My new intercooler!
07-02-2004, 02:48 PM
#31
Rennlist Member
So Tony
What your saying is that if you don't change the Intercooler / and Head(?)
Top end ?
Then, the improvements made to the intake wont really be a benefit ?
Thanks
Ed
What your saying is that if you don't change the Intercooler / and Head(?)
Top end ?
Then, the improvements made to the intake wont really be a benefit ?
Thanks
Ed
07-02-2004, 07:28 PM
#32
Pro
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Boden, Sweden
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You would be much better off, with less pressure drop, installing the core in such a way that you are feeding the largest quantity of core.. not the longest length core.
With the rows this way you will have a higher pressure drop but a better cooling efficiency. If you build it the other way with many short tubes you will have lower pressure drop but worse cooling efficiency.
You pick and choose which you prefer....
Tomas
07-03-2004, 01:19 AM
#34
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
The most important part of this thread is the fact that Tony G is back! Tony, I want to that your past posts for helping decide to do a 27/6. My car is fast as sh*t now with little lag.
07-03-2004, 01:39 AM
#35
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orangevale, CA. USA
Posts: 1,201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You would be much better off, with less pressure drop, installing the core in such a way that you are feeding the largest quantity of core.. not the longest length core.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with everything this is a compromise.
With the rows this way you will have a higher pressure drop but a better cooling efficiency. If you build it the other way with many short tubes you will have lower pressure drop but worse cooling efficiency.
You pick and choose which you prefer....
Tomas
Easy!!! the ladder...cooler air and just turn up the boost to compensate for the pressure drop....
TonyG ..what do you mean when you say this
"Also.. like the factory intercooler end take (the side feeding the intercooler), you should taper in a reverse radius the end take to distribute the air better...
also what do you think about Lindsey's stage I and II intercoolers? did they taper? I am looking to do modify my own intercooler and am open to ideas...I'll probably cut up the end tanks and go from there..any suggestions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You would be much better off, with less pressure drop, installing the core in such a way that you are feeding the largest quantity of core.. not the longest length core.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with everything this is a compromise.
With the rows this way you will have a higher pressure drop but a better cooling efficiency. If you build it the other way with many short tubes you will have lower pressure drop but worse cooling efficiency.
You pick and choose which you prefer....
Tomas
Easy!!! the ladder...cooler air and just turn up the boost to compensate for the pressure drop....
TonyG ..what do you mean when you say this
"Also.. like the factory intercooler end take (the side feeding the intercooler), you should taper in a reverse radius the end take to distribute the air better...
also what do you think about Lindsey's stage I and II intercoolers? did they taper? I am looking to do modify my own intercooler and am open to ideas...I'll probably cut up the end tanks and go from there..any suggestions?
07-03-2004, 02:59 AM
#37
Race Director
TONY G! Yeaahhhhh.....update us on where have you been and whats new? What car is parked in your garage these days??? You have been missed!
sorry for the hijack.
sorry for the hijack.
07-03-2004, 05:57 AM
#38
Rennlist Junkie Forever
Thomas L
>>As with everything this is a compromise.
With the rows this way you will have a higher pressure drop but a better cooling efficiency. If you build it the other way with many short tubes you will have lower pressure drop but worse cooling efficiency.
You pick and choose which you prefer....<<
Not really.
The intercooler serves a heat sink primarily.
Flipping the core around doesn't change the heat sink properties of the intercooler.
And the tiny bit of additional cooling (and we're talking small difference) is much more than offset by the drop in restriction across the intercooler.
Restriction, as mentioned in the above paragraph, produces heat by the simple fact that you have to run more boost out of the turbo, which heats up the air more, to get x amount of air through the intercooler.
Thus you're heating up the air more in the first place... much more, than the tiny bit of additional cooling benefits you receive by running the air though the core the long way.
You're alway better off, by far, building the intercooler in such a way that you maximize the quantity of "rows".
In this case.. it means flipping the core 90 degrees.. and putting the tanks on the top and bottom.
The reason you see intercoolers built the way the thead starter did, and the way most turbo kits do, is simply because it's easier to package into a car... That's the only reason.
TonyG
>>As with everything this is a compromise.
With the rows this way you will have a higher pressure drop but a better cooling efficiency. If you build it the other way with many short tubes you will have lower pressure drop but worse cooling efficiency.
You pick and choose which you prefer....<<
Not really.
The intercooler serves a heat sink primarily.
