Does anyone have one of Alta's big intercoolers installed?
I'm very interested in any information you fine folks might
have on this piece as I'm sceptical of their claims on this unit.

' any first hand accounts of it's effectiveness?

Thanks in advance,
- Bubba

 

I am very interested in this also. Very little independent information has been given. Alta has a lot of info on their site, but some of it indicates that the Alta is superior to the water intercooler. Randy sell both, but was involved in the development of the water intercooler. Nobody has really given any pro's and con's for both, with dyno and temperature results as well. Randy any good unbiased info? Any one else used either intercooler and have results/information/feelings?

 

I heard that you loose air volume becaust the intercooler is larger and therefore it reduces your boost pressure but makes the air denser which is more efficient. The gains are minimal for the $ to hp ratio. I think this is the main reason Randy and others are going for the air to water cooled idea. But your right there is no real data. Why would Alta say they have dyno tested it and their product is superior but not post the actual charts and temps? Who knows.... maybe Randy has the data.



_________________
Willis

 

Does anyone out there have any experience with any of the intercoolers? Either you are out there and haven't answered the posts or no one has bought an intercooler for their MCS. I know when both the Alta Intercooler and Randys air-water intercooler were just coming out everyone was asking about them and stating that they were putting in their orders. I have only seen one other person mention their upgraded intercooler and that was superchrgdmin, who bought an Alta of E-bay. Which one is the best? Both manufacturers are claiming that theirs is superior. I would like to see real results and hear real info from people who have these installed. I have heard all the "on paper" pros-cons, but want to hear from the people who have them installed. Come on has anyone bought one?

 

I'm sorry to have ignored this post for a while.

We have been testing these ad naseum! We have two cars with thermocouples inserted directly into the outlet side of the intercooler for use with a Fluke gauge. Testing has been done at the track, on the street, at an autocross, up steady hills, with different gears at the same constant RPM, etc.

What we have found is that the intercooler definitely makes a huge difference in outlet temps and recovery rates.

There are advantages to both the water-air system and the larger air-air system.

Air-air vs. Water-air

Air-air


Water-air


The more I test the air-air unit, the more impressed I have become. When the testing started back in May or so, there were still some very cool days, and the water-air absolutely trounced the outlet temps of the big air-air. The big thing was the stability of the water-air. Under load to redline, the temp did not climb by more than 2-3C on the water-air, while the air-air would climb at a slightly lower rate than the stock intercooler, but to a lower maximum temp than stock, since it started out lower. The typical climb under load for the air-air is 10-15C.

Then things started warming up, and we got a chance to test both units at the track on 95F ambient days. This is where the big air-air really shined (or shone?). The peak temps were still a bit higher than the water-air, but only by about 4C, and the recovery rate blew away the water-air. During a shift (drop in RPM) the temp would drop 20-30C from peak! That is an absolutely amazing recovery rate. Again the water-air is much more stable, but at a temp significantly higher than the air-air. Remember, the water-air works well because of the higher thermal mass of the medium (water), but when the water is heated to a point that the radiator can't cool it fast enough, it also takes longer for that mass to recover. As long as the water is kept cold (relatively), the water-air system is a great solution, but once it is beyond the point of efficiency, you can't keep the temp down enough to give more than a 5C gain over stock (which is still pretty significant).

Obviously another advantage of the air-air is the simplicity of the system - no water lines, pump or radiator.

As far as pressure drop, that is a definite design consideration. The good news is that that certainly was one of the considerations, and the length and thickness of the new supercharger is minimally changed to keep that from happening.

Bottom Line

There are advantages to both types of intercoolers. The Air-air is in its own under high heat or high load conditions. This would be the track or very high ambient temps.

The Water-air has a huge advantage on the street where there is plenty of time to keep the medium cool. The advantage is consistency. It also has a big advantage on the dyno, where adequate airflow isn;t available at the "simulated" speed the car is loaded to.

The water sprayer throws a whole other variable into the mix, and can make a difference if it is set up properly. Stay tuned for more info on that.

Hope that helps!

Randy
720-841-1002

 

>>Bottom Line
>>
>>There are advantages to both types of intercoolers. The Air-air is in its own under high heat or high load conditions. This would be the track or very high ambient temps.

This is an important point because not all cars will be used primarily for the track or for other uses.
Very high temps? That's like 90+ degree ambient temps or high temps on the track?

>>The Water-air has a huge advantage on the street where there is plenty of time to keep the medium cool. The advantage is consistency. It also has a big advantage on the dyno, where adequate airflow isn;t available at the "simulated" speed the car is loaded to.

