Intercooler Test (Pics added Page 10)
12-11-2010, 11:00 AM
#281
Happily retired
Mark i dont honestly know mate,pete said this said that looked at mine at the mo and said he would make the inlet side larger than the turbo side to speed up air flow etc and to be honest after what pete said and the way the spec r performed i will be having whatever he decides to build for me!!!lol
cheers danny
cheers danny
12-11-2010, 12:21 PM
#287
.......................
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,848
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And cope with what under what conditions? There are a few theoretical things required to get 1000BHP so I dont understand the relevance of quoting a BHP figure?
12-11-2010, 12:23 PM
#288
In all the tests I have seen, the Airtec one is just AMAZING value and it is not worth considering others until the power exceeds 450bhp, or you know for sure you will be exceeding that at a later date.
As soon as you go above this though, the temps seem to rise dramatically, especially where boost exceeds 25psi.
It isn't until you see these high flow / high boost situations that you can fully appreciate the better cores fitted to the more expensive intercoolers.
There is around Ł50 difference between the Pro-alloy (cheaper) 100mm and the "Super" SpecR version.
Here is a picture of the Pro-alloy one so you can see the ends and inlets / outlets perfectly. Please note that this version has been designed for my lowly T4 (52lb air):
I have yet to use it in anger, so can't comment on the temps, but it is significantly more efficient than the 65mm one as I have gained 0.5 bar of boost, so needs to have the boost curve remapped (going to Bruntingthorpe next week).
However, for just a Ł50 difference, I think I would prefer the Spec-R one, purely because it is physically smaller, so if it performs as well as the Pro-alloy one (or even better), this will mean that the will be better airflow to the radiator etc..... But saying that, I'm with Harvey and Jim and don't plan to change while I have no issues
.
As soon as you go above this though, the temps seem to rise dramatically, especially where boost exceeds 25psi.
It isn't until you see these high flow / high boost situations that you can fully appreciate the better cores fitted to the more expensive intercoolers.
There is around Ł50 difference between the Pro-alloy (cheaper) 100mm and the "Super" SpecR version.
Here is a picture of the Pro-alloy one so you can see the ends and inlets / outlets perfectly. Please note that this version has been designed for my lowly T4 (52lb air):
I have yet to use it in anger, so can't comment on the temps, but it is significantly more efficient than the 65mm one as I have gained 0.5 bar of boost, so needs to have the boost curve remapped (going to Bruntingthorpe next week).
However, for just a Ł50 difference, I think I would prefer the Spec-R one, purely because it is physically smaller, so if it performs as well as the Pro-alloy one (or even better), this will mean that the will be better airflow to the radiator etc..... But saying that, I'm with Harvey and Jim and don't plan to change while I have no issues
.
12-11-2010, 01:03 PM
#293
In all the tests I have seen, the Airtec one is just AMAZING value and it is not worth considering others until the power exceeds 450bhp, or you know for sure you will be exceeding that at a later date.
As soon as you go above this though, the temps seem to rise dramatically, especially where boost exceeds 25psi.
It isn't until you see these high flow / high boost situations that you can fully appreciate the better cores fitted to the more expensive intercoolers.
There is around Ł50 difference between the Pro-alloy (cheaper) 100mm and the "Super" SpecR version.
Here is a picture of the Pro-alloy one so you can see the ends and inlets / outlets perfectly. Please note that this version has been designed for my lowly T4 (52lb air):
I have yet to use it in anger, so can't comment on the temps, but it is significantly more efficient than the 65mm one as I have gained 0.5 bar of boost, so needs to have the boost curve remapped (going to Bruntingthorpe next week).
However, for just a Ł50 difference, I think I would prefer the Spec-R one, purely because it is physically smaller, so if it performs as well as the Pro-alloy one (or even better), this will mean that the will be better airflow to the radiator etc..... But saying that, I'm with Harvey and Jim and don't plan to change while I have no issues.
