atr liquid intercoolers

[Intercooler]

Originally posted by n20junkie
i think those great flow numbers on the air/air units do not take into consideration a big factor, a radiator behind it, if you slow down the air in behind a intercooler, then the air in front of it will also slow down
Grant J Farmer

Grant, do you run a FM? I don't understand this statement. In my car the V2 has plenty of seperation room between it and the radiator so I highly doubt anything is being slowed down and much more think it is being blasted with air.

 

[Whitettype86]

I'll just stick with the Ford Frontmount

 

[Spoolinup]

Dr.Boost your correct. I forgot about the waters temperature.
You would need a water temp probe to get the temperature and then compare outlet temps to get the liquids efficiency. But that still will maybe come close to the ambient temp outside, definitely not the ice waters temp. And for only one run.

The liquid will be more efficient, I never said it would not. But is it worth the $1000 for the small difference in outlet temps and having to refill it with ice after every run?

So, $1000 and a tenth maybe 2 on a really fast car?
But I said originally to take the V1 and alky, and compare. Then its over.

http://www.turbobuick.com/forums/sh...ght=best front mount intercooler&pagenumber=2

Click on that and see the mat difference between the V1 and the Pte. 40 degree difference on the car, and then find a flow chart from Pte's intercooler to compare to Cas's. You now have a real flow chart reading and an Mat sensor reading in the outlet to back up the flow chart from Cas. What else is there to say on that issue anymore?

 

[DR BOOST]

thanks for directing me to that thread , spoolinup.

i think that was an unfair comparison though. the std pte fm is on the level of a v2.

the v1 should be compared to the pte race unit.

frankly ive never even seen a pte race unit doesanyone know the difference between the std and the race units.

in conclusion, there are always gonna be new bigger and better intercoolers but for the majority of us stock block racers, any one of them is good enough.

for all the complainers about front mounts needing another 500 dollars of cooling mods...try a four core recore 120 bucks and problem solved.

i would honestly give up 40 degrees in outlet temp than to deal with poor customer service but thats just me.

surej

 

[postal]

Air Flow (FPM) Air Flow (MPH) Efficiency (@73.4 lb/min)
200--------------2.27----------------80%
400--------------4.55----------------84%
600--------------6.82----------------87%
800--------------9.09----------------89%
1000------------11.36---------------90%
1200------------13.64---------------91%
1400------------15.91---------------93%
1500-------------17.05---------------94%

the first column is cooling air flow in feet per minute, the second column is mile per hour. These are both refering to the speed(which also represents the AMOUNT) of the cooling air. (1500 feet per minute is 17.05 mph). The 73.4 lb/min at the top right of your chart represents the amount of compressed air being cooled down{CFM= (LB/MIN) / 0.075}.Your chart does show the efficiency under different cooling air speeds. Which backs up my statement that " The efficiency of an air to air intercooler is directly related to the speed of the cooling air passing across the core." You can see from your chart that the efficiency is drastically effected by this. Hell you go from 80% at 2.27 mph all the way up to 94% at 17 mph. So we increased the cooling air arcoss the core only 15 mph and we picked up 14% IC eff.
Now look at your chart a little closer. When we went from 2.27mph to 6.82mph and we went from 80% to 87%. That was a 7% increase. Now look where we went from 13.64 to 17.05 mph, the efficiency went up only 3% for the same increase in cooling air speed. This is the old rule of diminished returns. What happens is as the IC eff goes up the temp diff between the compressed air and the cooling air goes down. The temp diff between the two is the driving force behind the heat transfer process. As we get to the point where the eff starts getting higher and higher you find that another percent or two increase in eff becomes harder and harder to achieve. This diminished returns applies to the size of the IC also. If you take a stock 10 row unit and add 5 more rows to it, you will get a bigger increase in IC eff than if you took a 15 row stretch and added another 5 rows to that.
So your chart shows how importantance of cooling air flow across the core is but it doesnt show how the amount of air ( CFM or LB/MIN) to be cooled effects the eff of the IC. This part is really simple as cfm goes up then eff goes down and vice versa. The 73.4 LB/MIN stated in the chart works out to be 978 CFM {CFM= (LB/MIN) / 0.075}. So if you had a chart for 800 CFM the eff numbers would be higher, and at 1200 CFM they would be lower. Here again you would run into the diminished returns. If you took a IC off of a 1000 cfm motor and put it on an 800cfm motor and your eff increased 10% (just an example number) you would not gain another 10% in eff by taking it off of the 800 cfm motor and putting it on a 600 cfm motor. This is because that once again as the eff is going up the temp diff between the charge air and the cooling air is decreasing and we are losing our " driving force" for the heat transfer process.

