EVO Intercooler Kits
08-07-2006, 01:32 AM
#16
As I have acknowledged countless times, I am the least knowledgeable person on Rennlist when it comes to the technical aspects of our cars, and I admittedly know very little about IC design. That being said, I *thought* it is generally desirable to reduce air flow restrictions, such that more air flows in a less restricted path from the turbos to the engine. The OEM ICs appear to me to have two potential restrictions. The first is the end tanks. IMHO, speaking as a complete novice, the OEM IC end tanks appear to restrict air flow. The second is the size of the cores. At some power level (I have no idea what it is), I would imagine that the 2.5 inch cores would restrict the air flow and a larger core would permit greater air flow.
I suspect that the level of restriction/air flow impairment caused by the end tanks and core size is significantly impacted by the volume of air flowing through the ICs, such that the OEM units, even with their less than ideal end tank design and 2.5 inch cores, may not cause an appreciable reduction in power, if at all, on a stock car. However, when you increase the air flow/power, I would image that, at some point, the OEM cores and end tanks would restrict the air flow and thereby reduce power. Thus, I suspect that the impact of larger ICs, with better flowing end tanks, is significantly impacted by the amount of air the turbos are pushing and the amount of power the car is making.
As I understand it, there is the separate issue of cooling effectiveness/efficiency. One wants their IC to reduce the temperature of the air flow as much as possible, as cooler air makes more power. Therefore, if the IC flows better, but cools less effectively, it is not necessarily a better IC, notwithstanding the better air flow. Conversely, an IC which cools better will produce more power even if it does not flow more air. Thus, I would imagine that the key to designing a better IC is to increase air flow and/or decrease air temps, without negatively affecting the other, or better yet, increase air flow AND decrease air temps, simultaneously. Am I close? If not, please educate me, as I am genuinely interested in learning.
According to the test results posted by Sharky, EVOMS’ new ICs flow more air than the OEM units. Someone has posted that the test results may not directly translate in a real world application. However, even if the delta is not as dramatic in the real world, it appears that, EVOMS’ ICs are less restrictive and have the ability to flow more air than an OEM unit in a real world application,. Sharky and EVOMS have candidly stated that this improved air flow will not translate to better performance for cars under 550-600 hp. As stated above, I suspect the reason for this is that the OEM ICs flow enough air for lower powered cars, notwithstanding the restrictions.
I am not aware of any data regarding whether EVOMS’ new ICs do a better job of cooling the air stream. Some people are quick to assume no improvement in cooling (or worse), but the fact remains that we simply do not know. That being said, I *thought* that larger cores are less susceptible to heat soak, and I *thought* that is desirable. Therefore, if EVOMS’ new ICs are less susceptible to heat soak by virtue of their larger cores, isn’t that a benefit? Moreover, I have been told that the core design (plate and bar?) on the EVOMS cores is better than the OEM core design. Again, I do not profess to know any of this firsthand. Rather, I am merely stating what I have learned from others, including PorschePHD and Todd K. (who has used ICs with cores made by the same manufacturer as EVOMS’ ICs).
I agree with M42’s observation that, if the rest of the system cannot handle the increased air flow (e.g., the heads or valves), increasing the upstream air flow at the ICs will merely serve to push the restriction down stream, and little performance gains will be achieved. That being said, does anyone know if the heads and valves can flow more air than supplied by an OEM IC? I imagine they can, to a point.
Have said all of the foregoing, here is my fundamental question: Assuming we are dealing with a higher HP 996TT, and assuming that the other components can handle greater air flow, wouldn’t EVOMS’ new ICs improve performance simply by virtue of the increased air flow, even if they did not decrease (nor increase) air temps (assuming temps remained unchanged)? Yes, the performance improvement would be even greater if air temps were decreased (and, for all we know, EVOMS’ ICs do decrease air temps), but even if air temps remained unchanged, wouldn’t increased air flow in and of itself still be desirable?
BTW, I do not doubt that the $15k Secan ICs are phenomenal, and I don’t think Sharky was suggesting otherwise. For $15k, I hope and assume that the Secan units perform admirably, and better than the EVOMS units. For race teams where price is no object, and one is not concerned with the point of diminishing returns, the Secan units are an obvious choice. That being said, not everyone has $15k to spend on ICs, and the EVOMS’ units are less than less than 1/5 of the price. Its nice to have options.
Craig
I suspect that the level of restriction/air flow impairment caused by the end tanks and core size is significantly impacted by the volume of air flowing through the ICs, such that the OEM units, even with their less than ideal end tank design and 2.5 inch cores, may not cause an appreciable reduction in power, if at all, on a stock car. However, when you increase the air flow/power, I would image that, at some point, the OEM cores and end tanks would restrict the air flow and thereby reduce power. Thus, I suspect that the impact of larger ICs, with better flowing end tanks, is significantly impacted by the amount of air the turbos are pushing and the amount of power the car is making.
As I understand it, there is the separate issue of cooling effectiveness/efficiency. One wants their IC to reduce the temperature of the air flow as much as possible, as cooler air makes more power. Therefore, if the IC flows better, but cools less effectively, it is not necessarily a better IC, notwithstanding the better air flow. Conversely, an IC which cools better will produce more power even if it does not flow more air. Thus, I would imagine that the key to designing a better IC is to increase air flow and/or decrease air temps, without negatively affecting the other, or better yet, increase air flow AND decrease air temps, simultaneously. Am I close? If not, please educate me, as I am genuinely interested in learning.