For largely street use and some track days or autocross the Water-air sounds like it might work better or be more practical. Any penalty with either choice on gas mileage? Probably not unless it affects idle fuel consumption.

What is the difference in installation costs and maintenance wear and tear costs. Does a Water-air IC need cleaning and care for it's added complexity and at what intervals.

And what is the relative cost difference in parts for each option. Or bottom line total cost for each option?

>>The water sprayer throws a whole other variable into the mix, and can make a difference if it is set up properly. Stay tuned for more info on that.
>>
>>Hope that helps!

Yes that does help alot.
Good to hear about these options.

 

87F + for ambient temps to exceed the capacity of the water-air to efficiently cool under high loads (though it is still more efficient than the stock intercooler).

Fuel mileage wouldn't be affected much with either system - it would be like having better mileage on a cold day in winter versus a hot day in the summer.

Again, the big advantage to the air-air is its simple design - no other parts. The water-air system requires about 3+ hours labor by someone relatively competent, while the air-air could be done in your garage in about 30 minutes with a T25 torx driver. The water-air system has the complexity of an electrical interface and a pump, so there are more things to go wrong with this system. It also weighs more and the maintenence is really just flushinf it once in a blue moon - the heat generated isn't anywhere near enough to break down the coolant. The water-air is definitely a good choice for the street based on pure efficiency however.

The water-air is $1050 plus the core of your original intercooler if you wanted to keep it.

The air-air is $990 with the diverter and sprayer (the one that works with the existing rear washer) and is an outright price.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

Randy

 

Randy, the air to air interests me.

What kind of temperature changes did you see between the stock IC and the ALTA?

Also, was this testing done on a car with a pully?

_________________

 

Ok, pardon my slowness, I'm trying to get up to speed.

So the Air-to-air would be superior in an environment with ambient temperatures over 87 degrees F? I'm in Dallas, and that's true about 7 months out of the year here.

It sounds like the air-air testing was done without the diverter and sprayer setup, and the Air-Air would presumably perform even better with it hooked up, yes?

I was also wondering about the relative costs. The Water-air has the cooling unit, the reservoir, the pump, the radiator, and hoses. The air-air has 2 pieces, and is only $100 less? Again, just trying to understand here. Sorry for any confusion on my part.

 

The drops from ambient compared to stock are about 15-20F different.

The Alta testing was done with and without the sprayer, but the diverter was always on the system.

The difference in price is minimal because the air-air uses a new PWR core (with special Alta end caps that are different from the standard PWR unit) which is rathre pricey, while the water-air uses the stock intercooler as a basis, then has a welded water jacket. To paraphrase - you are paying for the intercooler with the Alta unit, while you are paying for the fabrication and parts on the water-air.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

Randy

 

Fair enough! Thanks for clearing things up.

 

Randy,

So what about use with the oil catch-can? Would it work with the Alta air-air (I assume it would)? Is it a good idea to use one to prolong the lifetime of the product (or at least maximize the time between flushes)?

Thanks

Chuck

 

Sure it would work. It isn't a bad idea at all with either of the intercooler types, as the intake air passage is where the oil goes from the crankcase breathers.

 

So after all what real h.p. can be gained with the air to air (all things being equal) over stock unit? Best guess as a dyno would have a hard time flowing air in a real way obviously. Are we talking 5h.p...?

 

No, even on an already cold day, I'd say 9 over stock. If it were a warmer day and pretty dry out, it would be even higher over stock.

Randy

 

Thankyou for all the info Randy i hadent yet had a chance to call you but now I have made up my mind i will be intouch with you very soon thanks
you are a car god

 

Randy,

Please address the boost pressure loss with the larger intercooler. I have seen this with my own eyes. What I saw was typically 2-3PSI Loss with that Air to Air IC. The factory IC is very efficient as is.

This means you will loose boost but will gan a few HP back because the air volume is denser over stock. In my mind it looks like a wash. Basically that new pulley was all for not with this IC.

I am not sold on the Air to Air. If this were a turbo car you could just turn up the boost to compensate but we dont have that luxury.

 

>>Randy,
>>
>>Please address the boost pressure loss with the larger intercooler. I have seen this with my own eyes. What I saw was typically 2-3PSI Loss with that Air to Air IC. The factory IC is very efficient as is.
>>
>>This means you will loose boost but will gan a few HP back because the air volume is denser over stock. In my mind it looks like a wash. Basically that new pulley was all for not with this IC.
>>
>>I am not sold on the Air to Air. If this were a turbo car you could just turn up the boost to compensate but we dont have that luxury.
>>
>>
Since its 11:30PST and I suffer from cronic insomnia, I'll interject...

