Intercooler Selection question

[david buschur]

I do enough fighting and argueing on all the import boards I am on, I really enjoy the Buicks and I think the biggest reasons I do is I have nothing to sell or prove to anyone. For that reason I honestly don't care to go any further with this.

I didn't come here to beat my chest as I am fully aware of the fact that most Buick guys could care less if I ran a 5 second pass with any car other than a Buick. While for the most part a turbocharger/intercooler on any car and the results with them could be very important, I did forget "who" I am dealing with, and I apologize.

I did come across rude, your right, so I take it all back. I'd rather keep friends in this particular community rather than share information, it makes it much more fun to hang out at all the events and not worry about who you might be talking to that you think you like but was actually a butthole behind his keyboard.

The topic at hand was who had the best intercooler, atleast that is what I think it was.

My point was to do a test that is easier for anyone to try why not do a test on them like this:

1. Cruise the car so the MAT or AIT, whichever you are using, is completely stable. In otherwords it has gotten as close to ambient air temps as it is going to get.

2. Slow or stop the car and then go to WOT and run it through the gears.

3. Note the temps at the beginning of the run and at the end of the run.

The only other thing that could be added to this for an even better test would be PSI before and after the intercooler.

That is a good test.

BTW, I was wrong on my testing with my TR yesterday. I heard on the weather the day before it was suppose to be 44 degrees. 2-3 hours AFTER I did the testing with the sun shining I noticed on my back porch the thermometer read 49 degrees. I am even more impressed with the particular intercooler I am running on my car now.

David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com

p.s. Thanks Greenoe.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by david buschur
I do enough fighting and argueing on all the import boards I am on, I really enjoy the Buicks and I think the biggest reasons I do is I have nothing to sell or prove to anyone. For that reason I honestly don't care to go any further with this.

My point was to do a test that is easier for anyone to try why not do a test on them like this:

1. Cruise the car so the MAT or AIT, whichever you are using, is completely stable. In otherwords it has gotten as close to ambient air temps as it is going to get.

2. Slow or stop the car and then go to WOT and run it through the gears.

3. Note the temps at the beginning of the run and at the end of the run.

The only other thing that could be added to this for an even better test would be PSI before and after the intercooler.

That is a good test.

Too bad you didn't bother to read on how I did my testing, which is just so happens to be as you've just expressed.

And still no answer to where you're MAT is located.

I guess, we can all just go back to humming along, and take anything anyone evers says as the truth, and to ask any guestions, is wrong.

I guess, someone making sweeping statements, and impling they know it so much, without any data to support their claim is OK, with you. I feel that I have the right/privilege to ask, someone about their claim. Not everyone takes things at face value.

I guess having the data to show the actual results should be bogart'd and only offered to a select few. BTW, why didn't you complain about that, if your so into *sharing*?.

It's argueing, well, IMO, when neither party has any information, and are just conversing back and forth about opinions. Everyone has them, I thought a tech board was about tech info..

Let's see, I'm the bad guy, in you opinion for what?, challenging someone other then you, to respond with data?. Or was it the fact that I took the time to make a pass to get some good data to illustrate my point?. Or was it that I went and dug out some olf logs, and posted them?. Or that I stayed on topic and talked about GNs?.

Instead of complaining so much, chest beating, and passing judgement on what's rude or not, how about talking TR's?.

 

[Randy Greenoe]

Originally posted by bruce
Too bad you didn't bother to read on how I did my testing, which is just so happens to be as you've just expressed.

And still no answer to where you're MAT is located.

I guess, we can all just go back to humming along, and take anything anyone evers says as the truth, and to ask any guestions, is wrong.

I guess, someone making sweeping statements, and impling they know it so much, without any data to support their claim is OK, with you. I feel that I have the right/privilege to ask, someone about their claim. Not everyone takes things at face value.

I guess having the data to show the actual results should be bogart'd and only offered to a select few. BTW, why didn't you complain about that, if your so into *sharing*?.

It's argueing, well, IMO, when neither party has any information, and are just conversing back and forth about opinions. Everyone has them, I thought a tech board was about tech info..

