Best Front Mount?????

[Steve Wood]

The truth is that for 95% of those that own a front mount, it makes no difference as we probably don't run fast enough to need a front mount so any front mount will perform the same.

If you don't own a front mount and you insist that you must have one because A) you don't believe the experience and tests of others, and you don't run faster than 10.5s, buy the cheapest one you can find: B) You run faster than 10.5, then buy a CAS if you are buying a new one because you might as well buy the best technology for not much difference in price OR buy a used version of almost anyoness if the price is 50% of the new one or better. Once you hit the low 9s, then you may want to go with the CAS for the technology again.

For the other 95% of us that don't run faster than 10.5, buy a V4, not the v4r, and avoid the potential of heating problems, and have faster spool to boot plus not have to worry about crushing those pipes on steep drives. Better all the way around and you will have fun outrunning most of those guys that have street cars with front mounts...(probably including me )

 

[Spoolinup]

>Who makes it and what technology they used shouldn't matter.
BTW,I bought a CAS V-1.<

It should not matter?

You mean the hard work of engineers to better a product, and then make it cheaper is not worth while?

You might as well then have a front mount of the stock intercooler cores and see how fast you can go on it if that is the case.

You start to choke off future competition and product progress if the first person to land in the field gets all the business. (spearco)

BTW, I have a V2.
What can you say, I have not heard one bad thing about them in performance yet. Maybe cooling, but hell, thats why they are cheap. So you can upgrade your cooling system. It probably needed it anyways. ( Justify the new part to your pocket book )

 

[The Radius Kid]

I think you're misreading what I said.No one is trying to denegrate what the I/C engineers have done.However if you have bought a good I/C and it meets the three criteria I laid out,why worry about it?You've spent your money and it works.That's all I meant.
I watched Fubar go 11.80's with a te62 and stock I/C a few years ago.Now he runs a CAS V2[older model] and runs 11.65[1.72 short] on basically pump gas and an open dump.Should he have waited for the new V2 or sold his to get the new version?Naw,he's doing just fine.As to mounting the stocker up front,apparently the extra airflow makes it work much better.Never did hear any track results though.I did up a Kenworth I/C for front mounting.Turned out quite nice and real easy to do[I'm a machinist].My other buddy EWOK uses that I/C and runs 11.70's with basically the same boost as FUBAR[around 21-22 lbs,ported stock heads,no GN-1's].He uses a little more octane though[xylene mix].A good I/C counts,but so does the rest of your combo.

 

[ESP Products]

... "As for highest cooling effeciency rating,
What did you use to get that statement?
Or what did the SOURCE use?
Cas has a flow chart from a flow tunnel that shows their core at 24x13x4.5 was 94% effecient at 17 mph at 1500 cfm. That core is similar to the V2 and smaller than the V1. The V1 is at 25x16x4.5.
Not trying to rub you the wrong way, but if your core is the tube in fin, then the other front mounts " ...
...........................

Hello,
I have not seen the "Official" results from the source testing session, but they had all types of equipment that tested temp/air flow/ and eff'cy. (We rec'd reports from them) I will contact them to see if they will be releasing the results soon.

As far as our testing. We actually followed the formula set in a Spearco manual. We ran a Buick on the highway at about 17 -18 psi and ran about 4-5 test passes. In this test we calculated inlet temp, temp at the turbo, and temp at the T-body. We used digital meters and even switched locations of the meters to remove any error that may be present. In doing so, we installed the numbers into the formula, and came out with 95%. [We also noted time results from customers that called or wrote to us to just let us know what they're gains were.] We also Dyno'ed the intercooler on an engine Dyno (60+ hp). Our core is 16.5 x 10.5 x 4.5 and the overall width is only 22". This design we feel make the cooling (engine temp) and weight factors to our advantage. We also do NOT run the HKS core.

We do not take any "rubbing" to your post. There are different strokes for different folks. We do not pretend to say or imply that our FMIC is for everyone; we were looking at stock block engines. We don't care about stage motors, Kenny and Harry and Dale can have them. We feel our product work extremely well for the purpose that it was intended, 11 and 10 second Turbo Buicks. This is also why we chose to stay 2.5" tubes and not increase to 3". More information is available upon request.

Thank you,
John @ ESP

 

[86brick]

I think John @ ESP made a very good point that Steve Wood as repeated over and over again in this thread. Most of the turbo buicks using FMs are running 11's and 10's with stock blocks. I think using Cal's info on his S2 9 or pretty soon 8 second turbo buick is pretty useless when you consider the fact that not many guys are running 9's, 8's, 7's, etc. so in this case (stock block car running 11's and 10's) just about any FM or stock location intercooler like Tony's V4 will work fine and there won't be any real gains seen with a FM other than the car running hotter than it did before (increased engine temps).

 

[Scott231]

Ooooo, Ooooo. Rudbeck runs 7.80s with a CAS front mount. Therefore, it must be the best.

 

[Steve Wood]

Originally posted by 86brick
I think John @ ESP made a very good point that Steve Wood as repeated over and over again in this thread.

I am saying the rest of my repeats for the thread on this subject that will start all over next week!

 

[Spoolinup]

John at ESP, your front mount is tube and fin though correct?

The problem with effeciency tests on cars are these variables.

1) At only 17 psi on the road, the inlet temp will be around 221.

2) With a different sized turbo, that inlet temp can get higher or lower, not standard enough.

3) In a flow tunnel, the inlet temp is at or near 350, and flowed in mph and so on. Not a true comparison to the road test. The inlet temp and outlet temp at these temperatures are more of a standard to effeciency due to them being higher and more chance heat rejection in the core.

Effeciency tests on cars are not that accurate at determining overall core effeciency. And spearco probably does them on cars due to the high expence of flow tunnel time and the amount of cores they have. I hear that.

But, atleast you did something to give insight on your front mount. And that makes it easier for customers to compare and make a decision on what to buy. This whole point of the best front mount would be alot easier to answer if every intercooler came with a chart either on the car or off. We have 2 tests to go off of out of alot of intercoolers out there. Not that good considering they are $1000 buys.

 

[86brick]

This has to be the most redundant thread I've ever seen on this BB!!!

 

[Steve Wood]

nah, the Power plate threads top this one...and the backspacing threads are over the top. How about what size of turbo followed by what size of injectors?

 

[86brick]

Very true Steve those are on here just about every day, and every time I see them I wonder why doesn't anybody bother doing a "Search"???

 

[Spoolinup]

Ya, I guess it is getting alittle redundant on this thread. But we do have a turbo vendor talking about his product and there are alot of people out there who probably want to know how to spend their $1000.

So while were here we might as well get alittle closer with real data to help.