What intercooler are you running and for what reasons have you made this selection?

[V6sleeper]

I don't think it's wise to draw parallels between Bugattis and Turbo Buicks.

Ditto lol, the Bugatti has 4 Turbo's and 3 intercoolers..

 

[Gene Van Horn]

I have the RJC front mount. It looks cool and cost the most so it must be the best. Know just messing with everyone. I bought alot of RJC parts for my car,all the parts fit perfect,looked great and the customer service was excellent so when it came time for a major, fairly exspensive part like the intercooler RJC just seemed to be the logical choice.

 

[~JM~]

I have the RJC front mount. It looks cool and cost the most so it must be the best. Know just messing with everyone. I bought alot of RJC parts for my car,all the parts fit perfect,looked great and the customer service was excellent so when it came time for a major, fairly exspensive part like the intercooler RJC just seemed to be the logical choice.

Yep!

 

[SPOOLFOOL2]

Here's a crazy thought.

For the most direct plumbing to do a vertical flow front mount, clock the entire turbo clockwise about thirty degrees (like GNBRETT did on his old car). This points the compressor inlet to a straighter shot over to the driver's side for the air cleaner. It points the down pipe to a straighter shot too. Here's the cool part. The compressor exhaust should now be pointing at the radiator cap, where piping could be run around the radiator. Modify the core support and possibly the header panel and headlight bucket to allow the piping to meet up with the end tank, just under the header panel. Air would flow down the IC and out the bottom. An up pipe would go under the radiator back to the throttle body.

I've got another idea that would be a straighter shot and look killer, but would be a butt load of modifying.
Have the IC exit the top, under the middle of the header panel and do a straight shot to the throttle body. It would take some serious skills to modify the radiator core support, bracket to the header panel, radiator, and modified, pinned, fiberglass hood. Check it out. It is doable.

Dang! Ya know. Chip Foose does live just up the street from me.

Mike Barnard

 

[bison]

Here's a crazy thought.

For the most direct plumbing to do a vertical flow front mount, clock the entire turbo clockwise about thirty degrees (like GNBRETT did on his old car). This points the compressor inlet to a straighter shot over to the driver's side for the air cleaner. It points the down pipe to a straighter shot too. Here's the cool part. The compressor exhaust should now be pointing at the radiator cap, where piping could be run around the radiator. Modify the core support and possibly the header panel and headlight bucket to allow the piping to meet up with the end tank, just under the header panel. Air would flow down the IC and out the bottom. An up pipe would go under the radiator back to the throttle body.

I've got another idea that would be a straighter shot and look killer, but would be a butt load of modifying.
Have the IC exit the top, under the middle of the header panel and do a straight shot to the throttle body. It would take some serious skills to modify the radiator core support, bracket to the header panel, radiator, and modified, pinned, fiberglass hood. Check it out. It is doable.

Dang! Ya know. Chip Foose does live just up the street from me.

Mike Barnard

That's a hell of a lot of work. If I'm cutting the core support and doing all that work I might as well get rid of the radiator and move the turbo up front and run an air to water inside the car. We have something in the works that is vertical flow and will not require any cutting of the core support and can accommodate some pretty spectacular flow numbers. The best thing is quite often other front mount piping can be utilized to plumb the inlet and outlet. Unfortunately as i expected the reasons most are using what they are using is because of cost or they acquired it in a deal not because they had good data to base their decisions. So the market is very weak even if data proving effectiveness and actual performance gains can be had. Almost all the others except for a few actually had any actual data and perfomance gains aren't very clearly documented. There's too many variables involved to compare one car to another. We attempted to find flow data on current and past intercoolers with little luck. The vendors and manufacturers either don't know/don't care or are withholding the info. Fortunately we can estimate the flow of what's out there based on core data from Bell. With the design and core size we simply look for a similar Bell core to get some flow data knowing that most cores likely aren't as good as those giving them the benefit of the doubt it's kind of clear that less than 700 cfm is about it for the front mount horizontal units and I'd say that's kind of generous. Most are likely under 600cfm. Wider cores need to have a matching thickness increases or flow goes down! We see a lot of talk about heat rejection. That's easy to get with a long pass but unfortunately it causes a big pressure drop. Running an Intercooler that has 5psi or more pressure drop in a given application is simply not acceptable from a performance standpoint. Especially when most of these applications are 93/alky or e85. Forcing the compressor to make 37-38psi to get 31 at the manifold is ridiculous. Just by forcing the compressor to make that extra pressure you're adding about 85 degrees to the air before it even enters the Intercooler. Additionally and possibly even worse you will need at least that much more drive pressure to do the extra work. High drive pressures will choke off cylinder fill and hurt engine output from the reduced cylinder fill and the extra pumping losses on the exhaust stroke. I'd much rather have an Intercooler that has really good heat rejection and minimal pressure drop. With some of the limited data I got I found that a few racers were hitting brick walls around 90lbs/min yet their turbos are capable of 100+lbs/min. When I see these things happening I have to question why. There has to be something causing major choke flow. I'd bet that in a lot of these instances the intercoolers are the problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pronto]

