom of the hood when it's closed, so the only parts really exposed to any underhood temperatures would be the bottom and sides. Some of that stick on reflective type insulation on the sides and bottom of the intercooler would give me one less thing to think about, even if it didn't really make any significant difference.

With the air-air you have an unlimited supply of something that's a poor thermal conductor, and doesn't absorb much heat. On the other hand, with the air-water you have a finite supply of something that's a great thermal conductor and absorbs a very large amount of heat. No system is perfect though. If I had a race car I'd be thinking about 3 gallons of water weighing around 24lbs. I think that some racers would cut off their right arm to save 24lbs if they didn't need that arm to shift with.

I think Tim really gets the most enjoyment out of the encounters with sport bikes because they expect it less.
Sportbike rider ->
Tim->

OrionKhan

I'm curious why you would need a supercharger when you hit 202 mph without one back in August...


https://rennlist.com/forums/the-abyss/374108-202-mph.html
<<Just to let all know,
I managed to hit 202 mph today on the disused air strip. Used Millers Octane CVL Booster with 99 RON, Nitros Fuel Additive and Custom ECU Upgrade.

I crossed referenced the speedometer with 2 x GPS Speed Trackers and both of them simultaneously read 202 mph. The speedometer is still stuck at the maximum allowed.

My main worry was a blow out but all tyres held up well (Porsche N Rated). The S4 was very stable even at this speed and it felt it could do more but the runaway came to an end abruptly.

This was pure madness but now I know what a 928 really is.

Warning:

Don't try this without proper supervision and safety!
__________________
Syed Rahman
Middlesex, United Kingdom
syed.786@btinternet.com
>>

That was a classic thread...

RyanPerrella

YES GOOD POINT, thanks for bringing that back up Wade, i forgot about this

maybe he is shooting for 300 mph?

OrionKhan

You're probably right. A SC with that snake oil he was pimping would probably be good for at least 300 mph...

RyanPerrella

if not 3,000 MPH

Lizard928

Z I know you arent the average fellow on the board, but I think that you are forgetting something here.

yes water has a better thermal transfer efficency, BUT couple of points.

A air water IC system is abit more compact and can make for shorter tubing.
Water can pull more heat out of the intake charge, but the heat it pulls out MUST be cooled back down.
To cool the water you go back to the outside air which is as you state "a poor thermal conductor" every heat transfer you make you loose efficency in the system, so by having 3 different items having 2 different heat transfers, it will be inherantly less efficent than having 2 items with 1 heat transfer taking place.

That said on a car that is driven in the city an air water imo is better. For a track car or a car that only sees boost when really moving, ie having a high air flow over the IC, the air air unit is far more efficent at extracting heat. That said if you can get 85% efficency out of ANY IC then you are doing damn good.

Though I would be keen on seeing some efficency # on the different ICs used in the different boosted applications.

And for those that arent familiar with IC efficency
if ambient air was 0 deg C, a 100% efficent IC should have the intake charge being 0 deg C regardless of temp of air going in.
Again if ambient temp was 0 C, and charge temp out of SC/Turbo was 100 C the charge leaving the IC would be 15 C on an 85% efficent unit.

Again I think they both have there uses and depend on how and where the car is driven. Stop, and go, and slow speed stuff air/water is more commonly found. For cars which are driven at higher speeds, or want a more efficent IC then air/air is the way to go.

I personally will be going with air air when I finish my project.

RyanPerrella

this is getting stupid now

Look, the idea that water is a better thermal conductor then air is not a theory, not a myth, not an idea, its a scientific fact. Plain and simple! So there should be no arguement.

Do you not understand the scientific method?

Lizard928

Wow, thats all I can say to you Ryan.

I have agreed that water is a better thermal conductor. BUT you have to cool the water with AIR, which as you say is a HORRIBLE thermal conductor. And you are as strong as your WEAKEST LINK.

And with regards to a comment Jim Novak made, the only way you can get any type of an IC system below ambient is with an A/C system, ice etc. a standard air water IC system will NEVER get bellow ambient on its own.

RyanPerrella

LOOK DUDE!

When you compress air it heats up, i think we all get that.

so now you have your intercooler core which will loose it heat to the aluminum fins of the intercooler core. So now the heat is transfered from the hot air to the aluminum core which now creates charged air thats not as hot, but its byproduct is now more energy in the aluminum core which can only store so much so it now needs to be cooled.

