Intercooler Selection question

[BoostKillsStres]

Just a small piece of meaningless data to add.
When I frontmounted my V4 I had no idea what to expect. I also put the MAT in the upper plenum for measurement and was pleased to see that the IAT temps were 15 to 20 degrees cooler when driving at a constant speed in very similar temp conditions.

So from that I'd assume at least a 20 degree lower IAT starting point before even going into boost from just about any front mount out there espically since most are twice as big as my V4 hung out there but I like it as there's a clear shot for air to the rad on both sides for cooling, haven't noticed a coolant change at all.

anyway, just fyi.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by BoostKillsStres
Just a small piece of meaningless data to add.
When I frontmounted my V4 I had no idea what to expect. I also put the MAT in the upper plenum for measurement and was pleased to see that the IAT temps were 15 to 20 degrees cooler when driving at a constant speed in very similar temp conditions.

So from that I'd assume at least a 20 degree lower IAT starting point before even going into boost from just about any front mount out there espically since most are twice as big as my V4 hung out there but I like it as there's a clear shot for air to the rad on both sides for cooling, haven't noticed a coolant change at all.

anyway, just fyi.

And 20dF cooler going in, means 20dF less EGT.
just a fyi.

 

[Fuelie600]

SO if the rest of the air flow equation is sub par, what happens? The more efficient the TB's, plenums, intakes, heads, valves, and exhausts are, the less the turbo will have to work to get X amount of air through the motor. Just an observation, as a larger compresser wheel can introduce more heat into the intake charge than a smaller wheel if the supporting combo is not there. So how do you really test an intercoolers capabilties. On a flow bech w/ controlled air temps, air densities, pressures and volumes---nothing other than the intercooler w/o outside influence (ie turbo or motor). I don't know where it will all end up--the results will still be challanged. Let us race in peace!

 

[top gun]

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

Originally posted by bruce


*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.

WOW, I see it is capable of serious data logging now what is the et. and mph from this beast.

 

[bruce]

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

Originally posted by top gun
WOW, I see it is capable of serious data logging now what is the et. and mph from this beast.

That's the *short* data logging system. I have one that watches all the RAM locations in the ecm and records that 17x a second.

It's a toy for me. I just like experimenting, learning, and setting my own goals. The *numbers* game of drag racing doesn't mean what it used to, so I just have my own series of numbers that I use to guage how well it's running.

 

[david buschur]

Bruce,

Am I missing something in your logs or did you just drive the car down the road? It doesn't look to me like the car was run hard at all, just driven at part throttle through the gears, is this right?

David Buschur

 

[turbopaul]

I'm still waiting for an answer Bruce. What is the efficacy of the FM? With all the data you take you must have the answer. I don't know how to figure it, and I'm sure a lot of people here don't know how to figure it, and it's your data, so show us how it's done. Don't let the fine folks on this board down.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by david buschur
Bruce,

Am I missing something in your logs or did you just drive the car down the road? It doesn't look to me like the car was run hard at all, just driven at part throttle through the gears, is this right?

David Buschur

No it wasn't a hard pass. If you look at the actual AFRs, you can see the tune was an in progress.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by turbopaul
I'm still waiting for an answer Bruce. What is the efficacy of the FM? With all the data you take you must have the answer. I don't know how to figure it, and I'm sure a lot of people here don't know how to figure it, and it's your data, so show us how it's done. Don't let the fine folks on this board down.

I don't care about the calculated E, if YOU do, then that's YOUR responsibility, to figure it out. Why is it YOU expect me to hand YOU the info you want?. The raw data is there.

Nice try at a guilt trip, but, you'll have to do better then that. It's tough love time, if you can't be bothered to do ANY work, don't be surprised when I don't respond.

BTW, the topic(s) have been covered numberous times, and simply doing a little research will give you the answer(s). After a while you can't expect people to just constantly rewrite the same things.

 

[bruce]

Still building the calibration, but we're up to 20 PSI, and a momentary 100 TPS.

19d timing, still a lil lean, 20 PSI, 91 octane, no trace of tickling the knock sensor.

Still no Alky Injection.

MAT still dropped 20dF during the run. In case anyone's missed it look at the MATs, closely. Remember what I was saying about the thermal flywheeling effect of the Intercooler?. See how the MAT stays high, and then as the boost starts to build the temps DROP!. That's when the turbo is first starting to really compress the air, and generating heat, notice that the temp drops?. And then continues to drop as speed builds?. The Cotton's with it's huge frontal area, exposes ALOT of the heat exchanger to the moving air, something a smaller unit simply can't do. A large thin one that has alot of frontal area, can make up for a slightly poorer design, by it having alot of frontal area.

When you get done with all your calculations, and guesses it's what goes on in the car that matters. Unless of course you can accurately model the heat flywheeling, VS vs frontal area, etc, etc, etc..

No power braking, 0-80, 8 secs., 2/3 throttle shifting at 4,000 RPM, 20 PSI, hardly even working the engine at this stage.

