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

[Nigel]

Some things to consider.

The alcohol is not a substitute intercooling. You have to look at the properties of the liquid, saturation temperature and saturation pressure. At 22 psig the saturation temperature(boiling point) of methanol is 199 deg F. As the pressure rises or drops, correspondingly, so does the saturation temperature. Your ability to cool below the saturation temperature in a practical manor with methanol(or any liquid) is virtually nil. You get the most cooling effects when it enters the combustion chamber, and it flashes to a vapor during the compression stroke, cooling the charge and inhibiting detonation. The higher fuel to air required for methanol means you get greater cooling while being able to optimize the A/F ratio over gasoline. It is the latent heat of vaporization that lowers the charge temperature as the sensible heat is very small. A hot air car can benefit quite a bit from alcohol injection because the manifold temps are well above the saturation temperature, so the alcohol will flash to a vapor in the manifold dropping the charge temperature.

When someone is reading low temperatures while spraying alcohol, the alcohol is wetting the temperature sensor, pulling the reading down to the liquid alcohol temperature. In addition, the a constant process of wetting the temperature sensor with a constant evaporative process taking place on the surface of the sensor, you get a low temperature indication. It is almost identical to the process of how the wet bulb temperature is determined for the weather. The air stream is going to generally be whatever temperature it is when it exits the intercooler as it takes a fraction of a second for the air to flow into the combustion chamber from there. No time for a significant amount of evaporation to take place. Evaporative cooling requires a large surface area and residence time which don’t exist in the intake system of the car. The difference on the temperature sensor is that a quasi-steady state condition has been set up where you are continually wetting it with ambient temperature alcohol, and a continuous process of evaporation local to that surface is taking place.


The interesting thing going here is that the effort is looking to optimize heat rejection vs pressure drop with existing hardware. Good luck, looking forward to the results.

 

[TTipe]

My combo is not nearly as maxed out as John's car is but I had similar results years ago when I switched from race gas to pump gas/Alky. I had a very basic mid 10 second T-Type that I ran on race gas. It had home ported irons, 206/206 flat tappet, stock MAF, stock unported intake, stock TB, TE-45a and a CAS V2 and the car ran a best of 10.43 @ 129. I felt like I had the car pretty well maxed out for the parts I had. My IAT's were running about 50-60 degrees over ambient most runs. I switched to methanol injection and saw a about a 50 degree reduction in IAT's and the car never picked up any power. I ran alky with pump gas and alky with race gas but never saw any performance gain. I was determined I didn't have it tuned correctly so switched from the stock ECM I had always ran to a FAST and still no perfromance gain with IAT reduction. The fastest pass the car ever made was on race gas without alky and the IAT on that run was nearly 70 degrees over ambient.

It's possible that the "potential" BTU's in a race gas volume unit are greater than the potential BTU's in a pump gas / alky volume unit. Possible air fuel charge atomization differences are likely as well.

 

[Steve]

It's possible that the "potential" BTU's in a race gas volume unit are greater than the potential BTU's in a pump gas / alky volume unit. Possible air fuel charge atomization differences are likely as well.

I agree with that and that's why I tried runs with methanol and pump gas as well as methanol and race gas but saw no difference in power vs straight race gas. I always questioned how accurate the IAT sensor was when spraying methanol but even if not totally accurate surely there is a reduction in IAT's vs. no methanol but I was never able to realize any power gains.

 

[NY Twin Turbo]

Who said its limited to this community? Plenty of guys run turbocharged v8 engines in g bodies and want air/air intercoolers. We don't really care if there are zero interested in it and I can tell you that there are many interested in it. We are doing it because we see room for improvement on our own cars based on actual data. We're not forgetting the intercooler we know the benefit of having one. You can bypass yours and report back with the data.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gee, seems like I detect a small amount of hostility your last comment. I'm not sure why. You asked the members of this board for their input. Somehow, I thought that included me as well. You obviously know by now I have no personal interest in this plan, Financially or politically. And since we generally agree on many subjects from former threads, I obviously don't have a score to settle.

