SE Turbo Front Mount Intercooler
- Thread starter Otto J
- Start date
Welcome!
By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
geno said:KLHAMMETT said:I take peoples used up parts and go faster with them,Well except for the crank,BUt i got 50 passes on it
Ego Check
Did you check your inner cooler for wire particals it might be plugged
I couldnt help myself :rolleyes
(Hijack)
Here is your crank:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Buic...ewItemQQcategoryZ33616QQitemZ8007985395QQrdZ1
Sorry, I thought this thread could use some humor...
Here is your crank:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Buic...ewItemQQcategoryZ33616QQitemZ8007985395QQrdZ1
Sorry, I thought this thread could use some humor...
TurboJim said:
Then you introduce variables into the equation. If you're looking for going fast, then it's fast that you should guage the experiment to determine. If you want to look at just MATs, fine, but there are other elements of design to consider.
bruce 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.
KLHAMMETT said:
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.
TurboJim said:
Just a matter of which apples to apples you're looking at. If you're looking at MATs, that's one apple, if you're looking for fastest, that means which is the fastest, and that means tuning. You could build an I/C that you need a trailer to haul around, that's almost 0 pressure drop, and incredibly low MATs, but has such a large column of air, that the engine takes 2 days to acclerate the air column. It's all about design considerations, and compromises, and which ones, suit your application. Testing is about changing one item at a time, and noting the results. If you change the timing and fuel from pass to pass, how can you possibly determine which change caused how much difference?.
On a turbo note, You must tune to find the most power it will make, Each turbo has a differnt power range,If you test 2 you need to max out each one to see its capability. If one anly make its best power at 22#s and the other at 26#s then the turbo making hte most power is better,The one at 22#s may make more power,Same as if you swapped cam if the first one is tuned too its potential and you drop in another and it makes the same power,but more if tuned then thats the better product.
KLHAMMETT said:
But you're talking about an intercooler and its temperature drop, not how much power your turbo can make, or its power band. If, in your car, your current IC cools the charge to 190*, and another cooler, under the same conditions drops it to 130, then bingo, the second cooler works better, now turn it up and tune it to where you think you should be. If the second cooler doesnt do squat, then back to the drawing board.
I agree about tuning a combo, but your original question, some 190 posts ago, was how well does the SE cooler work, and you were comparing it to Jacks, which you apparently dont care for. The only fair comparison in your case is a back to back test. You can tune either setup to its max power, but you'll know in 1 pass if the cooler is better or not, and whether it will help you reach your goals...without spending oodles of time only to find out you just spent 1400.00 to gain 20hp because the temp only dropped 10* and really wasnt what you were expecting to see.
I'm starting to lose sight of your intentions here. Are we talking tuning? Or are we talking a better cooler?
I think there are only two things to compare when looking at one IC vs the next.
1. The temp drop across the IC, which on the same car you should be able to look at just the MAT readings.
2. The pressure drop across the core,
With our cars its extremely hard to pick the "perfect" cam, heads, turbo, conv ect.. they all effect each other and things can get real clouded in a hurry. An IC on the other hand should not be. An IC has one specific job
Cool the air down as much as possible, the only other thing we ask of it is to not be a big cork or restriction in the intake path.
If you had IC in and out temps and knew what the ambient temps where we could calculate the IC efficiency (its a real easy and basic calculation). Based on the IC out temps listed and the boost levels stated, a guess of the IC's efficiency percentage of some where in the 60's could be made. Now its been about 9 years since I was studying up on IC's but if I remember correctly an air/air IC's efficiency would have to be about 75% just to be considered DECENT for that application. I do remember that I thought the eff would have to get some where in the 80's before I would consider it DECENT. The other thing that stands out when you research IC's is how Big of an effect that cooling air across the core has on the efficiency of the IC. It has almost as big of an effect as the core itself. A smaller IC can out do a big one if you get good air flow across it. The best is if you do both: Properly select a core to have a high eff at your HP level AND have a high air flow across it.
If the SE Turbo IC is made with a good core for roughly 1000 hp and you get good air flow across it, then it should do a good job at what its supposed to do.
Jason
1. The temp drop across the IC, which on the same car you should be able to look at just the MAT readings.
2. The pressure drop across the core,
With our cars its extremely hard to pick the "perfect" cam, heads, turbo, conv ect.. they all effect each other and things can get real clouded in a hurry. An IC on the other hand should not be. An IC has one specific job
Cool the air down as much as possible, the only other thing we ask of it is to not be a big cork or restriction in the intake path.
If you had IC in and out temps and knew what the ambient temps where we could calculate the IC efficiency (its a real easy and basic calculation). Based on the IC out temps listed and the boost levels stated, a guess of the IC's efficiency percentage of some where in the 60's could be made. Now its been about 9 years since I was studying up on IC's but if I remember correctly an air/air IC's efficiency would have to be about 75% just to be considered DECENT for that application. I do remember that I thought the eff would have to get some where in the 80's before I would consider it DECENT. The other thing that stands out when you research IC's is how Big of an effect that cooling air across the core has on the efficiency of the IC. It has almost as big of an effect as the core itself. A smaller IC can out do a big one if you get good air flow across it. The best is if you do both: Properly select a core to have a high eff at your HP level AND have a high air flow across it.
If the SE Turbo IC is made with a good core for roughly 1000 hp and you get good air flow across it, then it should do a good job at what its supposed to do.
Jason
Mike Licht
I was here first
- Joined
- May 23, 2001
- Messages
- 4,642
Here is my .02 You need to have a pressure sensor before and after the intercooler, you need to have a temp sensor before and after the intercooler. You will need to log those sensors. You will need to test them at low and high boost levels but at the same levels for all the intercooler systems you test. You can then make some accurate judgements about what the intercooler is doing. It would also be interesting to have temp measurments along the core to see how much of the core is doing the work. Maybe the core is not getting enough airflow, maybe only half the core is seeing airflow. There is many variables here to consider
MIke
MIke
Mike Licht said:
Good points Mike. I need a donor Jack Cotton intercooler and I would be happy to do a test like that next season some time.
It would be nice if Jack made it down to Reynolds with his car, big and standard cooler, to defend and compare ##'s we aquired so others building S2 combinations can figure out what cooler they need, as this was brought up somewhere on this thread.
Mike Licht
I was here first
- Joined
- May 23, 2001
- Messages
- 4,642
Ted A. said:
I will provide the test gear and the datalogging stuff. Then we can settle this with facts.
Mike
Similar threads
