Hi mate, can you treat me like your Nan & explain what it is does that my PA FMIC doesnt?

Chris

They actually work quite well at keeping a constant inlet temperature,

They don't work quite as well as FMIC for cooling but still an improvement over an uprated Side mount.

I ran one for a few years and was very happy with it, fitting the FMIC increased lag but pulled harder higher up the revs.

I'd recommend one for a mild tuned coupe up to 280bhp.

What kit were you using ?

Having watched it again, it that 120.0'c im seeing and 31.1'c?

Oh go on then


Blowing away two scoobies:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=U3WCLh_F1P0

I temp tested mine and it constantly let heated air through it at 20'c above ambient, this was with no boost. There are no turbulators in the core to agitate the air and remove the heat from it, it's just straight through. I will be putting my air-air cooler back on, it may be a little bit more restrictive, but it cools the air better.

The one that this topic is about (see first post):

http://www.chargecooler.co.uk/

I pretty much knew I was taking a risk as I couldn't find any evidence that these things actually worked well, not even from the manufacturer, I just had to have a go and prove it myself, older and wiser now.....

Hi

Your problem then is 100% installation based. If you put the CC in the system and never even plumbed it up to any water system, then by simple logic, it cannot 'heat' ambient air flowing through it with no boost. Its just a 'lump of aluminium' per say...

If it is heating ambient air, then it can only be that the water flowing through it is way above ambient, and thus is a problem with the rest of your installtion (ie, rad, pump, tank, bleeding issues)

By simple logic, the core itself can't generate heat.

If you have any installtion with this unit, and you see more than 20 degrees C above ambient on boost (and up to 400CFM and 20psi of boost, sustained) then there is a problem with your installation that should be addressed.

As for saying there are no turbulators in the core, can you confirm it was a genuine PWR core and looked like this?

http://www.advancedvehicletuning.co.uk/pwrint.jpg

David
http://www.chargecooler.co.uk

Replaced with a repaired evo 6 and the temps were better. I contacted forge. They agreed a full refund and said they would advise anyone against fitting this intercooler on a fiat coupe.


Ross

Concerning your evaluation of where the heat is coming from:

The heat is coming from the turbo, it is mounted on the hot exhaust manifold and has hot oil and water pumped through it, so even when not producing any boost the air passing through will pick up heat.

Logically, if that intercooler was the exact same fitment as the one you had, and nothing physically on the car had changed (ie air flow to the intercooler) then that would point to the fact the core would be worse than a standard EVO intercooler on ANY car/application as a direct replacement.

Thanks

David

a lot of factors make things work not work,a good few of us fitted the pace chargecooler,and and the only `real` flaw in them,is the fact they are not good for those running over 300bhp because they start to restrict airflow,I am of course only talking about the pace one as thats the one we have had plenty of experience with............BUT most of us who fittd then went with the pace side mount IC too...which on it`s own probably not great but worked ok with the chargecooler..................after any run in the car,the chargecooler body on my car was always really cold..it did warm up after sitting in traffic,but was not long in cooling down once on the move

I have yet to come across an off the shelf cooler that works as it should. Only a race spec type, bespoke built ever works.

Andy.

All the parts I supply require you to have some logic and skill in fabrication and installation techniques, hence bespoke to your application, and thus the best results (if you know what you are doing)

Thanks

David

Even on my own car, which runs near 70-80 degrees engine bay temperatures, and I personally use a 4x10 core, with my prerad, fan, pump, tank etc, I run just over 1 bar of boost, and nearly maxing out this core.

I personally see nothing over 20 degrees over ambient, even on sustained use, and no heat soak issues, and this is with a very hot engine bay (this is a rear engined turbo car)

If I can acheive these results, as can other customers, there is no reason that you can't.

Thanks

David

So the problem is installation based then, ie where you have sited it...by your own admission above.;)

But then you are also basically saying, that this CC absorbs more heat and heats the charge more than if you just replaced it with a piece of straight pipe, even though it water flowing through it, even running no boost.