41 dF
28°F Humidity
Pressure: 29.97
Wind: From the Southwest at 13 mph
TimeStamp: 11/29/2004 - 08:02:51
Run Mph Rpm Map VE% Tps CTS MAT Sa Rt sPW AFR rrWB
19:05 0 750 56 50 0 168 95 19 0 1.53 14.7 13.4
19:05 0 725 56 50 2 168 95 19 0 1.53 14.7 13.4
19:05 0 775 61 52 9 168 95 22 0 1.53 14.7 13.3
19:05 0 825 81 59 20 168 95 21 0 1.89 14.7 13.3
19:05 0 900 97 64 27 168 95 20 0 2.56 13.2 13.2
19:05 0 1175 96 83 31 168 95 21 0 3.27 12.7 18
19:05 0 1350 96 86 33 168 95 22 0 3.33 12.7 11.6
Run Mph Rpm Map VE% Tps CTS MAT Sa Rt sPW AFR rrWB
19:06 0 1550 96 88 36 168 95 24 0 3.42 12.5 10.5
19:06 0 1825 101 90 59 168 95 27 0 3.63 12.5 10.7
19:06 0 2000 104 90 78 168 95 27 0 3.75 12.5 10.1
19:06 0 2025 105 88 95 168 95 28 0 3.78 12.5 10.3
19:06 3 2075 106 87 100 168 95 28 0 3.75 12.5 10.5
19:06 3 2125 108 86 100 168 95 28 0 3.69 12.5 10.3
19:06 3 2175 110 84 100 168 95 28 0 3.72 12.5 10.8
19:06 3 2225 111 84 100 168 86 29 0 3.72 12.5 11.1
Run Mph Rpm Map VE% Tps CTS MAT Sa Rt sPW AFR rrWB
19:07 9 2400 118 79 100 168 86 30 0 3.63 12.5 12.0
19:07 14 2575 125 81 100 168 86 29 0 4.06 12.5 12.6
19:07 12 2625 129 82 100 168 86 28 0 4.18 12.5 12.6
19:07 12 2725 133 83 97 168 86 28 0 4.33 12.5 12.6
19:07 16 2800 137 84 95 168 86 28 0 4.52 12.5 12.3
19:07 16 2875 142 83 95 168 86 27 0 4.73 12.5 12.3
19:07 19 3075 155 82 95 168 86 26 0 5.10 12.5 13.0
Run Mph Rpm Map VE% Tps CTS MAT Sa Rt sPW AFR rrWB
19:08 17 3200 164 82 95 168 86 25 0 5.31 12.5 12.6
19:08 20 3300 175 81 94 168 86 24 0 5.55 12.5 12.8
19:08 23 3575 200 80 90 168 77 24 0 6.32 12.5 13.0
19:08 24 3725 212 80 87 168 77 23 0 6.71 12.5 13.7
19:08 24 3900 225 80 85 168 77 21 0 7.26 12.5 13.8
19:08 25 4050 233 80 80 168 77 20 0 7.36 12.5 14.0
19:08 28 4250 237 80 77 168 77 19 0 7.54 12.5 13.3
19:08 34 4150 239 80 76 168 77 19 0 7.66 12.5 13.2
19:08 31 4000 239 80 71 168 77 19 0 7.63 12.5 13.7
19:08 42 4025 238 80 70 168 77 19 0 7.63 12.5 13.6
19:08 47 4100 236 80 66 168 77 19 0 7.54 12.5 13.4
Run Mph Rpm Map VE% Tps CTS MAT Sa Rt sPW AFR rrWB
19:09 51 4175 233 80 63 168 77 19 0 7.57 12.5 13.2
19:09 49 4150 229 80 59 168 77 20 0 7.45 12.5 13.3
19:09 49 4075 224 80 55 168 77 21 0 7.23 12.5 14.1
19:09 49 4100 223 80 55 168 77 21 0 7.42 12.5 13.6
19:09 48 4050 220 80 55 168 68 22 0 7.42 12.5 13.8
19:09 48 4050 219 80 55 168 68 22 0 7.20 12.5 13.5
19:09 47 3975 219 80 56 168 68 22 0 7.29 12.5 13.4
19:09 42 3875 219 80 57 168 68 22 0 7.32 12.5 13.3
19:09 44 3950 219 80 59 168 68 22 0 7.32 12.5 13.1
Run Mph Rpm Map VE% Tps CTS MAT Sa Rt sPW AFR rrWB
19:10 44 3950 220 80 59 168 68 22 0 7.42 12.5 13.2
19:10 45 4000 220 80 59 168 68 22 0 7.42 12.5 13.3
19:10 47 4050 223 80 61 168 68 21 0 7.39 12.5 13.1
19:10 48 4050 224 80 62 168 68 21 0 7.48 12.5 13.4
19:10 49 4100 227 80 63 168 68 21 0 7.60 12.5 13.3
19:10 50 4150 229 80 65 168 68 20 0 7.63 12.5 13.5
19:10 51 4175 230 80 65 168 68 20 0 7.72 12.5 13.5
19:10 52 4225 234 80 67 168 68 19 0 7.81 12.5 13.5
19:10 53 4250 236 80 67 168 68 19 0 7.81 12.5 13.6
19:10 53 4275 237 80 67 168 68 19 0 7.81 12.5 13.1
Run Mph Rpm Map VE% Tps CTS MAT Sa Rt sPW AFR rrWB
19:12 67 3950 237 80 68 168 68 19 0 7.90 12.5 13.3
19:12 68 3950 238 80 68 168 68 19 0 7.90 12.5 13.5
19:12 68 4000 238 80 68 168 68 19 0 7.90 12.5 13.2
19:12 68 4000 238 80 68 168 68 19 0 7.90 12.5 13.0
19:12 69 4000 238 80 68 168 68 19 0 7.94 12.5 13.0
Run Mph Rpm Map VE% Tps CTS MAT Sa Rt sPW AFR rrWB
19:13 70 4000 238 80 68 168 68 19 0 7.94 12.5 13.4
19:13 71 4000 238 80 68 168 68 19 0 7.90 12.5 13.0
19:13 71 4050 239 80 68 168 68 19 0 7.90 12.5 13.1
19:13 72 4050 239 80 68 168 68 19 0 8.00 12.5 13.0
19:13 72 4050 239 80 68 168 68 19 0 7.94 12.5 12.7
19:13 74 4050 239 80 68 168 68 19 0 8.03 12.5 13.1
19:13 74 4075 239 80 68 167 68 19 0 8.03 12.5 13.5
19:13 74 4100 239 80 68 167 68 19 0 8.03 12.5 13.1
19:13 74 4100 241 80 68 167 68 19 0 8.03 12.5 13.1
19:13 75 4100 242 80 68 167 68 19 0 8.03 12.5 13.5
19:13 76 4150 242 80 68 167 68 19 0 8.00 12.5 13.4
Run Mph Rpm Map VE% Tps CTS MAT Sa Rt sPW AFR rrWB
19:14 76 4150 242 80 68 167 68 19 0 8.03 12.5 13.5
19:14 77 4175 242 80 68 167 68 19 0 8.03 12.5 13.6
19:14 78 4175 242 80 68 167 68 19 0 8.06 12.5 12.9
19:14 79 4175 242 80 68 167 68 19 0 8.06 12.5 13.1
19:14 79 4175 242 80 68 167 68 19 0 8.06 12.9 16
19:14 80 4200 243 80 68 167 68 19 0 8.06 12.5 13.1
19:14 80 4225 243 80 68 167 68 19 0 8.06 12.5 13.0
19:14 81 4225 243 80 67 167 68 19 0 8.06 12.5 13.1
19:14 81 4225 241 80 64 167 68 19 0 8.03 12.5 13.1
19:14 82 4250 238 80 61 167 68 19 0 7.94 12.5 12.7
19:14 83 4225 228 80 58 167 68 19 0 7.72 12.5 12.7
Run Mph Rpm Map VE% Tps CTS MAT Sa Rt sPW AFR rrWB