SO NOW WE ARE READY TO DRAW A COUPLE CONCLUSIONS......or atleast make an attempt at a few. First we will start with a couple basics with out trying to write a book to back them up.
1. We want the charged air going into the motor as cool as possible. We all know that cool air makes power ESPECIALLY on a turbo car. If we've lost you already then you flunk.

2. We want as free flowing pipes and IC cores as possible. pressure at the turbo outlet is always higher than at the intake manifold(which is where we tap our boost gauge into). The air got hot in the first place from running it through a hot turbo charger and then compressing it. So if we got to compress it to 22 psi to get 20 psi at the intake manifold ( 22 psi turbo out temp = 244 deg, 20 psi turbo out temp = 229 deg, this is calculated for an 80 deg day and an unstated turbocharger eff but it does show the effect)......this is a big a$$ can of worms in its self, but we know we want the press drop as low as possible.

OK those are out of the way, now here are these:
1. As the IC eff goes up trying to increase it more and more becomes harder and harder.

2. Increasing the size of the intercooler or putting the same IC on a smaller motor will increase its eff, but you will hit a point where the returns are smaller and smaller and trying to run an IC that big becomes impractical.

3. Increasing the cooling air flow across the core will increase the IC's eff, and from that chart we see that only 15 mph increase in cooling air made a 14% increase in IC eff. This is a huge factor that is almost never addressed with front mount installs but is with stock location units (ie scoops). Just because a front mount is up front doesnt mean that air is going to go throught it. I can stick a coffee filter in my grill and air will go through it, but if I pulled a stack of coffee filters out of the box and put them in my grill would the air still go through them or would they build a pressure head up in front of them that would force the air to go around them instead of through them. We dont care how much air is in front of the car or how fast we are moving through it. We only care about how much is able to push through the "Stack" of cores which consist of a IC, AC condensor, and a Radiator. Hopefully no one will try to add a big trans cooler to this "Stack".

Now we can make a theoretical choice: We want a proper sized core for the amount of air we are trying to cool AND we want it located in a place where we get the proper amount of cooling air through it. When doing this we have to look at whats infront and behind it and how or if we are trying to direct the air through it. We also dont want to waste a bunch of money getting caught up in the whole diminishing returns deal, and dont want to get caught up in hidden expenses. These points alone make picking the "right for YOU" air to air IC alone a real head ache!

Now the people patient enough to read through this big post prob think one of two things. They probably either think Iam a dip or they will think Ive read alot on this subject over the years and make some good and valid points. I my self am just a hobbyist but that also means I dont have to try to make money, I dont have to try to come up with a product that I can sell in a certain price range AND maintain a given profit margin. So after purchasing a frount mount and then a stock location unit, why did I go out and buy the most expensive which is the liquid?? Becusause I did some research and I feel that the price of a ATR liquid can easily be justified. Maybe ill post tomorrow and try to present a strong case for them. Here is the real kicker, I havent ran my liquid yet! If this bad boy doesnt do the deal then your going to have one pist off postal worker bashing ATR liquids as long as this board is around. I think Ill be all right though because you have guys who have ran a FM and knock them, guys have run stock location units and knock them, but never heard a guy who HAS run an ATR liquid knock it. This because they dont want to look stupid for wasting that kind of money, or because they are worth all that jack?......Ill know in about a month.

HTH: Jason

 

[tstolze]

I have read the whole post and all I read is draining the liquid and refilling it... The unit pumps water through a radiator to cool the liquid and then to the intercooler, so the liquid is being cooled at all times...I am not saying which is better, I do know that guys with the liquid intercoolers run very consistent throughout a day at the track, my front mount is more consistent than the stocker but not even close the the liquids...