At a NED track rental In October, I was talking to someone we both know that runs high 9s. They said you suspect the slic they run was holding back at least 100hp because of the flow restrictions. Will their GN be a test mule for your new design?

 

[VtheGNMan]

That's a hell of a lot of work. If I'm cutting the core support and doing all that work I might as well get rid of the radiator and move the turbo up front and run an air to water inside the car. We have something in the works that is vertical flow and will not require any cutting of the core support and can accommodate some pretty spectacular flow numbers. The best thing is quite often other front mount piping can be utilized to plumb the inlet and outlet. Unfortunately as i expected the reasons most are using what they are using is because of cost or they acquired it in a deal not because they had good data to base their decisions. So the market is very weak even if data proving effectiveness and actual performance gains can be had. Almost all the others except for a few actually had any actual data and perfomance gains aren't very clearly documented. There's too many variables involved to compare one car to another. We attempted to find flow data on current and past intercoolers with little luck. The vendors and manufacturers either don't know/don't care or are withholding the info. Fortunately we can estimate the flow of what's out there based on core data from Bell. With the design and core size we simply look for a similar Bell core to get some flow data knowing that most cores likely aren't as good as those giving them the benefit of the doubt it's kind of clear that less than 700 cfm is about it for the front mount horizontal units and I'd say that's kind of generous. Most are likely under 600cfm. Wider cores need to have a matching thickness increases or flow goes down! We see a lot of talk about heat rejection. That's easy to get with a long pass but unfortunately it causes a big pressure drop. Running an Intercooler that has 5psi or more pressure drop in a given application is simply not acceptable from a performance standpoint. Especially when most of these applications are 93/alky or e85. Forcing the compressor to make 37-38psi to get 31 at the manifold is ridiculous. Just by forcing the compressor to make that extra pressure you're adding about 85 degrees to the air before it even enters the Intercooler. Additionally and possibly even worse you will need at least that much more drive pressure to do the extra work. High drive pressures will choke off cylinder fill and hurt engine output from the reduced cylinder fill and the extra pumping losses on the exhaust stroke. I'd much rather have an Intercooler that has really good heat rejection and minimal pressure drop. With some of the limited data I got I found that a few racers were hitting brick walls around 90lbs/min yet their turbos are capable of 100+lbs/min. When I see these things happening I have to question why. There has to be something causing major choke flow. I'd bet that in a lot of these instances the intercoolers are the problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Couple thought on this Bison.
If you have an inter cooler with proven tests and flow numbers people will buy it. People have spent big bucks on ICs without any numbers to base their decisions on, imagine when one has numbers to back up the claims. And look at how much some of these ICs were new, big bucks! Lots of people bought them too or we wouldn't see them years later on the used market.
From the TR community let me say thank you for all the knowledge you share on here! If you build it, people will buy it!

 

[TURBOPOWERED68]

Front mount, CXRacing- Core Size: 24"x11"x3"-- Custom made pipes. my OE was getting heat soaked.

 

[Jerryl]

Bison,
Now that you opened this thread and our eyes, I see lots of horizontal flow front mounts coming up for sale.
If you build it they will come.