Can you see my point, even Newton would be puzzled at this one.:)

Thanks

David

I think here you are either just taking the piss, stupid, or have completely missed the idea of a chargecooler.
The heat that heats up the core is coming from the charge air going through it, NOT the surrounding components. The outside of it doesn't get warm, I am measuring the charge air temp.

Norris are racing the car (circuit) which is why they don't use a CC, they are no good in this situation and are more suited to drag racing where the heat build up is sudden and short lived before it can be transferred and cooled down.

Norris are racing the car (circuit) which is why they don't use a CC, they are no good in this situation and are more suited to drag racing where the heat build up is sudden and short lived before it can be transferred and cooled down.

, no matter what you do with the water it will not cool as quickly as it was heated.

In order for a CC to get anywhere near as efficient as a good air-air unit it needs a lot of water and a huge cooling rad. This means that the weight is a disadvantage. Also your rad needs to be 100% efficient, (IE water enters warm and leaves equalling ambient) which of course does not exist, everytime the water does a full circuit it picks up more heat from the CC, but doesn't loose all of it before going back, so in a situation of constant high boost you get an accumulative effect.

The cooler we are discussing is tube and fin, David posted a link to a pic earlier:
http://www.advancedvehicletuning.co.uk/pwrint.jpg

Water does cool as quickly as it is heated if it is cooled by as much as it is heated. So in your example if you drop water into a -200c vat then it will cool as fast as it will heat.

Drop a piece of red hot metal into a beaker of water, the water heats up instantaneously, try to cool it down by leaving it outside in the cold and wind and it will take minutes to cool down,

I disagree, with a CC it uses the same water over and over again, if the rad isn't 100% efficient (which it can't be) it will get warmer and warmer.

To quote an expert on intercooling:

"It also became apparent after a couple of years testing that I had to down grade my initial cooling estimates of air/water intercooling, which is a disappointment, but necessary. I thought that I could design a system that at speed, would cool the charge air within 4ºc of a front mount - both systems being equally engineered. It appears 8 to 12 ºc is a real world figure. Please put this into perspective. A 'front mount' car - Skyline GTR, 180 - 200 Sx, Supra etc. will give results on a 25ºc day of 31 - 36ºc into the plennum. An air/water setup will give 42 - 48ºc under the same circumstances."

But this is the exact point of a well designed system. You need an efficient rad (ie aluminium of a good design) but it doesnt have to be 100% efficient, as we said, water has a SHC 4 times higher than air, so warmer water can absorb more heat then colder air), the radiator has to be ALWAYS fan assisted, the pipework in the system for the water cooling has to be as long as possible.

Other points people miss are that the cold water from the rad has to go into the throttle body end of the core, not the turbo end (only applicable on this type of core), and the header tank must be on the cold side of the system and directly preceding the chargecooler.

anyway for me the whole benefit of chargecooler is an extremely short and efficient run between the turbo and the inlet. That will reduce lag substantially and improve responsiveness and overall power through the efficiency of that run. If there is a downside that after a few laps I drop the water and put some more in I'd be happy to do that as at the moment my intercooler water spray lasts about 5 minutes

Thats right, thats simple physics. See how long it takes to boil a kettle and how much energy it takes, then pour that boiling water into a radiator, and watch how fast it cools.



If you drop a red hot poker into a bucket of water, the water does NOT heat up instantaneously(!). Specific heat content is the fact of how much energy is required to raise the temperture of a substance 1 degree. Water is third highest in the chain, below Ammonia and Liquid Hydrogen. Even ice is below water..

Cheers

David

Ah, I wondered why all cars made to date can only be driven for a short while untill the engine overheats and you have to stop....

So your happy to come into the pits, drop the water, refill, bleed off and go back out again every few laps? Well that's ok for you, I prefer a more effective, less time consuming and simpler approach.