According to the test results posted by Sharky, EVOMS’ new ICs flow more air than the OEM units. Someone has posted that the test results may not directly translate in a real world application. However, even if the delta is not as dramatic in the real world, it appears that, EVOMS’ ICs are less restrictive and have the ability to flow more air than an OEM unit in a real world application,. Sharky and EVOMS have candidly stated that this improved air flow will not translate to better performance for cars under 550-600 hp. As stated above, I suspect the reason for this is that the OEM ICs flow enough air for lower powered cars, notwithstanding the restrictions.
I am not aware of any data regarding whether EVOMS’ new ICs do a better job of cooling the air stream. Some people are quick to assume no improvement in cooling (or worse), but the fact remains that we simply do not know. That being said, I *thought* that larger cores are less susceptible to heat soak, and I *thought* that is desirable. Therefore, if EVOMS’ new ICs are less susceptible to heat soak by virtue of their larger cores, isn’t that a benefit? Moreover, I have been told that the core design (plate and bar?) on the EVOMS cores is better than the OEM core design. Again, I do not profess to know any of this firsthand. Rather, I am merely stating what I have learned from others, including PorschePHD and Todd K. (who has used ICs with cores made by the same manufacturer as EVOMS’ ICs).
I agree with M42’s observation that, if the rest of the system cannot handle the increased air flow (e.g., the heads or valves), increasing the upstream air flow at the ICs will merely serve to push the restriction down stream, and little performance gains will be achieved. That being said, does anyone know if the heads and valves can flow more air than supplied by an OEM IC? I imagine they can, to a point.
Have said all of the foregoing, here is my fundamental question: Assuming we are dealing with a higher HP 996TT, and assuming that the other components can handle greater air flow, wouldn’t EVOMS’ new ICs improve performance simply by virtue of the increased air flow, even if they did not decrease (nor increase) air temps (assuming temps remained unchanged)? Yes, the performance improvement would be even greater if air temps were decreased (and, for all we know, EVOMS’ ICs do decrease air temps), but even if air temps remained unchanged, wouldn’t increased air flow in and of itself still be desirable?
BTW, I do not doubt that the $15k Secan ICs are phenomenal, and I don’t think Sharky was suggesting otherwise. For $15k, I hope and assume that the Secan units perform admirably, and better than the EVOMS units. For race teams where price is no object, and one is not concerned with the point of diminishing returns, the Secan units are an obvious choice. That being said, not everyone has $15k to spend on ICs, and the EVOMS’ units are less than less than 1/5 of the price. Its nice to have options.
Craig
08-07-2006, 01:56 PM
#17
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Jean
Sharky
Thanks for the numbers posted, these seem to be good flow numbers, I will leave the analysis to someone more knowledgeable than myself.
The US tuner bashing coment is utterly ridiculous, run a search and see how many european counterparts are under the spotlight as well. (Darn, you are European too
)
The intercooler is supposed to be measured for efficiency, flow and pressure drops more importantly. My intercooler is serving its purpose well so far, but I run my car at 0.9-1 Bar maximum, far from the ridiculous boost that some of these engines are running, I also have all the engine dyno efficiency datalogs for every 100RPMs and different boost ranges. Anything more than 1 Bar and you will start seeing important performance drops after less than a minute of usage. Money thrown out of the window is what I would call it.
If the objective are quartermile runs, they should be called as such, "quartermile intercoolers" (certainly a good selling tool lately it seems), they might give you a decimal or two over such a short distance.
For me claiming that my IC is anywhere close to a Secan core would be lying, so I won't. This is basic common sense, you cannot get for $3K the same result than a $15k IC that has cost millions of R&D dollars to build by a top aerospace firm.
Send me the ICs ( I am in the US now) and I will be happy to do the independent testing back to back with intake temp measurements and AX22 runs, it will all be seriously documented. I will pay for any damage obviously.
Let us do the tests, and I would be the first one to buy more than a dozen sets if I see any performance gains that are anywhere close to 35HP.
Call me a sceptic.
Thanks for the numbers posted, these seem to be good flow numbers, I will leave the analysis to someone more knowledgeable than myself.
The US tuner bashing coment is utterly ridiculous, run a search and see how many european counterparts are under the spotlight as well. (Darn, you are European too
)The intercooler is supposed to be measured for efficiency, flow and pressure drops more importantly. My intercooler is serving its purpose well so far, but I run my car at 0.9-1 Bar maximum, far from the ridiculous boost that some of these engines are running, I also have all the engine dyno efficiency datalogs for every 100RPMs and different boost ranges. Anything more than 1 Bar and you will start seeing important performance drops after less than a minute of usage. Money thrown out of the window is what I would call it.
If the objective are quartermile runs, they should be called as such, "quartermile intercoolers" (certainly a good selling tool lately it seems), they might give you a decimal or two over such a short distance.
For me claiming that my IC is anywhere close to a Secan core would be lying, so I won't. This is basic common sense, you cannot get for $3K the same result than a $15k IC that has cost millions of R&D dollars to build by a top aerospace firm.
