There is a modified supercharger in the mix here and I think it has a relevant place in this context. I coated the supercharger output duct, intercooler output duct and intake manifold with a black heat dispersant coating. Also, the exhaust header and heat shield were coated with a silver ceramic coating and polished in a vibatron afterwards. I did some before and after testing with an infrared thermometer and think I can make some inference with the numbers.

There are many sources for error with this method. My IRT has a fixed emmisivity of .95, which means it can measure the surface temp of glossy or flat black colored objects accurately, but can be misleading when measuring shiny or reflective silver surfaces (usually showing lower than actual temps). Since most of the measured objects were either reflective and changed to black or dull and changed to shiny, you can see the opportunity for deceptive results. An external temperature measurement of the ductwork may not reflect the true temps of the air inside. I had some of the components modified which may also contribute to deltas. As a short duration log, the test could not demonstrate possible trends.

Temps were taken at 12 engine bay locations to begin with, but I dropped the exhaust header numbers because of a wide variance in temperatures. I knew there must have been some interference from another heat source like the head and heatsheild. I did 10, 20 mile runs each for before and after at high ambient temps and 3 runs at moderate (for Texas) temps. The average ambients for the before were 93/74 and after 100/80.

In spite of the confounding factors, here are some samples of the results. Temps were more even across the surface of each heat dispersant coated items. The uncoated pieces had hot spots. The coated intake manifold ran 10 degrees less in the high ambient and 5 degrees more in the post install low ambient. The heat shield only saw a 2-degree drop (it was reflective in both states). The uncoated Endyn modified supercharger was a few degrees cooler at both post run ambients, despite being overdriven with a smaller (19% as opposed to 15%) pulley. The unchanged items like the valve cover, air box, throttle body intake tube, maintained their respective temps for high and low ambient during both sets of runs. On the subjective side, the accelerator pedal was less uncomfortable after the coated header install. The metal plate next to the pedal can roast the little toes and ankle.

Although truly inconclusive from an empirical standpoint, the coated stuff looks neat and didn’t cause temp increases, at least not at the critical intake manifold. The modified blower's lower temps showed Endyn’s handiwork resulted in less heat generated through the SC case.

Click on the gallery button to see pictures of the coatings.

 

I’m a little surprised the former post didn’t stimulate any discussion. Let me explain a little about the significance of the heat dispersant coatings.

The low emmisivity of un-coated aluminum can result in lower measured temps of as much as 50% less than actual temps, when measured using an infrared thermometer with a fixed emmisivity of .95. I don’t have a list of material emmisivity to compare to, but If I use a very conservative estimate of a 10% lower measured temp from the actual temp of the un-coated parts; the lowering of temps in the post runs become more pronounced. That would mean that even an increase in measured post-coating temp using an IRT with fixed emmisivity, might represent a decrease in actual temps. The modest 10-degree drop in the intake manifold temperature would in fact be lower if a correction factor was used for the uncoated temps.

I’m going to have to be a little controversial to get a rise from anyone. It would take more testing to prove the next supposition, but in essence, the mod could result in intake air temperature lowering on par or exceeding the addition of a larger intercooler. Certainly, the cost of cores and coating is much less than a larger intercooler; it would only require a little more effort for the installation.

Think of the benefit of having your supercharger case coated while you have it modified. Lower charge temps at the source of the major cause of increased heat.

Is anyone’s imagination peaked?

 

OK- I'll bite. How much was it to have all the pieces coated?

 

I second that bite!

 

:smile: hey, your post is very technical. the non-technical readers and vendors don't know enough to comment one way or the other.:smile:

as a check on your ir readings, why not put a few digital thermometers here and there? before and after would have been nice - maybe the next person who tries this will check via thermometers.

 

I made the same mistake of coating the outside of my intake manifold & intercooler snorkels with an attractive waxy grey ceramic coating. 2 years later it still looks fresh.Unfortunately we need to displace that heat rather than contain it, as you would on the header or piston tops & combustion chamber& exhaust ports. I did coat the inside of the intake etc. with flow enhancing teflon/nylon coating, which applied on the outside of those parts would help cool them unlike paint or a ceramic coating. If your under hood temps are higher than the IAT, only then would it be beneficial. My advice to everyone is to do header now to increase exhaust scavaging & cool under hood temps.

 

Has anyone actually looked into having their charger coated? I know they coat the rotors but if you could have the charger and intake manifole coated I'd be curious to see any differences.

This could be one of those things were you'd only see significant differences under very abusive driving such as the race track. For your everyday driving you may not see any huge changes
Mike

 

I work a coating shop that does alot of race teams & speed demons coatings. The inner case can be coated in a thin slippery teflon. The stock rotor comes coated in either ceramic or teflon depending when built or diff. teflon or thickness for JCW. Ceramic is nice because it reflects heat from compressing the air instead of storing it, but the ceramic is abrassive (how fast is this thing spinning?) Me, I prefer teflon, slippery to airflow and doesn't gall(scrape, tear, jam) components with tight tollerances.Safe to run tighter specs. I can't do it for lack of an alternative vehicle. I'm sure there is an easy 5-8 hp to be found off a single screw roots. 5-8 for those poised & ready is my personal calculation using expected hp increase derived from unknown cost + unsure time, using hp factoring table, Divided by 2.