Your getting confused. No one is saying a CC system will be ultimately better than an air to air...But an air to air to be at its best needs as much air flow as possible (hence why you see bumpers cut out etc, large cores) where as a water cooled system can run close to that efficiency with limited space and air flow to the radiator.

Cheers

David

I was being flippant

Your efficiency question is not really applicable because you cannot suddenly have 100mph worth of ambient air at 10mph whereas with a water-to-air intercooler you will always have an excess of water near ambient temperatures.

David,

I can understand why you argue your point so vehemently, your business depends on your product being accepted and sold.
I on the otherhand have nothing to lose, apart from looking daft for buying a product which does not work very well.

Like I said earlier, if you can prove by way of film footage and temp probes on the inlets and outlets of both the water and air orifices then I will take a different view. You have declined to do this.

As the forum saying goes: "Without hard and visible facts, you're just another guy on a forum with an opinion"

Thats what I thought when I saw the site...all those cars with big power running your kit and looked sooooo nice too

Am I right in thinking no coupe owner has used your CC and if so how much would one be to purchase? Would u need to develop one?

Sorry if these are silly questions

Well there not a lot of IQ on the r5 site, one of the guy's doesnt believe cooling air would reduce its pressure across a cooling core. Idiot. Perhaps he should have a look in AG Bell's book.

Rich

Why did u edit your post to add "with the most consistantly fastest FWD cars in the country"

Ross

Have you got any back to back test on the same car FMIC to CC?

Ross

Not everyone knows everything. Though its the most technical orientated forum I frequent, with the most consistantly fastest FWD cars in the country.

Dave

Oh no not guy croft..that bloke just confuses me

In regards to what size/type core and rad if needed..I wouldnt have a scooby doo! That would need to be decided by one of the more technically brilliant on here.....like carlt,rog or one of the big power boys

Whatever I could fit But doesnt bigger usuually mean more lag or is that just front mounts?

Anything that would mean equal or better performance than just bolting on a big front mount

If your pipework from turbo outlet to inlet manifold is 20", then what is better, 6" of it being CC, or 10"? Because your not routing your 'intercooling' down to the front of the car, the pipework is always shorter than a FMIC system, hence you want the CC to as long as possible in it.

Cheers

Dave

If you like technical forums can I point you in the direction of http://www.guy-croft.com perhaps you may find that interesting.

Rich

Thanks for your ideas, they are well thought out, but i'm thinking I am flogging a dead horse here. I've trawled and Googled many forums for any evidence on this product and have found none which give any tests on it, all I can find is people (notably the Mitsi forum) who show pics of it fitted, but when asked how it faired mysteriously clam up and vanish...
http://www.lancerregister.com/showthread...7&highlight=PWR

The problem with a video is are you now trying to show this as definitive evidence? If you actually turned off the pump in a system you could make the inlet and outlet temp rise like that in tandem, simply as only the water in the core is heating, not either side of the core, and hence why the air temps could rise. Im not saying yours is, but all its showing is 'something' is wrong..

What you have there is symptoms of air in the core. Your air temp rate of rise never flattens off, it simply keeps rising. If a core was inefficient and didnt extract heat from the charge, then it would simply rise very quickly all of a sudden, but your inlet temps simply rise with the water temps. This looks either air in the water, or insufficient water cooling. Or is your core so close to the turbo/exhaust that it is getting an external influence.

If you took it for a test last night, can you post up a picture of your installation, as it must be still fitted to the car?

As for the GTAs, they have a rear mounted intecooler which has no horizontal airflow, it works as a radiator on the back of the car. If you look at the statement from Simon, the original air temps rise to 70 from the top of third (takes about 10 seconds from a standing start) and this is on a normal day, and then takes well over 30 seconds to recover back to normal temperatures (off boost), as the intercooler core is heat saturated, and as it has no airflow through the core on this particular vehicle, radiation is the only way it can cool. With the CC core fitted before it, peak temps were 40c, on a tested 26c degree day last Summer. The fact that the recovery temps were nigh on instantaneous when backing off the throttle shows that the CC is doing nigh on all of the cooling, as the intercooler after the core isnt being saturated in anyway as the CC has removed all the heat from the charge. We have tested the same car with a U bend from CC to inlet, and the chargetemps were less than 40c at the same boost, but this was also on a cooler day. Unfortunately, its hard to replicate temps when you have taken it on a one off very hot day. The reason why they retain the OEM intercooler is for safety sake, and if you run a U bend, its hits the rear glass hatch due to the height of the top of the engine, so we have to keep this open for testing / run without out it.

