- Page 2

Anonymous · August 21, 2004, 10:18

I think ians ref to the MWR site was to show what barrel type A/W charge cooler set ups looks like rather than yours specifically, the MWR set up seems to have significantly shorter pipe runs than yours, at least as far as I can see from the pics of yours anyway s:? :? s:?

on the 'more power' side this is of course a personal thing, but is without doubt the case with the majority of custom boosted guys I know, which is quite a few s:wink: :wink: s:wink: I'm glad your happy with your power output, at least you wont be spending any more dosh for ever seeking that little bit more s:D

s:D happy for ya s:wink: :wink: s:wink:

Anonymous · August 21, 2004, 10:45

As said i was just showing a similar product to what you have Martin, not implying it was that one.

I'm with Perry on the power.I'm happy running at 9psi but i do feel sometimes i want more as, dare i say it, it feels slow s:roll: :roll: s:roll: Can't even remember what a stock '2 feels like.

Martin you probably disagree as you drive the car "as it was meant" and on the track i appreciate more power in the corners doesn't help. Were just power junkies in need of a quick street fix s:wink: :wink: s:wink:

Anonymous · August 21, 2004, 11:05

yep s:oops: :oops: s:oops:

aaronjb · August 21, 2004, 12:48

Sorry, just had to chime in here s;)

s;)

Quote from: "Tomr2"it is a fact that water is 30 times more effecient at transfering heat than air

Yes it is - but don't forget that by spraying it into the incoming air, you are replacing part of your combustible mixture with water on each stroke - theoretically meaning less power.. Actually it doesn't work out like that, because it lets you run more boost and/or cools the mix down but if you were to get a bit heavy handed with the water it would have detrimental effects. (Put enough in and you'd hydrolock the engine, but I think you'd have trouble managing that through an atomising jet).

I've nothing against WI - indeed I keep thinking about it on the 'other' car, but I'll be uprating the IC's first.. You think $1200 is expensive - 300 IC's are that each.. and there's two.. s:lol: :lol: s:lol: s:)

s:)

Quote from: "Tomr2"does the intercooler replace your radiator?

I can't believe nobody has picked up on this. NO it doesn't replace your radiator s:)

s:)

The radiator cools the coolant that's flowing around the engine - it does that by passing the water through a big finned metal heatsink (the rad).

An intercooler cools the air that's coming out of the turbo and is on it's way to the engine - it does that by passing the air through a big finned metal heatsink - it's just like a radiator, only the passages are bigger, essentially.

A water/air intercooler, or chargecooler, cools the air that's coming out of the turbo, but it does it by passing the air through what is effectively an intercooler submerged in water - meaning the heat from that air is bled off into the water. That water is constantly circulated around a closed system which includes another radiator - usually mounted in front of the cars normal radiator - and the heat from the water is then dissipated out through that radiator.

The chargecooler vs. intercooler debate is usually a hotly contested one - although in our cars I'd say the chargecooler is going to be much better than an intercooler, if only from an ease of installation point of view - you don't have to think so much about where you put it, because the bit that's doing the eventual cooling (the secondary rad) will always be up front in nice clean, cool airflow.

(Tests on other cars, usually front engined, have shown that intercoolers work just as well when the car is moving, but a chargecooler usually keeps the intake charge cooler when the car is stationary, reducing the initial hot influx of air when you stamp on the loud pedal).

IMHO, YMMV etc s;)

s;)

Aaron

Anonymous · August 21, 2004, 13:21

I think the rad question was covered in my statement that "the pre-rad goes in front of the oem radiator" s:wink: :wink: s:wink:

the replacement of fuel by water no matter how miniscule is covered by using a mixture in your bottle rather than straight water, this upping the octane slightly if thats your preference

as we've all said charge coolers are the preference to WI if at all possible and if used in conjunction the water added will be even less (only at higher boost

however good points raised there matey s:D

s:D

Anonymous · August 21, 2004, 14:41

not familiar with a 'charge cooler' anyone got a pic to show me? who sells them?

Anonymous · August 21, 2004, 14:54

That link to MWR page i posted is a chargecooler. Basically a water/air IC is also known as a chargecooler.

aaronjb · August 21, 2004, 14:58

Quote from: "perry190"I think the rad question was covered in my statement that "the pre-rad goes in front of the oem radiator" s:wink: :wink: s:wink:

I guess.. but I hate ambiguity s:)

s:)

Quote from: "Tomr2"not familiar with a 'charge cooler' anyone got a pic to show me? who sells them?

