Independent Intercooler Test
10-24-2013, 04:58 PM
#16
The engineering documents should be in place to show the differences between the two cores. One can see the hose connections and the weight of the endtanks. If one was to fabricate endtanks similar to Toby's IC's the results would lighten the scale.
I for one would want the maximum core to be fitted in a given space.. Again it would be interesting to see the IC's side by side. Or at least compare the engineering drawings.
I for one would want the maximum core to be fitted in a given space.. Again it would be interesting to see the IC's side by side. Or at least compare the engineering drawings.
Next Monday is the day
Mine are plug and play and you do have to trim the plastic lip that sits into the stock core but that is it and it still works with the stock duct clips that hold the ducts in place around the core and not silly cable ties
10-24-2013, 05:06 PM
#17
Mine if all goes well and if i intend to start marketing them and selling them should around the $6000 mark which is near enough half the price.
Let's see what happens after this test!
If I ever did decide to become a vendor with this product it would have to do what it says on the tin and not hear say as I could not put my name to a product without the correct data!
It's funny some people said I should start selling the coolers.
Last edited by GTRNICK; 10-25-2013 at 04:48 AM.
10-24-2013, 05:06 PM
#18
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
I hear what you are saying. An with no disrespect to what you have done. The factory plastic tank GT2 IC are the standard. You have to clearly stomp those results and yet offer a price similar to the inexpensive GT2 IC's.. Securing a set of cores similar to what Toby has, would be a upgrade. I for one would modify the plastic, and manufacture clips to aid in the install. That part is easy to do. Folks have to modify the plastic regardless on the 996TT.
10-24-2013, 05:14 PM
#19
I hear what you are saying. An with no disrespect to what you have done. The factory plastic tank GT2 IC are the standard. You have to clearly stomp those results and yet offer a price similar to the inexpensive GT2 IC's.. Securing a set of cores similar to what Toby has, would be a upgrade. I for one would modify the plastic, and manufacture clips to aid in the install. That part is easy to do. Folks have to modify the plastic regardless on the 996TT.
The day i fitted them the stocks produced at 237km 44*c intake ambient was 11.3*c.
The new coolers produced at the same speed 29*c intake ambient was 13.5*c.
This was done the same day within a few hours.
The other noticeable difference is the recovery time of these cores too, you are down to a few degrees above ambient very quickly within a number of seconds.
11-04-2013, 05:30 AM
#20
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Hey Nick
You seriously need to think hard about 6speed and the way you view it, it is mainly a site for vendors to sell stuff, there is very little credible information of there, lots of "information sharing" but sooo wishy washy and certainly everything has to be taken with a pinch of salt IMHO, FWIW
Typical 6speed info about the gauge you say you will purchase, don't, I have had the Andial/Davtron before after gauge in my 993 turbo for 15 odd years and these were worth using before the likes of Durametric. The problem with them is the sensors do not react quickly enough and the temperatures the gauge will show you will not be the true IATs (which the ECU sees/uses) these can be seen on the Durametric - don't waste your dough
You seriously need to think hard about 6speed and the way you view it, it is mainly a site for vendors to sell stuff, there is very little credible information of there, lots of "information sharing" but sooo wishy washy and certainly everything has to be taken with a pinch of salt IMHO, FWIW
Typical 6speed info about the gauge you say you will purchase, don't, I have had the Andial/Davtron before after gauge in my 993 turbo for 15 odd years and these were worth using before the likes of Durametric. The problem with them is the sensors do not react quickly enough and the temperatures the gauge will show you will not be the true IATs (which the ECU sees/uses) these can be seen on the Durametric - don't waste your dough
11-04-2013, 06:17 AM
#21
Hey Nick
You seriously need to think hard about 6speed and the way you view it, it is mainly a site for vendors to sell stuff, there is very little credible information of there, lots of "information sharing" but sooo wishy washy and certainly everything has to be taken with a pinch of salt IMHO, FWIW
Typical 6speed info about the gauge you say you will purchase, don't, I have had the Andial/Davtron before after gauge in my 993 turbo for 15 odd years and these were worth using before the likes of Durametric. The problem with them is the sensors do not react quickly enough and the temperatures the gauge will show you will not be the true IATs (which the ECU sees/uses) these can be seen on the Durametric - don't waste your dough
You seriously need to think hard about 6speed and the way you view it, it is mainly a site for vendors to sell stuff, there is very little credible information of there, lots of "information sharing" but sooo wishy washy and certainly everything has to be taken with a pinch of salt IMHO, FWIW
Typical 6speed info about the gauge you say you will purchase, don't, I have had the Andial/Davtron before after gauge in my 993 turbo for 15 odd years and these were worth using before the likes of Durametric. The problem with them is the sensors do not react quickly enough and the temperatures the gauge will show you will not be the true IATs (which the ECU sees/uses) these can be seen on the Durametric - don't waste your dough
Thanks for the heads up.