Either way, we saw less than 40c without the intercooler (on a cooler day though) but not as cool a day as your video which is at 0c and you were seeing over 60degrees peak charge temps at the same boost, on the same type of turbo.

I can't really comment much more on it. I have customers with MR2's which are running far more boost, and still not hitting the temps you have. One of them is at 2bar, 550bhp, an still no where near 60 degrees.

Cheers

Dave

The problem with trying to look for a test, is who's opinion do you take, and how do you know its testing was valid. As components is 25% of the battle, and installtion 75% the rest, then its very difficult to judge what it right..

I live in the comfort though that I have seen low, stable temps, and likewise customers that have followed my guidelines, so when I see any comments that they havent acheived what they should have, I just point them in the direction of someone that has, and simply say, 'if they can do it, so can you'.

End of the day, I know I keep going back to the high end cars on my site, but if that Orange EVO running 900bhp and 9 second quarters and happened to have chargetemps that were way high in doing so (say 60+), wouldnt you think that he would simply try and rectify this fact by switching to a FMIC if this was going to solve it.

Like I said, you don't make 900bhp without knowing what you are doing, and chargetemps are an obvious factor of it. Logically, I don't think you could make 900bhp if your chargetemps were high in the first place.

Cheers

Dave

Just a minor point -
if you still have the OE ecu then you shouldn't melt a piston even with high inlet charge temps. The ECU progressively backs off the ignition advance the higher the charge temps get. Even with 100C inlet charge you shouldn't melt anything.
The other mechanism the coupe has is that it will back the boost off to fail-safe (base boost) UNLESS you have disconnected the EBV. Not sure what the temp shreshold is for this but believe me it does happen.

How do you know you are running the same turbo and boost as me? You have no idea, boost pressure is no dictator of temp either, to do the test properly you must measure what it actually is. A small turbo creating large boost pressure will create more heat than a large one creating the same.

bla bla bla bla bla bla bla

Im not saying your twisting the results. But you have put up a video saying this is fact, believe. Which its not.

And as for your point of drag cars, your point it irrelevant, as no matter what the car is used for in the end, for 900bhp, its going to be on a dyno for hours, if not days. So YOUR point of it only running for 11 seconds is irrelevant. Do you think they map it while its chargetemps are sky high on the rollers, or have actually managed to keep them down.

And if you happen to look at the particular EVO I am talking about, it runs a traditional rad. There is no ice cooler header tank.

Im running a 60 Trim T3, at 1 bar of boost, with far higher inlet temps to the turbo than you. My engine bay temps are far higher, my saturation levels are far higher, so every aspect is far worse than you have. I don't really need to know much more.

The problem is you are so adamant to slate the product, with disregard to any other claims that it is fine, from numerous people, even other Coupe owner's on this same thread, and that you will NEVER take on board you MAY have had an installation error, and you even go to the point of taking a video, an hosting it to try and PROVE your point, and now you are verbally abusing me, that it just seems you have a hidden agenda.

You still havent posted any pics of your install.

Cheers

Dave

You are very contradictory. So what are you saying now. That my charge temps are lower as I have a better turbo, which means that you are running a small turbo maxed out and overheating the charge?

Then I repeat as I always have done, how is that the fault of the core?. If you want to run a turbo flat out and make it work like a hairdryer, then how do you expect your chargetemps to be low???

Your actually arguing against yourself now. Like I said before, you can't have it both ways.