Let's see, I'm the bad guy, in you opinion for what?, challenging someone other then you, to respond with data?. Or was it the fact that I took the time to make a pass to get some good data to illustrate my point?. Or was it that I went and dug out some olf logs, and posted them?. Or that I stayed on topic and talked about GNs?.

Instead of complaining so much, chest beating, and passing judgement on what's rude or not, how about talking TR's?.

What is your problem? David has tested more innercoolers than anyone on this board and just telling you how he does it .
Call Jack Cotton{who I do respect also} ask him what kind of testing went into his innercoolers before he marketed them. I know what he told me when I called and asked him. NONE was the answer if you are wondering.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by Randy Greenoe
What is your problem? David has tested more innercoolers than anyone on this board and just telling you how he does it .
Call Jack Cotton{who I do respect also} ask him what kind of testing went into his innercoolers before he marketed them. I know what he told me when I called and asked him. NONE was the answer if you are wondering.

None.

And he went on to tell me how to test them, after, I told him how I was, and they were the same.......... Then he went on to say my testing was done incorrectly.

When you build the largest intercooler that can fit into a given application, what can you test for?, how to make it smaller and see how much you lose by doing so?. Maybe, how to made cheaper?. Tell me what testing there's to do, for a Cotton's other then going to some more expensive of core. Maybe, going with some other end tanks, that are more expensive?. Please tell me what testing that could have been done to a Cotton's, that would have made any serious difference, other then raising the price.

Claims were made, I've supported what I've said with data. David mentioned lag, I posted a log without an intercooler, and then one with a Cotton's. If someone could point out to me where the lag is, I'd appreciate it. Boost/RPM/TPS, all line up between the two logs. Not to mention JL's original comment, which, I'd like to see anyone verify, prove, or pose a theory that'd explain it.

 

[S2V6RACER]

Bruce, thank you for your time and effort in this thread. There seems to be a few guys that know thier stuff when it comes down to intercoolers, I thank them too. Looks like we need to agree on "conditions" that the tests are done to go any futher here.

 

[turbot2496]

Alright. Lets summarize... Everybody here can present data that every intercooler mentioned is capable of 9 sec performance. That takes us to price. If you want to hack the car up, the powerstroke is the cheapest at probably 300 bucks for everything. If you don't want to hack up the car then the pte is the next best bet at $850. If its worth it to you, the cottons intercooler at $300 more is slightly better than the pte, according to source magazine. Hope this thread helps the poster make his decision, I know its helped with mine when I decide to go with a front mount.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by 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

Not to hijack the thread, but since you so rarely post..

Thanks for posting the injector flows, and providing more support for my statements about injectors at high duty cycles. It was interesting how people ignored what you posted in order to try and prove their various points. They graphs did show a dip, before the injectors went erratic, which is what I've been saying all along.
BTW, have you figured out why they can flow over 100%, when at less the 100% DC, and then drop to 100% at 100%, yet?.

 

[david buschur]

Hey Bruce,

You must have missed my apology to you and the part where I said I was rude and took it back.

This time you came across like a really big ass. You wanted to know where my MAT was, it is the same place every other TR Regal has it. I'd like to shove it somewhere else at this point.

Take your slow ass car out and do some more datalogs.

Now that's rude.

David Buschur

 

[chevyII]

not to get in the middle of this but for a true test,I think you would need to have starting inlet temp, ending outlet temp,pressure drop across,and toal flow CFM...Right??? I mean putting a stock turbo with a cottons and an 88 on the same FM and checking temps doent prove didly.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by david buschur
Hey Bruce,

You must have missed my apology to you and the part where I said I was rude and took it back.

This time you came across like a really big ass. You wanted to know where my MAT was, it is the same place every other TR Regal has it. I'd like to shove it somewhere else at this point.

Take your slow ass car out and do some more datalogs.

Now that's rude.

David Buschur

Yep, so much for discussion.
Seems like when questioned, the egos, can really flare around here. So I guess, your not going to provide any data about lag due to different intercoolers, on a TR?.

I guess you missed the original intent of the thread, and how one 9 sec car owner, stated that it was useless to use too large of intercooler. Yes, I'll admit compared to many my car's slow, so what?, I documented my reply with data to counter that original claim. You've made a claim, now I've asked to document it, and you start flying off the handle.