Flipping the core around doesn't change the heat sink properties of the intercooler.
And the tiny bit of additional cooling (and we're talking small difference) is much more than offset by the drop in restriction across the intercooler.
Restriction, as mentioned in the above paragraph, produces heat by the simple fact that you have to run more boost out of the turbo, which heats up the air more, to get x amount of air through the intercooler.
Thus you're heating up the air more in the first place... much more, than the tiny bit of additional cooling benefits you receive by running the air though the core the long way.
You're alway better off, by far, building the intercooler in such a way that you maximize the quantity of "rows".
In this case.. it means flipping the core 90 degrees.. and putting the tanks on the top and bottom.
The reason you see intercoolers built the way the thead starter did, and the way most turbo kits do, is simply because it's easier to package into a car... That's the only reason.
TonyG
07-03-2004, 06:01 AM
#39
Rennlist Junkie Forever
Darius Juca
Look at the end tank of the stock intercooler. It's not just a tank welded on... It's got a very specific shape.
It's shaped like that for a reason. (equal air distribution across the cores)
TonyG
Look at the end tank of the stock intercooler. It's not just a tank welded on... It's got a very specific shape.
It's shaped like that for a reason. (equal air distribution across the cores)
TonyG
07-03-2004, 06:06 AM
#41
Rennlist Junkie Forever
Crazy Eddie
You can have the best intake in the world... but if your intake / exhaust ports are stock, the cam is stock, cam timing stock, header stock... it's not going to do nearly as much as the same intake would do with a Millege head/cam/SFR header/free flowing turbine, etc....
And, with my red 951 (my old car now!), a fully ported stock intake made an additional 20+rwhp over a stock intake, same boost, no other changes.
However... off boost performance suffers as it will with any modification to the intake tract that increases the volumn of the intake runners or shortens the intake runners (general statement... not carved in stone!)
TonyG
You can have the best intake in the world... but if your intake / exhaust ports are stock, the cam is stock, cam timing stock, header stock... it's not going to do nearly as much as the same intake would do with a Millege head/cam/SFR header/free flowing turbine, etc....
And, with my red 951 (my old car now!), a fully ported stock intake made an additional 20+rwhp over a stock intake, same boost, no other changes.
However... off boost performance suffers as it will with any modification to the intake tract that increases the volumn of the intake runners or shortens the intake runners (general statement... not carved in stone!)
TonyG
07-03-2004, 07:56 AM
#43
Pro
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Boden, Sweden
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The intercooler serves a heat sink primarily.
Flipping the core around doesn't change the heat sink properties of the intercooler.
Flipping the core around doesn't change the heat sink properties of the intercooler.
Still for the row orientation that doesn't matter, fewer and longer rows will increase thermal efficiency. This is common knowledge in heat exchanger design, higher velocity through a heat exchanger gives higher thermal effciency at the cost of higher pressure drop. The velocity has a strong effect on ecciciency.
Yes, a higher pressure drop gives higher temperature in to the IC and it also increases turbine backpressure which reduces VE.
The point here is that without trying it on your specific application you can't state that one orientation is better than the other.
Tomas
Last edited by Tomas L; 07-03-2004 at 08:33 AM.
07-03-2004, 02:25 PM
#45
Rennlist Member
If I had a choice, I will always choose less pressure drop over more IC cooling effeciency. The power lost from excess pressure drop is more than the gain you will get from slightly higher cooling effeciency. The main reason for this is because when fuel gets injected it evaporates and takes heat with it. The more heat that's left after the IC has finished its job, the more heat will be taken out by the evaporating fuel. Therefore, even if there are differences in IC effeciency, by the time the cylinder sees the charge, the charge densities are not that much different. Obviously, this is only good up to a point. If it's a bad IC or no IC, there would be never enough fuel to take out enough heat.
That being said; if the IC is big enough, it wont matter which way the rows tranverse because the flow will always slow down enough for the least amount of pressure drop AND maximum cooling effeciency. Looks like this IC is nice and big!
Lag is a non issue. The less pressure drop will always make up for the fraction of a second that the turbo might take longer to make full boost.
That being said; if the IC is big enough, it wont matter which way the rows tranverse because the flow will always slow down enough for the least amount of pressure drop AND maximum cooling effeciency. Looks like this IC is nice and big!
Lag is a non issue. The less pressure drop will always make up for the fraction of a second that the turbo might take longer to make full boost.