 

[turbobitt]

Here's a crazy thought.

For the most direct plumbing to do a vertical flow front mount, clock the entire turbo clockwise about thirty degrees (like GNBRETT did on his old car). This points the compressor inlet to a straighter shot over to the driver's side for the air cleaner. It points the down pipe to a straighter shot too. Here's the cool part. The compressor exhaust should now be pointing at the radiator cap, where piping could be run around the radiator. Modify the core support and possibly the header panel and headlight bucket to allow the piping to meet up with the end tank, just under the header panel. Air would flow down the IC and out the bottom. An up pipe would go under the radiator back to the throttle body.

I've got another idea that would be a straighter shot and look killer, but would be a butt load of modifying.
Have the IC exit the top, under the middle of the header panel and do a straight shot to the throttle body. It would take some serious skills to modify the radiator core support, bracket to the header panel, radiator, and modified, pinned, fiberglass hood. Check it out. It is doable.

Dang! Ya know. Chip Foose does live just up the street from me.

Mike Barnard

We (Bison and I) have another out of the box solution and I have a computer model with a real detailed rendering of what it will look like and it will have twice the flow capacity of the largest 3" horizontal flow. This is designed for all out race cars wanting the largest possible, highest flowing and most efficient air-air.
But even if you made an intercooler a little narrow to accommodate piping you would still be far ahead. I figure you can fit a 22-23" core by 10-12 inches and flow a but load. This would accommodate 3" piping. This will be a secondary project after we build the first monster for my car.
AG



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nigel]

Great information, looking to summarize the conversation, Bison let me know if this is correct.

The intercooler plays an integral role in doing two things. Cooler charge means more mass flow and cooler charge means better resistance to detonation. The tradeoff is increased pressure drop from the compressor outlet to the intake manifold. As you approach the compressor limits, you are CFM limited. Improvement in heat transfer is not going to gain you much, if any, in performance with regard to mass flow. (Many other variables effect performance so this is a simplified summary on my part just looking at the turbo and the intercooler). Since you are CFM limited, reducing the pressure drop means you can reduce the turbo outlet pressure, maintain the same manifold pressure, reduce the heat of compression, improving mass flow for the same volumetric flow. This assumes you stay within the compressor operating envelope.

On the exhaust side. Even though the pressure ratio may not be static when comparing compressor discharge to exhaust drive pressure for various operating points, if you assume a ratio of 1.5 around the operating point – you get 1.5 psi drop in back pressure for a 1 psi reduction in compressor discharge pressure. Reduced residual cylinder pressure improves mass flow. The work for six pistons, in a 3.8 liter engine, to pump against 1 psi back pressure every other stroke is roughly 17 hp, using a very simple work equation. I have no idea how this equates to real world savings, but less pumping losses means more power.

A couple of years ago, I played around with the Bob Dick intercooler data. I had to make some assumptions and extrapolate some of the items due to some holes in the info, so this is not necessarily representative of real world, but I was trying to learn what makes it all tick. Here it is tabulated below, maybe of some help, maybe not.

 

[bison]

View attachment 268903 Great information, looking to summarize the conversation, Bison let me know if this is correct.

The intercooler plays an integral role in doing two things. Cooler charge means more mass flow and cooler charge means better resistance to detonation. The tradeoff is increased pressure drop from the compressor outlet to the intake manifold. As you approach the compressor limits, you are CFM limited. Improvement in heat transfer is not going to gain you much, if any, in performance with regard to mass flow. (Many other variables effect performance so this is a simplified summary on my part just looking at the turbo and the intercooler). Since you are CFM limited, reducing the pressure drop means you can reduce the turbo outlet pressure, maintain the same manifold pressure, reduce the heat of compression, improving mass flow for the same volumetric flow. This assumes you stay within the compressor operating envelope.

On the exhaust side. Even though the pressure ratio may not be static when comparing compressor discharge to exhaust drive pressure for various operating points, if you assume a ratio of 1.5 around the operating point – you get 1.5 psi drop in back pressure for a 1 psi reduction in compressor discharge pressure. Reduced residual cylinder pressure improves mass flow. The work for six pistons, in a 3.8 liter engine, to pump against 1 psi back pressure every other stroke is roughly 17 hp, using a very simple work equation. I have no idea how this equates to real world savings, but less pumping losses means more power.

