Intercooler Selection question

[bruce]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PS shows outstanding performance....

Originally posted by Joe Lubrant
No need to use an intercooler that far exceeds your requirements.

REALLY?.
Might look at this data log that proves otherwise.

Do you have a data log to justify your claim?. Any old actual lof file will work, just fine. Not just some off the cuff remark, please, lets see some data, to support your claim. Let's see a log of any ole car that signifigantly drops the MATs during a run without it being *far exceeding your requirements*.

Since YOU'VE labeled the Cotton's as 1,000 HP capacity Intercooler, and I'm not even close to being in that league, here's a file that shows how the MAT drops during a run. From using one that FAR EXCEEDS my *requirement*.

*Quoted from another posting of mine*:

Here's a run I did today just to illustrate a point. Note just 200 K/Pa, which is 15 PSI of boost, and only 1/2 throttle, the track conditions just weren't even close to allowing for a hard pass. But, notice the starting MAT was 95dF, and ending was 59dF.

Current weather:
39°F
Cloudy
Dew Point: 30°F
Humidity: 70%
Pressure: 30.12 inches
Wind: From the West at 13 mph

TimeStamp: 11/28/2004 - 11:08:04
Run Mph Rpm Map VE% Tps CTS MAT O2 Sa sPW DC% AFR rrWB
14 0 725 63 52 2 179 95 4 21 1.50 2 14.7 15.8
14 0 700 73 57 13 179 95 4 21 1.77 2 14.7 15.9
14 0 900 97 65 30 179 95 4 22 2.47 4 13.2 15.9
14 0 1225 96 85 32 179 95 4 23 3.17 6 12.8 15.8
14 0 1475 95 88 33 179 95 757 26 3.30 8 12.5 12.9
14 0 1725 93 89 35 179 95 664 27 3.39 10 12.5 11.9
14 0 1875 99 91 44 179 95 739 28 3.57 11 12.5 12.9
14 0 1975 100 91 49 179 86 748 28 3.69 12 12.5 12.3
Run Mph Rpm Map VE% Tps CTS MAT O2 Sa sPW DC% AFR rrWB
15 0 2000 101 91 51 179 86 770 28 3.69 12 12.5 11.1
15 0 2075 102 90 56 179 86 770 28 3.69 13 12.5 11.4
15 4 2150 105 88 58 179 86 677 28 3.69 13 12.5 11.1
15 4 2200 106 87 58 179 86 664 28 3.69 14 12.5 12.2
15 6 2275 110 84 59 179 86 655 29 3.78 14 12.5 12.4
15 6 2325 113 83 59 179 86 655 29 3.85 15 12.5 12.3
15 10 2350 114 83 59 179 86 602 30 3.81 15 12.5 12.3
15 10 2425 116 82 60 179 86 673 30 3.81 15 12.5 12.4
15 10 2475 119 82 60 179 86 726 30 3.91 16 12.5 12.6
Run Mph Rpm Map VE% Tps CTS MAT O2 Sa sPW DC% AFR rrWB
16 10 2550 122 83 60 179 86 425 30 4.00 17 12.5 12.6
16 15 2625 124 83 60 179 86 686 30 4.00 17 12.5 12.6
16 13 2675 128 84 60 179 86 704 29 4.18 19 12.5 12.7
16 16 2750 132 84 60 179 86 575 29 4.27 20 12.5 12.8
16 19 2925 140 83 59 179 77 726 28 4.39 21 12.5 13.3
16 16 3025 145 83 59 179 77 491 27 4.58 23 12.5 13.2
16 22 3225 155 82 53 179 77 535 27 4.97 27 12.5 14.0
Run Mph Rpm Map VE% Tps CTS MAT O2 Sa sPW DC% AFR rrWB
18 40 3800 205 80 47 179 68 717 25 6.26 40 12.5 13.7
18 42 3850 204 80 47 179 68 376 25 6.23 40 12.5 14.3
18 42 3875 201 80 47 179 68 668 25 6.13 40 12.5 13.8
18 43 3875 201 80 46 179 68 642 25 6.13 40 12.5 14.5
18 44 3925 200 80 46 179 68 633 25 6.13 40 12.5 14.4
Run Mph Rpm Map VE% Tps CTS MAT O2 Sa sPW DC% AFR rrWB
19 46 3925 198 80 46 179 68 350 25 6.10 40 12.5 13.8
19 49 3650 200 80 45 179 68 597 25 6.20 38 12.5 14.3
19 49 3575 201 80 45 179 68 695 25 6.26 37 12.5 14.4
19 49 3525 201 80 46 179 68 292 25 6.26 37 12.5 14.4
19 49 3525 202 80 47 179 68 611 25 6.26 37 12.5 14.1
19 51 3525 202 80 47 179 68 580 25 6.29 37 12.5 14.4
19 51 3550 202 80 47 179 68 332 25 6.26 37 12.5 14.0
19 52 3550 204 80 47 177 68 668 25 6.26 37 12.5 14.4
19 53 3575 205 80 47 177 68 646 25 6.26 37 12.5 14.3
19 54 3575 205 80 47 177 68 332 25 6.26 37 12.5 14.4
Run Mph Rpm Map VE% Tps CTS MAT O2 Sa sPW DC% AFR rrWB
23 76 3450 205 80 47 176 59 310 25 6.47 37 12.5 14.3
23 77 3475 205 80 46 175 59 588 25 6.47 37 12.5 13.7
23 78 3550 204 80 45 175 59 301 25 6.35 38 12.5 14.0
Run Mph Rpm Map VE% Tps CTS MAT O2 Sa sPW DC% AFR rrWB
25 85 2600 204 83 41 173 59 628 25 6.35 28 12.5 13.2
25 85 2600 204 83 41 173 59 708 25 6.41 28 12.5 13.0
Run Mph Rpm Map VE% Tps CTS MAT O2 Sa sPW DC% AFR rrWB
27 91 2775 205 84 41 173 59 341 25 6.47 30 12.5 13.0
27 91 2775 204 84 41 173 59 518 25 6.47 30 12.5 13.1
27 91 2775 204 84 41 173 59 699 25 6.47 30 12.5 13.1
27 92 2775 204 84 41 173 59 730 25 6.50 30 12.5 13.1
27 92 2800 204 84 41 173 59 350 25 6.47 30 12.5 13.1
Run Mph Rpm Map VE% Tps CTS MAT O2 Sa sPW DC% AFR rrWB

