Thanks for the info. I will be placing an order for a stage 2 at the end of march first of April.

.JerseyKid. wrote:Adam dont you already have one?

Yes I do but this is mearly for informational purposes. My intercooler is good enough and should fit fine but I just wanted to know what makes an intercooler better than another intercooler, basically.



www.kronosperformance.com / 732-742-8837

Bill, thank you for that info, that was basically what I wanted to know.



www.kronosperformance.com / 732-742-8837

Like Bill said, if you dont want to cut into the bumper (which is an important safety design consideration), you'll have to go with a deeper core and a smaller frontal area to achieve a given internal volume. Generally, with intercoolers of like internal volume and quality, the one with the larger frontal area should perform slightly better. Thats not to say the deeper one will be anything less than efficient, but there are considerations for such an intercooler. IMO, such an intercooler requires strict attention to airflow and ducting -- you could say this about any intercooler however-- but the deeper one will have a higher drag coefficient and the air will tend to go around the core a bit more than a less deep core. Go too deep and you could run into problems.

Either way, a divergent air duct should help force air through the intercooler and provide maximum efficiency. I've been planning this sort of ducting on an intercooler setup very similar to geekd who recently posted his dyno results (only picture I know of).. The point I'm making is considerations for external volume flow can be as rigorous as those for internal flow.

But to try to answer the question to my best ability, I would say both depth and height are important in an intercooler design; each having its own place in design constraints/considerations. The follow is how *I* think about this question.. it is open to criticism as opinions often are, and is not regurgitation of anyone elses teachings or ideas..

One can visualize the differences between a smaller frontal area/deep core and a larger frontal area/less deep core by taking things to extremes (mathematical theory rears its ugly face). The absolute limit of a small frontal area/deep core would be like a 1" by 1" square that is infinitely long (think very very long soda straw).. We shouldn't get much air flow through that, but we would most likely maximize heat transfer through what did fit in that small hole. The other end of the spectrum would be an intercooler with an infinitely big frontal area and an extremely small depth (think a fish net). This would offer very low drag and air would very easily pass through, but would have a lot less time to transfer heat.

So my conclusions from my utterly long winded speech here would be to go with a quality core with as big a frontal area as you can fit, and then choose a depth that corresponds to your applications needed charge air cooling capacity/internal volume constraints. This should maximize efficiency and decrease drag while offering ideal pressure drops and internal heat exchange (assuming quality units). Notice we haven't talked about types of intercoolers or # of channels.. this is assuming like units throughout..

Quote:

what makes an intercooler better than another intercooler

-Core design
-Heat transfer
-End tank design
-Tubulator design (per individual applicaiton)
-Core sizing (as we started to discussed)
-DUCTING (very important, though not relevant to intercoolers when buying one)
-etc

Ok, now being that the front bumper plays into effect of actually fitting a proper intercooler onto a vehicle, are there negative effects to adding a front mount and also a side mount intercooler.

I hope this doesn't sound like a lame question but curiousity strikes me right about now...



www.kronosperformance.com / 732-742-8837

It's hard to beat the efficiency a FMIC offers. It's also much easier to install, as theres no guesswork involved in complicated ducting or otherwise having to redirect air to your intercooler; although there are some really trick setups I've seen that do this and do it well. The only real negatives I can see or care about when compared to other styles of intercooling are the resulting losses in efficiency of other non-related heat exhangers behind the intercooler (radiator/condenser core), which will receive a lesser amount of hotter air than normal. However in practice, this isn't much of a concern. Point: A good FMIC is indispensible..

Excidium wrote:It's hard to beat the efficiency a FMIC offers. It's also much easier to install, as theres no guesswork involved in complicated ducting or otherwise having to redirect air to your intercooler; although there are some really trick setups I've seen that do this and do it well. The only real negatives I can see or care about when compared to other styles of intercooling are the resulting losses in efficiency of other non-related heat exhangers behind the intercooler (radiator/condenser core), which will receive a lesser amount of hotter air than normal. However in practice, this isn't much of a concern. Point: A good FMIC is indispensible..

Very true. A giant FMIC can and often will block direct air travel to your rad. However, it's also just necessary to increase the effeciency of the cooling system as well. In short. I love turbochargers lol.




I was a retard, and now I'm permanently banned.

If you want the best efficiency from an intercooler get a water to air intercooler...


- 93 mph in the 1/8 mile
Member of J-Body Of Michigan.

Boardorgohome(loves NC again) wrote:personally this is the best size

but on a serious note i dont thinks its length, width, or thickness individually, its the combination of the three....if you take the cores length x width x height you find the total area, the more area the better cooling. Id also think it would depend on the material the IC is made out of.

thats ognna look like a A/C condensor. lol very sneaky



MY 2003 SUNFIRE 15.6@86mph

"A N/A ecotec is not gonna give Honda's and Mitsu's that much of a run for their
money unless their blown or bottle fed.GM is still smokin crack!"
~1QWKZ24
www.streetracing.org, 08/2001

Skilz10179 wrote:If you want the best efficiency from an intercooler get a water to air intercooler...