Nevertheless, It still seems like building the intercooler for the perfect amount restriction/cooling or lack thereof could be difficult on the first shot. And I'm sure if you need to build a few to get what you want based on actual real world test results you will. But reducing restriction could easily be achievable with a bypass. Seems like a more direct path to acquire the information you desire.

As far as I doing it? You can hold your breath starting now. My car isn't used for tests.........those days are over.

One more thing..........I'm afraid I never give any thought to what the V8 people need or want. I'm not saying it's right. I just don't care. I can't help it.

 

[bison]

Gee, seems like I detect a small amount of hostility your last comment. I'm not sure why. You asked the members of this board for their input. Somehow, I thought that included me as well. You obviously know by now I have no personal interest in this plan, Financially or politically. And since we generally agree on many subjects from former threads, I obviously don't have a score to settle.

Nevertheless, It still seems like building the intercooler for the perfect amount restriction/cooling or lack thereof could be difficult on the first shot. And I'm sure if you need to build a few to get what you want based on actual real world test results you will. But reducing restriction could easily be achievable with a bypass. Seems like a more direct path to acquire the information you desire.

As far as I doing it? You can hold your breath starting now. My car isn't used for tests.........those days are over.

One more thing..........I'm afraid I never give any thought to what the V8 people need or want. I'm not saying it's right. I just don't care. I can't help it.

Time to develop your bypass system. I'll be looking forward to the new thread when you do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NY Twin Turbo]

Time to develop your bypass system. I'll be looking forward to the new thread when you do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rodruckus]

Over 20+ pages of intercooler talk and not one of you has mentioned doing a copper intercooler, why is that? The thermal conductivity of copper is 231 btu/hr/ft, while aluminum is 136 btu/hr/ft. Copper is a significantly better heat exchange medium, it has twice the btu transfer rate of its aluminum counterpart.

Also getting back to cfm and hp, why can't I convert hp to cfm, if I can convert cfm to hp? Turbonetics taught me how to do the latter during a recent Spearco i/c purchase. Since all their i/c numbers where in cfm, I wanted to make sure I chose one that would fit my future goals. Let's use 1500cfm as an example...

1500cfm*.75= supports up to 1,125hp

Why couldn't I just take the hp number and divide it by .75 to get the cfm number? Maybe I'm wrong, but shouldn't this work?

1,125hp/.75=1500cfm?

 

[vacuum 6]

First thing that comes to mind is weight. Copper's density is ~3.3 higher than aluminum. I'm trying to remember all details...I have a research paper somewhere on this topic. A lot of factors must be considered. From what I can remember at the end of the day aluminum is better. Google it.

 

[czimpel]

Over 20+ pages of intercooler talk and not one of you has mentioned doing a copper intercooler, why is that? The thermal conductivity of copper is 231 btu/hr/ft, while aluminum is 136 btu/hr/ft. Copper is a significantly better heat exchange medium, it has twice the btu transfer rate of its aluminum counterpart.

Also getting back to cfm and hp, why can't I convert hp to cfm, if I can convert cfm to hp? Turbonetics taught me how to do the latter during a recent Spearco i/c purchase. Since all their i/c numbers where in cfm, I wanted to make sure I chose one that would fit my future goals. Let's use 1500cfm as an example...

1500cfm*.75= supports up to 1,125hp

Why couldn't I just take the hp number and divide it by .75 to get the cfm number? Maybe I'm wrong, but shouldn't this work?

1,125hp/.75=1500cfm?

$$$$$$$

 

[turbobitt]

Over 20+ pages of intercooler talk and not one of you has mentioned doing a copper intercooler, why is that? The thermal conductivity of copper is 231 btu/hr/ft, while aluminum is 136 btu/hr/ft. Copper is a significantly better heat exchange medium, it has twice the btu transfer rate of its aluminum counterpart.

Also getting back to cfm and hp, why can't I convert hp to cfm, if I can convert cfm to hp? Turbonetics taught me how to do the latter during a recent Spearco i/c purchase. Since all their i/c numbers where in cfm, I wanted to make sure I chose one that would fit my future goals. Let's use 1500cfm as an example...

