Hi all, I did some testing with a dirty stock IC, cleaned it (To test the effect of oil catch cans) and an IC with a Thermal Dispersant Coating....

Tests were three runs of each, using BiM-COM, G-Tech and some other data logging hardware. I ran into a very interesting issue that I was in ignition retard for the whole power runs. I think this really screws with HP gain measurements and you'll see that in the table below. But I did do some comparison with 91 and 100 octane gas, posted in another thread.....

Anyway......

Cleaning the IC got me a 4% increase in IC efficiency, an increase of 3.5 ft bls of torque, and DROPPED peak HP by a bit less than 2 HP! I think this is due to the knock retard, and due to a computer operator f-up (mine), I didn't record all the data for the cleaned IC properly, so this is about within the error bars of the measurment.

Going to a coated IC (www.cradin.com) increased IC efficiency another 2.4% with a post IC temp drop of about 3 degrees C. Peak HP was up about 0.4 HP, and peak torque was pretty flat, but down a foot lb or two. Once again, not a big effect.

The coating data was all run with 100 octane, so ignition retard wasn't an issue.
The clean vs dirty was with 91 octane, and I wouldn't trust the HP numbers to mean anything, but the temp data and IC efficiency numbers look to be meaningfull, but just above the noise floor for the measurements.

All of these were taken with G-Tech runs, where the car was at rest before the data was logged. Because I did this on public roads, I had to wait a bit longer for some runs than others, and I saw a post IC temp difference of up to 10 C over the runs. I'll do some more testing later during some crusing and some cruise control going up hills to create a load on the car) to try to eliminate this effect.

So what's my conclusion?
1) Running an oil catch can is a good idea, but not as good as some think.
2) The thermal dispersant coatings do work, but only for about 1% in absolute temps. Wouldn't be at the top of my list, but it's not at the bottom either.

Both of these are a pretty good idea if you live in a very hot area, or have real shi**y gas like we do in CA.....

I ran a total of 16 runs to get these results, and spent $60 for a tank of 100 octane as well (but boy, does the car run sweet with the nice gas, too bad it's so freakin expensive!)

FWIW, I have an 02 S, with a 15% pully, MTH, IK22s, OBX header, JCW injectors, HAI and One-ball exhaust.

Matt

 

THANK YOU ...

 

Sounds like a catch-can might be a good price-performer, at least the $16 version. Nice job, Dr.

 

Thanks Matt. Great info.

 

by any means. But they both work better than a poke in the eye with a stick! Others that may benefit are those running real small pullies, or combos of oversized crank and undersized SC pullies.

Matt

 

I don’t know which of the two stock intercoolers that you had coated were used for the test but neither of them was in the best condition before the coating. I had them in my possession for a short while before you acquired them so I know first hand. Craig said he had to work the fins quite a bit for good coverage. My point here is an improvement in efficiency was observed despite less than optimum cooling fin health.

 

But they weren't in the worst shape either. And JLM let me keep the nicer one, so that was the one used in testing....

Matt

 

I think it's a good idea, no matter what IC you run, stock or aftermarket.

Best world: Scoop, Aftermarket IC, Coating, reworked diverter so no air leaks.

Best cheap set up: Scoop, coating, stock IC, and fixing any leaks in the diverter.

Matt

 

i have a MCS without a reduction pulley (for now ), and every time i've disconnected my cooler, (which is about 5 or 6 times) there has been a generous coating of oil around the ic outlet and the intake bullhorn thing it connects to, as well as (obviously) the rubber boot. It's pretty bad, so i think a catch can would do me good.

 

is clean up the mess, and give you about a 1% increase in air density.

Matt