Drivetrain Water to air intercooler
6th Gear
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,652
Likes: 6
From: Lansdale, PA
To clarify, I really like the design of this IC and it may very well be the best solution we've seen so far. Of course the temp of the air going through the intake valves is what the engine actually cares about, but efficiency measurements allow us to calculate what that temp will be with varying supercharger outlet temps. Outlet temps can range from a little over ambient all the way to 250F and higher.
Sorry if any of my comments or questions were misinterpreted as being "bashing".
Sorry if any of my comments or questions were misinterpreted as being "bashing".
6th Gear
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,957
Likes: 2
From: a canyon, south Bay Area
Glad to see another IC option for us! And it appears that it might indeed be a very good one. I appreciate you coming on here to share, and respond to the many personalities who post here. If your product is indeed worthy, NAM will want to get the details to decide such...
As shared on a recent thread (and others for that matter), there are pros & cons of going with water. I for one, with the limited info I've accumulated, and with how I see myself using my MCS, feel that water might not be the most ideal solution. I would love to see your MCS on an "endurance" run of hard-driving.
While water's mass is a positive when it is cool (takes longer to heat than air), those same virtues work against it after it has heated. Masses of water have a moderating effect. Crossing the bridge from San Francisco to the East Bay (Oakland or Berkeley for example) reveals this on a larger climatic scale...
For some hard canyon driving, I don't see water as the best choice, and not just because of the aforementioned cooling attributes, but the heavier weight, increased cost, more involved install (shop time needed, probably not a DIY for many), and even possible maintainence (yes/no?). It would have to really outperform the best a-to-a unit to make this a viable option for some of us...
And if indeed it can get 3 to 5hp better (ideally more) than an aftermkt a-to-a unit, then that is something that can revealed on the track with improved lap times. Efficiency ratings taken under certain conditions, like those, would be most telling...
I am open to being convinced that a w-to-a unit is the way to go, and if so, I will glady consider yours!
As shared on a recent thread (and others for that matter), there are pros & cons of going with water. I for one, with the limited info I've accumulated, and with how I see myself using my MCS, feel that water might not be the most ideal solution. I would love to see your MCS on an "endurance" run of hard-driving.
While water's mass is a positive when it is cool (takes longer to heat than air), those same virtues work against it after it has heated. Masses of water have a moderating effect. Crossing the bridge from San Francisco to the East Bay (Oakland or Berkeley for example) reveals this on a larger climatic scale...
For some hard canyon driving, I don't see water as the best choice, and not just because of the aforementioned cooling attributes, but the heavier weight, increased cost, more involved install (shop time needed, probably not a DIY for many), and even possible maintainence (yes/no?). It would have to really outperform the best a-to-a unit to make this a viable option for some of us...
And if indeed it can get 3 to 5hp better (ideally more) than an aftermkt a-to-a unit, then that is something that can revealed on the track with improved lap times. Efficiency ratings taken under certain conditions, like those, would be most telling...
I am open to being convinced that a w-to-a unit is the way to go, and if so, I will glady consider yours!
Last edited by TonyB; Jul 6, 2004 at 03:26 PM.
6th Gear
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,253
Likes: 0
From: NY NY
a bit of info:
the air/water intercoolers that have been on the market previously used a core similar to the air/air (if not the very same core, with water chambers welded on). In these cases, the barrier between the mediums was a fairly thin (.025") aluminum sheet fromed into finned tubes with many, many oven welded seams. A potential for mixed media if there ever was one, although they have fared remarkably well.
The laminova core is much more robust, with many fins machined directly onto a solid water carrying core (no fin-to-core seams). Each water path/core is sealed from the air chamber by O-rings fitted into the end caps, a simple and robust system with basically four O-ring joints per intercooler. The only theoretical disadvantage is that the airflow path is considerably restricted in passing through the finned area, but mars seems to indicated this problem has been overcome. The system weight is significantly higher (I would guess about 30 lbs more, with core, hoses, water, radiators, pump and resevoir) and obviously more complex, compared to air-to-air.
I see that the 86% efficiency level for the laminova is also quoted on the kennebell site
the air/water intercoolers that have been on the market previously used a core similar to the air/air (if not the very same core, with water chambers welded on). In these cases, the barrier between the mediums was a fairly thin (.025") aluminum sheet fromed into finned tubes with many, many oven welded seams. A potential for mixed media if there ever was one, although they have fared remarkably well.