 

[david buschur]

It's nice to see a guy believe in what he spent his money on Bruce. Unless you know some of these guys asking you questions better than I do though, I would say your pretty rude.

I am not putting in a vote for either intercooler, I have a huge FMIC on my Buick, whatever the largest CAS unit Tony made is what it is, V1 or V2 or something. Nothing larger will go in there without cutting, 3" tubing. Anyway, can't remember which one it is.

I do know I do a ton of datalogging when I am tuning standalone's at the shop. I one of the things I always log is air tempurature. I can also tell you that we use a core we buy from PTE on every EVO FMIC kit we sell.

I also don't think doing a test with an already heat soaked intercooler at part throttle proves a darn thing about how efficient it is, you are fooling yourself if you think it does.

You tested on a 39 degree day. Started out with 95 degree MAT's and then did a part throttle test up to 92 MPH and showed a drop in the MAT's. That's not much of a test if you ask me, the car was driven easy for this testing. The ending temps were 59 degrees. When the car moved for the first time they were already down to 86 degrees. That is a 29 degree drop in air temps on an intercooler that was stationary and already 56 degrees hotter than the ambient air. Crappy test.

I have a PTE core on a car here I am going to use for this example. The car is a 550 whp 2 liter. Start of the run was running down the road with ambient air at 67 degrees, MAT's were 68 degrees. Car went to WOT and was run through 4th gear to 7289 rpm and 23.7 psi of boost, MAT's at that point were 71.6 degrees. 3.6 degree increase in MAT's.

Another run, same car, hotter day, no notes on the ambient air temps. Starting the log though the MAT's were 109.4 degrees, we have been pounding the car run after run trying to find a miss. This run was 1st-3rd gear, ran the car to 7849 rpm, this would be around 110 mph. Peak boost in all gears27.9 psi. Every gear from the start of the run was done at WOT. Ending MAT's were 114.8 degrees. That is just over a 5 degree increase.

I have a bunch of these logs on a bunch of different cars with this same intercooler kit we build for them. Another here shows the same consistency, starts at 98.6 MAT's and ends at 105.8 degrees with boost hitting 28.18 in all gears running WOT from 1st to 3rd gear.

That my is an efficient intercooler.

I will be doing some logging on my Buick tomorrow. I haven't done much with logging on that car. I have a DS on it and need to watch for converter lock up. If the roads are decent and if it logs air intake temps I will report back with what I see on it tomorrow.

I'm not here to pick a fight so don't take all this the wrong way. I just don't think the test you did is very good. An intercooler is there to cool the air. Drive that car down the road and get the temps as low as they will go so the intercooler is nice and cold. Then do a 3 gear run at WOT and see what they climb too. I don't care to see a hot intercooler being cooled off by much cooler ambient air on a part throttle run, it just isn't a good test.

David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com

 

[david buschur]

Not to beat this to death but I was looking at some other logs trying to find a car that we did not build.