Consider the following a comment from a complete ameture but I don't understand why this is an issue? Is it not all about getting the most air (and hence fuel assuming the ECU does its job correctly) possible into the combustion chamber?

If so then why does it matter if it is achieved through increased pressure or increased density? From the ideal gas law (a crude approx I know) it looks like you have 2 options, Pressure ot Temp. For engine longevity I would guess that lower temperature would be favourable over lower temp assuming you achieved the same outcome.

With that said, I don't understand why the pulley mod would be a waste. I would think that with the pulley and the IC you'd be exploiting both options to the problem. In fact maybe with the new IC you could even go to say a 20% reduction pulley without putting your engine at serious risk

just the thoughts of a tired guy who can't sleep.

_________________
woo-hoo!!! finally have a production number!! Motoring by December!

 

>>No, even on an already cold day, I'd say 9 over stock. If it were a warmer day and pretty dry out, it would be even higher over stock.
>>
>>Randy

Randy:
I have big interests in these systems. Are you saying that the air to air would be most beneficial in a place with low humudity? Where I live, we have very high humidity and temps ranging from 27C to 35C. What system would be most beneficial for street use.

_________________
DS/W MCS, ALTA pulley

 

The lower the humidity, the higher the density of the air cooling the intercooler. It would also give more evaporative effect if using a water sprayer. For those high temps, I would still recommend the air-air.

Willis,

Where did you measure this pressure loss? I just want to be sure we are comparing apples to apples. If you lost 2 psi (which I haven't seen), and you did the pulley which gives an additional 5 psi or so, and the outlet temps on the intercooler are 15-20 degrees lesws than the stock unit, you would still be considerably ahead (about 6-7 horsepower depending on how you equate it). I do appreciate your input, and would like to hear more on the testing you have done with this unit as well. Feel free to call so we can get all the data straight. Thanks!

Hope that helps.

Randy

 

Thanks for the info Randy. Final question, how much hp could I expect to gain back with a pulley?

 

I've seen anywhere from 12-18 horsepower from the pulley, and it seems to depend more on the car than the mods for whatever reason.

Let me know if you have any others - it's always hard to know when it really is your last question :smile: .

Randy

 

>>The lower the humidity, the higher the density of the air cooling the intercooler. It would also give more evaporative effect if using a water sprayer. For those high temps, I would still recommend the air-air.
>>
>>Willis,
>>
>>Where did you measure this pressure loss? I just want to be sure we are comparing apples to apples. If you lost 2 psi (which I haven't seen), and you did the pulley which gives an additional 5 psi or so, and the outlet temps on the intercooler are 15-20 degrees lesws than the stock unit, you would still be considerably ahead (about 6-7 horsepower depending on how you equate it). I do appreciate your input, and would like to hear more on the testing you have done with this unit as well. Feel free to call so we can get all the data straight. Thanks!
>>
>>Hope that helps.
>>
>>Randy



Measuring the pressure loss from my boost gague which is connected to the tee under the intake manafold. I dont notice any gain with the larger intercooler but thats feel only. Did you? What kind of boost numbers are you running with this intercooler? Are you running a vaccume gauge?


Here is what I am guessing: Note Guess!

+18hp gain from New pulley
-12 boost loss 3PSI
+7 from new larger intercooler

13hp gain for
200.00 for pulley,
250.00 for pulley install
1000.00 for Alta Intercooler
75.00 Intercooler Install
Total 1525.00

Or

18HP gain for
200.00 Pulley
250.00 install
Factory Intercooler

Total 450.00

Live and learn I suppose




_________________
Willis

 

Thanks Randy, sorry for all the questions coz $1000 ain't cheap!

 

I would like to hear the answer to Coopertino's question as well. Maybe Randy can provide some input.

I do have another question regarding intercooler design. Would this make sense? Build a slightly larger than stock water-air design with a hollow coil inside. The coil would take up some space so to offset the slightly larger size and still maintain boost. Then hook up a cryo unit externally to the intercooler and run that through the coil. Of course the coil would need to be aerodynamic so that turbulence is not created. This would significantly cool the air inside the intercooler. The same could be done by also hooking up water to it, which would further enhance the cooling.

The other idea is using refigerant or something that would induce a phase change at the intercooler temperature. This could allow the intercooler to become colder or much colder than the ambient temperature.

Another industry tackling these kind of items is the computer overclocking industry that is trying to reduce CPU temperatures more and more to increase the speed. All these systems goals is to remove the temperature off the CPU, which gets quite hot, and some of them are doing it quite well reaching very cold temperatures. The inefficiency is that you will need to have power to maintain this form of a cooling device, but I wonder how much of that is made up for in the increased performance of the intercooler.

Anyone have any thoughts.