The laminova core is much more robust, with many fins machined directly onto a solid water carrying core (no fin-to-core seams). Each water path/core is sealed from the air chamber by O-rings fitted into the end caps, a simple and robust system with basically four O-ring joints per intercooler. The only theoretical disadvantage is that the airflow path is considerably restricted in passing through the finned area, but mars seems to indicated this problem has been overcome. The system weight is significantly higher (I would guess about 30 lbs more, with core, hoses, water, radiators, pump and resevoir) and obviously more complex, compared to air-to-air.
I see that the 86% efficiency level for the laminova is also quoted on the kennebell site
Last edited by jlm; Jul 6, 2004 at 04:16 PM.
Temporarily Banned
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,382
Likes: 2
From: Denver
Originally Posted by clevy
Oh yeah by the way I had the fastest car at the challenge.
Take a look at the time sheet - I have one if you need one. My fastest time was a 1:23.9. You can ask Anthony who had a watch on both of us as well. Just want to keep it straight
- you weren't the only one bustin' hump out there! You were definitely faster than that other "265hp" car 
.I am very interested in your testing, as I said to Anthony. I look forward to looking at the research and doing my own. So far, here are the impressions I have had on the current available units on the market:
Water has a very high thermal mass. This is great for removing the heat from the intake charge, but not so great for dissipating it after the fact in the radiator. That relates to the track and high ambient conditions in a very long recovery time to baseline. What ends up happening under constant load is like a domino effect - you get warmer water because the air through the radiator has less thermal mass, the intake charge cannot be cooled as much, so there is more heat in the mass, then the water gets warmer, and it starts raining, you don't have an umbrella, yada yada yada. The recovery rate will obviously depend on load and velocity, but averages about 5 minutes with no boost and 50 mph with an ambient of around 70F. I did this testing over a six month period with a thermocouple directly in the outlet path of the intercooler and read it on a Fluke - I backed it up with the OBDII inlet temp. Tip - make sure the thermocoupe doesn't touch the inside metal of the intercooler!
Air-air intercoolers cause more of a drop in pressure, but since we are more concerned with density, and both temp and pressure are part of that equation, the key is what the outlet temps look like. The air-air has a much faster recovery rate to baseline - like during a shift. The peak temps start out much higher, but over a short period of constant load, that peak temp very quickly becomes only slightly higher, and with the fast recovery rate of outlet temp, the average temp is significantly lower than the average of the water-air. You will have a drop in pressure with a drop in temp - that is just physics. You compress you heat, you lower pressure you cool. You also raise density if the efficiency of the core is good enough. That was the big reason we changed the core design of the Alta unit - it is a more efficient bar/plate design. It also has slightly larger end tanks to prevent some of the turbulence problems we found early on. There are obviously still issues with exit path and packaging restrictions, but to date, I have still found this unit to be the most effective production unit, especially with the water mister.
To get rid of packaging concerns and exit path, we have been developing a front mount air-air intercooler. The biggest issue with this unit is the price. I'll post more on this unit after more testing.
These have just been my personal experiences and data, and I have already talked with Anthony about further testing his water-air unit as well. I look forward to the future developments in this area, as it seems to be the most effective change after the pulley in saving or making power.
Hope that helps!
Randy
5th Gear
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
From: East
Originally Posted by Bisch
I have a suspicion that all of the belts that blew were NAPA's. The Goodyear GatorBack is a much stronger, flexible, and cooler running belt.
jlm - Was that you driving to a 3rd place autocross finish?
3rd Gear
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
From: Naperville, IL
Originally Posted by RandyBMC
Uh, excuse me?
Take a look at the time sheet - I have one if you need one. My fastest time was a 1:23.9. You can ask Anthony who had a watch on both of us as well. Just want to keep it straight - you weren't the only one bustin' hump out there! You were definitely faster than that other "265hp" car .
I am very interested in your testing, as I said to Anthony. I look forward to looking at the research and doing my own. So far, here are the impressions I have had on the current available units on the market:
Water has a very high thermal mass. This is great for removing the heat from the intake charge, but not so great for dissipating it after the fact in the radiator. That relates to the track and high ambient conditions in a very long recovery time to baseline. What ends up happening under constant load is like a domino effect - you get warmer water because the air through the radiator has less thermal mass, the intake charge cannot be cooled as much, so there is more heat in the mass, then the water gets warmer, and it starts raining, you don't have an umbrella, yada yada yada. The recovery rate will obviously depend on load and velocity, but averages about 5 minutes with no boost and 50 mph with an ambient of around 70F. I did this testing over a six month period with a thermocouple directly in the outlet path of the intercooler and read it on a Fluke - I backed it up with the OBDII inlet temp. Tip - make sure the thermocoupe doesn't touch the inside metal of the intercooler!
