Open for intelligent discussion and helpful feedback.
There's a new scoop in town.



This is a prototype unit produced by our resident scoop guru JS.
Many thanks to Joel for allowing me to do this and the trust to send me the scoop based on a wink and a nod conversation at The Dragon. Very cool.

Data gathering background.
I used the Andy@Ross-Tech method of gathering inlet and outlet temps for the ICs. Thanks Andy wherever you are.
Thanks to my daughter who was my data logger

All data points where gather under these conditions.

1. Road was flat and level

2. Speed and RPM where maintained at a consistent value until temps had stabilized. Fluctuations where kept within ± .2º. (Not as easy as it sounds)

3. Although done on 2 separate days temp and humidity were very close.
Average ambient temp differential was 1.1º and humidity was 5% different. Temp favored the JS scoop and humidity favored the stock scoop. Best I could do folks.

4. Minimum of 20 data points were averaged. Anything I felt was anomalous was left out. There were only a couple as I was very careful about what and when I captured a point.

As we all know you really can't post spreadsheet data here since the formatting goes screwy. So I'll post it as best I can.

Stock scoop
Avg Speed - 55.6
Avg Ambient - 70.8
Avg Inlet - 137.9
Avg Outlet - 96.1
Avg Efficiency % - 63.59%

JS Scoop
Avg Speed - 54.8
Avg Ambient - 69.7
Avg Inlet - 123.0
Avg Outlet - 87.0
Avg Efficiency % - 67.96%

 

Nice work obe! Thanks for sharing, and kudos to JS also for being a man of his word, besides a craftsman.

Your testing method looks pretty dang solid, and with that, I think we can take something from these results... that the scoop makes a difference! An efficiency rating of over 4%, might not sound like much, but I feel that it is... I guess that would be about a 7% improvement over stock, if I did my math right during these early hours...

Thanks obe!

 

Thanks for posting your numbers. Is that a stock IC? Also, is there any info on how the scoop is sealed to the IC?

Thanks.

 

G R S

 

obe won,

by eye it looks like the capture area of the new scoop MAY be smaller than stock; it sure looks narrower at least.

do you scoopheads know the cature area compared with stock?

thanks

 

Good work JS. I’ve spent a lot of time discussion the approaches to managing the flow path through the intercooler with professors at school and don’t see a down side to this design. Freddy Mercado (bomboasy) mentioned eliminating the vortex within the intercooler intake area almost two years ago and I enquired about preliminary tooling costs at an injection molding shop which killed that project. Freddy will be happy to see this come to fruition (and I am too).

 

Thanks. That what this whole experiment was about.

Thanks to Obehave also. I was glad he offered to do the testing so it would be from an impartial source.

To answer other questions, This was built on a stock scoop. I raised the height of the opening and narrowed the opening.

 

Thanks to K-huevo for pointing me to this link. It proves what I have said long ago was an issue, the vortex created by the extra space in the stock setup. It partially proves that the Alta Diverter is not the best method to improve airflow to the Intercooler, regardless what seems to make sense. I made a mod that has been in my car for two years now, that allows for the same modification, but with a different approach. Not trying to steal anyones thunder, because we have a real product and real results and it is very helpful data for me. Thanks.

The data is exactly what I expected, from conversations with thermo engineers here at work. It is good to see it proven. I hope that people can take one more step with this data and understand why it also proves that the Alta diverter is not the best approach. It helps, but it is not the best approach. Nice work. I will contact you JS about what I have done and what I hope to do.

Back to the thread, flyboy2160, in my opinion, the improvement comes from the airflow that this allows. This design allows the air to flow in the direction it enters in to the space in front of the Intercooler. The air is guided to the intercooler and it keeps its direction all the way to the intercooler. The air is now allowed to do efficiently what is was meant to do, flow directly and without change of directions, fighting back pressures to the IC. In the stock set up, the back pressure is created by the vortex that exists in the unused area next to the IC.

I like the idea of doing a horizontal separation of airflow. That wil be interesting and probably help some more.

This design will also improve the new M7 horizontal IC performance. I would make this a requirement for that set up, for now.

JS Congratulations on getting your idea to be a real product.

Bomboasy

 

Correct sir and thanks. Yes it was a 6.8% improvement.

I will try to repeat this with a stock IC. I have a 4 day weekend coming so weather permitting ( and daughter cooperating ) I'll try to make time this weekend.

BTW. Both aspects of this involved a Tony mod.
I had painted the inboard face of the foam gaskets weeks ago.


Now here's a BIG "what if??" for you folks.

There have been small diverters installed on the ICs lately. The common placement seems to be 40% back from the front. This creates a small pressure front forward of the small diverter but still allows the majority of the air column to compress at the rearward section of the IC.

What if the diverter actually split the opening horizontally and in affect created 2 separate flow paths?

 

Please do. If you're interested in the full spreadsheet let me know.
There a better technical minds than mine here and that's the whole purpose to getting this information out.