Send me the ICs ( I am in the US now) and I will be happy to do the independent testing back to back with intake temp measurements and AX22 runs, it will all be seriously documented. I will pay for any damage obviously.
Let us do the tests, and I would be the first one to buy more than a dozen sets if I see any performance gains that are anywhere close to 35HP.
Call me a sceptic.
I like that you are a skeptic! It keeps everybody on their toes. However, I still think that the IC you have is _better_ than the stock 993TT one even if it's not the 15K secan
08-07-2006, 02:26 PM
#18
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Craig.
As I have acknowledged countless times, I am the least knowledgeable person on Rennlist when it comes to the technical aspects of our cars, and I admittedly know very little about IC design. That being said, I *thought* it is generally desirable to reduce air flow restrictions, such that more air flows in a less restricted path from the turbos to the engine. The OEM ICs appear to me to have two potential restrictions. The first is the end tanks. IMHO, speaking as a complete novice, the OEM IC end tanks appear to restrict air flow. The second is the size of the cores. At some power level (I have no idea what it is), I would imagine that the 2.5 inch cores would restrict the air flow and a larger core would permit greater air flow.
I suspect that the level of restriction/air flow impairment caused by the end tanks and core size is significantly impacted by the volume of air flowing through the ICs, such that the OEM units, even with their less than ideal end tank design and 2.5 inch cores, may not cause an appreciable reduction in power, if at all, on a stock car. However, when you increase the air flow/power, I would image that, at some point, the OEM cores and end tanks would restrict the air flow and thereby reduce power. Thus, I suspect that the impact of larger ICs, with better flowing end tanks, is significantly impacted by the amount of air the turbos are pushing and the amount of power the car is making.
As I understand it, there is the separate issue of cooling effectiveness/efficiency. One wants their IC to reduce the temperature of the air flow as much as possible, as cooler air makes more power. Therefore, if the IC flows better, but cools less effectively, it is not necessarily a better IC, notwithstanding the better air flow. Conversely, an IC which cools better will produce more power even if it does not flow more air. Thus, I would imagine that the key to designing a better IC is to increase air flow and/or decrease air temps, without negatively affecting the other, or better yet, increase air flow AND decrease air temps, simultaneously. Am I close? If not, please educate me, as I am genuinely interested in learning.
According to the test results posted by Sharky, EVOMS’ new ICs flow more air than the OEM units. Someone has posted that the test results may not directly translate in a real world application. However, even if the delta is not as dramatic in the real world, it appears that, EVOMS’ ICs are less restrictive and have the ability to flow more air than an OEM unit in a real world application,. Sharky and EVOMS have candidly stated that this improved air flow will not translate to better performance for cars under 550-600 hp. As stated above, I suspect the reason for this is that the OEM ICs flow enough air for lower powered cars, notwithstanding the restrictions.
I am not aware of any data regarding whether EVOMS’ new ICs do a better job of cooling the air stream. Some people are quick to assume no improvement in cooling (or worse), but the fact remains that we simply do not know. That being said, I *thought* that larger cores are less susceptible to heat soak, and I *thought* that is desirable. Therefore, if EVOMS’ new ICs are less susceptible to heat soak by virtue of their larger cores, isn’t that a benefit? Moreover, I have been told that the core design (plate and bar?) on the EVOMS cores is better than the OEM core design. Again, I do not profess to know any of this firsthand. Rather, I am merely stating what I have learned from others, including PorschePHD and Todd K. (who has used ICs with cores made by the same manufacturer as EVOMS’ ICs).
I agree with M42’s observation that, if the rest of the system cannot handle the increased air flow (e.g., the heads or valves), increasing the upstream air flow at the ICs will merely serve to push the restriction down stream, and little performance gains will be achieved. That being said, does anyone know if the heads and valves can flow more air than supplied by an OEM IC? I imagine they can, to a point.
Have said all of the foregoing, here is my fundamental question: Assuming we are dealing with a higher HP 996TT, and assuming that the other components can handle greater air flow, wouldn’t EVOMS’ new ICs improve performance simply by virtue of the increased air flow, even if they did not decrease (nor increase) air temps (assuming temps remained unchanged)? Yes, the performance improvement would be even greater if air temps were decreased (and, for all we know, EVOMS’ ICs do decrease air temps), but even if air temps remained unchanged, wouldn’t increased air flow in and of itself still be desirable?
BTW, I do not doubt that the $15k Secan ICs are phenomenal, and I don’t think Sharky was suggesting otherwise. For $15k, I hope and assume that the Secan units perform admirably, and better than the EVOMS units. For race teams where price is no object, and one is not concerned with the point of diminishing returns, the Secan units are an obvious choice. That being said, not everyone has $15k to spend on ICs, and the EVOMS’ units are less than less than 1/5 of the price. Its nice to have options.
Craig
I suspect that the level of restriction/air flow impairment caused by the end tanks and core size is significantly impacted by the volume of air flowing through the ICs, such that the OEM units, even with their less than ideal end tank design and 2.5 inch cores, may not cause an appreciable reduction in power, if at all, on a stock car. However, when you increase the air flow/power, I would image that, at some point, the OEM cores and end tanks would restrict the air flow and thereby reduce power. Thus, I suspect that the impact of larger ICs, with better flowing end tanks, is significantly impacted by the amount of air the turbos are pushing and the amount of power the car is making.