This is with a Cotton's F/M.
TA62,
**91 Octane, 25d timing on 91 octane** I might add, obviously still working on the tune, this is my Syclone ecm code, 60 PPH injectors, 3 ACCEL- 300 CD's

By working on the tune, in this case also means developing code. ie my code is hundreds of lines shorter then the original.

As a side note, for those tuning using the oem sensor, PLEASE look at what the O2 volts are, and their correlation to the rrWB AFR.
Run-time
MPH-
MAP- actual
VE%-
TPS-percentage
CTS-Coolant temp
MAT-Manifold Air Temp
O2-O2 voltage
Sa- Spark advance
sPW-Injector Pulse Width
DC%- Duty Cycle
AFR- AFR the ecm is commanding
rrWB- Actual AFR the WB is seeing.

Joe, can you support YOUR claim?.
Maybe when you can, I'll take you seriously...........

 

[QuickWrench]

I really, really hate these pissing matches that start once certain people get involved.

The guy's original question was: "Is there any difference between the Precision front mount and Cotton's front mount?". If you have an opinion, just state it. Don't make everyone drag out their notebooks, data files, DNA tests, and Forensic Analysis thesis, Matlock-style. It makes the Buick community look like a gaggle of nerdy virgin weenies.

I'm going to bed. Anyone want proof? Webcam shots?

 

[Fuelie600]

Thank you QuickWrench!!!!

 

[Fuelie600]

Here's what I come up with.
1- Cottons and PTE front mounts are both 9 sec. capable.
2- PTE and Cottons both fit well
3- PTE $850, Cottons $1150
It's your choice! Thikin' I'll put that $300 toward a HRParts swaybar.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by QuickWrench
I really, really hate these pissing matches that start once certain people get involved.

The guy's original question was: "Is there any difference between the Precision front mount and Cotton's front mount?". If you have an opinion, just state it. Don't make everyone drag out their notebooks, data files, DNA tests, and Forensic Analysis thesis, Matlock-style. It makes the Buick community look like a gaggle of nerdy virgin weenies.

Why not, drag out actual data?.
Using actual data, gets things past the idle claims, and opinions.
I would have thought when spending the better part of a thousand dollars, you'd want the best info possible.
Remind me not to bother going out and getting any real data for you in the future. But, being a open list, maybe someone will appreciate the effort that went into gather the data.

BTW, can you name another board when someone goes and spends an hour and makes a couple passes to gather data to accurately answer a guestion like you asked?.

 

[Fuelie600]

Bruce. Let me say, that your input is valued here. What appears to have happened, ( atleast in my opinion ) is two guys who can run fast, getting in a pushing match over which lane to run in------. Quickwrench was just trying to put water on the fire. Peace!