Air-air intercoolers cause more of a drop in pressure, but since we are more concerned with density, and both temp and pressure are part of that equation, the key is what the outlet temps look like. The air-air has a much faster recovery rate to baseline - like during a shift. The peak temps start out much higher, but over a short period of constant load, that peak temp very quickly becomes only slightly higher, and with the fast recovery rate of outlet temp, the average temp is significantly lower than the average of the water-air. You will have a drop in pressure with a drop in temp - that is just physics. You compress you heat, you lower pressure you cool. You also raise density if the efficiency of the core is good enough. That was the big reason we changed the core design of the Alta unit - it is a more efficient bar/plate design. It also has slightly larger end tanks to prevent some of the turbulence problems we found early on. There are obviously still issues with exit path and packaging restrictions, but to date, I have still found this unit to be the most effective production unit, especially with the water mister.
To get rid of packaging concerns and exit path, we have been developing a front mount air-air intercooler. The biggest issue with this unit is the price. I'll post more on this unit after more testing.
These have just been my personal experiences and data, and I have already talked with Anthony about further testing his water-air unit as well. I look forward to the future developments in this area, as it seems to be the most effective change after the pulley in saving or making power.
Hope that helps!
Randy
Take a look at the time sheet - I have one if you need one. My fastest time was a 1:23.9. You can ask Anthony who had a watch on both of us as well. Just want to keep it straight
- you weren't the only one bustin' hump out there! You were definitely faster than that other "265hp" car .I am very interested in your testing, as I said to Anthony. I look forward to looking at the research and doing my own. So far, here are the impressions I have had on the current available units on the market:
Water has a very high thermal mass. This is great for removing the heat from the intake charge, but not so great for dissipating it after the fact in the radiator. That relates to the track and high ambient conditions in a very long recovery time to baseline. What ends up happening under constant load is like a domino effect - you get warmer water because the air through the radiator has less thermal mass, the intake charge cannot be cooled as much, so there is more heat in the mass, then the water gets warmer, and it starts raining, you don't have an umbrella, yada yada yada. The recovery rate will obviously depend on load and velocity, but averages about 5 minutes with no boost and 50 mph with an ambient of around 70F. I did this testing over a six month period with a thermocouple directly in the outlet path of the intercooler and read it on a Fluke - I backed it up with the OBDII inlet temp. Tip - make sure the thermocoupe doesn't touch the inside metal of the intercooler!
Air-air intercoolers cause more of a drop in pressure, but since we are more concerned with density, and both temp and pressure are part of that equation, the key is what the outlet temps look like. The air-air has a much faster recovery rate to baseline - like during a shift. The peak temps start out much higher, but over a short period of constant load, that peak temp very quickly becomes only slightly higher, and with the fast recovery rate of outlet temp, the average temp is significantly lower than the average of the water-air. You will have a drop in pressure with a drop in temp - that is just physics. You compress you heat, you lower pressure you cool. You also raise density if the efficiency of the core is good enough. That was the big reason we changed the core design of the Alta unit - it is a more efficient bar/plate design. It also has slightly larger end tanks to prevent some of the turbulence problems we found early on. There are obviously still issues with exit path and packaging restrictions, but to date, I have still found this unit to be the most effective production unit, especially with the water mister.
To get rid of packaging concerns and exit path, we have been developing a front mount air-air intercooler. The biggest issue with this unit is the price. I'll post more on this unit after more testing.
These have just been my personal experiences and data, and I have already talked with Anthony about further testing his water-air unit as well. I look forward to the future developments in this area, as it seems to be the most effective change after the pulley in saving or making power.
Hope that helps!
Randy
What are the chances of the unit being ready by the Labor day weekend????
Bruce
Temporarily Banned
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,382
Likes: 2
From: Denver
Originally Posted by mtrspt5
Randy,
What are the chances of the unit being ready by the Labor day weekend????
Bruce
What are the chances of the unit being ready by the Labor day weekend????
Bruce
There are five units coming in this week.
I still want to check the temps and pressures of the production unit, so they should be available by the end of next week.
