44 replies to this topic

[Zoobeef]

Siztenboots, I don't know why you are stoking this debate up again. It's been done to death - search is your friend

You beat me to it Spuk. Intercooler systems are more efficient that charge coolers. Because as you say with an charge cooler its air - metal - water - metal - air. With an intercooler its air - metal - air.

Also charge coolers may take longer to reach soak temp, but the more coolant you have, the more stored energy you have, the longer it takes to dissipate the heat.

And having the heat exchanger at the front is the same place where the engine radiator is, so you are dumping the heat in the area where the engine is dumping its heat.

It may be air-metal-water-metal- but you dont have to wait for the whole process to happen. So its basically air-metal-water and then that fooks off around the system leaving the next air-metal-water to happen straight away. And as water absorbs heat alot better then happy days.


Also even after alot of running you'd be lucky to increase the water in the cc system by a few degrees

Unless the water coming back in is hot. And the heat exchange may done in a different place, but there is still the air - metal - water - metal - air. So it isn't as efficient as an intercooler.

But this intercooler isn't about intercooler vs chargecooler. It is a drop in replacement for the standard intercooler. The intercooler fitted to the car as it came out of the factory is shit. This is an intercooler that is practially the same size as the standard intercooler yet actually works properly for a standard turbo up to stage 3.

For stage 4, there is a bigger MMG intercooler.

Yep is a good replacement and all you need for the normal track weapon

The water doesnt get hot. a few degrees more even at the most arduous use

[turbobob]

Siztenboots, I don't know why you are stoking this debate up again. It's been done to death - search is your friend

You beat me to it Spuk. Intercooler systems are more efficient that charge coolers. Because as you say with an charge cooler its air - metal - water - metal - air. With an intercooler its air - metal - air.

Also charge coolers may take longer to reach soak temp, but the more coolant you have, the more stored energy you have, the longer it takes to dissipate the heat.

And having the heat exchanger at the front is the same place where the engine radiator is, so you are dumping the heat in the area where the engine is dumping its heat.

It may be air-metal-water-metal- but you dont have to wait for the whole process to happen. So its basically air-metal-water and then that fooks off around the system leaving the next air-metal-water to happen straight away. And as water absorbs heat alot better then happy days.


Also even after alot of running you'd be lucky to increase the water in the cc system by a few degrees

Unless the water coming back in is hot. And the heat exchange may done in a different place, but there is still the air - metal - water - metal - air. So it isn't as efficient as an intercooler.

But this intercooler isn't about intercooler vs chargecooler. It is a drop in replacement for the standard intercooler. The intercooler fitted to the car as it came out of the factory is shit. This is an intercooler that is practially the same size as the standard intercooler yet actually works properly for a standard turbo up to stage 3.

For stage 4, there is a bigger MMG intercooler.

Yep is a good replacement and all you need for the normal track weapon

The water doesnt get hot. a few degrees more even at the most arduous use

Edited by turbobob, 31 March 2011 - 07:10 PM.

[garyk220]

They were both the same runs.

There was no under acceleration. Both runs were with full throttle. And you can't dis-regard the starting intake temps for two reasons. The replacement intercooler is obviously working as the temp is lower. And secondly, the ambient temps was higher for the replacement intercooler, yet it was still significantly less than the standard intercooler.

OK, fair enough. So the replacement intercooler helps the car run cooler under normal conditions (no boost or acceleration before the run started?) but once in full throttle conditions the 2 systems build up and dissipate heat at similar rates. That's the only valid conclusion I can draw from the data presented.

Sorry to bang on about it, but I'd expect to see a less steep positive gradient (showing the system is rejecting heat more quickly under full throttle) and a more steep negative gradient (showing the system is recovering to steady state conditions more quickly). The difference in temperature at the start of the run is largely irrelevant unless both cars were doing acceleration runs before the collecting the data shown on the graph. For example, if the results showed the temps on lap 2 or 3 of a 5 lap run then the difference in temperature is valid as it would demonstrate the red run is managing temperatures more efficiently over a period of time.

However, if it is as simple as starting the cars up and driving around on partial throttle and light boost to get the engines up to temperature before giving both a full welly acceleration run then it's difficult to see why either temperature would be much different from the ambient temperature, as the heat build up would come from previous boost runs.