 

[turbopaul]

So what is the efficacy and pressure drop on that Cotton's FM for that run

 

[Garycar]

I can only speak for my own experiences and preferences. I am an advocate of liquid intercoolers for the track. Inlet air temperatures in the 80 degree area are common with ice water circulating through the intercooler vs typical front mount air to ar units with inlet temperatires in the range of 120 to 140 degrees and higher. However, a liquid intercooler, as we all know is not the ideal street setup. As a result I did some research, talked to a number of turbo Buick racers, looked at the available front mounts and chose the PTE unit. The fit is perfect and an easy install. The quality of the unit is in my opinion as good as it gets! My previous front mount was the Eastern Performance unit with its 2.5" tubing. I saw a 2-3 psi increase in boost pressure with the PTE unit. The PTE front mount can easily support a low 9 second car. I believe the PTE unit's performance, guality, fit and price will exceed by a wide margin the expectations of 99% of all turbo Regal owners.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by turbopaul
So what is the efficacy and pressure drop on that Cotton's FM for that run

If you look at the logs that I've posted, you can figure out the temps involved, and figure it out from there, based on MATs. Since I've posted the results from running without an Intercooler.

I couldn't accurately even tell if there was any *drop* across the Cotton's as compared to running no intercooler.

Bottom line, with an increasing vehicle speed, the actual MAT temp got to within 20dF of ambient. Again, looking at the logs I've posted you'd be able to see what it takes to do better.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by Garycar
I can only speak for my own experiences and preferences. I am an advocate of liquid intercoolers for the track. Inlet air temperatures in the 80 degree area are common with ice water circulating through the intercooler vs typical front mount air to ar units with inlet temperatires in the range of 120 to 140 degrees and higher. However, a liquid intercooler, as we all know is not the ideal street setup. As a result I did some research, talked to a number of turbo Buick racers, looked at the available front mounts and chose the PTE unit. The fit is perfect and an easy install. The quality of the unit is in my opinion as good as it gets! My previous front mount was the Eastern Performance unit with its 2.5" tubing. I saw a 2-3 psi increase in boost pressure with the PTE unit. The PTE front mount can easily support a low 9 second car. I believe the PTE unit's performance, guality, fit and price will exceed by a wide margin the expectations of 99% of all turbo Regal owners.

Just mentioning ice brings in a whole new element.

I've seen guys run 10s with blue tops, and develope a trophy collection of headgaskets to do it. While switching to 72 *only* maintained the same level of performance, but he hasn't blown a headgasket yet with the bigger injectors. It does pay, IMO, to over engineer, rather then to push things to the limit (is my point).

There are lots of guys here, that *have done* so and so, but, IMO, the real issue is what the average guy can do with a given mandate.

With no base line, or frame of reference it's easy to meet expectaions. There are lots of opinions based on ego attachment to having spent $$ on a part. How many people will say I spent $$, and really didn't get what I expected, or done enough testing to know what in theory the expected result should be?.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by Fuelie600
Quickwrench was just trying to put water on the fire. Peace!

*******
It makes the Buick community look like a gaggle of nerdy virgin weenies.
*******

That was water?, maybe if it was directed at something you'd worked at, you wouldn't see it as water.

 

[turbopaul]

Sorry, don't know how to figure the efficacy from your data. How about showing everybody how it's done

 

[TurboTR]

The latest PTE IC is a very nice piece at a good price. We were seeing the IAT drop with it on my friend's low 11'ish TR in colder than usual racing air (for us) (~ low 50's). It would start at about 100 deg off the line (no cold air kit, sucking radiator air that heat soaked the system to ~ 100) and drop into the mid 70's during the run, rising some from there towards the finish. Lol. OTOH I have seen finishing IAT's through the traps in the sub 110 deg range wth the CAS V4, along with a decent high flow cold air kit. Haven't seen mention of the starting IAT's yet. That is starting with IAT about ambient of about 75 deg. If mine had no cold air pickup at the time and started at the typical 90-100 deg IAT, then it would also have been finishing in the 130-140 deg range, just like the other 2 comparable IC choices seem to at this flow range. About a 30-35 or so deg temperature rise during a pass seems average for this level of a/a IC at that flow level (~ mid/low 10's), in typical ambient air. What seems more important in comparing apples to apples is the temperature rise during a pass with similar conditions of ambient temp and flow level. With the stock or other lower capacity IC's you generally see a much steeper temperature rise during a run.

TurboTR

 

[lazaris]

Originally posted by bruce
Why not, drag out actual data?.
Using actual data, gets things past the idle claims, and opinions.


Bruce,

This is a good idea. Maybe you could test a PTE with the same data you collected on the Cottons. I think this would go a long way in getting out that actual data for the PTE as well and provide a good comparison.
Good idea?