Randy
4th Gear
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 492
Likes: 2
From: Mission Viejo, CA
Ok so watercooling is better if the water itself is cooler than engine temp, and once it becomes hotter than ambient temp, it gets harder to cool due to water's resistance to change in temp. Then why are all modern cars watercooled? It seems like under heavy load air cooling would be better suited for the car than water cooling, unless one is able to keep the water temps pretty low. Granted water temps from cooling the engine is probably alot higher than what we'll find in the IC, but it'll still be resisitance to cooling, and is ending up like an insulator more than anything. So why do we watercool all the cars nowdays?
Temporarily Banned
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,382
Likes: 2
From: Denver
Water is much more stable. When talking about engine temps, the thermal difference between the dissipation mass and the energy mass is substantial - ambient is always cooler than internal temps.
Randy
Randy
4th Gear
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 492
Likes: 2
From: Mission Viejo, CA
Originally Posted by RandyBMC
Water is much more stable. When talking about engine temps, the thermal difference between the dissipation mass and the energy mass is substantial - ambient is always cooler than internal temps.
Randy
Randy
Or are you saying watercooling the engine works because the difference is so big compared to heat generated through compression?
Sorry I'm so dense, I fail to see why water-air IC won't work in a similiar fashion to watercooling an engine. Is there also something going on between the water and air in the IC itself? Are you saying the air will heat the water instead of other way around in the IC?
5th Gear
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 777
Likes: 1
i know this might get some bad feedback but just curious about those cryo tanks that freeze the intercooler for much lower temps my whole thing is would it work better than a bigger intercooler, not loosing boost and lowering temps lower than a big intercooler, im just wondering because its cheap to make one of these, and i dont have the money for one of these big intercoolers but if the performance is close then what the heck ill make one!!!:smile:
so to make a long story short is a cryo tank more economical and will it lower the temps more than a bigger intercooler!!!
thanks
so to make a long story short is a cryo tank more economical and will it lower the temps more than a bigger intercooler!!!
thanks
6th Gear
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,957
Likes: 2
From: a canyon, south Bay Area
There was at least one good size thread here on NAM about this. I believe MINI Madness offers, or at least offered such an option... It indeed makes it colder alright, and that was part of the concern - too dang cold, or radical of a temp delta over a very short span of time would be too harsh on the construction materials... There were other concerns as well. Try a search, and you should find plenty of reading...
Thread Starter
|
2nd Gear
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
From: Aurora, Colorado
This might help everyone, go to Laminova.com, goto OEM/consult and look at their references. You all may recogonize a few small companies that are using the system and just maybe Randy should let these engineers know they have it all wrong. I mean these companies have put a lot of money and time in this product, as well we have, and if it did not work they would not be putting them on their top notch vehicles. Not all applications are for intercooler purposses, they also use them in the engines and transmissions as well. Land Rover, Honda, Mercedes, Ford, Chevy, and Pontiac all use or have used them in one form or another. I will work on getting more data for you but I just wanted to point out that the product has been tested and proven for about 20 years and that no one in the MINI aftermarket intercoolers has that kind of testing or performance records to prove their products, and this unit does.
6th Gear
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,957
Likes: 2
From: a canyon, south Bay Area
I was speaking with someone today in the MINI community about Laminova, and apparently they are indeed quite well-known. I have two questions on top of the efficiency ones asked earlier:
What is the weight of the entire system, minus the water?
What is the capacity of the system (amount of water in holds)?
Adding additional weight to the nose of an already front heavy MCS is not exactly desirable, but if the power gains are exceptionally more than aything else...
Very nice touch with the personalized colors!
What is the weight of the entire system, minus the water?
What is the capacity of the system (amount of water in holds)?
Adding additional weight to the nose of an already front heavy MCS is not exactly desirable, but if the power gains are exceptionally more than aything else...
Very nice touch with the personalized colors!
Last edited by TonyB; Jul 6, 2004 at 10:50 PM.
6th Gear
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by 4GAZM
i know this might get some bad feedback but just curious about those cryo tanks that freeze the intercooler for much lower temps my whole thing is would it work better than a bigger intercooler, not loosing boost and lowering temps lower than a big intercooler, im just wondering because its cheap to make one of these, and i dont have the money for one of these big intercoolers but if the performance is close then what the heck ill make one!!!:smile:
so to make a long story short is a cryo tank more economical and will it lower the temps more than a bigger intercooler!!!
thanks
so to make a long story short is a cryo tank more economical and will it lower the temps more than a bigger intercooler!!!
thanks
4th Gear
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
From: Toronto, Canada
Originally Posted by mars31971
here are few other options available for the center tube.
I'm sure there is a reason for this, I just must be missing it.
Paul
Last edited by paulmon; Jul 7, 2004 at 06:58 AM.