This information has been alluded to in a few threads recently, and I've been asked to elaborate, so that's what I'm doing. I did my best to make this experiment a controlled and meaningful one; and while I realize that it’s not perfect, I feel that it’s a very telling indicator of performance. Also, a couple weeks back, FWIW, I shared these results with a few others, including Graham of GRS Motorsports, and Peter of M7.

The data-logging was made possible by the Beta version of BiM-COM. I was not so fortunate to be selected as an evaluator of this fine product, but our Dr. Obnxs (Matt) was, and his cooperation and expertise were essential. I learned much from him!

Oh, I also want to thank gmcdonnell for offering to host and post these 6 Excel sheets:

Stock IC/Scoop 68 Degrees F Ambient
Stock IC/Scoop 98 Degrees F Ambient
GRS IC/Stock Scoop 68 Degrees F Ambient
GRS IC/Stock Scoop 98 Degrees F Ambient
Stock IC/M7 Scoop 68 Degrees F Ambient
GRS IC/M7 Scoop 68 Degrees F Ambient

As it turned-out, I remembered that I had set-up a Yahoo! Account (Briefcase feature) just for these purposes. I Zipped all 6 Excel docs, and uploaded them. I made access “public” so anyone can view them. If not, please let me know! As an fyi, it’s just under 4 meg...

I also just uploaded 2 Word docs that got this all started for me. These are two runs comparing the stock IC with the GRS, at 98 Degrees F – but with the CarChip software. The results for the GRS were less than stellar, but since the data-logging was only once per 5 seconds, it was not easy to conclude anything. But, it did however give me reason to want to explore further, and I did with BiM-COM, which samples about 5x a second; so the need to guess and extrapolate between data points is nothing like the CarChip...

Back to the Excel sheets, I include the raw data, and charting on IAT and boost to reveal performance impact. I also include charting on speed and RPM that hopefully shows that the runs were quite identical in terms of demand. I will add that the runs were 16 miles where the drive to the halfway point was sedate (2-3k RPM), and after a couple minute rest (idle), the 8 miles back home was of a more spirited nature. The ambient temps were very accurate as dictated initially from my home weather station, and once in my MCS, verified by the MINI display...

I have spent a fair amount of time looking these over, comparing things, and talking with others about what to conclude from these findings. For the sake of discussion-purposes, I will not cloud things with what I feel is now clear from this data. Again, let me know if this information is not accessible..

EDIT - After several attempts, Yahoo! has been ditched... Files sent to two NAM members for assistance...

EDIT (again) - Thanks to Bill (CooperSS):

http://members.***.net/ftpcooprss/

 

Tony,

Might be my IE, or the Yahoo server... but all I can reach is the yahoo page with the link to "my documents". The link returns a "page not found" error.

 

Ah, my military buddy in Italy!

Yes, I just learned that I cannot share with the public - for free. Ok, then here's the login info

tonys_shared_files_photos

password = tonybnam

Tell me that works, please....

EDIT - It also didn't work, password reverted back to a secure one...

 

Thanks, buddy!

 

Hi TonyB,

Thanks for the write up... I would love to see the files also, but the briefcase would not let me copy or view them, after logging in with the info you left for BlueMiniMe...

If you meant for others to be able to access the files, please repost them somehow...

Thanks very much,

 

I'm getting PM's that the login is not working. Ok, I just got this from Yahoo!:

Please note: your new password may take awhile to activate. If it doesn't work on your first try, please try it again later.

As a back-up, I just sent the files to a fellow NAM'er who hopefully can share...

 

hi all,
I did some analysis for Tony on this. The BiM-COM logged lots of stuff, but I looked at the post IC pressures and temps only. From this, I calculated an air density. The power the car can make is proportional to the O2 it can burn (at least for rich pigs like our cars), so air density seemed the way to go.

Tony can let the data speak, but I'm not soo judicious. Here's my take.

The larger TMICs work, just not as well as the dyno numbers due to insufficient airflow. No one has a dyno set up that does a real good job with the heat soak of the motor, and big fans blowing at the front of the car just don't do it either. To get it right would need a flow box coupled to the front of the hood or the top of the IC with fans that were run proportional to car speed.

The M7 scoop works as well.

The combo works best.

It's an expensive way to go.....

Some comments on measurement accuracy and repeatability. There were not multiple runs at each configuration. But there were several periods of max boost that were looked at during each run (the firts three of four, if you all really want to know). The trends are real. The numbers are fuzzy, and probably have uncertainties about the size of the differences. But with four configurations showing the trends you'd expect, I feel pretty good in my conclusions.....

If you're gonna get an IC, get a scoop too. If you have to choose one or the other, the scoop is better hp/$. If you're choosing between a TMIC and a bunch of suspension stuff, get the suspension stuff. If you're a track rat, you've already got the suspension, and bunches of other stuff, so it's probably a good adder for you.

Matt

 

Gary, Bill?

You both should have received an email from me with the files. Since it looks like Yahoo! is not going to let this fly, I'm hoping one of you guys can help-out here...

Thanks much.

 

Just heard from Bill who thinks he can help us out... However, by the time I got his email, I had already figured-out a solution...

I set-up a Yahoo! email address to receive the files. They just arrived, so all one needs to do is log-in, download them, or forward the email to another address...

Edit - Email address removed...

Hosted here:

http://members.***.net/ftpcooprss/



I will keep the email active for a day or so for those who want to forward the files... Thanks Bill!