Anyway, I'll leave it there. Just suggesting it would be useful to see more data and a more conclusive test in similar conditions to allow others to judge the system more objectively.

[Whiteboy]

[quote name='turbobob' timestamp='1301577075' post='1166560']
Siztenboots, I don't know why you are stoking this debate up again. It's been done to death - search is your friend

When, I have never seen a debate on this subject.

Steve

[siztenboots]

I don't know where the idea that a bigger intercooler is of any benefit. Making it longer will give you very quickly diminishing returns on any temperature drop, but with penalty of an even bigger pressure drop. Making it deeper again after about 1" thick , even if you double the thickness to 2" , thats not going to give you much. Only by making it twice as wide on the frontal area, will you improve on it. It has not been mentioned but the pressure drop compared between CC and IC is very significant, 0.5 psi vs 10psi perhaps.

[turbobob]

I don't know where the idea that a bigger intercooler is of any benefit.

Then why does the MMG stage 4 intercooler work?

[turbobob]

Siztenboots, I don't know why you are stoking this debate up again. It's been done to death - search is your friend

When, I have never seen a debate on this subject.

Steve

I was wondering when you were going to make an appearance

[spuk87]

Not this war again, it's worse than the great 'should Fab be a moderator' battle of 2011. IIRC don't the Europeans with silly power run ICs and they are in hotter climates? Don't get my wrong the CC is quite possibly the better technology for our cars but the IC are certainly up to the job, maybe the CC is over doing it? Like saying 900bhp is better than 350bhp in a VX - arguably 900 is faster but I'm sure most people would find 350 is more than suitable (sorry if that analogy is crappy).

Edited by spuk87, 01 April 2011 - 10:09 AM.

[turbobob]

Not this war again, it's worse than the great 'should Fab be a moderator' battle of 2011.

IIRC don't the Europeans with silly power run ICs and they are in hotter climates? Don't get my wrong the CC is quite possibly the better technology for our cars but the IC are certainly up to the job, maybe the CC is over doing it? Like saying 900bhp is better than 350bhp in a VX - arguably 900 is faster but I'm sure most people would find 350 is more than suitable (sorry if that analogy is crappy).

Good point. I tried giving my opinion of the MMG replacement intercooler I've tried, and then the chargecooler debate got brought up and I got dragged into it again

[The Batman]

I heard charge coolers are better why don't you fit one of those

[spuk87]

I heard charge coolers are better why don't you fit one of those

you had a charge cooler and look how much your car overheated!

[Mike (Cliffie)]

We should ask Dr Lee, he is the Doctor of Thermal Dynamics after all.

[VXT Tim]

it depends on what you want the IC will be good enough for stg 4 on the road but I have my doubts that you can get enough air flow for hard track work no matter how efficent the core is. If you do the numbers to drop the charge for 300bhp from 110'C to 40'C will reject 17.6kW. With a 90% effictive IC, an air temp of 20'C and assuming the open area of the ear is 0.03m2 then the air through it need to be 60 mph. Which given the dirty air the ear gets it will need the car to be traveling much faster to get that flow and thats before you even get to where the 17.6kW of heat goes.

Just realised anwersing the SC CC post, I got my efficiency term upside down it actually needs an air velicity of 92mph through the ear!

Can't argue with the science.

[turbobob]

I heard charge coolers are better why don't you fit one of those

[VXT Tim]

Is there a picture of the stage2/3 ic and the stage 4 ic knocking around anywhere? Mmg website doesn't appear to have any pictures.

[VXT Tim]

Just had a long chat with Liam about his I/c's. Still unsure of the right route

[techieboy]

Given the fact you only drive it 5 miles a year, does it matter? Not really going to oversaturate any of the solutions, are you?

[VXT Tim]

this had crossed my mind!!

[NDT]

A graph showing the results of the standard intercooler and the new MMG intercooler. Note the airflow temp on the standard intercooler is 6 degrees less than on the MMG intercooler :

 

Can I check - are these charts from a dyno run or from on the track?

[mbes2]

Wouldn't of said track