I think it is bigger, just using the pics i have seen.

 

I wouldn't call it a DFIC, as it is not one.
B may=Bigger, but bigger doesn't mean better.

 

Many people say that about intercoolers. Pending availible air flow, intercoolers can't be too big. Depth is the only thing to consider when building them. The downfall to going deeper is that the deeper you go the less the ambient air flow cools the charge. This was the one thing we went out on limb with when designing this IC. On other cars we make intercoolers for, we have the ability to go bigger in hieght and width. So going deeper isn't even a thought. When we (test done by Dr. obnoxs)tested the Version 2.0 proto intercooler, we were very surprises how the thicker actually worked.
Probably more info that you needed.

 

Hey,

Check the Vendor Announcements for a special introductory deal on the new Alta V2.0 Intercooler. Get this great new intercooler at a great price for this holiday season.

Alta IC V2.0 Introductory Special

-Cliff

 

can we get some dyno plots showing stock IC vs. Alta IC v2.0 please?

 

I just went on your site and you did a really nice job lots of info, well done. As I am curious as to how the new wave of IC's will fair when compared to the " classic " as you put it I really enjoyed all the details provided but have a few questions .

The specs on the classic according to your info

The specs on version 1 ( classic )

Our Alta Performance™ air-to-air intercooler is 100% larger than the factory unit. Our intercooler still fits under the factory hood with no cutting or trimming even though size is nearly doubled. Overall internal volume is increased by over 40%.

Dyno results on otherwise stock mini cooper s show 7 hp and 5 ft/lbs torque at the wheels from 2000 rpm to redline and beyond. Modified cars (pulley, intake and exhaust) produce an additional 9-11 hp and 7-9 ft/lbs torque.

The specs for the version 2

This innovated design improved upon our older classic design by increasing all aspects that made our other classic intercooler so popular. Instead of ambient air flowing from the scoop, doing a 90 degree turn through the intercooler, then trying to escape out the bottom of the intercooler, our intercooler lets the air flow freer. The air takes a more natural straight path from scope, through the core, and out the back.

Our bar and plate core has a core volume that is over 210% larger then stock and over 280% more surface area for better cooling.

Dyno results on otherwise stock mini cooper s show 7 hp and 5 ft/lbs torque at the wheels from 2000 rpm to redline and beyond. Modified cars (pulley, intake and exhaust) produce an additional 9-11 hp and 7-9 ft/lbs torque.

With the new version which appears to have an even bigger inner core by a factor of 5 over the classic 210 % verses 40% and has a much improved air path I would think that the dyno tests you have done would show more of an increase between the two. Actually I am amazed that the dyno numbers appear to be exactly the same ? Am I reading something wrong? If the version 2 has the same results as the classic as your dyno results show then will you continue to offer the classic or discontinue it in favor of the new version. Thanks for the info it's is very helpful .

 

To quote an oft used NAM mantra. "Dynos suck for testing ICs"

 

I agree but i didn't know they suck so consistantly LOL

 

Depends on who and what the argument is

 

a proper dyno setup (like Banks Power has) can offer consistent baselines for tuning and reveal differences (though realworld road conditions vary wildly from this). If this isn't true, then no responsible vendor should be advertising potential gains. I ask the question because Alta is advertising gains with both IC's. (and yes, I know we have a separate thread discussing this specifically).

Since power gains are pitched as the benefit for this product, dyno plots please

 

IMO, I would purchase the M7 DFIC over the Alta IC for the following reasons (1) The M7 DFIC has been out longer and there have been improvements to the diverter, boots, etc - the Alta's version may still have "growing pains" (2) The DFIC comes with a hood scoop which is designed to work with the DFIC. There have been many posts that claim that this might be the most important part of the whole set up, (3) The DFIC has pre-drilled bungs for temperature and boost measurement, and most importantly, (4) Peter at M7 responds to email and phone calls much faster than Alta.