Note: On the CarChip data (Word docs), the charts provided are at the bottom, so scroll down...

 

I look forward to reading over and examining the files after work today.

thanks for sharing

 

MadHatter, indeed, take time to really compare IATs and Boost, particulary on the 8 mile trek back. Note peaks, recovery time (IAT), average or where it tends to gravitate, etc...

Probably don't spend too much time analyzing the Word docs (CarChip data). Although it only logs every 5 seconds, the 8 mile drive back gave plenty of data points, and even though the stock IC had ambient temps about 1-2 degrees hotter at that point, it ran cooler than the GRS. Good stuff...

Share your thoughts!

 

Here you all go. These are some peak molecular densities after the turn around.....



The units are hPa/deg K......

Matt

 

Your ordinate starts at 5.00 and goes to 5.75. Would the changes you plotted be statistically significant? From a thermodynamic perspective what would be the difference between 5.40 and 5.50 or any other increment on your graph? BTW, I'm glad that you showed some raw data, rather than what marketers might have done --- example below:

"System B produced a delta of "x" when compared to stock, while system C produced a delta of "x/2" when compared to stock. Thus, system C was only 50% as good as system B or system B showed a 100% improvement over system C" ---

Thanks,

 

So, to first order, a 1% increase in number density is about a 1% increase in available power. With a roughly .2 increase on 5.25, that's a bit less than 4% more air. For a 200 HP motor, that's about 8 hp.

While the error bars here are large, this is definantly less than one would expect with the "dyno" numbers for larger TMICs and a scoop.

Also, as charge temp changes, there may be timing effects that come into play, modifying the HP is proportional to O2 molecules available model. This would go under the name of a non-linear effect!

I've got to say that it's a hassle to get good numbers for a good measurement. Even with good data logging, many runs are needed to measure repeatability and the like. This takes time, and ambient conditions change, making analysis even harder.

Anyway, having Tony post the data will let others crunch the numbers as well. I just went far enough to prove to myself that the ICs aren't as usefull as the dyno indicates, that the scoop is a must for a larger IC, and that this is best a track adder.

for myself, I've done most of the adders, but a head and cam. I've now got logging, and I will try to optimize tune to get the most of what's on the motor. I have a TMIC, but no scoop, so I need one! But I also have a few more skunkworks projects that I want to do, so it's for sale, for a $600 price (I bought it used). If it doesn't sell, I'll figure out how to get the skunkworks stuff done. No one has expressed any interest, so I guess it's mine to keep!

Anyway, the numbers speak for themselves.....

Oh, and as far as significance, yep, the separation of the GRS with M7 scoop is more than the "noise floor".


Matt

 

Thank you for the data logging and info! Thanks also for sharing! . I realize you chose to do so, and hope that your info will be treated respectfully. I, for one, believe the data. Now where's my M7 scoop??

 

I've done lots of datalogging and although it would be great if MINI included all of the needed sensors to evaluate intercoolers, they did not. You definitely need to have the temperature of the air leaving the supercharger before it gets to the intercooler.

For example. see the 3 data points that I collected here:

https://www.northamericanmotoring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23248&page=2

ambient= 6.0 C,ic inlet= 74.4 C,ic outlet= 23.7 C,RPM= 4000 ,Speed= 100 mph Gear= 6 Boost= 12.5 psi

ambient= 4.0 C,ic inlet= 78.1 C,ic outlet= 22.7 C,RPM= 4000 ,Speed= 100 mph Gear= 6 Boost= 12.5 psi

ambient= 3.0 C,ic inlet= 64.6 C,ic outlet= 18.9 C,RPM= 4000 ,Speed= 100 mph Gear= 6 Boost= 12.5 psi

Looking at just the outlet temps, it looks like something is improving the performance of the IC considerably. Yet when you take into account the inlet temps, the efficiency is very similar on all 3 runs (between 74% and 77%). FYI, no hardware was changed between those runs.

I suppose if you could get a stable intercooler inlet temp at the start of each run, then do each run the same way, it would provide repeatability. The MINI actually calculates mass airflow based on IAT, MAP, RPM, and VE. You could use this as a measurement of effectiveness of an IC or IC mod, provided you had consistent, repeatable testing.

With the testing that was done, it's not possible to know whether differences in the results reflect hysterisis (random variation from run to run) or actual differences due to the mods.

 

Need to clarify a point here. The use of the word hysteresis is incorrect as it pertains to random variation. Hysteresis is measurable and repeatable in science and has nothing to do with randomness. Per Webster...
Main Entry: hys·ter·e·sis


Pronunciation: [font=Courier New][size=2]"his-t&-'rE-s&s[/size][/font]
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural hys·ter·e·ses

/[font=Courier New][size=2]-"sEz[/size][/font]/
Etymology: New Latin, from Greek hysterEsis shortcoming, from hysterein to be late, fall short, from hysteros later
: a retardation of an effect when the forces acting upon a body are changed (as if from viscosity or internal friction); especially : a lagging in the values of resulting magnetization in a magnetic material (as iron) due to a changing magnetizing force
- hys·ter·et·ic

/[font=Courier New][size=2]-'re-tik[/size][/font]/ adjective

 

Sorry. Statistical noise then.

 

Absolutely!
PS. didn't want to be picky, your point is correct, but I work all the time with hysteresis, statistical variation, randomness, etc. and its important to keep the effects in the correct bin. Just so we all know what they are.