 

[Garycar]

I'm not convinced that there is much of a difference in the performance of the front mount intercoolers in question. Bigger and or over-engineered is not always the right way, the best way, the most cost effective way or the only way! Competition however, is healthy and good for the buyer. If 50# injectors are doing the job plus some should we go for 160# injectors in support of the concept that bigger and over-engineered is better? Where does it stop? Several years ago the "Source" newsletter tested the available front mount intercoolers and if my memory serves me correctly they concluded that Cotton's and PTE's intercoolers performed similarly with a possible edge toward Cotton's. I currently have in my collection of used parts a Mark Brown liquid intercooler, Kenney Bell's "Big Boy" from the early 90's, Eastern performance and PTE's intercoolers. With the exception of the liquid unit, the differences in performance appear minimal.

 

[bsdlinux]

With all of this babble about this FM or that one. I am glad I got a 24 Row Mease stock locatation IC...LOL

TurboTR- It is nice to see you active on the board again. You still in ATX??

Garycar- I believe you might be missing Bruce's point. I am sure Bruce would be the first to tell most not over buy parts. However trying to sqeeze the last bit out of smaller injectors or what ever might not be the most cost effective lets say if the engine blows up.

 

[Garycar]

Hey bsdlinux "just another black car", thanks, the point is well taken and a valid one. All of this is healthy information and good for the turbo Regal community so long as it is presented in a friendly, constructive and informative way. The fact that we have good venders such as Cotton's, PTE and others benefits all of us.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by lazaris

Originally posted by bruce
Why not, drag out actual data?.
Using actual data, gets things past the idle claims, and opinions.
Bruce,
This is a good idea. Maybe you could test a PTE with the same data you collected on the Cottons. I think this would go a long way in getting out that actual data for the PTE as well and provide a good comparison.
Good idea?

I can honestly say, I've done more then my fair share about testing and sharing results. With all the PT+Es in service, you'd think someone would have a shareable data log. I guess some folks feel thou as they're hiding something tune wise, and heaven's we can't have them giving anything away, now can we. Odd, that the 9 Sec guy, can't be bothered to actually support HIS claims.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by Garycar
I'm not convinced that there is much of a difference in the performance of the front mount intercoolers in question. Bigger and or over-engineered is not always the right way, the best way, the most cost effective way or the only way! Competition however, is healthy and good for the buyer. If 50# injectors are doing the job plus some should we go for 160# injectors in support of the concept that bigger and over-engineered is better? Where does it stop? Several years ago the "Source" newsletter tested the available front mount intercoolers and if my memory serves me correctly they concluded that Cotton's and PTE's intercoolers performed similarly with a possible edge toward Cotton's. I currently have in my collection of used parts a Mark Brown liquid intercooler, Kenney Bell's "Big Boy" from the early 90's, Eastern performance and PTE's intercoolers. With the exception of the liquid unit, the differences in performance appear minimal.

Can you define over engineered in this case?. Do you mean worring about what particular design the core is?.

Seems like folks are also missing out on thinking though the whole concept here. Yes, an intercooler is a heat exchanger, but what else is it?. It's a thermal flywheel. And that dear sirs, makes a huge difference when your staged and making alot of heat in the air charge. For a thermal flywheel to be effective means having enough mass to store thermal energy.

Please look CLOSELY at the log(s) I've provided. And then grab all the logs you can of all the cars, and various components that you can.

If anyone thinks I have money to toss around for buying parts that are in excess, well, then you just don't know me.

I probably have as many logs from my stock, big neck, I/C delete, Cotton's, as any 2-3 guys around here, and I'm not in the position to make snap decisions about spending a grand for an intercooler.

In short, the smaller the compressor housing, the more heat the Turbo will put into the air to compress it. So unlike *Conventional* wisdon, it's more critical for a smaller trubo'd engine to go with alot of intercooler then the larger ones. While you might get by with a *small* intercooler with a turbo with a large, or huge compressor housing, that's because the turbo just isn't putting as much heat into the air (for the specific application).

Yes, you want to buy the right parts for what your doing, but, too many people following the herd haven't been really doing enough data logging, and looking for trends.

Bottom line, look at the data log I posted, 25d timing on 91 octane, 15 PSI, running lean, and NO TRACE OF HITTING THE KNOCK DETECTOR. NO TRACE.
Talk about results speaking for themselves, what more can anyone ask for.

An intercooler is for reducing the charge's heat, to lessen the tendency to detonate. Getting to within 20dF of ambient just shows how good the Cotton's is.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by bsdlinux

Garycar- I believe you might be missing Bruce's point. I am sure Bruce would be the first to tell most not over buy parts.

However trying to sqeeze the last bit out of smaller injectors or what ever might not be the most cost effective lets say if the engine blows up.

Bingo.
It's all about being prudent, and cost effective. One has to look at their goals, and then figure out what they want to do with the car, and then how to achieve those goals.