I have a friend in Vegas, I was out there for SEMA a few weeks ago. He asked me to do some tuning on his car.

I have runs from his car on my laptop too. I don't remember what the temps were outside but I can see from the log we were cruising for a long time. The start of the run was 75.2 degrees, we did a pull at WOT at 16 psi from 3400 rpm to 5800 rpm, very short pull, I don't have many logs from him so I have to use what I got. Ending temp was 78.0 degrees. One other I have from this same car started at 77 degrees at 2600 rpm, WOT at 17 psi of boost up to 7773 rpm, temps climbed to 87.8 degrees.

I have no idea what kind of FMIC he is running on the car. My guess would be either some Spearco core or possibly an Apex core from Japan. I am sure it is not one of PTE's.

Point was just to provide some more WOT data starting from a point where the intercooler tempurature has stabalized with the ambient air temps.

These are good times.

David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com

 

[gnjones231]

WOW! That is some IC you got there DB. It sure beats the stock GN unit by a mile. I have got some detailed datalogs of the stock unit, if you want to see them , give me an email. With my datalogger I can actually measure the efficacy, and pressure drop of the IC, which means I measure the ambient air, turbo discharge temp, and IC outlet temp. Plus I also get turbine efficiency


Dave

 

[gnjones231]

Ha! I meant compressor efficiency not turbine Although, I measure that too, but since we're talking about the intake side of things, I thought I should correct that.

Dave

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by david buschur
Unless you know some of these guys asking you questions better than I do though, I would say your pretty rude.

I am not putting in a vote for either intercooler, I have a huge FMIC on my Buick, whatever the largest CAS unit Tony made is what it is, V1 or V2 or something. Nothing larger will go in there without cutting, 3" tubing. Anyway, can't remember which one it is.

I do know I do a ton of datalogging when I am tuning standalone's at the shop. I one of the things I always log is air tempurature. I can also tell you that we use a core we buy from PTE on every EVO FMIC kit we sell.

I also don't think doing a test with an already heat soaked intercooler at part throttle proves a darn thing about how efficient it is, you are fooling yourself if you think it does.

You tested on a 39 degree day. Started out with 95 degree MAT's and then did a part throttle test up to 92 MPH and showed a drop in the MAT's. That's not much of a test if you ask me, the car was driven easy for this testing. The ending temps were 59 degrees. When the car moved for the first time they were already down to 86 degrees. That is a 29 degree drop in air temps on an intercooler that was stationary and already 56 degrees hotter than the ambient air. Crappy test.

I have a PTE core on a car here I am going to use for this example. The car is a 550 whp 2 liter. Start of the run was running down the road with ambient air at 67 degrees, MAT's were 68 degrees. Car went to WOT and was run through 4th gear to 7289 rpm and 23.7 psi of boost, MAT's at that point were 71.6 degrees. 3.6 degree increase in MAT's.

Another run, same car, hotter day, no notes on the ambient air temps. Starting the log though the MAT's were 109.4 degrees, we have been pounding the car run after run trying to find a miss. This run was 1st-3rd gear, ran the car to 7849 rpm, this would be around 110 mph. Peak boost in all gears27.9 psi. Every gear from the start of the run was done at WOT. Ending MAT's were 114.8 degrees. That is just over a 5 degree increase.

I have a bunch of these logs on a bunch of different cars with this same intercooler kit we build for them. Another here shows the same consistency, starts at 98.6 MAT's and ends at 105.8 degrees with boost hitting 28.18 in all gears running WOT from 1st to 3rd gear.

That my is an efficient intercooler.

I will be doing some logging on my Buick tomorrow. I haven't done much with logging on that car. I have a DS on it and need to watch for converter lock up. If the roads are decent and if it logs air intake temps I will report back with what I see on it tomorrow.

I'm not here to pick a fight so don't take all this the wrong way. I just don't think the test you did is very good. An intercooler is there to cool the air. Drive that car down the road and get the temps as low as they will go so the intercooler is nice and cold. Then do a 3 gear run at WOT and see what they climb too. I don't care to see a hot intercooler being cooled off by much cooler ambient air on a part throttle run, it just isn't a good test.

David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com

Opnions about what rude are, vary. For someone to make a bunch of claims, and act like an authority, and not use any solid data to support his claims, IMO, is leaving something to be desired. Not to mention not being familiar with what his own product is. And his closing comment about 9 sec car etc., was way off base.

OK, so testing a cooler as it's acutally going to be used isn't relective of how it's going to asked to work?. Please explain how testing in real world conditions, is irrelevant.

Where is your MAT sensor mounted?.

I find it interesting in how you can possibly argue with real results. They are real, that's all there is to it.

If it was 95dF I would test in that weather, however, I can't enclose the local track to make environmentially contolled tests.
Easy, ya, cold roads, so?, maybe, you want to go into a full race mode on a cold track, but, I'll take a pass on doing that, and as I explained, I was still building the tune.

Since were not talking about freezing weather, or temps that at any time much over 212dF, the numbers can be approximated by adding the deltas of the temps you want to test at. The big difference being amount of cooling provided by the cooling effect of the fuel evaporating in the plenum.

Theory's nice, but it's actually results that matter.
BTW, I see no one's mentioned any of the related details to intercooler design, and is still sticking the theory part of things.