Whatever.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by chevyII
not to get in the middle of this but for a true test,I think you would need to have starting inlet temp, ending outlet temp,pressure drop across,and toal flow CFM...Right??? I mean putting a stock turbo with a cottons and an 88 on the same FM and checking temps doent prove didly.

I gave, none and intercooled charge temps.
A 61 generates discharge temps in excess of 210dF, I believe I had that in one of the logs I posted here, and that was on a limited run, ie only ~85.
In numberous runs to 100, the Cotton's has always dropped as the speed increased, in all the data logs I made. The highest I believe I've seen was about 85dF, at the end of a run and that was during the summer.
I gave the PWs, and AFRs from there if you want to figure VE, and then CFM it should be possible.

My question is, why doesn't anyone else post anything data wise?. I find it amusing that so far, no one wants to back up anything they say. It's always, my car runs so and so, and how dare you question what I say. If your gonna post opinion as fact on a tech board, I see it as people's duty to ask the tough questions, other wise might as well just read a Newspaper. Quoting a Source that the author then uses one of the products tested, makes me suspicious.

And to better answer you CFM question, I am working on a system so that I can accurately datalog a high flowing MAF. OK, actually use a MAF in a similiar manner to the latest OBDII cars.

 

[gnjones231]

Hey Bruce, I would like to answer your question, but this really isn't
the place to do it. If you would like to start another thread on the subject
of injector DC (duty cycle) I could answer it there. But, in all fairness,
if you start another thread, be prepaired to present you own data on
the subject. And be prepaired to discuss the type of fluid media used,
calibration factors, pressure control, injector voltage control, pulse
width and duty cycle control. We can also discuss what happens at low DC and
pulse widths, which is the other end of the spectrum. We can also discuss
injector transform functions in case anyone wants to build a miles/gallon
meter. Let me know if you are gonna start another discussin thread so I don't
miss it.

Dave

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by gnjones231
Hey Bruce, I would like to answer your question, but this really isn't the place to do it. If you would like to start another thread on the subject of injector DC (duty cycle) I could answer it there. But, in all fairness, if you start another thread, be prepaired to present you own data on the subject.

I was asking you, if you knew. I've got an answer.

You completely avoided the point, that your testing did in fact support what I had said.
End of subject, thanks for playing thou.

 

[RBE17]

This has been an interesting, entertaining and educational thread. I personally appreciate everyone's comments, opinions and data they've presented. I had my mind made up about which front mount I will go to long before this thread was started, but enjoyed reading the claims & support.

The one thing I've always found interesting when intercooler selection questions are presented is that everyone states what they have and why they bought it. I never see anyone give the same advice when turbo selection questions are asked. The answer I usually see there is, "buy once and be done w/ it". It seems intuitively obvious that you'd make the same selectin w/ your IC as you would your turbo...but maybe I'm confused?

Thanks again,


Steve.

 

[lazaris]

The tests and actual data provided are all well and good but the bottom line is that if your going to compare 1 IC to the next then you have to do on the same car with the same mods on the same day. Data logs from one car using a specific IC and data from another car with a different combination testing a different IC is not a the right way to make a fair comaprison.

 

[Garycar]

Lazaris, well stated!

 

[JCotton]

This has been quite the thread, I've waited for Nick to supply some supporting info to his original claims. Unless I missed something, he never responded.
Bruce, thanks for sharing your actual data from runs with a TR.

The original question:

Is there any difference between the Precision front mount and Cotton's front mount? It appears from the board discussions that they are equal in performance. How about fit / finish, price, turbo lag, or anything else. Thanks for any thoughts.