1500cfm*.75= supports up to 1,125hp

Why couldn't I just take the hp number and divide it by .75 to get the cfm number? Maybe I'm wrong, but shouldn't this work?

1,125hp/.75=1500cfm?

CFM doesn't take into account air density. CFM will be basically the same at whatever boost level. The amount of air in lbs/min will more accurate representation of HP.
AG.

 

[gunzandgearz]

My combo is not nearly as maxed out as John's car is but I had similar results years ago when I switched from race gas to pump gas/Alky. I had a very basic mid 10 second T-Type that I ran on race gas. It had home ported irons, 206/206 flat tappet, stock MAF, stock unported intake, stock TB, TE-45a and a CAS V2 and the car ran a best of 10.43 @ 129. I felt like I had the car pretty well maxed out for the parts I had. My IAT's were running about 50-60 degrees over ambient most runs. I switched to methanol injection and saw a about a 50 degree reduction in IAT's and the car never picked up any power. I ran alky with pump gas and alky with race gas but never saw any performance gain. I was determined I didn't have it tuned correctly so switched from the stock ECM I had always ran to a FAST and still no perfromance gain with IAT reduction. The fastest pass the car ever made was on race gas without alky and the IAT on that run was nearly 70 degrees over ambient.

I wonder if you could have added a little more fuel since the air would have been denser and changed timing a smidgen,might not have picked up any and you might have done that.Do you think you were restricted on exh. side too.

 

[Steve]

I wonder if you could have added a little more fuel since the air would have been denser and changed timing a smidgen,might not have picked up any and you might have done that.Do you think you were restricted on exh. side too.

When the car went 10.43 on race gas I did it using a Red 108 chip and tuned it using Direct Scan and narrow band O2(this was about 10 years ago). After switching over to methanol injection I eneded up going with a Classic FAST and WB02. I played with timing and A/F but I was never able to do any better than the 10.43. I may have been maxed out with the exhaust housing but I am not really sure.

 

[fastblackracing]

CFM doesn't take into account air density. CFM will be basically the same at whatever boost level. The amount of air in lbs/min will more accurate representation of HP.
AG.

This is how I understand it as well turbobitt, CFM is only part of the equation. Lets say my engine can inhale 650 cfm on its own.

Now lets turbocharge it and run it at a 3-1 Pressure ratio, not factoring in any losses from air density changes, we now have 1950 cfm that gets compressed and sent into the engine,[read PPH of air now] which leads me to my question to those who are better versed at fluid dynamics than I am.

As you increase the air density by pressurizing it, how does that impact the flow going through the IC...does the IC flow rating in cfm drop for a more dense air medium and is there a way to predict that?

In other words does it change when flowed at 10# 20# and 30# ?
I would think that it would....similar to 10 weight oil flow verses 30 weight oil.

Reason I ask this is my bell IC core is rated at 1# pressure drop when flowed at 10# charge pressure
and I am looking for a way to turn that into a more real world number.

It would be very difficult to flow test an IC with air, most of us would never have access to something
that will flow that much air.

Would it be possible to flow test one IC against another for comparison purposes with something besides air like perhaps using water, the ability to flow a quantity measured in time?

 

[gunzandgearz]

When the car went 10.43 on race gas I did it using a Red 108 chip and tuned it using Direct Scan and narrow band O2(this was about 10 years ago). After switching over to methanol injection I eneded up going with a Classic FAST and WB02. I played with timing and A/F but I was never able to do any better than the 10.43. I may have been maxed out with the exhaust housing but I am not really sure.

That's probably right because anytime you have a drop in intake temps, especially that much of a drop,the air is that much denser, and looking at this from a carb standpoint, you would increase the jetting by quite a bit and be making more power.Anyway just curious and asking questions because the only difference between a turbo motor and a naturally aspirated engine from a intake air density standpoint is they both should make more power unless their is a restriction somewhere on the exhaust side.

 

[gunzandgearz]

This is how I understand it as well turbobitt, CFM is only part of the equation. Lets say my engine can inhale 650 cfm on its own.