So now the aluminum intercooler has water going through it at a fairly slow rate and it can more effectively bring that aluminum core down down in temprature because that energy is absorbed by the water.

Now the water goes into another core, now cooled by the open ambient air. This is to now keep this warmer water closer to ambient which it does by means of this other radiator. But this radiator more quickly heats up because the water can loose its temps more quickly to the core because of its greater thermal conductivity. This works both ways. Like how a piece of aluminum will heat up quicker and cool faster then a piece of iron. This is the same principle that occurs with the comparison of water to air. So yes you need two cores, but because water can transfer heat at something like 14 times the rate that air can, its simply more effective. It can be done in a smaller space but often at the cost of complexity. But the principle is that it is just more effective.

Just simply look at the size of the components and you have the answer right there.


This is scientific fact!

I don't care what you like or prefer, if you like air to air cool. But don't get on this board and tell me that air to air is more efficient. Because that is just nonsense, and stop your half thought out theories and made up in your head experiments trying to dispute these facts.

Look, this is getting to be another turbo vs supercharger thread. I did not say tht any one way is always better than the other. My arguements stemmed from james-man telling enzo "not to nit pick, but your wrong" when he made the point that cold water is more effective at cooling the human body then being in a freezer at the same temprature.

Have you ever gotten a high fever and the doctor tells you to get in a bath tub full of ice water? He tells you that because its more effective then sticking your body in the freezer. This is all very simple, i dont know why some of you guys are trying to dispute these things.

each system has its pro's and con's just as supercharging and turbo charging can lead to endless discussion, so apparently can this. I am bored with the subject now. This isnt going anywhere and i am tired of typing the same response over and over.

Do what you like to your car, use an air to air core, use a water core, i dont really care anymore. But dont expect to come on and say that air is a better means of cooling something then water is, maybe under some restrictions you can claim that. But in general that is just not the case. Now with each setup, it creates its own parameters that you need to adhere to, and based on those objectives that you need to fill, an air to air core maybe best suited to your design or an air to water or whatever you decide. No one is better in all scenarios. But its clear as day to me, that water is a better medium for cooling then is air. Simple as that.

largecar379

What I think we all are missing here is the actual intake temperature between the supercharger (or turbocharger) and the intake ports, and what it takes to cool it (to a lower temp).

I have yet to see a actual temp numbers presented......(here)?

Once you have the temp numbers (both with each type of cooler, air, water, and none at all), you can then proceed to design/fabricate a cooler that will fit your particular application that will give you the cooler temps that we are looking for.


anyone care to take a stab at this?

--Russ

Lizard928

Lets settle this with information from a longer standing company and someone in the business.

qouted from
http://www.procharger.com/intercooled.shtml

OK we have all agreed on that.

KACHING there is the money answer in one short answer to match the efficency of air/air IC with and air/water IC you NEED ice, or something BELOW ambient temps. Even then you are not increasing its efficency, you are simply lowering its working temp range.

Another good thing to note about air/water systems, though they can be very reliable and leak free for long periods of time.

So please Ryan dont make comments telling people that I have half thought out theories, and that what I am saying is nonsence. In the same environment a PROPERLY setup air/air system is MORE efficent than a PROPERLY setup air/water system.

The site I referenced is NOT the only source for proving this information either.

And the REASON that air/air will always be more efficent when compairing two PROPERLY setup systems is that you only have 1 transfer of heat.

And alot of race cars use air/water systems as they can put alot of ice into the resevior when they pit.
But some guys with air air systems have spray systems which under heavy boost mist a cold substance onto the IC.

largecar379

Liz---

did you mean to say air to air is more reliable and not prone to leak?

In hope so.....as I can tell you from my data that water based coolers are prone to leakage, while air coolers are not (mileage figures and data are available anytime someone wants them......). In fact, I have never had an air cooler failure due to leakage, but have had several water coolers go bad at 350,000 miles. It makes a really big mess with the engine cooling system--

I still think someone needs to present the temp numbers and go from there......

--Russ

Lizard928

Russ, what I said was correct and doesnt need a correction.

I was simply running off the quote, the quote says they are less reliable because they can have pump failures and water leaks in the system. I was simply saying they can be made to be reliable, you have to watch the running hours on the pump and replace it when it has alot of hours on it, the water system can hold water reliably but everything needs to be mounted properly and hoses need to be replaced when worn. But they CAN be reliable systems too given scheduled maintenance.