Warm days intercoolers

[stevieturbo]

Dave. said:

R53 Mini.

Replace the original tiny topmount with a short air path to a front mount with double the capacity & stloads of piping...

Factory topmount





Front mount

Edited by Dave. on Saturday 14th July 15:01

As said...will make negligible difference, very little pipework there really.

[Dave.]

Twice the capacity of the actual cooler, plus the pressure drop through 8no 90deg bends, plus the straight bits...

OK

[Boosted LS1]

Dave. said:

Twice the capacity of the actual cooler, plus the pressure drop through 8no 90deg bends, plus the straight bits...

OK

And your proof is?

[Dave.]

Proof of what, physics?

Further distance, plus bends, plus the bigger cooler itself. They all have a pressure drop.

What you put in at one end, you don't get out the other.

Here you go, crack on - https://www.qdusa.com/techsupport/gasFlowPressureD...

[anonymous-user]

Dave. said:

Proof of what, physics?

Further distance, plus bends, plus the bigger cooler itself. They all have a pressure drop.

What you put in at one end, you don't get out the other.

Here you go, crack on - https://www.qdusa.com/techsupport/gasFlowPressureD...

Amazing how many people say "because physics" and yet are completely unable to actually use those same physics to draw a valid conclusion.


All that matters is intake manifold air density. If the additional pressure losses causing a reduced charge density are greater than the additional density furnished from the increased charge cooling then the system is not an improvement. If the opposite is true, then the system is an improvement.

In order to determine which of those cases applies in any given scenario you'll have to measure some parameters and either calculate the likely outcome, or for most people, try installing the modified hardware and remeasure those parameters.

For something as heavily compromised as a top mount cooler, the additional losses from a more tortuous flow path are generally more than offset by the massive improvement in cooling performance of a properly ducted front mount cooler. (manufacturers use top mount coolers to reduce cost and to reduce the build time and complexity, because the engine can be pre assembled (and even tested) as a whole unit, and then just stuff up into the bodyshell in one go. They are generally used on fairly low boost engines where the compressor work is fairly controlled, and hence a large charge cooling heat rejection flux is not needed.

So sure, 8 bends, gotta be bad right? Well 8 x nothing is nothing, and without calculating the pressure loss for those bends (and to do that you need to know the massflow and flow/discharge co-efficients) who knows if it's better or not. Frankly, in most cases, the biggest loss in most charge cooling system is due to poor end tank design and poorly designed high drag matrices.




This is why as soon as someone says "how do i get a better xxxxx" where xxxx can be any part of the car, the first response should always to be to measure the performance of the current part, objectively, rather than just guess. Unfortunately, most aftermarket tuning relies on guess work as it's primary source. It seems people will happily spend thousands on go-faster bits, but are unwilling to spend a tenth of that on actually measuring anything......

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 14th July 19:11

[Dave.]

The worst part of the front mount installation above is probably the number of silicone joiners... :lol:

[Boosted LS1]

So your proof was?

[Dave.]

fks sake! That adding pipework and fittings adds resistance which increases pressure loss....

If you think otherwise, you prove it.... I've got better things to do!

[stevieturbo]

Dave. said:

fks sake! That adding pipework and fittings adds resistance which increases pressure loss....

If you think otherwise, you prove it.... I've got better things to do!

So you better tell everyone the standard top mount is bettter than all those silly aftermarket performance upgrades.

I'm sure that pipework could easily cope with 5-600hp without too much concern...on what, a piece of st car that makes maybe 150 or so ?

hell...may as well avoid turbos too, they just restrict the exhaust....and superchargers restrict the inlet and sap power to drive

Ya know...physics and stuff like that

[Dave.]

I've never said front mounts are "worse" than topmounts, I'm saying you'd lose pressure going from a top mount to a front mount if everything else stayed the same.

Air will take longer to pass through a bigger cooler, so will have more heat taken out of it, and if you have the car mapped after fitting the front mount (or in the case of the R53 as above, chuck a smaller sc pulley on there) just add a bit more boost to compensate.

[chuntington101]

Dave. said:

stevieturbo said:

[img]
https://thereforeiam.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/o...


Find me a car where is enough room for an IC large enough to even consider that as a concern ( without building an extension on the roof or boot or something.

R53 Mini.

Replace the original tiny topmount with a short air path to a front mount with double the capacity & stloads of piping...

Factory topmount





Front mount

Edited by Dave. on Saturday 14th July 15:01

And you now have a minor minor increase in throttle 'lag' (if any at all) but your Mini no longer pulls timing because it's IATs are too high... I know which one I would prefer!

Also why about the small top mount cooler? That's not going to flow anything like the front mount. I would guess there is about 40% more tube area on the front mount than the top mount.