My answer.... We use a bit larger core in total area than the PTE, the HP rating is higher. The fit is excellent, attaches with 2 bolts at the top using existing holes in the rad support and 1 bolt at the bottom attached to the lower rad support. The finish is raw alluminum, no paints or coating. The pipes are 3" mandrel bent, one piece and also fit like a glove. I also include all mounting hardware, hoses and clamps. Turbo lag? not a chance.... The dimensions of the core are such that the entire core is the approximate width and heigth of the radiator, this allows for full exposure to the air flow for better cooling. The PTE has it's end tanks blocking a good part of the air flow to the radiator, mine doesn't. As for application, any GN from mild to wild, the last IC most guys will ever have to buy.... price..... reg. $1149.00. Dec special pricing....... $1049.00 to the next 10 orders I take through Dec.24th.
Happy Holidays,

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by lazaris
The tests and actual data provided are all well and good but the bottom line is that if your going to compare 1 IC to the next then you have to do on the same car with the same mods on the same day. Data logs from one car using a specific IC and data from another car with a different combination testing a different IC is not a the right way to make a fair comaprison.

And if the tester, then at the end of the testing, professes he acquired one of those tested, and harp on it's *advantages*, IMO, it casts doubts on his objectivity. *advantages*, in this case meaning that the PT+E is that much easier to install, then the Cotton's. If a tester considers drilling a single hole in sheet metal as being some sort of desiding factor, then his wrench turning abilities should be quessed, IMO. Gets to sound like the typical magazine where all they do is test products that work, just coincidence, they're testing something an advertiser sells. Yep, OK, sure, fine.

Even in back to back testing, the tests need to be repeated enough to figure out what the error limits are for the test procedure.

On would think that with all the folks that have done upgrades, of both turbos, and I/C, there'd be all sorts of data logs that people would share. Guess, not............

 

[TurboTR]

Well the data logs would show just what people have said basically. The IAT starts at ~ x degrees, finishes at ~ y degrees. The average airflow can be inferred pretty well from the 1/4 mile performance. Or if you want, myself and others have FAST data logs that also show inj duty cycle and a/f ratio over the whole pass; from that, a spreadsheet that calculates a pretty good estimate of airflow in mass units over the whole run could be obtained. If you have a MAF based car it can be logged directly, knowing the transfer function. If someone wants to add a high capacity voltage output MAF for logging airflow directly, like say a F*rd Cobra or Lightning one, I can supply the transfer function curve for that if need be. Then the only thing we have been missing is delta P across the IC. Joe L has given some delta P data, the only one who has here in fact unless I've missed something. It's all interesting, and could be a great thread, but further hard data is not really required in choosing an IC in this case. It has been shown already ad nauseum that the various IC's availaible currently perform pretty much as expected on a given platform. If you want great fm performance up to about 950 hp, the PTE unit fits well at a reasonable price. If you want to support a bit more hp than that, then something like Cotton's nice fm makes sense, and is a bit more $. PTE also has a very nice new stock location IC for the more street oriented cars. It seems the jury is still out on the reality of the PS IC in our application; maybe Bruce or others would be willing to help the development and gather hard data on that one...

Hey that's a good idea for Christmas- an IC sale at 8.7% off. Matching that for both PTE IC's, the front mount would be $817. The stock location would be $725. I think there might be some PTE vendors here who would be willing to honor that, in the Christmas spirit of course- Ho Ho Ho!

TurboTR

 

[lazaris]

Originally posted by bruce
And if the tester, then at the end of the testing, professes he acquired one of those tested, and harp on it's *advantages*, IMO, it casts doubts on his objectivity. *advantages*, in this case meaning that the PT+E is that much easier to install, then the Cotton's. If a tester considers drilling a single hole in sheet metal as being some sort of desiding factor, then his wrench turning abilities should be quessed, IMO. Gets to sound like the typical magazine where all they do is test products that work, just coincidence, they're testing something an advertiser sells. Yep, OK, sure, fine.

Even in back to back testing, the tests need to be repeated enough to figure out what the error limits are for the test procedure.

On would think that with all the folks that have done upgrades, of both turbos, and I/C, there'd be all sorts of data logs that people would share. Guess, not............

Havent you "professed' about the Cottons "advantages" with your testing? I dont think it casts doubt on your objectivity.

Back to back tests should be repeated something like 3 passes for each IC. Same car same day.

The problem is with all the different turbos and combinations out there. The data collected would not be accurate for that reason when comparing the different IC's performance, which goes back to what the original question on this topic is about..