A couple of years ago, I played around with the Bob Dick intercooler data. I had to make some assumptions and extrapolate some of the items due to some holes in the info, so this is not necessarily representative of real world, but I was trying to learn what makes it all tick. Here it is tabulated below, maybe of some help, maybe not.
View attachment 268903

The problem we are seeing with most of the current designs is pressure drop and it's not due to the cooling effect. It's simply restrictive flow due to core design. The engine is swallowing the air faster than it flows through the core. CFM is dictated by displacement and engine speed. We aren't necessarily looking to use the Intercooler to control detonation. Cylinder pressure control, increased octane, or an anti detonant should be used.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[fastblackracing]

View attachment 268903 Great information, looking to summarize the conversation, Bison let me know if this is correct.

The intercooler plays an integral role in doing two things. Cooler charge means more mass flow and cooler charge means better resistance to detonation. The tradeoff is increased pressure drop from the compressor outlet to the intake manifold. As you approach the compressor limits, you are CFM limited. Improvement in heat transfer is not going to gain you much, if any, in performance with regard to mass flow. (Many other variables effect performance so this is a simplified summary on my part just looking at the turbo and the intercooler). Since you are CFM limited, reducing the pressure drop means you can reduce the turbo outlet pressure, maintain the same manifold pressure, reduce the heat of compression, improving mass flow for the same volumetric flow. This assumes you stay within the compressor operating envelope.

On the exhaust side. Even though the pressure ratio may not be static when comparing compressor discharge to exhaust drive pressure for various operating points, if you assume a ratio of 1.5 around the operating point – you get 1.5 psi drop in back pressure for a 1 psi reduction in compressor discharge pressure. Reduced residual cylinder pressure improves mass flow. The work for six pistons, in a 3.8 liter engine, to pump against 1 psi back pressure every other stroke is roughly 17 hp, using a very simple work equation. I have no idea how this equates to real world savings, but less pumping losses means more power.

I see it pretty much like you do Nigel. Except I feel you are being generous with a back pressure ratio of 1.5- 1... Most of us would be closer to 2 -1 when we are reaching the useful end of the range on our turbine/compressor setup where efficiency really starts to fall off, so any gains in reduction of the I/C pressure drop will indeed pay big dividends by reducing the exhaust pressure and the cleaner cylinder fill that results from it first and the smaller gains from reduced charge air temps,increased cfm. and the pumping losses you describe.

As we push our set ups and get closer to the limits we have to dig deeper to find gains and the I/C efficiency is a prime place to get it. The stock location I have chose to use for other reasons is also a vertical flow unit if you really look at.....it is has simply just been rotated 90*. The construction is such that the length of the flow passages are shorter than the width of the unit so you end up with more flow tubes for a lesser pressure drop. The manufacturer of this unit told me the drop was around pounds 2 at the 800 HP mark.

So at some point the gains from a lesser pressure drop begin to outweigh the gains from reduced charge air temp, one of the main considerations for most front mounts being true horizontal flow units has to be easier construction with side mounted tanks verses a vertical flow core with top and bottom tanks which will be more challenging to do on our T/R's...and be able to fit as much usefull core in there as possible.

Since my car is completely apart and we have to build a new I/C anyway I will be taking a real hard look at the space available for a great flowing vertical LPD cooler like bison and turbobitt have described.

Great thread guys.[/QUOTE]

 

[whitehot1]

 

[Nigel]

EDIT - was replying to Bison

I jumped to the conclusion thinking compressor limited. So your looking to optimize the trade off on heat rejection vs pressure drop, assuming all other components optimized? Where do you think the biggest gain will come from? Hot side or cold side? Thanks for great info as always.

 

[Nigel]

I see it pretty much like you do Nigel. Except I feel you are being generous with a back pressure ratio of 1.5- 1... Most of us would be closer to 2 -1 when we are reaching the useful end of the range on our turbine/compressor setup where efficiency really starts to fall off, so any gains in reduction of the I/C pressure drop will indeed pay big dividends by reducing the exhaust pressure and the cleaner cylinder fill that results from it first and the smaller gains from reduced charge air temps,increased cfm. and the pumping losses you describe.