(Also everyone who has even looked at a r53 knows the stock coolers are ste! Pretty much EVERYONE sticks at least a bigger top mount on there)

Edited by chuntington101 on Saturday 14th July 21:38

[Dave.]

I'd rather have the front mount who's kit replaces the OEM intercooler horns (think it's the proalloy one iirc, but it has fitment issues elsewhere).

Edit - why what about the top mount? Yes they're st, the GP one is way better, nutty pricing though.

Edited by Dave. on Saturday 14th July 21:41

[stevieturbo]

Dave. said:

I've never said front mounts are "worse" than topmounts, I'm saying you'd lose pressure going from a top mount to a front mount if everything else stayed the same.

The key word once again is "negligible"

[Dave.]

I think it was around 3 or 4 psi for the R53, depending on which one you go for and the piping setup.

[GreenV8S]

dieseluser07 said:

I was just asking a question, im not going to sit there buying tools to measure inlet temperatures and datalog it all.

If you're bothered about understanding what's happening and making informed decisions, for example about the potential benefits of upgrading the intercooler, there's really no substitute for measuring the problem. It's not hard or expensive to do compared to the changes you're considering and I don't see why you would be reluctant to do it. If you prefer to pay somebody else to take these decisions for you there's nothing wrong with that, but then it seems rather pointless asking the internet for advice if you aren't willing to provide the data to base it on.

[SlimJim16v]

Dave. said:

I'd rather have the front mount who's kit replaces the OEM intercooler horns (think it's the proalloy one iirc, but it has fitment issues elsewhere).

Exactly, poorly thought out kit. Using the original 'horns' means it has lots of unnecessary bends.

[anonymous-user]

Dave. said:

I've never said front mounts are "worse" than topmounts, I'm saying you'd lose pressure going from a top mount to a front mount if everything else stayed the same.

Unless of course the actual core of the (larger) front mount has a lower loss and hence more than offsets the additional losses in the hotside/coldside pipework.....

(and this is typically the case for a properly designed front mount, where the significant extra core cross sectional area significantly reduces the hydraulic losses in the heat exchanger tubes, where on most top mounts, for packaging reasons the core is typically fairly lossy)

[Dave.]

True, but going by the OPs other thread about the stty cheap one he's bought, probably not...

Another reason to do your research before hand, and not relying on advice from people who are only thinking about their pockets.

[Burnzyb]

stevieturbo said:

The key word once again is "negligible"

Now I know your a man that knows his onions as I’ve been a member on passion ford for many years, playing devils advocate here but what about people that mount remote turbos? Like that e39 m5 somewhere that has the turbos mounted under the back where the back boxes would be? would you really notice the delay due to the long pipework and the amount of exhaust before the turbos? I’ve always thought it was a bit pants fitting them so far away but that’s just my opinion.

[Heaveho]

I tried to do my homework. Lots of well known and not so well known brands are larger than the factory ic on my car, but are significantly less capable than the standard item when it comes to actually reducing temps.

I've tried a few different ones over the years on the same car in the same state of tune, with only a map tweak to make sure they were compensated for. I measure temps after the throttle body using a scangauge to take readings from the factory iat sensor on the inlet manifold, and before it using a k-type thermocouple and a Lascar digital readout.

The two that were best were the HDI GT2 and the 3" ETS, the latter of which is currently still on the car. Neither are massively better than the standard cooler, which is known to be very good, but they are better. The recovery rate on the ETS is superb, the temps drop very quickly when the car comes on boost, and continue to do so until the temps at the throttle body remain a few degrees above ambient while an open throttle is maintained. It surprised me how quickly the temps will rise again on a closed throttle, which is perhaps naive considering the fact that you have effectively closed off the passage of cold air by doing so, causing a difference of up to 10 degrees before and after the throttle body.

A company called Autobahn make a cheap cooler, there are 2 types. One is tube and fin, the other bar and plate. They look identical in pictures, but one is superb, and the other is appalling. It seems to be absolutely pot luck as to which you end up with. I didn't know this before I bought one on the recommendation of someone who had obviously got a good one, logged the temps and been impressed. Typically, I got the sh!t one, and the temps went up, not down, when on boost!

All of the above have been fitted in the factory front mount position on a circa 400 brake Evo, and I haven't had issues with differences in throttle response specifically. I've tried to be as accurate as possible in replicating starting temps, fuel type, ambient temps and testing location when making comparisons. All have been compared from a standing start to 140 mph with a starting temp of 30 degrees at the throttle body. Not an exact science, but consistent enough for my needs from a road car. The results from the two decent coolers I mentioned above were close enough in this test, and under general conditions for it to almost not matter which one you end up with.

Edited by Heaveho on Sunday 15th July 23:41