As soon as you go above this though, the temps seem to rise dramatically, especially where boost exceeds 25psi.
It isn't until you see these high flow / high boost situations that you can fully appreciate the better cores fitted to the more expensive intercoolers.
There is around Ł50 difference between the Pro-alloy (cheaper) 100mm and the "Super" SpecR version.
Here is a picture of the Pro-alloy one so you can see the ends and inlets / outlets perfectly. Please note that this version has been designed for my lowly T4 (52lb air):
I have yet to use it in anger, so can't comment on the temps, but it is significantly more efficient than the 65mm one as I have gained 0.5 bar of boost, so needs to have the boost curve remapped (going to Bruntingthorpe next week).
However, for just a Ł50 difference, I think I would prefer the Spec-R one, purely because it is physically smaller, so if it performs as well as the Pro-alloy one (or even better), this will mean that the will be better airflow to the radiator etc..... But saying that, I'm with Harvey and Jim and don't plan to change while I have no issues
.cheers danny
12-11-2010, 02:16 PM
#294
After sitting here and having a good look and thinking about the results of the day i have just ordered a Spec-R intercooler off Pete.
One of the main reasons is the Airtec intercooler still takes as much time to recover its temps on the road as my old one, even though it performed well on the rollers.
I know i wasn't able to test the Spec-R one on the road but the reports Mark Shead posted about amazing temp recovery has also helped me decide to get one.
Another fact it also weighs about 1/2 the weight of the Airtec intercooler.
And one last think is the way the Spec-R intercooler picks up the power earlier throughout the power runs and how smooth the line is with no turbo surge.
Steve
One of the main reasons is the Airtec intercooler still takes as much time to recover its temps on the road as my old one, even though it performed well on the rollers.
I know i wasn't able to test the Spec-R one on the road but the reports Mark Shead posted about amazing temp recovery has also helped me decide to get one.
Another fact it also weighs about 1/2 the weight of the Airtec intercooler.
And one last think is the way the Spec-R intercooler picks up the power earlier throughout the power runs and how smooth the line is with no turbo surge.
Steve
12-11-2010, 02:34 PM
#298
After sitting here and having a good look and thinking about the results of the day i have just ordered a Spec-R intercooler off Pete.
One of the main reasons is the Airtec intercooler still takes as much time to recover its temps on the road as my old one, even though it performed well on the rollers.
I know i wasn't able to test the Spec-R one on the road but the reports Mark Shead posted about amazing temp recovery has also helped me decide to get one.
Another fact it also weighs about 1/2 the weight of the Airtec intercooler.
And one last think is the way the Spec-R intercooler picks up the power earlier throughout the power runs and how smooth the line is with no turbo surge.
Steve
One of the main reasons is the Airtec intercooler still takes as much time to recover its temps on the road as my old one, even though it performed well on the rollers.
I know i wasn't able to test the Spec-R one on the road but the reports Mark Shead posted about amazing temp recovery has also helped me decide to get one.
Another fact it also weighs about 1/2 the weight of the Airtec intercooler.
And one last think is the way the Spec-R intercooler picks up the power earlier throughout the power runs and how smooth the line is with no turbo surge.
Steve
Perfect budget set-up for sub 400bhp all day long. Above that you obviously need the better cores that the usual suspects provide
.
12-11-2010, 03:28 PM
#303
I have just looked back through a Fast Ford from 1999 to see how much a RS500 spec intercooler was.
Would you believe it was Ł330, add in 11 years worth of inflation and how much would a RS500 spec one be now in relative terms ?
Makes the Airtec one very cheap and the new super Spec-R one not much more expensive than what we would of payed in 1999
Steve
Would you believe it was Ł330, add in 11 years worth of inflation and how much would a RS500 spec one be now in relative terms ?
Makes the Airtec one very cheap and the new super Spec-R one not much more expensive than what we would of payed in 1999
Steve
12-11-2010, 03:59 PM
#306
PassionFord Post Whore!!