Quote:

Air has a specific heat value of 1.01 (at a constant pressure), while the figure for water is 4.18. In other words, for each increase in temp by one degree, the same mass of water can absorb some four times more energy than air. Or, there can be vastly less flow of water than air to get the same job done. Incidentally, note that pure water is best - its specific heat value is actually degraded by 6 per cent when 23 per cent anti-freeze is added! Other commonly-available fluids don't even come close to water's specific heat value.

This is exactly why I'll be going with a Water/Air intercooler setup. Not only is it more efficient but it also makes routing pipes easier as Water/Air intecoolers like PWR are 6x6 so they require no more piping ran than a non intercooled setup.

BlitzCavalier wrote:

Skilz10179 wrote:If you want the best efficiency from an intercooler get a water to air intercooler...

Quote:

Air has a specific heat value of 1.01 (at a constant pressure), while the figure for water is 4.18. In other words, for each increase in temp by one degree, the same mass of water can absorb some four times more energy than air. Or, there can be vastly less flow of water than air to get the same job done. Incidentally, note that pure water is best - its specific heat value is actually degraded by 6 per cent when 23 per cent anti-freeze is added! Other commonly-available fluids don't even come close to water's specific heat value.

This is exactly why I'll be going with a Water/Air intercooler setup. Not only is it more efficient but it also makes routing pipes easier as Water/Air intecoolers like PWR are 6x6 so they require no more piping ran than a non intercooled setup.

Water to air intercoolers can be even more of a hassle to install due to having to mount the intercooler, the heat exchanger, water hoses and a water pump to circulate the water through the system.


- 93 mph in the 1/8 mile
Member of J-Body Of Michigan.

Skilz10179 wrote:

Water to air intercoolers can be even more of a hassle to install due to having to mount the intercooler, the heat exchanger, water hoses and a water pump to circulate the water through the system.

But when you actually think about it, doing the electrical and mounting the head exchanger is still easier than trying to route 2.5-3" charge pipes, welding them together and then trying to mount a large intercooler behind the bumper.

You can't simply say water/air is more efficient than air/air. First of all the install is MUCH more complicated. It certainly doesn't simplify anything. You need the cooler, a radiator for the water to circulate through, a water pump and all attaching hardware. We haven't talked about cooling the water yet.. If you have this basic water/air system, its efficiency will most likely be close to a proper air/air setup anyway.. most likely less from statistics I've seen.. If you want the true benefits of a water/air setup, you must find a way to "chill" the water. This is why serious drag teams have an ice bath or a dry ice element. In order to get the efficiency you think you'll get, you must cool the water.. This is why most street driven cars run an air/air setup, as a true water/air setup isn't feasible nor cost effective for a street driven car.

So how many here are running a track only car?

Excidium wrote:You can't simply say water/air is more efficient than air/air. First of all the install is MUCH more complicated. It certainly doesn't simplify anything. You need the cooler, a radiator for the water to circulate through, a water pump and all attaching hardware. We haven't talked about cooling the water yet.. If you have this basic water/air system, its efficiency will most likely be close to a proper air/air setup anyway.. most likely less from statistics I've seen.. If you want the true benefits of a water/air setup, you must find a way to "chill" the water. This is why serious drag teams have an ice bath or a dry ice element. In order to get the efficiency you think you'll get, you must cool the water.. This is why most street driven cars run an air/air setup, as a true water/air setup isn't feasible nor cost effective for a street driven car.

So how many here are running a track only car?

Not true...there are alot of factory cars running Water/Air setups. The legacy RS. Typhoon, Syclone as well as others.

Quote:

The high specific heat value of water has a real advantage in its heat sinking affect. An air/water heat exchanger designed so that it has a reasonable volume of water within it can absorb a great deal of heat during a boost spike. Even before the water pump has a chance to transfer in cool water, the heat exchanger has absorbed considerable heat from the intake airstream. It's this characteristic that makes a water/air intercooling system as efficient in normal urban driving with the pump stopped as it is with it running! To explain, the water in the heat exchanger absorbs the heat from the boosted air, feeding it back into the airstream once the car is off boost and the intake air is cooler. I am not suggesting that you don't worry about fitting a water pump, but it is a reminder that in normal driving the intercooler works in a quite different way to how it needs to perform during sustained full throttle. However, the downside of this is once the water in the system has got hot (for example, after you've been driving and then parked for a while), it takes some time for the water to cool down once you again drive off.