KLHAMMETT said:
IF you test different intercoolers, I think the test should be install each one and tune the car to run the fastest you can with each one.That will show true potential of each intercooler on the combo used for testing, But if your gonna use a 11 or 12 second car for the test the results would not be what most people are looking for when purchasing an intercooler of that size.
I disagree with both of you. If you want to see if there is any difference, just change the IC period. If one works better than the other, then it is better in your situation and then can be tuned to optimal. If there is no gain, then there simply is no difference between both units in the application and conditions you are using them. Lets stay apples to apples.
I remember Billy Anderson posting his findings on a GT turbo, and noted gains changing nothing but the turbo. People said "well, if this was different it'd have been so and so'd and the thingamajig was done differently, it'd have made more power. OF COURSE you will gain even more once tuned, but to say something is better than what you have, you cant change everytihng and expect the results to be based on one thing. ie: If you say the turbo made 100 more HP...but neglect to say you also changed the timing map, fuel map and stall speed to match the new turbo, its not a fair comparison is it? If you say, as Billy did, I made a pass, pitted, swapped turbos, and ran again and gained 100hp, then I'd say wow, that thing does make more power. THENNNNN tune it dead nuts if you want to show more change.
If when testing an IC, you cant run one at 25psi with a 20* temp rise, then take another at 30psi, because it should be a better unit, and see a 30* temp rise and say IC #2 sucked because it netted an extra 10* rise.... how can you say that when the test conditions were not the same.
Apples to apples means leave everything else the same and see what changed. Improvement or loss, whichever. Thats a fair comparison to me.