 

Very important point!!!...the vertical apature of the DFIC specific Ram Intake has been opened up significantly to ram maximum air through the entire core surfaces...A standard intake will only allow air to flow through the top half of this type of IC...don't skip out on this all important piece to save a few bucks...

 

The early M7 units had welded end-tanks, but after the design was frozen, they moved to cast end tanks.
The M7 unit has some bungs, one on each end is tapped 1/8-NPT, I think.....
The red one in the photo is on Scott's car of Central Coast Coopers, and he painted it himself at his shop.

Matt

ps, any errors here are mine alone!

 

They do mention dyno numbers for both of the IC's but as I was asking about in post 56 it raises a question as they appear to be identical? If the second generation performs the same as the first , as theri dyno testing apparently shows , what have we gained by the new design ?

 

un-earthing the differences between this and the classic alta tmic would be very difficult on a dyno. Both may show an increase above the stock and they may even show a difference between the tow... but with stagnant air and heatsoak the numbers will be within the error budget of the dyno... possibly barley outside.

The ic is something you have to really be moving to get an idea of what it's going to do. Even then you have to do multiple puls at different ambient temps and different levels of heatsoak to truly get an idea of what the difference is.

I'd say a g-tech or the drag strip is one of the only ways to truly tell the difference and even then ud have to do many pulls with the same car with each intercooler on... very hard variables to control to get an accurate sample.

 

How can you test an IC on the dyno? If the hood is open you are not testing the IC. If the hood is closed how can a fan mimic the real world? It seems like there are much better ways to compare IC's. How about zero - 60 times under identical conditions (eg~ambient temp, engine load, engine temp at start) or comparing TE and pressure drop under similar conditions. IMO I am very uncomfortable when a vendor posts dyno info regarding intercoolers. BTW, what were the condtions (hood closed or open, where was the fan placed, what was the CFM airflow, etc.) when the Alta IC was tested??

 

well, that was my point

as for testing intercoolers on a dyno....sure, it's not perfect, but a proper dyno cell can replicate real world conditions. think dynamometer in a wind tunnel

 

I agree - so how was the Alta IC tested

 

trackster,
Thank you for the compliment, we have work a long time to get that going.
As for the dyno numbers, it is very hard to come up with accurate numbers on the dyno. Some of the info on the site was not 100% accurate for launch day, as that is one of them. We used numbers from a customer a long time ago for the "Classic" Style, and these numbers were transposed to the new Version 2.0.

When The Dr. did testing for us a long time ago, he had great info about temps, pressure drop and even HP. Matt used a Gtech, to do testing for HP. At first this seems a little "cheap", but the G-tech is a great tool for before and after, not actual power. I think it is pretty good for acutall power also but that is a new thread. He showed great gains of the side draft compared to the classic, which was around 15 WHP or so. Our classic IC didn't show to much gain over stock. At first we were a little worried, but we know our Classic works great and makes power base on past tests, and some data we have from a Track car we sponsor.

Recently we took our 06 Mini to the dyno and did every single part back to back ina very scientific method. (all of which will be on our site soon) When we did our Version 2.0 IC, the gains were not that great (4-5-ish WHP), but like others have said dynoing an IC is a hard to do accurately. The problem is air flow! You can't really simulate the right amout.

In our testing, we went from our normal fan (squirrel cage) testing blowing on the IC, to duct (or Duck) taping the fan to the IC. Both showed about the same, but it just showed that the fan wasn't good enough. But using data from the DR. and some other data to be released soon, we know it works, we know it makes power. Its not much more than our older IC, but its more, and since it worked we decided to go ahead making it.

Patagonian GT,
I think that answers your question above. But as for the fans and Banks, i haven't seen thier setup, but if they have the right fans they can surely mimic real world conditions better. But like any good tuner, dyno testing is one thing, then tweaking a little after some road testing is the best and most accurate way to do so. In the end, dyno number are irrelevant ,but differences found are the important things to look at. Maybe someday there will be a wind tunnel and dyno close by that we can get some good numbers from.