As I understand it, there is the separate issue of cooling effectiveness/efficiency. One wants their IC to reduce the temperature of the air flow as much as possible, as cooler air makes more power. Therefore, if the IC flows better, but cools less effectively, it is not necessarily a better IC, notwithstanding the better air flow. Conversely, an IC which cools better will produce more power even if it does not flow more air. Thus, I would imagine that the key to designing a better IC is to increase air flow and/or decrease air temps, without negatively affecting the other, or better yet, increase air flow AND decrease air temps, simultaneously. Am I close? If not, please educate me, as I am genuinely interested in learning.
According to the test results posted by Sharky, EVOMS’ new ICs flow more air than the OEM units. Someone has posted that the test results may not directly translate in a real world application. However, even if the delta is not as dramatic in the real world, it appears that, EVOMS’ ICs are less restrictive and have the ability to flow more air than an OEM unit in a real world application,. Sharky and EVOMS have candidly stated that this improved air flow will not translate to better performance for cars under 550-600 hp. As stated above, I suspect the reason for this is that the OEM ICs flow enough air for lower powered cars, notwithstanding the restrictions.
I am not aware of any data regarding whether EVOMS’ new ICs do a better job of cooling the air stream. Some people are quick to assume no improvement in cooling (or worse), but the fact remains that we simply do not know. That being said, I *thought* that larger cores are less susceptible to heat soak, and I *thought* that is desirable. Therefore, if EVOMS’ new ICs are less susceptible to heat soak by virtue of their larger cores, isn’t that a benefit? Moreover, I have been told that the core design (plate and bar?) on the EVOMS cores is better than the OEM core design. Again, I do not profess to know any of this firsthand. Rather, I am merely stating what I have learned from others, including PorschePHD and Todd K. (who has used ICs with cores made by the same manufacturer as EVOMS’ ICs).
I agree with M42’s observation that, if the rest of the system cannot handle the increased air flow (e.g., the heads or valves), increasing the upstream air flow at the ICs will merely serve to push the restriction down stream, and little performance gains will be achieved. That being said, does anyone know if the heads and valves can flow more air than supplied by an OEM IC? I imagine they can, to a point.
Have said all of the foregoing, here is my fundamental question: Assuming we are dealing with a higher HP 996TT, and assuming that the other components can handle greater air flow, wouldn’t EVOMS’ new ICs improve performance simply by virtue of the increased air flow, even if they did not decrease (nor increase) air temps (assuming temps remained unchanged)? Yes, the performance improvement would be even greater if air temps were decreased (and, for all we know, EVOMS’ ICs do decrease air temps), but even if air temps remained unchanged, wouldn’t increased air flow in and of itself still be desirable?
BTW, I do not doubt that the $15k Secan ICs are phenomenal, and I don’t think Sharky was suggesting otherwise. For $15k, I hope and assume that the Secan units perform admirably, and better than the EVOMS units. For race teams where price is no object, and one is not concerned with the point of diminishing returns, the Secan units are an obvious choice. That being said, not everyone has $15k to spend on ICs, and the EVOMS’ units are less than less than 1/5 of the price. Its nice to have options.
Craig
You're right, that's exactly where I was coming from originally. I mean 15K for an uber-secan one is great but for the rest of us... I truly think the EVO ones are a great improvement and on my car they have been as well as the other test mules that I got to drive/test.
08-08-2006, 01:33 AM
#19
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Craig,
I am not qualified to enter a technical debate about intercoolers, this being a very specialized field, I will just state what I understand from it..
In theory you are right, the larger the area exposing the hot air to the cold air, the more heat will get dissipated, in order to do that, you need to increase the fin count among others, however once you increase the fin count, air flow drops, and once air flow drops, temperature exchange does too and therefore your IC will "cool" less, therefore you need to find the right balance before the diminishing returns, which is why bigger is not better and why intercooler testing is an extremely thorough, time consuming and expensive process, and by that I mean not a single engine builder, and 95% of intercooler core builders, have the capacity to do so. .
One critical point is that to measure the temps in and out, you do not do it under a steady state environment, you will get wrong readings, which is why a dyno run will never show you how good an intercooler is and also explains why you see those 35HP that are absolutely meaningless, and why quick dyno runs will always be very optimistic when it comes to real road power available. Under real life acceleration scenarios, the IC material itself, absorbs MUCH more heat than any flow or theoretical equations will show you.
The other more important point is the pressure drop (The difference in pressure required for a given amount of air to move from turbo to intake manifold)..More airflow means higher pressure drop, higher pressure drop means that your turbo needs to work harder to give you the same output cfms... The less hard the turbo has to work to compress the air then the lower the temperature the air coming out of the turbo is and therefore will generate more heat, increase intake temps, drop performance etc.. This is very simplistic obviously.
Net net, you can have a great flowing intercooler that does not cool well, and that also has big pressure drops, therefore its efficiency is bad and it does not serve its purpose, even with the best flow numbers.