 

[DR BOOST]

i have a couple of questions.

1. when did tony upgrade to the new core technology ? does this mean that the older models have inferior technology?

2. can anyone state the thermal tranfer rates between water to aluminum and air to aluminum. the reason im asking this is because just like when u drive without a coolant thermostat, your can overheats because the water is moving too quickly to transfer heat. is there a point where air speed prevents thermal transfer?

3. ive seen quite a few 9 sec cars running precision intercoolers and even faster ones running liquid bu im yet to see one of tony's running that fast. im not saying its not possible , im just wondering if when comparing front mounts to front mounts if his new tech is necessary.

4. when i look at tony's v2 against a pte i noticed a drastic difference in end tank design. the pte end tanks direct air in a way that the air would more evenly flowthrough all the cores. the end tanks on tony's are straight and appear to favor the upper rows. people are quick to state that the pte's end tanks block too much radiator area but if it more evenly flows air it is worth it.

5. spoolin up , could u please list your combo? im interested to know. thankyou

6. i honestly feel that this thread is comparing apples to oranges. im an enthusiast who appreciates quality products but i feel both coolers are overkill on a stock block. i couldnt safely benefit from either of the two. at that level, the v1 is nice and light. but in terms of efficiency, it cannot compare to a liquid cooler unless u live in alaska(i.e. air must be colder than ice) repeatability is also improved as u can drain and refill the water in a minute instead of waiting 30 minutes to cool the frontmount.

hth

surej

 

[NastyGn]

I've been reading all the post here and many of the comments are very vaid (good and bad points).

Over the years I have tried different IC's, the first was a stretched stock IC, it was better than the stock one but I never got any temp readings on it. We then attached a tank to the upper half of the IC and I would pack it with either water and ice or from time to time dry ice and akly. With the dry ice the starting temp of the liquid would be in the 30 deg range, the starting inlet temp would be in the mid 30's at the end of the run the inlet temp would be in the 130 deg range. This was on 98 deg day with humidity at 75%. With the humidity down here a air to air IC has a hard time transfering heat (as do our bodies heheh).
This was on my 3.8 motor that ran 10.70's and was with a 63-1 turbo.

I now have a Sperco IC with a tank in the trunk that I pump ice
water to the front. the IC has a 2# pressure drop (or difference)
at 20# of boost. My inlet temp starts at 36 to 38 deg and at the end of a run the temp will be right at 100 deg, this is on a 272 stage II with a PTE-88 turbo and again with outside temps at 98 and humidity over 70%.

From that living down here in the south on normal hot day the air to air IC will have a hard time keeping the inlet temp down when it has to start at 98 deg and will go up from there. The pressure drop in the new air to air IC's is very good but for here and for racing I don't think you will beat a air to water IC for the best inlet temp.

For street driving and no hassle driving the air to air IC's are the best.

Something else I have found over time is that as the outside temp
reaches 60 deg and lower the difference in inlet temps between a air to air and air to water IC's becomes less and not as much an issue.

This is no flame intended just what I have found in my car and someting that works for me.

 

[Alky V6]

I'm using a Spearco liquid intercooler on my car and was running it without water for awhile. It worked pretty good even without water for short burst stuff. Any intercooler acts as a heat sink until it is saturated enough to start transfering heat energy to its cooling media (air or water). Anyone who has studied it understands that water will transfer heat 4 times that of air. So a heat saturated core will cool faster or at a quicker rate with water than with air. Anyone who has used a grinder on a piece of steel and has had to cool it before he could continue grinding on the piece understands this. Cool the part with an air gun connected to a air compressor, I don't care what volume of air you put across that part, and you can be standing there for quite awhile. Cool the same piece with luke warm water and the thing is cooled down or at least easily handled right now. The problem is when the water is heat saturated and has to transfer its heat energy to the air through a heat exchanger. That can and is a slow process since you've collected a large amount of heat energy in that water. The water to air heat exchanger becomes the critical aspect of the system, not the intercooler. Here again we see how the air is slowing things down. Check out the top turbo racers in the import classes and you'll notice a lot of liquid intercoolers. My opinion is for street use or indurance, use an air to air. For strip where the time slip is important, use liquid with a holding tank where you can stuff it with ice. Turn the pump on as your staging to cool down the core. Leave it on for the run. Using a liquid intercooler you have already super cooled the core before even leaving the lights. With an air to air, at what speed or how far down the quarter do you need to get to before efficient cooling even starts and at what rate?