In your reported numbers, you don't even look to be running a TR. Unless, you going with at least something close to apples to apples, I don't see how you can compare much of your data to TR specific. The nose shape, and air flow to the intercooler is going unique to each model of car. How you can ignore that fact and want to discuss numbers, is beyond me, especially when you want to grind on my testing where it's been done in car, as a car would be driven.

I'm saying, and posted data to support that frontal area, and mass, counts. The original claim made by the 9sec guy was,

***********************
Bottom Line if you have anything at or less than 900hp flywheel, why would you need a 1000, 1200, or 1500hp intercooler??
***********************

I've shown *why*.
And so far no one has been able to support anything similiar to what the 9sec guy said. The concept of running just enough to go fast, is full of risks, for the average guy. Can someone run 9s on a PT+E, ya, sure, it's been documented. But, can the average guy?, or would it be cost effective to over engineer that part of the equation, and have some room for error?. IMO, I'll take having some latitude for error rather than running on the edge.

I've made no claim to being poltically correct, and the facts speak for themselves. I've posted the logs, to support what I've said, no, sort of's, or I say, or I think, or I heard's, real data of a real car, exactly as tested, as a car would be used, ie real world. IMO, that's good data. Testing in a vacuum, is fine for folks that don't actually drive their cars. I do my testing, for how I actually drive the car. What so and so does on a 9 sec pass is only of limited value to me. While it's a consideration, I like to gather as many facts, and as much data as I can. I've tried about every combination of intercooling, and done the tests, so I feel free to share the data that I have as being accurate. I've run the stock intercooler, big neck, I/C delete, Alky only, front mount and have hundreds of hours of testing invested, in may car, under all sorts of daily driving conditions.

 

[david buschur]

I said the what the tests I did were done in, not a TR. Frontal area etc. are all fine and dandy.

You completely missed my point. Testing an intercooler like you did is real world, yes. It is also a BS way to test it. Go back and read why it is a BS way to test it.

I could go into all the theories and such you are coming up with too, believe it or not I might just be an authority on what I am talking about. How about 7.8's a 175 mph on 123 cubic inches? How about 2 regional and 1 national Championship in one year in the top class in import racing, Pro Import. How about the 7.5 second turbo regal I drive for Ron Luman. How about the two turbo Regals I own myself etc. etc. Enough bragging, bottom line is you aren't the only one here that has done testing.

If you want to find out how good your intercooler is go out and drive the car easy in whatever conditions you want. Get your intake air temps as low as they will drop driving around. Now put the throttle to the floor and watch them climb.

My point is driving in 39 degree weather with an intercooler that is 95 degrees and then watching the temps drop is silly, of course they are going to drop, if the intercooler is good at all they will drop.

Now for some TR testing. I took mine out, which is slow as hell. It would only run an 11.31 at 123 mph at 19 psi of boost, through the exhaust, driving it to the track on radials, it's a slug. Still has a big FMIC on it, the one I described earlier.

Took the car out today, about 44 degrees here. Drove it as easy as I can drive (not too easy) about 1 mile to the corner. Turned right and nailed the throttle, on the DS at that point that I went to WOT the MAT read 54 degrees. I held it to the wood at 20 psi of boost until I shifted it to 4th and lifted, at that point the MAT DROPPED to 50 degrees. Hell even I wasn't expecting that!

I did another test with the car hotter, sat and idled for a long time looking at the log. Pulled onto the street drove easy, this time really easy and stopped in the road. MAT temps were 87 degrees this time when the car went to WOT. I ran it through 3rd gear to 5850 rpm in third, at this point the MAT read 82 degrees.

It dropped 4-5 degrees of MAT during each full WOT run at 20 psi of boost. I would have to call that an impressive intercooler.

As a side note, regardless of the size of the intercooler (almost regardless) for someone to run a 9 second pass in a TR isn't an easy task. To doubt Joe Lubrant's word is simply ignorance. Forget the numbers, he has the time slip, 8.8's on the intercooler in question.

I also feel over killing an intercooler is a huge waste. I see it all the time at our shop. Some rediculously sized intercooler someone hacked onto their car to save money instead of getting a real kit or whatever his reason. The car is lazy and the performance gain isn't there. The spool up sucks as you are filling so much more intercooler than is needed.

These are MY opinions, which have been backed up by record after record at the track for the last 16 years. Take them for what they are worth.

I'm not here selling anything either, was just making some points.

David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by david buschur
I said the what the tests I did were done in, not a TR. Frontal area etc. are all fine and dandy.

You completely missed my point. Testing an intercooler like you did is real world, yes. It is also a BS way to test it. Go back and read why it is a BS way to test it.

I could go into all the theories and such you are coming up with too, believe it or not I might just be an authority on what I am talking about. How about 7.8's a 175 mph on 123 cubic inches? How about 2 regional and 1 national Championship in one year in the top class in import racing, Pro Import. How about the 7.5 second turbo regal I drive for Ron Luman. How about the two turbo Regals I own myself etc. etc. Enough bragging, bottom line is you aren't the only one here that has done testing.

If you want to find out how good your intercooler is go out and drive the car easy in whatever conditions you want. Get your intake air temps as low as they will drop driving around. Now put the throttle to the floor and watch them climb.

My point is driving in 39 degree weather with an intercooler that is 95 degrees and then watching the temps drop is silly, of course they are going to drop, if the intercooler is good at all they will drop.