As mr-s_turbo says, MWR sell them, Pace also manufacture them in this country.. there's not much to look at, mind:

http://www.paceproducts.co.uk/ricc/pics/univ_dim.gif

For a nice overview of all the parts of a system go to http://www.paceproducts.co.uk click to 'Go to our website', then choose "Radiators/Intercoolers/Chargecoolers" at the top, and drill down to 'Anatomy of a Chargecooler'.

Be warned, that's the worst website in the universe and if you go to any other page on their website first, you won't be able to get to the relevant page without going right back to the start s:? :? s:?

Anonymous · August 21, 2004, 15:29

charge coolers look to me as if they will give you a slight lag when boosting. let me get this straight, the turbo spools up and then the warm air from the turbo then has to go right the way through a radiator and is cooled before it can get into the engine? how much are they btw?

aaronjb · August 21, 2004, 15:37

Quote from: "Tomr2"charge coolers look to me as if they will give you a slight lag when boosting. let me get this straight, the turbo spools up and then the warm air from the turbo then has to go right the way through a radiator and is cooled before it can get into the engine?

Given identical pipework, no more than an intercooler will add. All a chargecooler (or to give it it's other name, a water/air intercooler) is, is an intercooler sealed into a tank of water..

The air comes out of the turbo, through the core of the chargecooler and on to the engine. The heat from the air is drawn out and into the water surrounding the chargecooler core, and then the water (not the air) is pumped around a radiator system to cool it back down.

With an air/air intercooler, the air comes out of the turbo, through the core of the intercooler (which will be almost identical to the core of the chargecooler, it's just not sealed in a tank of water) and on to the engine.

In reality, I think you could build a chargecooler setup with less lag than an intercooler, given our engine bay layout - the pipework for an air/air intercooler would be quite convoluted in order to position the intercooler in cool airflow. With a chargecooler, the box (containing the core and water) can go anywhere, as it doesn't need to be in cool airflow - the cooling is provided by the water circuit and secondary radiator thats at the front of the car.

Quotehow much are they btw?

Depends where you buy one from.. s:)

s:) Short answer is, I have no idea, but probably comparable to, possibly a little more than, an air/air intercooler.

HTH,
Aaron

Anonymous · August 21, 2004, 15:49

Lag wise the charge cooler is more efficient, on our setup that is. The chargecooler sits in line of the original flow whereas the air/air has to go off on a bend somewhere to get to the IC placement near cool air flow, then it has to come back . Causes some lag.

The original MWR post i did had the picture of the chargecooler on the top left hand side in the first picture, and the heat exchange infront of the rad on the second. The price is there too. m http://monkeywrenchracing.com/mwr_inter ... mr2_s.html m

Anonymous · August 21, 2004, 16:43

conclusion: if i invest in a turbo, i dont think im running above 6.5 psi, cant be bothered with the hassle/extra cost of cooling...

mph · August 21, 2004, 17:36

IMO it doesn't matter what pressure you're at - a turbo will add (significant) heat to the intake air. I'd say some form of cooling is essential.

Anonymous · August 21, 2004, 19:01

btw has TTE ever announce that they will include an IC/other cooling application?...

SteveJ · August 21, 2004, 19:30

Quote from: "Tomr2"btw has TTE ever announce that they will include an IC/other cooling application?...

The TTE kit has an air-air intercooler mounted in front of the gearbox.

Anonymous · August 21, 2004, 20:18

Mmmm there will be some loss of power there then due to the extended piping from the turbo via the IC to the inlet, one thing the PE does have going for it is that the piping from turbo to inlet is the most direct route possible, also as said the charge cooler method is more efficient on our particular set up due to heat loss from the water both at the pre-rad and the piping running the full length of the car (water pipe).

I spent about 3 hours at PACE with the guy who designed the c/cooler for the VX220 application and he said to place an intercooler low enough down to get any significant cooling even with an air scoop would retract from the turbos power due to losses from the pipe run

All I can say for sure is that if I drive my car early on a nice cold morning she feels twice as responsive as on a hot day s:D

s:D s:D

s:D , so the more cooling we can get the better, no matter what the route as long as power loss isnt a bi-product s:wink: :wink: s:wink:

Anonymous · August 22, 2004, 15:16

even N/A, the 2 doesnt feel half as responsive on a hot day as it does on a nice cold dense morning! s:wink: :wink: s:wink: