Intercooler Selection question

[Mease Performance]

Originally posted by JCotton
Sure Keith, I'll just cut those custom end tanks we made up off and send it out this week. You'll have to send me your address to send it to. I don't think the addresses I have are the correct ones.

I always knew you were da man!

have a job to get done this week, and that would be really appreciated if you could get that out. I sent you an Email with our new address

thanks~!

 

[bsdlinux]

Originally posted by azgn
As Carl mentioned, I have long been an advocate of an efficient stock location vs a front mount........we did do back to back testing on a low 11 sec car and found no difference (V2 vs V4) in the 1/4 mile

This is a good thing. I just got my hands on a mint 24 row Mease stock location . I have heard good things about this piece. We shall soon see

 

[azgn]

if the rest of your combo is there, the IC won't slow you down! (into high 10's at least)

 

[JCotton]

Nick, Woody,

Any feedback on my questions.....

Can you give us a little more in detail info on these tests, when they were done, what the performance gains or losses were, (ET, MPH) what size turbos, engine and recipe combo, etc....... Also, can you tell us what the core you will be using is rated at for HP and whether it is bar and plate or tube and fin?

Thanks,

 

[azgn]

Jack, I don't think you are talking about the V4 vs V2?

Nick will have to fill you in on the Powerstroke stuff

 

[Mease Performance]

Originally posted by azgn
Jack, I don't think you are talking about the V4 vs V2?

Nick will have to fill you in on the Powerstroke stuff

I dunno is it me or do I sense some powerstroking action here?



Competition makes products better, monopolies dont make markets competitive, and in this market....it dont make horsepower!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Joe Lubrant]

Re: PS shows outstanding performance....

Originally posted by Nick Micale
Our data shows big difference in PTE, Cotton's and the PS.

In one case we replaced the PTE with a PS and everything else was the same. Boost increased 4 psi which indicates less restriction in the PS.

Temps in the plenum with the PS have been much less than PTE and slightly less than Cotton's on the same day/track.

Your Intercooler raised the boost pressure 4# over the PTE!!!! Sorry Nick..........Won't buy that statement at all....unless you were using a PT 101mm turbo.

Lets talk apples & apples...........the PTE FM was designed to support 900hp............Cottons a 1000hp..............so what is yours designed for??? What turbo was being used???

Backpressure will be relavent to the flow the intercooler can handle.

My car with a PT72 on it had less than 1# pressure drop with the PTE front mount.
My car with a PT88 turbo ran 9.30@150mph(3700#) with the PTE front mount (approx.950hp) with less than 2.5# drop. 30+#psi.

Every intercooler is designed for a specific application & rating.

If you try and cram 10#'s of SH_T in a 5# Bag you will have backpressure.

I don't mind comparisons of intercoolers even P.S. of course without the extra B.S.

 

[bruce]

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

Originally posted by Joe Lubrant
Your Intercooler raised the boost pressure 4# over the PTE!!!! Sorry Nick..........Won't buy that statement at all....unless you were using a PT 101mm turbo.

Lets talk apples & apples...........the PTE FM was designed to support 900hp............Cottons a 1000hp..............so what is yours designed for??? What turbo was being used???

My car with a PT72 on it had less than 1# pressure drop with the PTE front mount.
My car with a PT88 turbo ran 9.30@150mph(3700#) with the PTE front mount (approx.950hp) with less than 2.5# drop. 30+#psi.

Every intercooler is designed for a specific application & rating.

I don't mind comparisons of intercoolers even P.S. of course without the extra B.S.

1) Before you make statements of the absolute, wouldn't it make sense to ask for the details of the testing?.

2+3+4) Since you were making more HP then the HP YOU claimed the PT+E would support, why didn't you run a Cotton's?. After all it was designed to support the HP you were making, again using you statements and logic.

5) What were all the specifics of your claims?. Ambient air temp., turbo discharge temp, I/C outlet temp, plenum temp, MPH, EGT, ETC..

 

[bruce]

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

Originally posted by Joe Lubrant
Your Intercooler raised the boost pressure 4# over the PTE!!!! Sorry Nick..........Won't buy that statement at all....unless you were using a PT 101mm turbo.

Lets talk apples & apples...........the PTE FM was designed to support 900hp............Cottons a 1000hp..............so what is yours designed for??? What turbo was being used???

My car with a PT72 on it had less than 1# pressure drop with the PTE front mount.
My car with a PT88 turbo ran 9.30@150mph(3700#) with the PTE front mount (approx.950hp) with less than 2.5# drop. 30+#psi.

Every intercooler is designed for a specific application & rating.

I don't mind comparisons of intercoolers even P.S. of course without the extra B.S.

1) Before you make statements of the absolute, wouldn't it make sense to ask for the details of the testing?.

2+3+4) Since you were making more HP then the HP YOU claimed the PT+E would support, why didn't you run a Cotton's?. After all it was designed to support the HP you were making, again using you statements and logic.

5) What were all the specifics of your claims?. Ambient air temp., turbo discharge temp, I/C outlet temp, plenum temp, MPH, EGT, ETC..

 

[lazaris]

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

Originally posted by bruce
1) Before you make statements of the absolute, wouldn't it make sense to ask for the details of the testing?.

2+3+4) Since you were making more HP then the HP YOU claimed the PT+E would support, why didn't you run a Cotton's?. After all it was designed to support the HP you were making, again using you statements and logic.

5) What were all the specifics of your claims?. Ambient air temp., turbo discharge temp, I/C outlet temp, plenum temp, MPH, EGT, ETC..

1. Bruce these are just my observations, I think Joe did specifically ask for the details. ".so what is yours designed for??? What turbo was being used???"

2. 3. 4. Well 900-950 is pretty close. I even think the web site says it supports 950. Maybe their new core supports a little more then when Joe ran that combination. Also he said he ran 30+ psi on an 88. Thats allot of air. So if he only ran 27 psi and made 900hp I think that covers most applications as well as Cottons. Your talking 900-1000hp on either. So after that it appears something else may be required.

5. He did give some specifics.
"My car with a PT72 on it had less than 1# pressure drop with the PTE front mount.
My car with a PT88 turbo ran 9.30@150mph(3700#) with the PTE front mount (approx.950hp) with less than 2.5# drop. 30+#psi."
Maybe just not all the ones you asked for.
I'd think he would give more if you wanted.

 

[BobbyBuick]

Again if you look at my post earlier I gained 3 psi without changes goin to the PTE.Im probably only running in the 550 to 600 hp im guessing with the mph and weight.

 

[Joe Lubrant]

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

Originally posted by lazaris
1. Bruce these are just my observations, I think Joe did specifically ask for the details. ".so what is yours designed for??? What turbo was being used???"

2. 3. 4. Well 900-950 is pretty close. I even think the web site says it supports 950. Maybe their new core supports a little more then when Joe ran that combination. Also he said he ran 30+ psi on an 88. Thats allot of air. So if he only ran 27 psi and made 900hp I think that covers most applications as well as Cottons. Your talking 900-1000hp on either. So after that it appears something else may be required.

5. He did give some specifics.
"My car with a PT72 on it had less than 1# pressure drop with the PTE front mount.
My car with a PT88 turbo ran 9.30@150mph(3700#) with the PTE front mount (approx.950hp) with less than 2.5# drop. 30+#psi."
Maybe just not all the ones you asked for.
I'd think he would give more if you wanted.

Thanks Lazaris! Exactly my point.

As I said Intercoolers are designed to suit specific applications. No need to use an intercooler that far exceeds your requirements.
The PTE was designed to suit just about every application up to & including 900hp.

My results as stated proved that the PTE Front Mount delivered the performance that was claimed.

I have used the same PTE Intercooler from when my car was an 11.5, 10.5, 10.0 and down to 9.30 ET. This was done with an assortment of turbo's from a TA60, TE62, PT70, PT72, & the PT88 3-bolt in TSE 2000.

Bruce asks why didn't I use a Cotton that was rated at a 1000hp instead of the PTE at 900hp?
Well Bruce up to the PT72 turbo I saw no need to change as the combo worked exceptionally well to 10.0's with a 3700# car.

Which won Buicks@Bristol Turbo Super Street Class 2yrs in a row.

With the PT88 installed it was a great opportunity to TEST the limits of this intercooler. My inlet air temp was 144-148 deg. with 75-80 ambient. at 30-31#
After my data was colected I did determine it was time to move up to another PTE Air to Air Intercooler that is currently rated at 1500hp. Which of course exceeds Cottons or PS i'm sure.

This New 1500hp intercooler on Jim Byrne's car 3250#with a PT88 3-bolt ran 165mph at 32# with inlet air temps of 115 to 120 deg. with egt's at 1625-1650 with ambient air 70-75deg. The same temp. results were obtained on Houstons car set-up the same at a later event.

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

If your memory recalls there was an intercooler test done on a lower hp car by the "SOURCE" Newsletter, that showed the close results of the 2 best intercoolers and their actual track et/mph results.
BTW after testing, the Engineer responsible for the test decided to purchase the PTE unit as it was the Easiest to install, Priced Lower, and provided his power needs for now & planned future!

As I stated earlier, if in fact this new PS type intercooler showed a 4# increase over the PTE unit then the turbo had to far exceed the HP rating of the PTE unit. Period!!!!

So was the turbo a 91.5, 101, or larger.????

 

[bruce]

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

Originally posted by lazaris
1. Bruce these are just my observations, I think Joe did specifically ask for the details. ".so what is yours designed for??? What turbo was being used???"

2. 3. 4. Well 900-950 is pretty close. I even think the web site says it supports 950. Maybe their new core supports a little more then when Joe ran that combination. Also he said he ran 30+ psi on an 88. Thats allot of air. So if he only ran 27 psi and made 900hp I think that covers most applications as well as Cottons. Your talking 900-1000hp on either. So after that it appears something else may be required.

5. He did give some specifics.
"My car with a PT72 on it had less than 1# pressure drop with the PTE front mount.
My car with a PT88 turbo ran 9.30@150mph(3700#) with the PTE front mount (approx.950hp) with less than 2.5# drop. 30+#psi."
Maybe just not all the ones you asked for.
I'd think he would give more if you wanted.

1. I was asking Joe for specifics of what he said.

2. Close, well if close is good enough, then why did he ask for specifics?.

3. Specifcs, include test conditions. At what temps were those pressure drops recorded at?. Rating intercoolers is about temps and pressures.

 

[Joe Lubrant]

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

Originally posted by bruce
1. I was asking Joe for specifics of what he said.

2. Close, well if close is good enough, then why did he ask for specifics?.

3. Specifcs, include test conditions. At what temps were those pressure drops recorded at?. Rating intercoolers is about temps and pressures.

Reposted from above.......


Thanks Lazaris! Exactly my point.

As I said Intercoolers are designed to suit specific applications. No need to use an intercooler that far exceeds your requirements.
The PTE was designed to suit just about every application up to & including 900hp.

My results as stated proved that the PTE Front Mount delivered the performance that was claimed.

I have used the same PTE Intercooler from when my car was an 11.5, 10.5, 10.0 and down to 9.30 ET. This was done with an assortment of turbo's from a TA60, TE62, PT70, PT72, & the PT88 3-bolt in TSE 2000.

Bruce asks why didn't I use a Cotton that was rated at a 1000hp instead of the PTE at 900hp?
Well Bruce up to the PT72 turbo I saw no need to change as the combo worked exceptionally well to 10.0's with a 3700# car.

Which won Buicks@Bristol Turbo Super Street Class 2yrs in a row.

With the PT88 installed it was a great opportunity to TEST the limits of this intercooler. My inlet air temp was 144-148 deg. with 75-80 ambient. at 30-31#
After my data was colected I did determine it was time to move up to another PTE Air to Air Intercooler that is currently rated at 1500hp. Which of course exceeds Cottons or PS i'm sure.

