- Joined
- May 27, 2001
KLHAMMETT said:
Thank you, I am looking at them now.
Tested a BA Performance Intercooler today
- Thread starter Otto J
- Start date
Thank you, I am looking at them now.
- Joined
- May 28, 2001
Otto
I would like to see those logs as well.
thanks
I would like to see those logs as well.
thanks
Reggie you got em.
Odell and all the others,Thanks for the appreciation of what i do.I do this not just for myself but for the vendor and customers as well.
I will state that when BA sent me this intercooler they told me that it would not be produced and sold till actual data had come back with extremely positive results,If it did not work it was back to the drawing board before sales would start.Thanks guys for giving me the cahnce to test for you.
BG is gonna be a great test bed are and i will have on with me(I also believe they will be there) and i will install it so it can be tested for all who would like.I prefer it be on faster cars.
Odell and all the others,Thanks for the appreciation of what i do.I do this not just for myself but for the vendor and customers as well.
I will state that when BA sent me this intercooler they told me that it would not be produced and sold till actual data had come back with extremely positive results,If it did not work it was back to the drawing board before sales would start.Thanks guys for giving me the cahnce to test for you.
BG is gonna be a great test bed are and i will have on with me(I also believe they will be there) and i will install it so it can be tested for all who would like.I prefer it be on faster cars.
V6 Beast said:
Oh, BTW, the RPMS are higher on Etown6 because the car is driving through the convertor. If you compare points in the log with equal values, as much as you can do in the logs in the 3rd gear pulls, you will see that the BA is requiring more fuel at the points where the RPM/Boost is the same for comparison reasons.
Ted A. said:
I don't compare individual data points that represent 1/20th of a second. My numbers are from comparing an average of data points over time. Average boost on Etown6 was almost 1 psi higher (which most likely accounts for the 1 mph) and the average RPM in 3rd where you asked me to look was over 100 rpm higher and irregardless of the reason, will make the DC higher. Personally, I wouldn't trade the spoolup for the 1 mph gain even if it was real. The MATs would have to make a lot more than 47 HP differnce to overcome that disadvantage but that is just my opinion.
Cheeseburger
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2004
Heat Exchanger theorys please......
Can someone explain "intercoolers" to me?Lol. :biggrin:
Can someone explain "intercoolers" to me?Lol. :biggrin:
III'S 87 GN
Active Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2002
can someone post the logs???
V6 Beast said:
And that 1/20th of a second the boost/rpm/cts were the same and the DC showed the different values. A simple math equation the FAST used at that instant in time. I would say that is more fair than your average method, which we all know boost fluctuates on some combos and is never exact, that's why the boost was higher on average on that run, more highs than lows in comparison. The boost dropped a touch on that run a little in log 3 at the end, who knows why. The RPM is higher because of a convertor problem/more HP. There are both low and high spikes in both the comparative logs. I took the most exact ones and used them.
As for the spoolup, that department is in need of improvement in all the logs, I do not see a significant delay in spoolup with the BA given the convertor is way too tight down there. I think a properly matched convertor is needed to really make a statement on that at this point, but that is just me.
Ted A. said:
Well Ted I can't find these magic matching points your talking about. In 3rd gear the lowest RPM in run 6 is 5929 and the highest in Run 3 is 5901. (the lowest is right after the shift and the highest is way past shift) There are no data points at the same point of the run anywhere in 3rd gear that are even close to matching so what the hell are you talking about?
J
JCotton
Guest
Great results for the new BA IC, there is no disputing the numbers. I'm impressed it took an IC core almost double the size of what I have offered for many years to get the MAT's that have been posted. For the record, as I have stated several times, we have upgraded all of our IC's to include some much larger cores to support the higher HPed cars. It is too bad that, again, we have to drag me into this fray. I will once again say, that the little snide remarks and comments are what gives it away.... I'm not going to go into it, just pointing it out. So yep..... exposed again.
As for the rest of the info, Otto, it is shocking that you would continue to test a car that, from the start showed data that to the trained tuner would have ended the day, immediately. Driving through the convertor is about as bad as it gets when trying to get useful info. But I guess when you have an agenda to complete, we tend to do things we normally would not do....... oh, right, sorry, no agenda here, just trying to get facts to the BUick community. ....