Now for some TR testing. I took mine out, which is slow as hell. It would only run an 11.31 at 123 mph at 19 psi of boost, through the exhaust, driving it to the track on radials, it's a slug. Still has a big FMIC on it, the one I described earlier.

Took the car out today, about 44 degrees here. Drove it as easy as I can drive (not too easy) about 1 mile to the corner. Turned right and nailed the throttle, on the DS at that point that I went to WOT the MAT read 54 degrees. I held it to the wood at 20 psi of boost until I shifted it to 4th and lifted, at that point the MAT DROPPED to 50 degrees. Hell even I wasn't expecting that!

I did another test with the car hotter, sat and idled for a long time looking at the log. Pulled onto the street drove easy, this time really easy and stopped in the road. MAT temps were 87 degrees this time when the car went to WOT. I ran it through 3rd gear to 5850 rpm in third, at this point the MAT read 82 degrees.

It dropped 4-5 degrees of MAT during each full WOT run at 20 psi of boost. I would have to call that an impressive intercooler.

As a side note, regardless of the size of the intercooler (almost regardless) for someone to run a 9 second pass in a TR isn't an easy task. To doubt Joe Lubrant's word is simply ignorance. Forget the numbers, he has the time slip, 8.8's on the intercooler in question.

I also feel over killing an intercooler is a huge waste. I see it all the time at our shop. Some rediculously sized intercooler someone hacked onto their car to save money instead of getting a real kit or whatever his reason. The car is lazy and the performance gain isn't there. The spool up sucks as you are filling so much more intercooler than is needed.

These are MY opinions, which have been backed up by record after record at the track for the last 16 years. Take them for what they are worth.

I'm not here selling anything either, was just making some points.

David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com

Sounds like your using a Intercooler discharge temp, instead of an actual MAT. I asked you the first time around where you were monitoring temps..

What leads you to state the Intercooler was at 95dF in my testing?, it wasn't. I'm using a MAT temp.

I didn't say it was easy to run a 9 did I?. I took issue with his statement about intercooler size.
BTW, infering one is ignorant for not following the herd, or one guys experince is something you might reconsider.

The chest beating and claims don't impress me, BTW. Maybe, I should accuse you of being rude. Forgive for not playing the bragging game, since it's got nothing of merit to contribute to the subject at hand.

Can you be specific in you claim about these over intercooled cars you've seen. The Buick ones please, let's try to keep this somewhat TR related. I have a Cotton's on a very mild combo., and it works. Looking at the data log it's starting to build boost below the stall speed of the converter, and it's a low stall converter, what more do you want?.

While you have a feeling, I've posted data.

Can you post some meaningful data to support your claim of excessive lag, using any of the biggest currently available TR F/M intercoolers?.

BTW, I have a given route to get the fluids up to temp., before making a pass (approx 40 mins). While I can't control the weather, I make every attempt to make similiar as possible passes.

I'd say for the amount of timing I'm running on 91 would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, there is a benefit to reducing the MAT as much as possible. If you can pose another theory for why I've been able to go from ~19d to ~25d of timing, with no other changes to the engine configuration, I'd like to hear them. And even at ~19 I was at times hitting the K/S. Not to mention this tune is still a little on the lean side.

 

[bruce]

No I didn't hammer the gas, in this next run.
But, with a moderate/quick application, by the time I hit 100% TPS, the engine was into boost. Granted not much, but, none the less in boost. By, 2,300 when the car first started to move it was at about 2 PSI and this was coming off idle. In the next 1.5 secs., it was at 15 PSI.

And, again MAT (as measured in the plenum) dropped.

TimeStamp: 12/04/2004 - 12:40:42
RunMphRpm Map VE% Tps CTS MAT Sa Rt sPW AFR rrWB
05 0 775 55 50 0 172 95 19 0 1.43 14.7 13.8
05 0 775 55 50 0 172 95 23 0 1.43 14.7 13.8
05 0 775 55 50 1 172 95 26 0 1.46 14.7 13.9
05 0 775 61 54 19 172 95 22 0 1.53 14.7 14.0
05 0 900 99 64 38 172 95 19 0 2.50 13.2 13.9
05 0 1100 100 83 61 172 95 20 0 3.20 12.9 13.8
05 0 1450 101 86 69 172 95 23 0 3.39 12.5 12.6
05 0 1675 101 88 83 172 95 25 0 3.48 12.5 11.7
05 0 1875 102 88 99 172 95 27 0 3.54 12.5 11.3
05 0 1975 102 89 100 172 95 27 0 3.63 12.5 10.8
RunMph Rpm MapVE% Tps CTS MAT Sa Rt sPW AFR rrWB
06 0 2025 104 87 100 172 95 28 0 3.57 12.5 10.5
06 0 2075 105 86 100 172 95 28 0 3.60 12.5 11.5
06 0 2150 106 84 100 172 95 28 0 3.54 12.5 12.3
06 0 2175 108 83 100 172 95 28 0 3.51 12.5 12.6
06 0 2225 110 82 100 172 95 28 0 3.63 12.5 12.3
06 0 2250 111 81 100 172 95 29 0 3.66 12.5 12.1
06 5 2300 114 80 100 172 95 29 0 3.63 12.5 12.3
06 9 2350 115 80 100 172 95 29 0 3.66 12.5 12.4
06 9 2450 120 79 100 172 86 30 0 3.81 12.5 12.7
06 9 2500 124 80 100 172 86 29 0 3.88 12.5 12.9
RunMphRpm MapVE% Tps CTS MAT Sa Rt sPW AFR rrWB
07 9 2575 127 81 100 172 86 29 0 3.97 12.5 12.8
07 13 2625 131 82 100 172 86 28 0 4.15 12.5 12.8
07 14 2900 143 83 100 172 86 27 0 4.70 12.5 12.6
07 19 2975 150 83 100 172 86 26 0 4.91 12.5 12.5
07 19 3100 157 82 100 172 86 25 0 5.13 12.5 13.0
07 21 3350 179 81 100 172 86 24 0 5.74 12.5 12.9
07 19 3475 193 80 100 172 86 24 0 6.10 12.5 13.2
07 23 3600 206 80 100 172 86 23 0 6.53 12.5 13.3