As to these cores, they seem to be good, but the difference in results will be dramatic between two different tuners using different philosophical approaches to performance and engine efficiency. If two tuners have engine with 600HP however one of them needs 1.2 Bar of boost and 5500RPMs to get there, and the other needs 1.3 Bar at 6500 RPMs to get there, IC capability to cool the charge will be dramatically different. This is why emphasis is always on boost levels, while most people think it is great, in fact it is the worse you can do for sustained performance. You need to be running your turbos close to their best efficiency which is a function of boost levels and compressor flow size and efficiency.
I am not qualified to enter a technical debate about intercoolers, this being a very specialized field, I will just state what I understand from it..
In theory you are right, the larger the area exposing the hot air to the cold air, the more heat will get dissipated, in order to do that, you need to increase the fin count among others, however once you increase the fin count, air flow drops, and once air flow drops, temperature exchange does too and therefore your IC will "cool" less, therefore you need to find the right balance before the diminishing returns, which is why bigger is not better and why intercooler testing is an extremely thorough, time consuming and expensive process, and by that I mean not a single engine builder, and 95% of intercooler core builders, have the capacity to do so. .
One critical point is that to measure the temps in and out, you do not do it under a steady state environment, you will get wrong readings, which is why a dyno run will never show you how good an intercooler is and also explains why you see those 35HP that are absolutely meaningless, and why quick dyno runs will always be very optimistic when it comes to real road power available. Under real life acceleration scenarios, the IC material itself, absorbs MUCH more heat than any flow or theoretical equations will show you.
The other more important point is the pressure drop (The difference in pressure required for a given amount of air to move from turbo to intake manifold)..More airflow means higher pressure drop, higher pressure drop means that your turbo needs to work harder to give you the same output cfms... The less hard the turbo has to work to compress the air then the lower the temperature the air coming out of the turbo is and therefore will generate more heat, increase intake temps, drop performance etc.. This is very simplistic obviously.
Net net, you can have a great flowing intercooler that does not cool well, and that also has big pressure drops, therefore its efficiency is bad and it does not serve its purpose, even with the best flow numbers.
As to these cores, they seem to be good, but the difference in results will be dramatic between two different tuners using different philosophical approaches to performance and engine efficiency. If two tuners have engine with 600HP however one of them needs 1.2 Bar of boost and 5500RPMs to get there, and the other needs 1.3 Bar at 6500 RPMs to get there, IC capability to cool the charge will be dramatically different. This is why emphasis is always on boost levels, while most people think it is great, in fact it is the worse you can do for sustained performance. You need to be running your turbos close to their best efficiency which is a function of boost levels and compressor flow size and efficiency.
08-08-2006, 02:03 AM
#20
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Originally Posted by sharkster
Heya Jean, well you know me, I'm being sarcastic and I was taking TB's analogy of the "stock" intercoolers being so good (being secan) and hence the easiest thing to do would have been to just weld on some better flowing and less restrictive end tanks. I was saying that because I was implying that if Todd wanted to just do something "quick/easy" etc... but he did go further and found more efficient cores that were cost effective as well (I'll let him describe it though). Do you have a 996TT to test these on? It'd be a good idea.. will talk to Todd on that. "Pay for damages". Ok now you have me scared
I like that you are a skeptic! It keeps everybody on their toes. However, I still think that the IC you have is _better_ than the stock 993TT one even if it's not the 15K secan
I like that you are a skeptic! It keeps everybody on their toes. However, I still think that the IC you have is _better_ than the stock 993TT one even if it's not the 15K secan
However the US tuner bashing comment is becoming quite annoying, these are strictly tech debates and opinions.The stock intercoolers are not Secan! I think what is meant by these intercoolers are good, is that they are good for a sustained usage of available HP.. by that I mean longer than a 10 second run.
I have no doubt that these ICs "might" bring some improvement to QMile trap speeds, however the world does not end there except for some hardcore drag racers or bragging rights sometimes. The question is whether you will see that performance during a longer run, such as a rolling start in 3rd or 4th gear up to some high speeds, and no you do not need Secan for racing only, but for any sustained run at WOT in the upper gears under heavy load, which is what our Porsche cars are intended for in general. The same applies if you are in a traffic jam and then the road clears and you want to beat the 550 RUF rolling next to you with your 700HP up to 150mph, or multiple 120 runs for example.
I applaud the intiative of EVOMs of course for putting all these efforts down, I do have my reservations concerning the method used to determine how good or bad they are and the HP claims mentioned somewhere else.
I have a couple of 996TTs and GT2, one of them has GIAC stage 4 programming and ZC turbos and the other has some Protomotive program and ZC turbos, so I can do very thorough testing on both and publish all the results. I would measure intake temps and temp drops as well as performance with an AX 22 back to back from various speeds up to 180mph on a track, trying to have the same temperature for both runs with these ICs and with the GT2 ICs that are now fitted. The tests will be done under heavy heat back home, which is excellent for measuring their performance vs. the GT2 ones as well.
Hope it works out!
08-13-2006, 05:19 AM
#22
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Nice post on 6Speed:
BTW did you see that thread on rennlist? Sigh.. same old story lol. A 993TT guy says the stock intercoolers on the 996TT are better than anything else except the 16000 secan (not Jean- he knows the score).