As for the rest of the info, Otto, it is shocking that you would continue to test a car that, from the start showed data that to the trained tuner would have ended the day, immediately. Driving through the convertor is about as bad as it gets when trying to get useful info. But I guess when you have an agenda to complete, we tend to do things we normally would not do....... oh, right, sorry, no agenda here, just trying to get facts to the BUick community. ....
Jack if you want to flat out attack me,Maybe you can tell your customers why you, after knowing,(AND YOU ADMITTED THIS TO ME)that you pulled the threads on a rocker stud,brought your call all the way to BG and ran it tiill the rocker backed out? Seems the trained performance shop owner would know better than this, and would have made the proper repair before racing his car.That may be about as bad as it gets.JCotton said:As for the rest of the info, Otto, it is shocking that you would continue to test a car that, from the start showed data that to the trained tuner would have ended the day, immediately. Driving through the convertor is about as bad as it gets when trying to get useful info. But I guess when you have an agenda to complete, we tend to do things we normally would not do....... oh, right, sorry, no agenda here, just trying to get facts to the BUick community. ....
Also reread the whole thread Jack.It was mentioned that the intercooler tested was bigger than the other one tested,Your not posting any new news to the public there.How about testing actual results of your new coolers?
The 2 coolers tested were in by no mean comparable coolers,Since you want to bring it in The other cooler tested was the Cottons original unit.IF the datalogs would have shown any type of problem that would result in a failure testing would have been stopped.We were not worried about the trans or convertor as they are both alreay out being freshened and or restalled.
The results speak for themselves here,and we will ahve results on a faster car soon.
BA cooler
muncie track opens soon, im wating on a barrel of C-16 now, i have been boosting on last years old fuel, the new cooler or the neil chance convertor[from dls] or the msd crank trigger or the distributor or the msd 7al-2 or dave ficus or cal hartlines programs the old pte 88 turbo spools like mad compared to when i was at reynolds with the old stuff, maybe it is just the cold weather hang in there OTTO ill get you the data in a few days. good luck oc,
muncie track opens soon, im wating on a barrel of C-16 now, i have been boosting on last years old fuel, the new cooler or the neil chance convertor[from dls] or the msd crank trigger or the distributor or the msd 7al-2 or dave ficus or cal hartlines programs the old pte 88 turbo spools like mad compared to when i was at reynolds with the old stuff, maybe it is just the cold weather hang in there OTTO ill get you the data in a few days. good luck oc,
J
JCotton
Guest
you said it,not me........
Otto,
What I do with "my" car is my choice, not yours. I don't have to justify anything to you. I did what I had to do to make it to BG, if I don't say so myself, must have run pretty good to be the "lead" pictures for the **** website, GMHTP magazines lead photo for their BG coverage article, the lead in and the close out video of my car for Dennis Gage's "My Classic Car"..... not bad for an engine running on 5cyl the last pass and still running a 9.teen.. et.
Now back to "results"..... the way I see it, the results as posted show a .02 ET gain, nothing to even talk about. The fact that it was 50 degrees cooler is awsome.... but obviously made no performance gains. The third point seems to be a 1 mph gain, thats something, seems to be a 1lb increase in boost to explain that...... ok, that is something to hang our hats on. So in my opinion to sum this test up..... we proved that the newest, one of the biggest IC cores ever hung on the front of a BUick turbo car, tuned by the Prince of the Buick community, " can only be one King"..... ran .02 seconds faster, now have another 4 page plus thread to disect the information. Yet at the end of all this we have also determined that the IC used needs to be tested on a car with more performance potential than a stock block with a 71.... while disecting this info, the usual partys have all taken their usual shots at me, and you want the Buick community to believe this was strictly an informational thread about the BA IC.............. there was some good info in there but unfortunately with an underlying motive....... if you could just stop for one post digging at me, none of this stuff would have to be said. Knock it off otto, Ted, Dave, stick to the facts and leave me out.