Now lets turbocharge it and run it at a 3-1 Pressure ratio, not factoring in any losses from air density changes, we now have 1950 cfm that gets compressed and sent into the engine,[read PPH of air now] which leads me to my question to those who are better versed at fluid dynamics than I am.

As you increase the air density by pressurizing it, how does that impact the flow going through the IC...does the IC flow rating in cfm drop for a more dense air medium and is there a way to predict that?

In other words does it change when flowed at 10# 20# and 30# ?
I would think that it would....similar to 10 weight oil flow verses 30 weight oil.

Reason I ask this is my bell IC core is rated at 1# pressure drop when flowed at 10# charge pressure
and I am looking for a way to turn that into a more real world number.

It would be very difficult to flow test an IC with air, most of us would never have access to something
that will flow that much air.

Would it be possible to flow test one IC against another for comparison purposes with something besides air like perhaps using water, the ability to flow a quantity measured in time?

Actually when you pressurize the air the air density goes down,in other words if your at sea level and at 14.7 psi and then you go to Colorado the air is less dense, so lets say its at 7 psi at this altitude and I pressurize the Colorado air to get it to the 14'7 psi that its at at sea level, I have reached the same psi but the air is less dense or less air molecules for the same pressure.It works just like a turbo as if im at sea level I can make boost at 20 lbs but if I go to Colorado and want to make 20 lbs there I have to spin the turbo faster and work it harder to get the same boost level.As far as the pressure drop is concerned airflow or even water for that matter, you have to have some pressure drop or flow stops almost completely and the same is true for increasing flow across a restriction if you increase the flow by double the restriction,if it stays the same will almost double. By the way I know this question was directed to Bison so I hope you guys don't mind me piping in and I hope this helps shed some light.

 

[gunzandgearz]

Actually when you pressurize the air the air density goes down,in other words if your at sea level and at 14.7 psi and then you go to Colorado the air is less dense, so lets say its at 7 psi at this altitude and I pressurize the Colorado air to get it to the 14'7 psi that its at at sea level, I have reached the same psi but the air is less dense or less air molecules for the same pressure.It works just like a turbo as if im at sea level I can make boost at 20 lbs but if I go to Colorado and want to make 20 lbs there I have to spin the turbo faster and work it harder to get the same boost level.As far as the pressure drop is concerned airflow or even water for that matter, you have to have some pressure drop or flow stops almost completely and the same is true for increasing flow across a restriction if you increase the flow by double the restriction,if it stays the same will almost double. By the way I know this question was directed to Bison so I hope you guys don't mind me piping in and I hope this helps shed some light.

My bad,turbobitt.

 

[Mr.Spool]

Just curious has anybody on here gotten less than 1%pressure drop from compressor outlet to manifold as this would be a greatly efficient system and totally achievable, just not sure of whats out there for turbo buick crowd.

yes

 

[Mr.Spool]

A lower pressure drop at the same drive pressure will make more power if the discharge temp is the same or close to the same. There is always a slight pressure drop from the cooling and the pass itself since the air is being flowed through a bunch of tubing. Based on the data I've seen and the amount of space a g body has there should be less than 2psi drop for maximum potential no matter what the performance level is. It's easy to make a restrictive Intercooler that has great heat rejection. It's also easy to make one that has low pressure drop and good heat rejection. Most of the Buick racing community is stuck in the dark ages as far as Intercooler design and what they should be doing to extract performance. For some reason the community likes to talk about how much power they make at low boost and how heavy their cars are. These same people either haven't maximized their combo for fear of breakage or can't because they have inadequate fuel systems or some other lame excuse that they'd rather post on the Internet about instead of going out and figuring something out. Maybe they should put their car on a diet and free up the restrictive areas and let the engine eat and post about it after it's been done. There is a hell of a lot more performance to be had in 90% of the cars and many of them have no clue if their timing is accurate or even how the mass flow/cylinder pressure relationship works yet they are afraid to turn the boost up.

 

[gunzandgearz]

yes

Love that reply

 

[gunzandgearz]

yes

Im supposing that's all we get?