Well if you can be &rsed re-reading what is said above, I say I don't see how for $3K you can produce a set of I/Cs better than factory GT2 intercoolers - not stock. And I didn't say "anything else" - those are your words.
Sharky's assertion that the Secan are the gold standard (fair enough) but that the $3K EVOMS ones are a good value option which will do a better job than stock/GT2 is what we are discussing ?
The claims for the Secan 996tt intercoolers was +20PS on a stock motor and "up to" 50PS on a tuned motor.
Now the number thrown around for the power increase with the EVOMS I/Cs by Sharky was 37hp at the wheels - so there is definately an indication that EVOMS ARE claiming that their $3K units are as good as the Secans ?
You need to take Jean up on his offer to test the units - he will give unbiased results - believe me, I'd love to be proved wrong
On another note, I feel for Sharky, he is being hammered in one direction for the I/Cs being too cheap and in the other by punters saying they are far too expensive - sometimes you just can't win
BTW did you see that thread on rennlist? Sigh.. same old story lol. A 993TT guy says the stock intercoolers on the 996TT are better than anything else except the 16000 secan (not Jean- he knows the score).
Well if you can be &rsed re-reading what is said above, I say I don't see how for $3K you can produce a set of I/Cs better than factory GT2 intercoolers - not stock. And I didn't say "anything else" - those are your words.
Sharky's assertion that the Secan are the gold standard (fair enough) but that the $3K EVOMS ones are a good value option which will do a better job than stock/GT2 is what we are discussing ?
The claims for the Secan 996tt intercoolers was +20PS on a stock motor and "up to" 50PS on a tuned motor.
Now the number thrown around for the power increase with the EVOMS I/Cs by Sharky was 37hp at the wheels - so there is definately an indication that EVOMS ARE claiming that their $3K units are as good as the Secans ?
You need to take Jean up on his offer to test the units - he will give unbiased results - believe me, I'd love to be proved wrong
On another note, I feel for Sharky, he is being hammered in one direction for the I/Cs being too cheap and in the other by punters saying they are far too expensive - sometimes you just can't win
08-13-2006, 06:30 AM
#23
I have another car that runs low 10 seconds... my evo 8 and that one also has a custom intercooler- it has to.. its the basics of turbo charging...
Intercoolers have one function, that's to cool the air coming out of the turbo. WHAT THE HELL ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE... I cant believe you guys are having this discussion. Remember we're coming from a 2.5x8.5in core from stock or only 21.25 square inches of flow area and that's not even that because the tube/fin design has smaller channels than the bar/plate design, so we're already 100% increase on the example I'm showing, or the equavalent of two or more stock cores stacked! Here is a set on my TT- these babies are cooling two GT35r turbos... the one in the evo is cooling a single gt35r. here are some pics...
My evo 8:
my engine with 2 gt35r turbos...
and some pics of the ICs..... 2 different types.. one is a 3.5 inch thick and the other 4.5 inches...
Intercoolers have one function, that's to cool the air coming out of the turbo. WHAT THE HELL ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE... I cant believe you guys are having this discussion. Remember we're coming from a 2.5x8.5in core from stock or only 21.25 square inches of flow area and that's not even that because the tube/fin design has smaller channels than the bar/plate design, so we're already 100% increase on the example I'm showing, or the equavalent of two or more stock cores stacked! Here is a set on my TT- these babies are cooling two GT35r turbos... the one in the evo is cooling a single gt35r. here are some pics...
My evo 8:
my engine with 2 gt35r turbos...
and some pics of the ICs..... 2 different types.. one is a 3.5 inch thick and the other 4.5 inches...
Last edited by markski; 08-13-2006 at 06:50 AM.
08-13-2006, 06:55 AM
#24
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by markski
I have a Evo 8 that runs low 10 seconds... and that one also has a custom intercooler- it has to.. its the basics of turbo charging...
Intercoolers have one function, that's to cool the air coming out of the turbo. WHAT THE HELL ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE... I cant believe you guys are having this discussion. If I didnt have my IC on the evo8 I would not dyno 640 awhp and do 10.2 seconds at 137 mph- PERIOD.
On my evo... if I touch both sides of the endtanks... one is very hot and the other super cold... So I know its doing its job.... Here is a set on my TT- these babies are cooling two GT35r turbos... the one in the evo is cooling a single gt35r. Stock ICs including gt2s( which I ran as well) are Fin type( inferior to bar & plate). I can get into some hard core mathematics( I have real data from Todd Knighton @ Protomotive) but will refrain. here are some pics...
Intercoolers have one function, that's to cool the air coming out of the turbo. WHAT THE HELL ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE... I cant believe you guys are having this discussion. If I didnt have my IC on the evo8 I would not dyno 640 awhp and do 10.2 seconds at 137 mph- PERIOD.
On my evo... if I touch both sides of the endtanks... one is very hot and the other super cold... So I know its doing its job.... Here is a set on my TT- these babies are cooling two GT35r turbos... the one in the evo is cooling a single gt35r. Stock ICs including gt2s( which I ran as well) are Fin type( inferior to bar & plate). I can get into some hard core mathematics( I have real data from Todd Knighton @ Protomotive) but will refrain. here are some pics...