As we push our set ups and get closer to the limits we have to dig deeper to find gains and the I/C efficiency is a prime place to get it. The stock location I have chose to use for other reasons is also a vertical flow unit if you really look at.....it is has simply just been rotated 90*. The construction is such that the length of the flow passages are shorter than the width of the unit so you end up with more flow tubes for a lesser pressure drop. The manufacturer of this unit told me the drop was around 2-2 1/2 pounds at the 800 HP mark.

So at some point the gains from a lesser pressure drop begin to outweigh the gains from reduced charge air temp, one of the main considerations for most front mounts being true horizontal flow units has to be easier construction with side mounted tanks verses a vertical flow core with top and bottom tanks which will be more challenging to do on our T/R's...and be able to fit as much usefull core in there as possible.

Since my car is completely apart and we have to build a new I/C anyway I will be taking a real hard look at the space available for a great flowing vertical LPD cooler like bison and turbobitt have described.

Great thread guys.

[/QUOTE]
I'm sure you correct, I just picked a back pressure number to illustrate. Thanks for the feedback.

 

[fastblackracing]

Here is a pic of my current I/C. Core size is 14 x 19 x 3.5 thick. After ordering the bell core to replace it I discovererd that the original construction was made of 2 garret cores both cut down to achieve the width and 1 was cut down to achieve the height.

Garret cores are rated by horsepower and the bell cores are rated in cfm. How do we compare the two with any sense of good information?

The 2 core garret deal has 23 passages and the bell core will have 28 passages, the bell has slightly smaller but more passages. What differences in performance will there be? Hard to say.

I do not have a pic of the new bell core.

Bell core =3.50 19.00 14.00 1084 cfm A350190140

pic is the 2 garret core deal.

 

[bison]

EDIT - was replying to Bison

I jumped to the conclusion thinking compressor limited. So your looking to optimize the trade off on heat rejection vs pressure drop, assuming all other components optimized? Where do you think the biggest gain will come from? Hot side or cold side? Thanks for great info as always.

Were looking to not sacrifice heat rejection and minimize pressure drop not trade one for the other. We have enough room to do both. The gains will depend on application. If you're a class racer and are all in or close to it and have an 8psi pressure drop by simply reducing to to 2psi will increase manifold pressure by at least 6psi and possible 7 or 8psi. Or at the same manifold pressure you will drop exhaust pressure and pick up mass flow. It's a win win if the design is right. It may not matter at all for an average application where exhaust pressure isn't getting out of control and pressure drop isn't a problem. On those applications a little extra drive pressure doesn't matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bison]

Here is a pic of my current I/C. Core size is 14 x 19 x 3.5 thick. After ordering the bell core to replace it I discovererd that the original construction was made of 2 garret cores both cut down to achieve the width and 1 was cut down to achieve the height.

Garret cores are rated by horsepower and the bell cores are rated in cfm. How do we compare the two with any sense of good information?

The 2 core garret deal has 23 passages and the bell core will have 28 passages, the bell has slightly smaller but more passages. What differences in performance will there be? Hard to say.

I do not have a pic of the new bell core.

Bell core =3.50 19.00 14.00 1084 cfm A350190140

pic is the 2 garret core deal.

View attachment 268906

We really can't convert hp to cfm. HP is a formula and refers to the engine. Where cfm is a measurable unit that can be directly applied. This is why comparing is not so easy. Looking at similar sized and type the flow should be similar. I doubt there has been any break through in core design that's going to net a large increase in flow with a given core size in any recent years with any of the major manufacturers. I'm sure there's plenty of Chinese knock offs that will give up a lot of flow compared to the top of the line units but we're not interested in a producing a Chinese based product.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[INEEDAGN]

Heres an old pic of the intercooler that procharger was building approx 10 years ago, mocked up on a buddies cutlass. He never got it up and running with the supercharger but it looks like it could move a bit of air...

And yes, that trans cooler was only temporary