Larry Clemens,
Our IC has actually be out far longer and been in development much longer. We have been using this part since we sent it to Dr. Obnoxs since i belive January. There are many aspecs of our IC that are different, and as people get them in hands, and see pics i think people can make thier own descisions.

Regarding the scoop. If you remove the OEM scoop there are limitaions on the opening as the steel on the bottom half really limits the overall size. With our IC we don't include a scoop, but we do tell people how to trim the bottom of the scoop back to this steel portion of the hood. This significantly opens up the amount of air that can get into the scoop. The M7 scoop maybe taller, but it is still limited by the steel on the hood. In the future you will see a scoop from us, but for now, not including the scoop saves the end user some money, and if they choose to buy an aftermarket one (which might be a little taller) then they can still modify the bottom to allow more air flow.

As for bungs, our castings are plenty thick enough to drill and tap for 1/8NPT. Adding a thicker area for this is something we might look into.

As for how quick we reply. We are here 5 days a week, we answers the phones, emails, and have AOL IM on all the time.

The 7 emails i have from you were replied all with in the same day, except 2. These 2 mails were 3 days for one (fell on a weekend), and 1 day for the other.

prime-drk-,
Yes it is, and when we did our dynoing we didn't bring a classic to test. I wish we would have! But on every part we installed, we did 6 runs or more, and gave 20-30 seconds between runs. The later runs did make less power, as both our IC and the stock one starts to heat soak. You will see this when we release this info.

So WILL our IC make power? Yes, both do, the Version 2.0 does make more. Will there be more testing? Absolutely! Doing our test on our 06 Mini showed us how a higher redline like the JCW would really show the stock IC starting to fail, and ours picking up. This is where we saw the Version 2.0 start to shine. We just need a JCW or a flash now to show differeces. This will come with time.

BTW all testing was done with a 15% pulley. We did hood open and closed for the first few runs, and by the 3rd run the power was the same. So we left the hood closed to help get that little extra air through the IC and to keep it more consistant with other NAM dyno runs people have shown.

 

Re CARB approval... Am I wrong in thinking this is not a big deal?

My understanding is that swapping intercoolers is a very quick job (1/2 hour?), so you can go back to stock for your smog test, then slap in the big boy once you're done.

 

I just don't understand why people want dyno numbers for intercoolers. The job of the intercooler is not to increase horsepower per se, but to lower temperatures. MINI 'A' makes 150 hp horesepower in weather condition 'A' and MINI 'B' makes 160 hp in weather condition 'B' (I'll call this 'ideal') with no differences in modifications. They are both "supposed" to make 170 hp in ideal ('B') conditions and the intercooler is supposed to make condition A more like ideal ('B') conditions...hope that makes sense to everyone else...and I wish I had either one of these super-dooper-cool intercoolers!

 

that does make sense on the surface, but a good tuner can advance timing and boost with a cooler intake charge, therefore making power. Alta/Perrin's buddies at PDX Tuning have shown the Perrin TMIC for the Subaru Legacy GT to make 15hp over the stock TMIC on the dyno - real, repeatable testing. Not sure why we can't get the same data set for the Alta MINI Cooper S products.

 

The ECU should adjust fuel and timing when it sees a more dense/less hot charge.That should be the reason that you would see more power with a better IC. A carbureted old school car would have to be rejetted and so forth to see any benefit.

 

30,000 CFM fans at 60mph flow for starters. Air cooled rollers, airflow under and through the vehicle. Quicktime video here - about halfway through. In addition, they have two engine dyno's and a full data acquistion system for realworld roadtuning. In a different league than the cottage industry of MINI's and Subaru's yes, but this is the bar that's been set.

and to the diesel haters out there, it doesn't take much $$$ to make a diesel pickup smoke most any modded MINI out there at the drag strip (yes, a MINI isn't about speed, I know, but why do we spend money to make them faster then?). 900 ft/lbs of torque will do that for you.

 

alta: does trimming the metal on the lower scoop slot cure the problem misfitoy raised and uniformly distribute the incoming air on the face of the ic?