How about fluke equipment ? Still no good?
11-04-2013, 07:11 AM
#22
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I've no idea about that fluke stuff but why do you need a gauge ? Like I say I have an Andial one on the 993 (still ) and used to spend too much time watching it and it doesn't really give you any information which you can act upon ? Durametric seems to be much more useful since it tells you with a very fast refresh rate exactly what IATs your ECU is reading and acting upon, these are the numbers which actually matter in terms of how the ECU trims your engine maps. Watching IATs rather than logging them is so 1990s 
(You probably know this) confirming that you have the best tuning (in terms of IAT) is to get the engine really hot ideally in a high ambient or at least an ambient representative of the higher temps you will use the car so in the UK maybe 20 to 25C then do your runs up to near maximum speed and check the logs. You have to look for the fast rise of the IAT towards the top of 6th gear and monitor if the ECU is holding it down by trimming fuelling/timing/boost.
In the VTG engines the IAT needs to be below ~45C for optimum power but that is quite a tall order and not very many engines can do this (including stock engines) but the ECU will control the IAT (as described above) to under 60C unless a particularly aggressive tune and/or unmatched components and/or very high ambient temps cause it to go even higher..... the ECU will allow it to go pretty high, like 90C but the power will be controlled back to 50-100hp less.
) and used to spend too much time watching it and it doesn't really give you any information which you can act upon ? Durametric seems to be much more useful since it tells you with a very fast refresh rate exactly what IATs your ECU is reading and acting upon, these are the numbers which actually matter in terms of how the ECU trims your engine maps. Watching IATs rather than logging them is so 1990s (You probably know this) confirming that you have the best tuning (in terms of IAT) is to get the engine really hot ideally in a high ambient or at least an ambient representative of the higher temps you will use the car so in the UK maybe 20 to 25C then do your runs up to near maximum speed and check the logs. You have to look for the fast rise of the IAT towards the top of 6th gear and monitor if the ECU is holding it down by trimming fuelling/timing/boost.
In the VTG engines the IAT needs to be below ~45C for optimum power but that is quite a tall order and not very many engines can do this (including stock engines) but the ECU will control the IAT (as described above) to under 60C unless a particularly aggressive tune and/or unmatched components and/or very high ambient temps cause it to go even higher..... the ECU will allow it to go pretty high, like 90C but the power will be controlled back to 50-100hp less.
11-06-2013, 09:03 AM
#24
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Nick, thanks for sharing your data, it cost you money to obtain and I applaud your efforts.
It seems to me that this testing methodology is for trying to determine accurately how different construction (in terms of materials and layout etc) of intercooler performs relative to another.
The airflow through the core of 20mph seems to make the results open to a bit of question when we consider that on our cars the airflow through the cores is so much higher and presumably at high airflow speeds the air forces its way through the denser cores better than at 20mph, however this may not be the case and in terms of percentage efficiencies your numbers may be spot on.
If your numbers are correct then at ~1080 kg/hr in 20mph airflow your Marston MS cores are at 80.6% efficiency and the 997 turbo.2 cores are at 77.7%
I'm sure you have read this but worth having a look if you haven't
https://rennlist.com/forums/993-turb...st-report.html
So for our test at 300kph on the track in an engine which was tuned to manufacturer specifications on the engine dyno (ie no ridiculous overboosted turbos) we measured by observing a Bosch Hammer (old version of PIWIS) the maximum intake temperature for each intercooler.
To get % efficiency we have to use a guesstimate of pre intercooler intake temps and use the same number for each cooler, so using 130C (which is reasonable on a ~18C day) we get:
Stock 993 intercooler 68%
Marston MS cores 78%
Secan cores 85%
I know it isn't really comparable but I would have expected the efficiency of your Marston MSs to be high than the 997 Turbo.2s but maybe as I said before at higher speeds yours' get more efficient as the airflow penetrates better ?
The other element which I was curious about is the heat soak which will occur in an intercooler when it is used in full load conditions for a fair length of time. I read the heat rejection numbers but they only really tell us specifically how well the intercooler is removing the heat of the 140C incoming air and not about how hot the intercooler itself may get with prolonged loaded use which itself will reduce its efficiency ?
The pressure drop numbers are awesome and these numbers are a massive slap in the face for all those tuners who like to talk about restrictive intercoolers and how theirs are better because they flow better, this little myth has been pedalled for years, I bought a 993 intercooler off a top German tuner in the 90s based on this tripe
RS Tuning use the exact same Secan intercoolers on their 997 680PS conversions as on the 1100hp 400kph Alzen record car and everything in between, it seems that a properly designed intercooler has a very broad range of use in terms of pressure drop vs power capability.