Cheers

David

Something for you to chew over..

Compressor efficiency is a measure of how well the compressor wheel uses its kinetic energy to compress air (the remainder of the energy is turned into heat in the compressed charge). In an ideal system, compression of the input fluid would raises its temperature adiabatically. This is never the case in the real world, so all calculations must take the compressor efficiency into account.

In order to calculate compressor outlet temperature, you must know compressor efficiency, pressure ratio and ambient temperature.

(PR^0.283 - 1) * Tambient
Trise = ---------------------------
Ec

Trise = increase in temperature
PR = pressure ratio
Tambient = ambient temperature (in an absolute scale, Kelvin or Rankine)
Ec = Efficiency of the compressorThe exponent of the pressure ratio arises from the molecular structure of the gas. Diatomic gasses (like N2 and O2) have seven degrees of freedom, five of which are excitable at STP. Thus gamma = 7/5 in the equation P(V^gamma) = constant, and we can derive an exponent of 1 - (1/gamma) = 0.285. For real air, containing non-diatomic molecules like CO2, a better value is 0.283. For more on this, see the gas thermodynamics section of Nuclear Weapons FAQ (!) (scan down to section 3.1.6).

So, for example, my Garrett T04E compressor running at PR of 2.5, Ec of 0.75 in the good old summer time with a temperature of 27 degrees Celsius (300 Kelvin) produces:

(2.5^0.283 - 1) 300
Trise = ---------------------
0.75

= 118°

Basically, in laymans terms, if you had 0c outside temps, at 1 bar and within nominal efficiency (say 70-75%) you should only see compressor output temps at around 78 degrees.

You have said you have output temps at 110-120 (and we have no proof of this though, as its not on the vid, but Ill take your word on it)

This means you are pushing your turbo way beyond its efficiency and overheating the charge. Also, 80-120 degrees is 40 degrees difference.

Your peak temps were 60 recorded, take away the extra 40degrees, and you have 20 degrees total temps.

On my site I claim 15-20 degrees above ambient. You ambient temps were 0, and your proper chargetemps should be around 20, hell why not say 30 to give you some leeway...

So, I apologise, your installtion probably is fine, but its not the cores fault why your chargetemps are high...

Cheers

Dave

Guys - this thread has been very informative, but is degenerating into a stand-off. It will be locked if there's no point in continuing with it.

I have a suggestion - its ONLY a suggestion, but hey, nothing ventured......

David - why not offer to (physically) look at the car? If the installation is faulty, you will have been vindicated and confidence will have been restored in your product. if it turns out that for some reason there is a problem with the product, Gralecoupe will be vindicated and David should seek to sort out whatever the issue is (assuming its something to do with the CC or ancilliaries).

From the many posts, I reckon that neither of you are wrong, but neither of you are entirely right - you're actually both having slightly different arguments.

However, one fact remains - this car isn't benefiting enough from its CC installation and SOMEONE needs to rectify the situation.

If you can both accept the possibility of being in the wrong, you will have taken the first step

Otherwise, we're going to carry on going in circles

Up to you.......

I am not saying your turbo charge temps are low, I am saying your comparison of boost A Versus boost B is no accurate way of looking at things, we are talking temps here, not boost pressures - it is you who brought boost pressure into it, not me - it's irrelevant.
The charge temp comparison is on Youtube, it's posted earlier on in this thread, here it is again:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mYEyAaqBbd4

Same kind of car, same engine, 100% same turbo, only (and this rules in the favour of the CC) it is running more boost at 1.5 bar so it is actually hotter, the weather is hotter too by 15'c. The one we are talking about runs 1.2 bar, it is not overstretched, some people run them at 1.7.

Spec here:

Garrett TBO385
Comp. A/R = .60
Comp. Trim = 50
Turbo A/R = .48
Turbo Trim = 68

You do the maths....

Can I nip this in the bud now.

What power is your car running?

And are you definately telling me you are running a 50trim T3?

Cheers

David