In all the tests I have seen, the Airtec one is just AMAZING value and it is not worth considering others until the power exceeds 450bhp, or you know for sure you will be exceeding that at a later date.
As soon as you go above this though, the temps seem to rise dramatically, especially where boost exceeds 25psi.
It isn't until you see these high flow / high boost situations that you can fully appreciate the better cores fitted to the more expensive intercoolers.
There is around Ł50 difference between the Pro-alloy (cheaper) 100mm and the "Super" SpecR version.
Here is a picture of the Pro-alloy one so you can see the ends and inlets / outlets perfectly. Please note that this version has been designed for my lowly T4 (52lb air):
I have yet to use it in anger, so can't comment on the temps, but it is significantly more efficient than the 65mm one as I have gained 0.5 bar of boost, so needs to have the boost curve remapped (going to Bruntingthorpe next week).
However, for just a Ł50 difference, I think I would prefer the Spec-R one, purely because it is physically smaller, so if it performs as well as the Pro-alloy one (or even better), this will mean that the will be better airflow to the radiator etc..... But saying that, I'm with Harvey and Jim and don't plan to change while I have no issues.
As soon as you go above this though, the temps seem to rise dramatically, especially where boost exceeds 25psi.
It isn't until you see these high flow / high boost situations that you can fully appreciate the better cores fitted to the more expensive intercoolers.
There is around Ł50 difference between the Pro-alloy (cheaper) 100mm and the "Super" SpecR version.
Here is a picture of the Pro-alloy one so you can see the ends and inlets / outlets perfectly. Please note that this version has been designed for my lowly T4 (52lb air):
I have yet to use it in anger, so can't comment on the temps, but it is significantly more efficient than the 65mm one as I have gained 0.5 bar of boost, so needs to have the boost curve remapped (going to Bruntingthorpe next week).
However, for just a Ł50 difference, I think I would prefer the Spec-R one, purely because it is physically smaller, so if it performs as well as the Pro-alloy one (or even better), this will mean that the will be better airflow to the radiator etc..... But saying that, I'm with Harvey and Jim and don't plan to change while I have no issues
.When you look at yours the air will always choose the path of least resistance so pointing the inlet like yours will always make this happen and then some of the air will then go down the core where the bumper hies is so no real cooling and the bottom IMO is always stale air so the whole core is not being used correctly,
It was decided to top feed as the core was shorter and have the core in as much air as poss, So IMO top feeding improves flow and the shorter core improves the airflow across it as the bumper is not making it a interheater,
Also the internal volume is massivly more than the Spec r so you would be able to log this on a boost recovery graph on gear change whether someone would notice this is down to them but you would be able to show this on a test.
Mark
12-11-2010, 04:03 PM
#307
PassionFord Post Whore!!
After sitting here and having a good look and thinking about the results of the day i have just ordered a Spec-R intercooler off Pete.
One of the main reasons is the Airtec intercooler still takes as much time to recover its temps on the road as my old one, even though it performed well on the rollers.
I know i wasn't able to test the Spec-R one on the road but the reports Mark Shead posted about amazing temp recovery has also helped me decide to get one.
Another fact it also weighs about 1/2 the weight of the Airtec intercooler.
And one last think is the way the Spec-R intercooler picks up the power earlier throughout the power runs and how smooth the line is with no turbo surge.
Steve
One of the main reasons is the Airtec intercooler still takes as much time to recover its temps on the road as my old one, even though it performed well on the rollers.
I know i wasn't able to test the Spec-R one on the road but the reports Mark Shead posted about amazing temp recovery has also helped me decide to get one.
Another fact it also weighs about 1/2 the weight of the Airtec intercooler.
And one last think is the way the Spec-R intercooler picks up the power earlier throughout the power runs and how smooth the line is with no turbo surge.