This is with no intercooler.

TimeStamp: 04/05/2004
RunMphRpm KPa Tps CtsF MatF Spkf PW WB
30 0 1400 83 23 176 135 20.8 2.82 14.4
30 0 1525 81 25 176 135 22.2 2.90 14.6
30 1 1625 85 31 176 135 22.2 3.25 14.1
30 1 1725 87 37 176 135 23.2 3.40 14.3
30 1 1850 90 42 176 135 23.9 3.59 14.4
30 1 1925 93 49 176 135 23.2 3.71 14.3
30 1 2000 96 54 176 134 23.9 3.77 14.0
30 1 2075 97 56 176 134 23.2 3.86 13.8
30 1 2125 99 60 176 134 23.2 3.94 13.8
30 2 2175 101 61 176 133 23.6 4.06 13.8
RunMphRpm KPa Tps CtsF MatF Spkf PW WB
31 2 2225 104 62 177 133 23.9 4.14 13.1
31 3 2275 107 62 177 133 23.9 4.27 12.7
31 3 2325 111 65 177 131 23.9 4.30 12.4
31 3 2375 114 66 177 131 23.9 4.39 12.2
31 4 2450 118 67 177 131 23.9 4.58 12.3
31 5 2525 123 67 177 131 23.9 4.76 12.1
31 5 2600 127 67 177 130 23.9 4.91 12.0
31 6 2650 135 67 177 130 23.9 5.10 12.1
31 8 2750 140 67 177 131 23.9 5.34 12.1
31 8 2850 149 67 177 131 22.5 5.52 12.1
31 9 2950 157 67 177 131 21.5 5.81 12.1
31 11 3050 165 67 177 133 20.1 6.24 12.2
31 11 3175 176 67 177 134 19.0 6.50 12.0
31 12 3250 183 66 177 134 18.3 6.73 11.9
31 13 3400 189 66 177 136 18.0 6.70 11.9
RunMphRpm KPa Tps CtsF MatF Spkf PW WB
32 13 3475 190 64 177 138 14.8 6.70 12.0
32 15 3575 190 62 177 138 14.8 6.70 12.1
32 15 3650 188 59 177 140 16.5 6.70 12.0
32 17 3675 188 57 177 144 16.5 6.67 11.8
32 18 3725 189 56 177 144 16.5 6.67 11.7
32 18 3775 186 56 177 145 17.6 6.62 11.7
32 20 3900 186 57 177 147 17.6 6.62 12.0
32 21 3925 186 56 177 147 17.6 6.62 12.8
32 21 4000 188 56 177 150 14.1 6.78 12.5
32 23 4050 188 57 177 153 13.7 6.74 12.2
32 24 4100 186 57 177 153 13.7 6.74 12.2
32 24 3925 192 57 177 156 15.5 6.90 12.6
32 26 3775 195 57 177 157 15.5 6.97 12.6
32 28 3600 194 56 178 157 11.6 6.97 12.5
32 28 3525 195 56 178 160 14.8 6.94 12.6
RunMphRpm KPa Tps CtsF MatF Spkf PW WB
33 29 3550 192 57 178 162 14.8 6.94 12.7
33 30 3525 192 58 178 162 10.9 6.85 12.7
33 30 3550 192 60 178 163 14.4 6.87 12.7
33 32 3550 192 61 178 165 14.4 6.87 12.6
33 33 3550 192 62 178 165 14.4 6.91 12.5
33 33 3625 194 63 178 166 12.7 6.93 12.5
33 34 3600 192 64 178 168 12.7 6.93 12.5
33 35 3625 195 64 178 168 12.7 6.94 12.6
33 35 3675 194 64 178 169 15.1 6.94 12.4
33 36 3700 195 64 178 171 11.6 7.00 12.4
33 37 3700 196 64 178 171 11.3 7.00 12.4
33 37 3725 196 64 178 171 14.1 6.97 12.7
33 38 3725 196 64 178 173 11.3 6.97 12.3
33 39 3725 197 64 178 173 11.3 6.97 12.4
33 39 3800 198 64 178 176 10.6 7.03 12.2