This New 1500hp intercooler on Jim Byrne's car 3250#with a PT88 3-bolt ran 165mph at 32# with inlet air temps of 115 to 120 deg. with egt's at 1625-1650 with ambient air 70-75deg. The same temp. results were obtained on Houstons car set-up the same at a later event.

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

If your memory recalls there was an intercooler test done on a lower hp car by the "SOURCE" Newsletter, that showed the close results of the 2 best intercoolers and their actual track et/mph results.
BTW after testing, the Engineer responsible for the test decided to purchase the PTE unit as it was the Easiest to install, Priced Lower, and provided his power needs for now & planned future!

As I stated earlier, if in fact this new PS type intercooler showed a 4# increase over the PTE unit then the turbo had to far exceed the HP rating of the PTE unit. Period!!!!

So was the turbo a 91.5, 101, or larger.????

Lets see Bruce is this like your respone to the 60-65# Injectors???

Where you say you live with the Manufacturers ratings as close enough?

The results I gave are the best I have with a REAL CAR under TRUE Racing Conditions..........when you can add something to this kind of POWER LEVEL I might take anything you say SERIOUSLY!

 

[bruce]

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

Originally posted by Joe Lubrant
when you can add something to this kind of POWER LEVEL I might take anything you say SERIOUSLY!

Heck, you say the PT+E Intercooler is for 900 HP, and your web page states 950. Minor point granted, but it makes one wonder about how accurate your comments are when you don't even agree with your own product claims.



BTW, what exactly is the down side to this statement?

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

Too much charge cooling?.
It would seem to me, that one would strive for all the intercooling he could afford. After all, it just lessens the likely hood of detonation.



****
BTW after testing, the Engineer responsible for the test decided to purchase the PTE unit as it was the Easiest to install, Priced Lower, and provided his power needs for now & planned future!
****

Easiest to install?, well, maybe for him. I fail to see how anything could be easier to install then the Cotton's.
To scrimp on a couple hundred bucks with something as important as the intercooler, makes me wonder how much of an engineer he is. Maybe it's just matching logic to how **difficult** the Cotton's is to install.

BTW, I really don't care if you take me seriously. Since I'm not selling anything, and reputation/ popularity don't influence what I say, I can talk objectively, how about you?.

BTW, you might have GNTtype update your web address. It makes it look like your out of business, seeing the old address for sale.

 

[lazaris]

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

Originally posted by bruce
1. I was asking Joe for specifics of what he said.

2. Close, well if close is good enough, then why did he ask for specifics?.

3. Specifcs, include test conditions. At what temps were those pressure drops recorded at?. Rating intercoolers is about temps and pressures.

1. Again I believe he gave them.

2. I said close because he made 950 (pushing an 88 no less, pretty hard at 30+ psi) and he said the IC supports 900. That was the point. I think he questioned the 4 psi increase from the PTE to the PS more than anything else IMO.

3. Looks like he gave you the test conditions temps and pressure drops.
Yes I understand its about temps and pressures, but also about capacities and correct applications ie: combinations

 

[broke1]

Well its already been proven at least IMO,that you can take an undersized IC and make up for it with methanol injection.

Cal Hartline has proved this by REMOVING his IC and losing no HP.Julio Don has proven this by picking up nothing by going from his stock IC to a front mount.

And if the PS werent as good or better than the rest,do you really think Nick M would use it in his car with a TA alum block engine??I mean ****,why would you skimp on an IC if you didnt have too??We all know he has access to just about every IC made.

Or Reds Hot Air running 133mph with 2.5" piping??

Facts are out there,all you have to do is open your eyes.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by broke1
Well its already been proven at least IMO,that you can take an undersized IC and make up for it with methanol injection.

Cal Hartline has proved this by REMOVING his IC and losing no HP.Julio Don has proven this by picking up nothing by going from his stock IC to a front mount.