 

The black heat dispersant coating is not a blocker like ceramics. It will allow the heat to exit faster than bare metal.http://www.cradin.com/thermal_dispersant.htm

 

Here is the latest part to have the heat dispersant coating.

 

Anyone know the max temp you should run for oil on a track day?? I have a crono (mickey mouse) pac gauge setup. I can see it jump higher each time under wot on a small track or on each run of the the dyno. It will keep climbing if you keep runnin!!! I wish there were some numbers on the intermediate markings on the gauges. The gauges are sensitive, just not well marked.

 

I'm sure I'll get corrected but anything over 260º is getting right toasty.

 

Nice idea. Will you have before/after oil temps readings for comparison?

 

Thanks Obehave. Now if someone from MINI would chime in on what the intermediate markings for the crono pac were??? Sorry for stealing the thread...

 

Obehave, I’m using an infrared thermometer to test external temperatures and need more post install 95-degree days to do the test justice. So far, so good and an unexpected outcome is quieter engine noises.

 

Thanks.
Noise suppression is a nice plus.

 

So what's the bottom line - how much did it help 0-60 or 1/4 mile times?

 

Impressive work k-huevo, good job going through the trouble to get all those items coated and doing the testing. From what I read, it seems the results have been a bit less than you expected. For once it seems, kaelaria asked a relevant question; have you noticed any seat-of-the pants improvement in performance, other than the bonus NVH reduction?

Cheers,
Ryan

 

Sorry, misread your original post. Thats the ticket along with ceramic coating the exhaust. If & when you tear the engine down there are lots of coating tricks to reduce wear & pick up power & reduce oil & coolant temps.

Vibatron. I prefer to call it the tub-o-pleasure. Its like a runaway motel bed with a coin slot. Its full of bb sized ceramic ***** & soapy water with a mild polishing abrasive.

Its surprising how many people are unaware or have no interest or have had bad experiences with shoddy coatings. Don't buy over the counter products they are worthless. I recently posted a thread in the classic mini section on the ultimate coating setup for a carburated head, 1 reply.

Anyway your talking to deaf ears. Enjoy what has been a well kept racing secret untill the last few years. There are a few more but why bother

 

I missed the seat-of-the-pants question from long ago and have to answer yes and no. Yes there is a difference because of the other modifications done at the same time and no because there is no way to differentiate.

As for the oil pan, I don’t have an oil temp gauge to give good quantitative results. The IRT is good at measuring surface temperature changes both as a delta for the entire part and temps across that part, not so good at differences between parts that don’t have the same reflective properties. Here are the trends I’ve seen. The surface of the coated oil pan is much hotter; very close to coolant temps. This is easily verifiable with a fingertip touch. The un-coated oil pan read 30-40 degrees cooler on average using the IRT (go to the beginning of the thread to read about emmisivity). The coated oil pan will start to drop in temps immediately after turning off the car and drop rapidly thereafter. The un-coated oil pan exhibited an increase in temps, plateau, and then dropped slowly. I have not seen the same high coolant temp peak after installing the coated oil pan as was seen before with the un-coated pan. I know that the coolant and the oil temps are not always related but it is a part of the trends I’ve seen.

What I get from those temp behaviors is the coating is very good at bringing the oil heat to the surface and dissipating it rapidly at least when the motor is at rest. The heat dispersing probably functions the same with the car in motion but I don’t have a way to test that. The interior oil dispersant coating has a little heat dispersant properties incorporated so the heat transfer gets a double whammy. I would guess the un-coated oil pan insulated to a small degree and that’s why the heat reached a plateau and dropped in temp slower.

The air intake pieces don’t show the same degree of temp change so I think the oil contact with the interior surface may have a more conductive effect.

 

any comments on the coating effectiveness used on the M7 pulley?

 

I’ll pass on comment but ask a question, did it perform as intended and increase belt life or did it fail and cause premature wear?

 

This post has been edited to reflect the uncovered mistake but most of it is left intact so you will know what is being discussed in later posts.

Today I did some intake air temperature logging using the OEM intercooler and a stock intercooler coated with a thermal dispersant. The overall average IAT with the coated intercooler was 39 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than the IAT average with the un-coated version in place. That’s some interesting results.

It would be interesting if it were true but I made a mistake in the conversion. I converted 4 C to 39 F which although correct for 4 C it was not correct for a difference between 40 C and 36 C. When you read further keep in mind most responces are based on the very optimistic incorrect Fahrenheit conversion.

As with the coated oil pan, the surface temperature of the intercooler after stopping the car was much hotter to the touch. Also, the heat was evenly distributed from the input to the output side unlike the uncoated intercooler.

 

So, in english... the coated IC made 39 degree cooler air... at the intake? Or did you measure somewhere after the IC?

and then you say, "the surface temperature of the intercooler after stopping the car was much hotter to the touch."
That's a good thing how?? I must be missing something, because that sounds like conflicting information to me.

 

Ceramic coating the whole IC, and subsequently lower the temps seems odd and makes absolutly no sense....

The idea is to have the aluminum surface/fins unmolested by coatings,
corrosion or oil, as it lowers the heat transfer.
Coating the surface with ceramics would be great if you are expecting the surface to reject or contain heat. But to coat the intercooler surfaces
no thank you....

peter
Team M7
562-608-8123