Water Injection

RunMphRpm KPa Tps CtsF MatF Spkf PW WB
12 0 1675 85 32 176 142 25.0 3.42 12.6
12 0 1800 87 38 174 142 26.0 3.60 13.2
12 0 1850 90 40 174 142 26.0 3.65 12.8
12 1 1950 92 46 176 140 26.0 3.83 12.1
12 1 2000 94 53 176 140 26.0 3.95 12.0
RunMphRpm KPa Tps CtsF MatF Spkf PW WB
13 1 2050 97 59 176 140 26.4 4.04 12.0
13 1 2100 99 65 176 140 26.8 4.12 11.3
13 1 2125 103 75 176 140 26.8 4.18 11.1
13 1 2125 105 82 176 139 26.8 4.27 10.5
13 2 2150 107 83 176 139 26.8 4.32 10.1
13 3 2200 111 87 176 139 27.1 4.30 0.0
13 3 2275 113 91 176 139 26.8 4.46 10.3
13 3 2350 117 96 176 139 26.4 4.59 10.5
13 4 2425 120 99 176 139 26.0 4.65 10.5
13 4 2450 125 100 176 139 26.0 4.81 10.8
13 5 2550 130 100 176 139 26.0 4.93 11.0
13 6 2625 136 100 176 139 26.0 5.20 11.1
13 6 2700 140 100 176 140 26.0 5.33 11.4
13 8 2800 148 100 174 140 25.3 5.55 11.3
13 9 2875 155 100 174 140 24.3 5.75 11.4
RunMphRpm KPa Tps CtsF MatF Spkf PW WB
14 9 2975 163 100 174 142 23.6 6.06 11.5
14 10 3050 170 100 174 143 23.2 6.30 11.4
14 12 3175 177 100 174 143 22.9 6.53 10.5
14 12 3275 183 100 174 139 22.5 6.71 10.6
14 13 3350 184 100 174 135 22.5 6.96 0.0
14 14 3425 185 100 174 135 22.5 7.02 10.1
14 14 3475 185 100 174 131 22.5 6.96 10.1
14 16 3550 186 100 174 127 22.5 7.10 10.0
14 17 3600 185 100 174 127 22.5 7.07 0.0
14 17 3650 186 100 174 125 22.5 7.14 0.0
14 19 3675 188 100 174 122 22.2 7.13 0.0
14 20 3775 188 100 174 122 21.8 7.14 0.0
14 20 3825 189 100 174 119 21.5 7.23 0.0
14 21 3950 189 100 174 118 21.1 7.23 0.0
14 23 4000 188 100 174 118 21.1 7.23 0.0
RunMphRpm KPa Tps CtsF MatF Spkf PW WB
15 23 4050 190 100 174 115 21.1 7.29 0.0
15 24 4175 190 100 174 113 21.1 7.29 0.0
15 25 4275 190 100 174 113 21.1 7.40 0.0
15 25 4300 191 100 174 112 21.1 7.40 0.0
15 27 4400 191 100 174 110 21.1 7.40 0.0
15 28 4475 190 100 174 110 21.1 7.37 0.0
15 28 4550 192 100 174 109 21.1 7.43 0.0
15 29 4600 191 100 174 108 21.1 7.43 0.0
15 31 4700 195 100 174 108 21.1 7.43 0.0
15 31 4775 191 100 174 107 21.1 7.43 0.0
15 32 4800 194 100 174 106 21.1 7.57 0.0
15 33 4900 194 100 174 106 21.1 7.43 0.0
15 33 4850 192 100 174 105 21.1 7.63 0.0
15 34 4325 202 100 174 105 20.8 7.78 0.0
15 36 4050 205 100 174 105 20.8 7.95 0.0
RunMphRpm KPa Tps CtsF MatF Spkf PW WB
16 36 3850 203 100 174 105 21.1 7.89 0.0
16 37 3725 203 100 174 105 21.5 7.77 0.0
16 38 3700 201 100 174 104 21.5 7.69 0.0
16 38 3675 198 100 174 104 21.5 7.52 0.0
16 39 3675 197 100 174 104 21.5 7.48 0.0
16 40 3675 196 100 174 103 21.5 7.48 0.0
16 40 3725 195 100 173 102 21.8 7.40 0.0


PLEASE NOTE:
That in the first run was with a Cotton's F/M, 3rd run without ANY Intercooler, the boost to TPS to RPM numbers are virtually the same.

Anyone, care to point out where the lag is?, or where the are any other alledged shortcoming to running a *big* *Intercooler*?.

Please show me, where I'm wrong, here's the data, I've provided the ammunition just show me in my log files, or supply your own to support your *opinion*. TR's being the issue here.

What the seat of your pants tells you ain't as good as data logging. If your convinced of something, and are out to prove a point, your mind will do a great job of filling in the blanks. Try taking eye witness reports of enough crime scenes, if you doubt me. It's the actual data that'll show what's happening, well, at least from what I've seen.

 

[Randy Greenoe]

Originally posted by bruce


The chest beating and claims don't impress me, BTW. Maybe, I should accuse you of being rude. Forgive for not playing the bragging game, since it's got nothing of merit to contribute to the subject at hand.
I don't think David was beating his chest. He was just making a point that He HAS been around the block and KNOWS what he is talking about. The first 2.0 litre D.S.M. in the 7's he must know something!

 

[turbot2496]

The chest beating and claims don't impress me, BTW. Maybe, I should accuse you of being rude. Forgive for not playing the bragging game, since it's got nothing of merit to contribute to the subject at hand.

Just sit back and shut up then. I for one think this is a very educating thread. All parties seem to be experienced in the subject matter and alot can be learned by listening to their arguments. Great ideals and insight come from debates like this.