- its about real numbers under load - WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE is whether the $3K intercoolers are better than a factory GT2 intercooler.Jean has offered to independantly test them
Your I/C on the EVO8 obviously does its job for your quarter mile fun - but we are talking about the relative efficiency of an aftermarket intercooler compared with GT2 unit - do you not think tech forums should discuss this sort of thing ?
BTW hard core maths and details of testing would be great
08-13-2006, 07:15 AM
#25
My friend... my evo beats up on fully gutted cars at the road track... its has over $30K in engine alone. smaller and thicker ICs are used for 1/4 mile... not the one I have on the evo....
As far as the TT... its designed by one of the best Tuners that has pushed the envelope to its limit... My TT has GT3RS heads, cams, camshafts, lifters, etc... no data nor tools existed prior to this project...one off cam hold down tools had to be made... The issue of gt3 cam sensors is a mystery in itself... Try to run this set up on a TT software...
My point is, If my tuner does 1000 hp tts that can be daily drivers... then I think his IC design is as good as anyone elses... Dont get me wrong, Im from Europe myself(born and raised and now living in the US)... but I think you are off on this one...
As far as the TT... its designed by one of the best Tuners that has pushed the envelope to its limit... My TT has GT3RS heads, cams, camshafts, lifters, etc... no data nor tools existed prior to this project...one off cam hold down tools had to be made... The issue of gt3 cam sensors is a mystery in itself... Try to run this set up on a TT software...
My point is, If my tuner does 1000 hp tts that can be daily drivers... then I think his IC design is as good as anyone elses... Dont get me wrong, Im from Europe myself(born and raised and now living in the US)... but I think you are off on this one...
08-13-2006, 07:22 AM
#26
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Since we are all at it, I will reproduce my post here from 6Speed
Mark's engine has an amazing build, no doubt about it, however this intercooler efficiency debate is a bit independent, I just think that the way it is being measured is not the right one, of course it is only my opinion, it is an interesting tech topic for sure. Mark is one of the most tech curious and thorough persons I know on these forums, I am sure a real life test (other than quartermile) would be of very high interest to him as well.
+37HP at the wheels is about 50FWHP or more, it is an easy comparison.
I am all ready to do the test, now where are those ICs? 
Mark's engine has an amazing build, no doubt about it, however this intercooler efficiency debate is a bit independent, I just think that the way it is being measured is not the right one, of course it is only my opinion, it is an interesting tech topic for sure. Mark is one of the most tech curious and thorough persons I know on these forums, I am sure a real life test (other than quartermile) would be of very high interest to him as well.
+37HP at the wheels is about 50FWHP or more, it is an easy comparison.
Originally Posted by Jean
Mark
I am only interested in the technical aspect of this debate.
There is no doubt that the intercoolers are good, just how good, is the question, and for what usage. What works for the EVO does not mean it works for the Porsche as well, far from it, and what works in a quartermile, certainly does not mean it works for the track or real road racing.
It seems like the measure of performance has become a quartermile run, it is not. This is not the same as rolling on a highway in 3rd gear and nailing the gas up to 150mph in 4-5-6th, try doing it 2-3 times.
Or, take a GT2 intercooler and do a couple of laps around a track at 1.2-1.3 Bar and measure performance, Then do the same with these intercoolers and measure performance, that should be a good test. Measure intake temps with a dual guage, or read out from the ECU, out of the turbos and into the intake and compare.
To assess intercooler efficiency, you don't do it on a bench, be it an engine dyno or chassis dyno, for a few seconds. You only get a hint of it when you are doing steady state measurements, that can be way off real life..
I also have detailed datalogs from engine dyno that are fantastic, I am interested in real life performance under load however, and I have datalogged race track performance as well, and compared both, I know what I am saying.
A 60-150mph run with the AX22, with and without the intercoolers, should be interesting, any AX22 run in fact!
I am only interested in the technical aspect of this debate.
There is no doubt that the intercoolers are good, just how good, is the question, and for what usage. What works for the EVO does not mean it works for the Porsche as well, far from it, and what works in a quartermile, certainly does not mean it works for the track or real road racing.
It seems like the measure of performance has become a quartermile run, it is not. This is not the same as rolling on a highway in 3rd gear and nailing the gas up to 150mph in 4-5-6th, try doing it 2-3 times.
Or, take a GT2 intercooler and do a couple of laps around a track at 1.2-1.3 Bar and measure performance, Then do the same with these intercoolers and measure performance, that should be a good test. Measure intake temps with a dual guage, or read out from the ECU, out of the turbos and into the intake and compare.
To assess intercooler efficiency, you don't do it on a bench, be it an engine dyno or chassis dyno, for a few seconds. You only get a hint of it when you are doing steady state measurements, that can be way off real life..
I also have detailed datalogs from engine dyno that are fantastic, I am interested in real life performance under load however, and I have datalogged race track performance as well, and compared both, I know what I am saying.
A 60-150mph run with the AX22, with and without the intercoolers, should be interesting, any AX22 run in fact!
08-13-2006, 09:56 PM
#27
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by TB993tt
Nice post on 6Speed:
BTW did you see that thread on rennlist? Sigh.. same old story lol. A 993TT guy says the stock intercoolers on the 996TT are better than anything else except the 16000 secan (not Jean- he knows the score).