 

[Spoolinup]

Lets do a short recap on this topic,

Liquid intercoolers will cool the inlet more than the air to air.
I never argued that the air to air would be the same or better, but the gap is alot shorter now with the new extruded tubed cores.

Extruded tube front mounts are so efficient that it is arguably within single digit % difference in efficiency than the liquid. What % number is in question and my point is, that worth $1000?

On a street car like the one Turbobeagle saw, the air to air would be the financially sound choice.

For an all out racer who has money, go for it. And what the hell, convert to alcohol full time.
But a buick that most likely does 10's at best like the ones at car shows, then the liquid becomes a show piece and conversation starter. IMO total waste of hard earned money.

As for the CAS pieces, here is something off the site.

"If you're building a serious twin turbo Stage II headed Buick or a serious small block chevy for your Buick or g-body, this is the intercooler for you. Available in either a single turbo configuration or a twin turbo configuration, this unit measures 34" x 16" x 6.25" deep. This unit has been 8.04 @ 175 MPH on Kent Rudbeck's twin turbo, 3200 lb T-Type while still maintaining over a 90% effectiveness. "

My GN has a V2 and everything but the ported heads and intake. I am going to a Ball Bearing TE 63 and propane injection for a total street ripper. Thats my goal.

But here is my original point.
Is a V1, Alky and $600 better than an a liquid intercooler?

IMO yes. I see liquids as a .25% piece. Only a rare few can justify the $1000 difference with a time slip. The rest of us should use the saved money and buy something for our kids, wifes or girlfriends. (Just in case my girlfriend sees this)

 

[Turbo 6 Justin]

I have read through a lot of this and have my own opinions like the rest of the people out there. It was brought up on page one about the SY/Ty intercoolers being water to air. I started in the TY world (untill I wanted to go fast that is, hehe) and we tried everything to get the sock Ic to work. bigger pumps, an aux water cooler that was put in front of the radiator and caused cooling problems like the rest of them, water sprayers, alky and a lots of pounds of ice (we could melt 10 lbs of ice in one 1/4 mile run to put the amount of heat into perspective). the fact of the matter was that at the strip we could get the MAT damn low, 40-50* consistently it was a pain in the ass to ice it down then get yelled at cause of the water dripping etc. at the big end of the track it was a different story though, the temps just kept climbing and climbing sometimes real high 120-130* was real common, this is with a true MAT sensor mounted in the manifold so it was pretty accurate. not to mention daily driving, and the cruise/street racing that I do the mat was hot, 70 ambient, start of run 120ish, end of run 160 easy with all the mods

Then I started talking to Tony and we decided to try a air-air with it. the design work for what he sells was done on my truck and I loved it, couldn't precool it like the water-air but you can still use a water sprayer (or nos sprayer) and alky to cool it down. but at the track like everyone expected the temps started dropping as I started moving. 70 ambient would start at ~100 at the line and then by the end of the run would be just a few degrees over ambient. Now I am pretty sure most of us tune via, o2, EGT whatever but we look at the big end numbers cause that is where problems happen and where the motor is under the most load, heat in engine, and biggest cooling needs. So at least for the SY/TY's the front mount air-air was a big improvement. Not to mention at the street races after a long drive to get there and several repeted races it was much more consistent.

For all out, make 3 runs in a 10 hour day, track use only I think a water-air can be made to work better but what most of us do: go to the track make as many runs as we can because it is expensive, drive it on the street ready to kill that stang next to us, and street race as much as out conscience allows there is no substitute for the air-air.

FYI My GN runs a V2, recored radiator, stock fan and runs about 75* over ambient (unless I forget to turn the fan on but that's my fault. I have a griffin universal AL radiator sitting here that was ~$180 or something like that I already had a stand alone trans cooler and engine coling will cost another ~$80 or so so saying it is big money to cool a front mount is not true for $260 I will have no problems, hell I haven't even needed the AL radiator yet.

okay I am done. agree or not this is my experience and opinion