Steve
When you look at it you have picked up 10 to 15 ftlb for the cost of the intercooler, but when you look at the cost it would have been to add that amount to your car before it would have been more than that.
Mark
12-11-2010, 04:11 PM
#308
15K+ Super Poster!!
That is how Garratt rate them. It is a strange way of measuring things at first glance, but something people can easily relate to. They base the figure on the volume of air (eg 100lb for 100bhp) the core can flow without significant pressure drop occuring.
Rick
12-11-2010, 04:15 PM
#309
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Mark
12-11-2010, 04:18 PM
#310
.......................
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,848
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When myself and Pete set about the design of his new intercooler the way the pipes enter and exit the core was a concern as I have always had thoughts of bad flow with the 500style core,
When you look at yours the air will always choose the path of least resistance so pointing the inlet like yours will always make this happen and then some of the air will then go down the core where the bumper hies is so no real cooling and the bottom IMO is always stale air so the whole core is not being used correctly,
It was decided to top feed as the core was shorter and have the core in as much air as poss, So IMO top feeding improves flow and the shorter core improves the airflow across it as the bumper is not making it a interheater,
Also the internal volume is massivly more than the Spec r so you would be able to log this on a boost recovery graph on gear change whether someone would notice this is down to them but you would be able to show this on a test.
Mark
When you look at yours the air will always choose the path of least resistance so pointing the inlet like yours will always make this happen and then some of the air will then go down the core where the bumper hies is so no real cooling and the bottom IMO is always stale air so the whole core is not being used correctly,
It was decided to top feed as the core was shorter and have the core in as much air as poss, So IMO top feeding improves flow and the shorter core improves the airflow across it as the bumper is not making it a interheater,
Also the internal volume is massivly more than the Spec r so you would be able to log this on a boost recovery graph on gear change whether someone would notice this is down to them but you would be able to show this on a test.
Mark
Also, I think I know why but can you explain the technical reason for wanting to speed the air up as it exits the cooler and the effect this has on air leaving the compressor, entering the cooler and whilst in the cores?
One last thing. Your theory about the air entering on a 500 cooler above. Apply that to a top entry like yours and I would expect a larger volume of air to fire straight to the bottom on the core giving the same fast moving and stale air scenario you talked about above?
I understand how tapering would help avoid this but have you actually tested differing tapers to ensure even flow?
I can see for myself that the spec-r works well and appears to be proven but genuinely interested in the workings etc.
12-11-2010, 04:23 PM
#311
15K+ Super Poster!!
Also, I think I know why but can you explain the technical reason for wanting to speed the air up as it exits the cooler and the effect this has on air leaving the compressor, entering the cooler and whilst in the cores?
I'll let Mark explain his design philosophy.
Rick
12-11-2010, 04:23 PM
#312
.......................
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,848
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I get that but do they not rate the core on volume of air it can cool or sustain a temp to given an input temp and constant cooling temp over the core?
Its great to know it can flow enough air to support upto a certain BHP figure but if its not cooling anything whats the point?
The extractor hood on my cooker can probably flow as much air as the garrett core but that dont make it any good as an intercooler?
12-11-2010, 04:30 PM
#313
15K+ Super Poster!!
OOps, posting at the same time...
The cooling capacity is a funtion of the temperature gradient and the intercoolers efficiency. Efficiency is difficult to work out for all circumstances, so difficult to advertise.
Garrett's thinking is their core can flow 100lb of air. It doesn't matter how hot it is, 100lb is 100lb and it is the mass that dictates power output.
Rick
The cooling capacity is a funtion of the temperature gradient and the intercoolers efficiency. Efficiency is difficult to work out for all circumstances, so difficult to advertise.
Garrett's thinking is their core can flow 100lb of air. It doesn't matter how hot it is, 100lb is 100lb and it is the mass that dictates power output.
Rick
12-11-2010, 04:52 PM
#315
Happily retired
Forget the Nitrous at this time its not been used for almost 5 years.