 

Um which Tony

Currently im working with another IC mod Thats getting some very interesting seat of the pants results for those of us with the Large IC's

 

GRS is now adding a diverter to the intercooler

 

The data is exactly what I expected, from conversations with thermo engineers here at work. It is good to see it proven. I hope that people can take one more step with this data and understand why it also proves that the Alta diverter is not the best approach. It helps, but it is not the best approach. Nice work. I will contact you JS about what I have done and what I hope to do.


This design will also improve the new M7 horizontal IC performance. I would make this a requirement for that set up, for now.

JS Congratulations on getting your idea to be a real product.

Bomboasy

Thank you and I look forward to talking more with you. Interesting ideas.

As to the M7 DFIC, this scoop and diverter design actually came out of the work/scoop I did for the DFIC unit. Always looking for ways to improve and understand my work. I can't leave things alone. This work is not meant to replace that product but rather to enhance my "Ram Air Hood Scoop" they are marketing. Now that I know I'm on the right path I'll proceed forward with my idea to the next phase.
JS

 

I had no idea that you've been busy Joel

 

assuming the current style front opening and standard type horizontal ic: 2 fully enclosed paths one above the other wouldn't necessarily be better than the current style mid ic diverters that hang out in the breeze.

-you'd still have to 'turn' the upper one down behind the first one.

-you really need to know the correct dividing line between the air mass that wants to go to the back and the air mass that wants to go to the front or you'll have too much area in one duct and not enough in the other.

-whatever wall effects you have would be more since you have more wall area

there's a joke in here somewhere about just like bigger isn't always better, more holes isn't always better

to these experiments. i'm still waiting for somebody to address creating a lower pressure area below or downstream if the ic to help the flow through. because despite the m7 dfic cfd plots, you only have about 0.08psi at 60 mph and about 0.17psi at 100 mph forcing air through the ic unless you reduce the pressure on the back. again to the experimenters

 

Sorry, work got in the way

Yes it is smaller.
If no one knows I can measure this scoop and a stock one and post or PM you the figures.
My one question is, where would the most relevant measurement points be? The actual throat opening at the back side or some other point?

Throat height is pretty consistent but the width is obviously narrower. Whereas, like Joel said, the forward facing opening is enlarged and entrance angles are changed. Particularly the top.

 

TonyB

Ready for some Karting??

 

what's the difference between this scoop and the M7 DFIC "Ram Scoop" that they are including with the new intercooler? they look the same to me.

 

Yep. Graham is nice enough that he is sending me one gratis. Nice guy.

I'm going to find a temp attachment solution so I can try different locations on the IC and the impact on temps.
Cool excuse to buy a pyrometer
Fathers Day is coming.
I do have to surface temps gauges but they only go to 150º. Should be good under normal driving. I want to see the affect on placement.

 

always ready .. ill be up there for the strawberry festivale. and yes im in the parade. drop by and see the change.

 

Same base design. This new scoop has a narrower opening.
Joel can give you better ideas.

 

Just got back to the office... First, Freddy, I got your voice mail, and there is no way that I'll be able to call you today, unfortunately. However, I will glady make the time to chat tonight, if interested. Let me know...

Freddy is an expert on air flow dynamics (his job where we are employed), and he, as Keith said, was talking about this some time ago. It's certainly nice to see it come to fruition - kudos!

Couple this with a forward-facing intercooler, the reasons for the positive feedback regarding the DFIC just makes more sense. It is truly a system...

 

Yes, it's terminal opening is narrower, but higher. I didn't measure sq. in's but, as someone just said, bigger ain't always better. The leading edge is more aggressive as in the "Ram Air Scoop." This experiement was an effort to control/optimize the air flow into the IC.

To "flyboys" point - neg. pressure is very important in getting the air thru an IC unit. On a stock style IC it would be very difficult (read expensive) to create a neg. pressure under the IC. One of the reasons why the DFIC is more efficient. Can it be done? I think so but expensive and time consuming.

Just read TonyB note; yes this is the reason why I designed that scoop asymmetrically.

 

"To "flyboys" point - neg. pressure is very important in getting the air thru an IC unit. On a stock style IC it would be very difficult (read expensive) to create a neg. pressure under the IC. One of the reasons why the DFIC is more efficient. Can it be done? I think so but expensive and time consuming."


I agree with JS on these points. But, you can get a little relief by adding some washers under the back of the IC, with the screws that hold the IC. Then add some washers on top of the IC where the screws that hold the IC. This lifts the back and drops the front of the stock IC ever so slightly. Not going to make a huge difference, but it has to be better. There is a limit to how much you can do. I do not use the stock cover, in case somebody brings that up. The gap of the bottom is closed with aluminum walls that secure themselfs to the IC. The points is that you can do a little.

Bomboasy

 

What about those cooler inlet temps?


The only variable I can think of that could impact the inlet temps would be the fact that the angled deflection of the older diverter design no longer guides air away from the inlet horn and allows air entering the front grill to flow directly over the horn.
Keep in mind that all of my test runs where done at speeds over 35-mph. It's a proven fact that there is good airflow under the hood at speeds starting as low as 25-mph. I did testing on this years ago.
Here's the link
Since that is the only variable I can think of that's all I can comment on. Any other thoughts from anyone would be appreciated.