Bim-COM was kind of a give away, but why not have the best numbers man with the best tools provide some second hand info. It should help with a few less arguments.

 

I wonder if the MULE is testing it at Phil Wicks???????????????

 

will the diverter be removable, to get to the hoses w/out removin' IC ..??..

 

joker,
Maybe. It would be much simpler to build it under the IC. And also the hoses under it are not ones that you will have to get to offten. Its not like come undone all the time like spark plugs. Which are accessable.

 

If Andy is going to test in the cold northeast temps are we going to get accurate readings. I know he'll take it to a dyno(Helix) but what about real world warm weather tests on the road?? Just a few questions I wonder about. Thanks

 

Now this is a interesting question . I would think you could get good results with a hose thru a brick at 17 degrees which will be the temp in Philly today. That make you go Hmmmmmmm

 

Here ya go. Teach yourself something about intercooler efficiency.

https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...ad.php?t=23248

BTW, I am still waiting for an answer to these questions:

https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...1&postcount=81

 

Uhhhh...

Re-read the thread, then search on "bim-com". You'll see that Andy can test both on the dyno AND on the road. You can also check out http://www.ross-tech.com/bim-com/comingsoon.html.

What exactly are you infering cone? Good? Bad? unrealistic?

IMO (and others) If anyone's gonna test this and get the REAL numbers it'll be Andy.

Absolute dyno numbers - which some will no doubt look for aren't what we as a group need to know... its (% +/-) efficiency/effectiveness.

 

. Andy is right in saying that it won't affect intercooler EFFICIENCY, which is basically a percentage reduction in temperature post-vs-pre IC. BUT, it will totally mean that ABSOLUTE numbers can't be compared between the conditions in Philly right now and those where it's, eh, not snowing . A 50 degree drop there will never be a 50 degree drop in Florida, for instance.

The real information to be gained is whether or not the old and new Alta IC's have different efficiencies in a given location. Again, absolute size drops can only be compared if the intake temps [post-SC] are the same in both cases. Hope this helps somewhat.

 

Bill retired

 

I thought your name was Bob?

 

Captivating intercooler talk :impatient .

 

Andy
I read the thread you sent us back to and still wonder if the IC numbers will be more efficent at 80-90+ degrees without runs being done at those temps. I'm not here to argue just wondering. I have an Alta IC on my car now and just wondering if the new prototype will be that much better. Did you ever do tests on the older Alta. Thanks for your work.
I do alot of track days and I'm looking for ways to get temps down.

 

I have in my possession; my stock intercooler, a current Alta top mount, and the new prototype Alta intercooler. I'll test all three in the same environment and send my results to Alta to do what they want with them. It would be a good idea to repeat the test in other conditions hot weather as well, but as you can see from the testing that I did, outside temp has very little impact on intercooler efficiency compared to other factors like road speed, engine speed, etc.

 

Is there a cost effective way of a collecting the "hot" air and "funneling" it out of the engine compartment possibly with a cut out at the body panel to force the hot air out...... possibly a captured fan inside the "hose"......basically a better way to get the hot air out ala exhaust fan in a pressureized environment. We do exhaust fans in racks of amplifiers and in the old days we would make stacks off the pannels that held the output transitors (devices) It seems to me the hot air just gets trapped or at least does not very efficiently escape. Just a thought

 

I have had one of those side flow IC cores from Bell in my shop for a couple of years; never got around to rigging it up, mainly because the flow area available between plates/tubes is too limited, both for combustion air and cooling air. Jeff: have you measured the total area of the openings on yours (it appears to be the same unit I have.)

 

Spider, from Peter's posts/hints, I have a feeling that his forthcoming unit has some sort of provision for evacuating the hot air as you've described. I have no inside info, just an impression from what has been written thus far.

 

 

I really doubt that there's enough negative pressure above that hood to let any air out at anything but a standstill, if that. Especially when moving, that area above the hood has atmospheric to positive pressure, so no no heat is sucked out... Right?

 

If you have access to wind tunnel test, I would very much like to see them.
Thanks

 

I don't think there would be positive pressure over the vent holes due to the "spoiler" preceding them on the hood directly in the oncoming air's path.

 

I doubt that it would be effective enough?

 

There doesn't have to be negative pressure ABOVE the vents if there's postive pressure BELOW them.

Not saying there is, but the air entering the front of the car has to exit the engine bay somewhere...

 

1) Make the IC shroud tight at the corners. There will be air leaking around the shroud that will "sort out" the airflow. While this may not look like much, a few % of the air flow can destry the advantage that a larger IC has the potential to give.

2) In looking at the IC, it looks like a three bar design, with the top plate and bottom plate protecting the turbulators. If this is the case (if it's not, sorry), then the tank ends shouldn't go past the input of the top and bottom bar, you'll create turbulence in the end caps that will rob more of the density benefits by creating pressure drops from the turbulence.

3) The turbulators shouldn't be bonded to the bottom plate, if it's not an internal flow path. Then the bottom plate will act like a baffle to prevent heat soak (or at least slow it down). Even better, make it a thin sheet of stainless, as the thermal conductivity will be less.

4) Andy, I hope you deliver the pressure numbers as well, so molecular density can be calculated. In the testing with TonyB, the thermal efficiency of the GRS was worse (with stock diverter), but the pressure drop was better. It didn't show advantage over stock until the pressure deltas were taken into account.

5) The first TMIC manufacturer that puts bonded half rounds on the internal end of the input side of the bars will see a benefit of 5-7% in airflow (reduced pressure drop) due to decreased turbulence on air entry into the bars of the IC. This will manifest itself as decreased pressure drop for identical thermal efficiency, resulting in increased air charge density after the IC. (see the refernce below for the citation).

Some comments. .....

A) Water to air designs can have this geometry for two reasons: The first is heat capacity of the water means that there will be a smaller temp increase for a given amount of energy removed from the air charge, and the thermal conductivity of the water-Al interface is much higher. So comparisons to water-air designs aren't a good way to think of it.

B) (From A. Graham Bells, Forced Induction Performance Tuning, pps 142-164, or Chapeter 10 "Charge Air Cooling") "A workable rule of thumb is that a 90 degree bend in airflow results in a 5% HP loss." So going to a FMIC from a TMIC involves about 6 90 degree bends (for the WMS design), and this estimates to about a 27% HP drop, so the FMIC, better be MUCH more efficient, and have a much smaller pressure drop to provide a net benefit. Corky's "Supercharged!" says about the same thing, but I'm on the road and don't have my copy with me to give the page references for those that think spouting theory is worthless. Even if it's only 3% per turn, that's still a 17% HP drop, still a lot, and may be why we don't hear more about the massive benefits of the FMIC.


It would be real bitchen if the tests out as better, and somewhat surprising. This design goes agains everything two books in boosted car tuning I've read have said about IC design, except in the case of water to air for reasons stated above.

Once again, I hope I'm wrong, and Andy's testing will let us know, if we look at both temp and pressure. experiment will tell....

Matt

 

It looks pretty aggresssive but I was flamed once for asking for wind tunnel tests on things having to do with airflow over surfaces so I don't ask anymore.....just ponder..... I am thinking about a 100% (impossible goal)capture of the air flowing through the IC out a funnel/tube to the outside....... btw water on skin cools 32 times faster ......air on aluminum or water, what kinds of diffs are there? are we taking into account three of the big four....Radiation/Convection/Conduction and if so what will this mean to WHP and then convert to performance? I guess,...why should I care? will this make an additional 20whp @ 6500 and 20 ft lbs @ 4200....