And if the PS werent as good or better than the rest,do you really think Nick M would use it in his car with a TA alum block engine??I mean ****,why would you skimp on an IC if you didnt have too??We all know he has access to just about every IC made.

Or Reds Hot Air running 133mph with 2.5" piping??

Facts are out there,all you have to do is open your eyes.

http://home.woh.rr.com/brucesgn/intercoolerdelete/
The date on my page is 2003. That preceeds Cal's testing. And by all means hats off to Cal for sharing what he did in this reguard.

Anyone has the option of chemical intercooling, and/or, air/air, air/water.

Care for some logs about chemical only intercooling?
http://www.t6p.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1991

For me, I'll be using Razor's Alky, and a Cotton's F/M.
Since some of the time, I do low speed stuff, where there's not enough road speed for the F/M to really work, and then open road stuff where the F/M will shine.
Oh, but wait, I don't make a 1,000 HP or run 9's so I couldn't possibly know much.

Speaking of fasts:
This site is about the original research on some related data.
I doubt they had cars that made 1,000 HP, or ran 9's so, their data is probably guestionable too.
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1934/naca-report-469/

The In-cylinder cooling stuff is also interesting.
BTW, NACA isn't/wasn't in the parts business, and they're work was done at time when it was pure research, unlike today's funding to prove something, their funding was to figure out what to do with a blank piece of paper.

 

[broke1]

I didnt forget about you Bruce,I just thought you were running a 7th inj full time,not using alky

 

[bruce]

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

Originally posted by Joe Lubrant

With the PT88 installed it was a great opportunity to TEST the limits of this intercooler. My inlet air temp was 144-148 deg. with 75-80 ambient. at 30-31#
After my data was colected I did determine it was time to move up to another PTE Air to Air Intercooler that is currently rated at 1500hp. Which of course exceeds Cottons or PS i'm sure.

This New 1500hp intercooler on Jim Byrne's car 3250#with a PT88 3-bolt ran 165mph at 32# with inlet air temps of 115 to 120 deg. with egt's at 1625-1650 with ambient air 70-75deg. The same temp. results were obtained on Houstons car set-up the same at a later event.

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

Lets see Bruce is this like your respone to the 60-65# Injectors???
Where you say you live with the Manufacturers ratings as close enough?

The results I gave are the best I have with a REAL CAR under TRUE Racing Conditions..........when you can add something to this kind of POWER LEVEL I might take anything you say SERIOUSLY!

Do you have any data logs to actually show what you're claimg for temps?. I only ask since you misquoted what the actual ratings were for your intercoolers. I mean your only off by 50 HP in rated capacity.
But maybe close is actually good enough for you when your making claims.. BTW, you mentioned a 1,500 HP rated intercooler, yet it's not on your web site. Or is this just close enough to production, that you feel free to mention it.
Another element of being able to look at a data log is being able to see how vehicle speed effects the heat transfer. In case you missed it, I've mentioned before the thermal flywheel effects of intercoolers.
I've posted my data logs, let's see what your using to justify your statements.
I see you mention discharge temps. well wouldn't you be more interested in actual MAT temps?, or is discharge temps just close enough for the way you tune?. Shall we discuss *injector linearity*?. How about actually tuning the MAF tables, rather then just ballparking with the injector constants, to get close enough. Maybe a slight tangent into the LV8 scaler and how one needs to understnad that and it's relationship to the MAF tables to get the timing LV8 calculation correct. Or is this an area where close is good enough also?.

BTW, yes, I do stick with what the MANUFACTURER's state as fact.
I do believe that a company that designs equipment that has to live with in the realm of EPA inspections/certifications, and that has millions on the line. BTW, are you involved in anything that has to withstand the rigors of EPA certifications?.

BTW, the grammar in you last sentence is rather poor.
**when you can add something to this kind of POWER LEVEL I might take anything you say SERIOUSLY!**
I guess, your command of the english language is close enough, eh?.
I'm just repling in a manner similiar to what you've been using, so that it's easy for you to comprehend what I've written.