Well if you can be &rsed re-reading what is said above, I say I don't see how for $3K you can produce a set of I/Cs better than factory GT2 intercoolers - not stock. And I didn't say "anything else" - those are your words.
Sharky's assertion that the Secan are the gold standard (fair enough) but that the $3K EVOMS ones are a good value option which will do a better job than stock/GT2 is what we are discussing ?
The claims for the Secan 996tt intercoolers was +20PS on a stock motor and "up to" 50PS on a tuned motor.
Now the number thrown around for the power increase with the EVOMS I/Cs by Sharky was 37hp at the wheels - so there is definately an indication that EVOMS ARE claiming that their $3K units are as good as the Secans ?
You need to take Jean up on his offer to test the units - he will give unbiased results - believe me, I'd love to be proved wrong
On another note, I feel for Sharky, he is being hammered in one direction for the I/Cs being too cheap and in the other by punters saying they are far too expensive - sometimes you just can't win
BTW did you see that thread on rennlist? Sigh.. same old story lol. A 993TT guy says the stock intercoolers on the 996TT are better than anything else except the 16000 secan (not Jean- he knows the score).
Well if you can be &rsed re-reading what is said above, I say I don't see how for $3K you can produce a set of I/Cs better than factory GT2 intercoolers - not stock. And I didn't say "anything else" - those are your words.
Sharky's assertion that the Secan are the gold standard (fair enough) but that the $3K EVOMS ones are a good value option which will do a better job than stock/GT2 is what we are discussing ?
The claims for the Secan 996tt intercoolers was +20PS on a stock motor and "up to" 50PS on a tuned motor.
Now the number thrown around for the power increase with the EVOMS I/Cs by Sharky was 37hp at the wheels - so there is definately an indication that EVOMS ARE claiming that their $3K units are as good as the Secans ?
You need to take Jean up on his offer to test the units - he will give unbiased results - believe me, I'd love to be proved wrong
On another note, I feel for Sharky, he is being hammered in one direction for the I/Cs being too cheap and in the other by punters saying they are far too expensive - sometimes you just can't win
I'll talk to Todd about the IC/Jean thing. I for one would like to see that too! 50 sets were made in this frst run and I believe all but 3 are already sold? Also to make it clear in that thread the 37 wheel hp comment was made in reference to the GT700 car (which I did make clear) with and then without them. I don't know the HP difference on other cars yet.
08-14-2006, 05:45 AM
#28
Burning Brakes
Its good more aftermarket stuff is coming out, healthly competition and there isnt enough of it.
I think tho porsche sets a high standard on some of there stock parts- but thats what we all expect.
Still good for Sharky to release a product and go up against the stock intercooler, in the end everyone will know if its a better product or not, and I guess Sharky well expects that anyway.
I think tho porsche sets a high standard on some of there stock parts- but thats what we all expect.
Still good for Sharky to release a product and go up against the stock intercooler, in the end everyone will know if its a better product or not, and I guess Sharky well expects that anyway.
08-15-2006, 01:45 AM
#29
Intermediate
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: North Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have the world's fastest GT2 sitting in my garage. The car went 10.81 @ 129mph, in 95f, At 1250ft altitude. My car is an EVOMS GT700 with the new intercoolers. Is that proof enough that they work. My car trapped at 133mph in 119f. I have heard many claims from other tuners' advocates about their GT2s but have seen no substantial data. If you have conclusive proof (calibrated timing systems, not AX22, which can be manipulated)that a GT2 has performed faster than mine, please post the proof. Thanks have a great day!!!
08-15-2006, 02:45 AM
#30
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oceania
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Worlds Fastest" reads the headlines. That's a big claim -- a bit like the "Worlds Series" that creates the "World Champion" in baseball.Only problem is that true world test at the Olympics is not won by the perenial winners of the "World Series".
A foolish claim based on a very narrow knowledge. Your same "logic" says that if a faster time comes up (acceptable to you) that it would prove the I/Coolers inadequate and inferior.Such bland conclusions does nothing to enlighten anybody.You seek to discredit other real world data in a dismissive way- presumably without trying it-- then it gets better-- "other tuners advocates" as if this eliminates all "others" from having an opinion,or worse still,not being able to question.From all appearances Evo do a great job for their customers and have had a lot of experience with these cars but what the problem with actually presenting real world data is as a comparison is interesting.I am at a loss to understand how so much discussion can be had on this topic without actual data.Surely someone has measured the temperature going in and coming out??
A foolish claim based on a very narrow knowledge. Your same "logic" says that if a faster time comes up (acceptable to you) that it would prove the I/Coolers inadequate and inferior.Such bland conclusions does nothing to enlighten anybody.You seek to discredit other real world data in a dismissive way- presumably without trying it-- then it gets better-- "other tuners advocates" as if this eliminates all "others" from having an opinion,or worse still,not being able to question.From all appearances Evo do a great job for their customers and have had a lot of experience with these cars but what the problem with actually presenting real world data is as a comparison is interesting.I am at a loss to understand how so much discussion can be had on this topic without actual data.Surely someone has measured the temperature going in and coming out??