Lastly I like to reflect on the fact that if you look at high end Motorsport, the kind where proper money and reputation is at stake you will only find expensive "aerospace" quality intercoolers...... back in the mid 90s it was Porsche who did the research and commissioned Secan to build the ludicrously expensive EVO intercooler and ALL the teams bought them, even at $20000 each simply because if they didn't have them they could not compete.... Over the years this observation has brought me to "internet" blows with so many "tuners" whose intercoolers are "da bomb" but facts are facts and now days there are other methods to keep intake temps down for low duration drag runs so everyone is happy
It seems to me that this testing methodology is for trying to determine accurately how different construction (in terms of materials and layout etc) of intercooler performs relative to another.
The airflow through the core of 20mph seems to make the results open to a bit of question when we consider that on our cars the airflow through the cores is so much higher and presumably at high airflow speeds the air forces its way through the denser cores better than at 20mph, however this may not be the case and in terms of percentage efficiencies your numbers may be spot on.
If your numbers are correct then at ~1080 kg/hr in 20mph airflow your Marston MS cores are at 80.6% efficiency and the 997 turbo.2 cores are at 77.7%
I'm sure you have read this but worth having a look if you haven't
https://rennlist.com/forums/993-turb...st-report.html
So for our test at 300kph on the track in an engine which was tuned to manufacturer specifications on the engine dyno (ie no ridiculous overboosted turbos) we measured by observing a Bosch Hammer (old version of PIWIS) the maximum intake temperature for each intercooler.
To get % efficiency we have to use a guesstimate of pre intercooler intake temps and use the same number for each cooler, so using 130C (which is reasonable on a ~18C day) we get:
Stock 993 intercooler 68%
Marston MS cores 78%
Secan cores 85%
I know it isn't really comparable but I would have expected the efficiency of your Marston MSs to be high than the 997 Turbo.2s but maybe as I said before at higher speeds yours' get more efficient as the airflow penetrates better ?
The other element which I was curious about is the heat soak which will occur in an intercooler when it is used in full load conditions for a fair length of time. I read the heat rejection numbers but they only really tell us specifically how well the intercooler is removing the heat of the 140C incoming air and not about how hot the intercooler itself may get with prolonged loaded use which itself will reduce its efficiency ?
The pressure drop numbers are awesome and these numbers are a massive slap in the face for all those tuners who like to talk about restrictive intercoolers and how theirs are better because they flow better, this little myth has been pedalled for years, I bought a 993 intercooler off a top German tuner in the 90s based on this tripe
RS Tuning use the exact same Secan intercoolers on their 997 680PS conversions as on the 1100hp 400kph Alzen record car and everything in between, it seems that a properly designed intercooler has a very broad range of use in terms of pressure drop vs power capability.
Lastly I like to reflect on the fact that if you look at high end Motorsport, the kind where proper money and reputation is at stake you will only find expensive "aerospace" quality intercoolers...... back in the mid 90s it was Porsche who did the research and commissioned Secan to build the ludicrously expensive EVO intercooler and ALL the teams bought them, even at $20000 each simply because if they didn't have them they could not compete.... Over the years this observation has brought me to "internet" blows with so many "tuners" whose intercoolers are "da bomb" but facts are facts and now days there are other methods to keep intake temps down for low duration drag runs so everyone is happy
11-17-2013, 11:35 AM
#25
Nick, thanks for sharing your data, it cost you money to obtain and I applaud your efforts.
It seems to me that this testing methodology is for trying to determine accurately how different construction (in terms of materials and layout etc) of intercooler performs relative to another.
The airflow through the core of 20mph seems to make the results open to a bit of question when we consider that on our cars the airflow through the cores is so much higher and presumably at high airflow speeds the air forces its way through the denser cores better than at 20mph, however this may not be the case and in terms of percentage efficiencies your numbers may be spot on.
If your numbers are correct then at ~1080 kg/hr in 20mph airflow your Marston MS cores are at 80.6% efficiency and the 997 turbo.2 cores are at 77.7%
I'm sure you have read this but worth having a look if you haven't
https://rennlist.com/forums/993-turb...st-report.html
So for our test at 300kph on the track in an engine which was tuned to manufacturer specifications on the engine dyno (ie no ridiculous overboosted turbos) we measured by observing a Bosch Hammer (old version of PIWIS) the maximum intake temperature for each intercooler.
To get % efficiency we have to use a guesstimate of pre intercooler intake temps and use the same number for each cooler, so using 130C (which is reasonable on a ~18C day) we get:
Stock 993 intercooler 68%
Marston MS cores 78%
Secan cores 85%
I know it isn't really comparable but I would have expected the efficiency of your Marston MSs to be high than the 997 Turbo.2s but maybe as I said before at higher speeds yours' get more efficient as the airflow penetrates better ?
The other element which I was curious about is the heat soak which will occur in an intercooler when it is used in full load conditions for a fair length of time. I read the heat rejection numbers but they only really tell us specifically how well the intercooler is removing the heat of the 140C incoming air and not about how hot the intercooler itself may get with prolonged loaded use which itself will reduce its efficiency ?
The pressure drop numbers are awesome and these numbers are a massive slap in the face for all those tuners who like to talk about restrictive intercoolers and how theirs are better because they flow better, this little myth has been pedalled for years, I bought a 993 intercooler off a top German tuner in the 90s based on this tripe
RS Tuning use the exact same Secan intercoolers on their 997 680PS conversions as on the 1100hp 400kph Alzen record car and everything in between, it seems that a properly designed intercooler has a very broad range of use in terms of pressure drop vs power capability.
Lastly I like to reflect on the fact that if you look at high end Motorsport, the kind where proper money and reputation is at stake you will only find expensive "aerospace" quality intercoolers...... back in the mid 90s it was Porsche who did the research and commissioned Secan to build the ludicrously expensive EVO intercooler and ALL the teams bought them, even at $20000 each simply because if they didn't have them they could not compete.... Over the years this observation has brought me to "internet" blows with so many "tuners" whose intercoolers are "da bomb" but facts are facts and now days there are other methods to keep intake temps down for low duration drag runs so everyone is happy
It seems to me that this testing methodology is for trying to determine accurately how different construction (in terms of materials and layout etc) of intercooler performs relative to another.
The airflow through the core of 20mph seems to make the results open to a bit of question when we consider that on our cars the airflow through the cores is so much higher and presumably at high airflow speeds the air forces its way through the denser cores better than at 20mph, however this may not be the case and in terms of percentage efficiencies your numbers may be spot on.
If your numbers are correct then at ~1080 kg/hr in 20mph airflow your Marston MS cores are at 80.6% efficiency and the 997 turbo.2 cores are at 77.7%
I'm sure you have read this but worth having a look if you haven't
https://rennlist.com/forums/993-turb...st-report.html
So for our test at 300kph on the track in an engine which was tuned to manufacturer specifications on the engine dyno (ie no ridiculous overboosted turbos) we measured by observing a Bosch Hammer (old version of PIWIS) the maximum intake temperature for each intercooler.
To get % efficiency we have to use a guesstimate of pre intercooler intake temps and use the same number for each cooler, so using 130C (which is reasonable on a ~18C day) we get:
Stock 993 intercooler 68%
Marston MS cores 78%
Secan cores 85%
I know it isn't really comparable but I would have expected the efficiency of your Marston MSs to be high than the 997 Turbo.2s but maybe as I said before at higher speeds yours' get more efficient as the airflow penetrates better ?
The other element which I was curious about is the heat soak which will occur in an intercooler when it is used in full load conditions for a fair length of time. I read the heat rejection numbers but they only really tell us specifically how well the intercooler is removing the heat of the 140C incoming air and not about how hot the intercooler itself may get with prolonged loaded use which itself will reduce its efficiency ?
The pressure drop numbers are awesome and these numbers are a massive slap in the face for all those tuners who like to talk about restrictive intercoolers and how theirs are better because they flow better, this little myth has been pedalled for years, I bought a 993 intercooler off a top German tuner in the 90s based on this tripe
RS Tuning use the exact same Secan intercoolers on their 997 680PS conversions as on the 1100hp 400kph Alzen record car and everything in between, it seems that a properly designed intercooler has a very broad range of use in terms of pressure drop vs power capability.
Lastly I like to reflect on the fact that if you look at high end Motorsport, the kind where proper money and reputation is at stake you will only find expensive "aerospace" quality intercoolers...... back in the mid 90s it was Porsche who did the research and commissioned Secan to build the ludicrously expensive EVO intercooler and ALL the teams bought them, even at $20000 each simply because if they didn't have them they could not compete.... Over the years this observation has brought me to "internet" blows with so many "tuners" whose intercoolers are "da bomb" but facts are facts and now days there are other methods to keep intake temps down for low duration drag runs so everyone is happy
You always share your helpful info with us
You are right in regards to the comment I highlighted in red.
The Marston cores would whoop the GT2 RS cores butts in real life testing but this was just to prove independently that they were the real deal and would have beat any of the cores that they were tested against even with minimal airflow.
