short route intercooler

[mountaineerjeff]

so im working on my intercooler, and a buddy of mine brought up the logical issue of having the inlet and outlet on the same half of the intercooler. not the same side, like a double pass intercooler, but like having them both on the top. the argument is that air will take the shortest route possible, and not get the full effects of the intercooler.

I want to set it up like this



he is saying that the air will take the short route straight across, and even though its under pressure, the majority of the air will be stagnant.

It will be way cleaner, way better ground clearance, less pipe, less weight, but I dont want to sacrifice performance.

 

[Whoodoo]

Rut Roh... here we go again with the theoretical IC talk...

Here's my take in it:

First of all, unless you have your bumper completely cut up, air will not be flowing in a uniform fashion through the IC. A stock bumper, for example will give direct airflow through the top-ish, middle-ish part of the IC, depending on where you put it. Keeping that in mind, there isn't a huge need to ensure uniform charge flow through the core. If you are going to have an IC like pictured above, then yes, more charge will flow across the top than the bottom, but if the majority of the cooling airflow is across that same range, then you will be maximizing your setup.

Aside from the theoretical stuff, having a larger core that has less pressure drop across it will benefit you more than the inlet/outlet location.

 

[mountaineerjeff]

well I already have the intercooler. I have to recheck but its setup like this one. Im pretty sure mine is a kinetic if I remember right aka SBR






yea, im thinking ground clearance, and keeping the piping inside the body is more important to me. im sure the shorter route cant hurt either. the bigger thing that mad me second guess it was the majority of stock setups that are made like that.

 

[broxma]

The biggest problem with the 90 degree tanks on both sides is getting around the radiator on the passenger side. If you want a real short route intercooler, you'd go with a liquid-air setup which would be, out the turbo, 6 inches to the intercooler which is bolted almost straight to the TB.


Now, why do you need this pipe setup to be as short as possible? Please let me know.

/brox

 

[Boost4U]

Quoting mountaineerjeff:
so im working on my intercooler, and a buddy of mine brought up the logical issue of having the inlet and outlet on the same half of the intercooler. not the same side, like a double pass intercooler, but like having them both on the top. the argument is that air will take the shortest route possible, and not get the full effects of the intercooler.

I want to set it up like this



he is saying that the air will take the short route straight across, and even though its under pressure, the majority of the air will be stagnant.

It will be way cleaner, way better ground clearance, less pipe, less weight, but I dont want to sacrifice performance.


I have that exact ic. Had to move the radiator and I don't have the condenser in the car. Once you slide the radiator to the drivers side about a inch and a half it was a good fit.

Had to trim the back side of the bumper so the ic would fit in.

 

[mountaineerjeff]

Quoting broxma:
The biggest problem with the 90 degree tanks on both sides is getting around the radiator on the passenger side. If you want a real short route intercooler, you'd go with a liquid-air setup which would be, out the turbo, 6 inches to the intercooler which is bolted almost straight to the TB.


Now, why do you need this pipe setup to be as short as possible? Please let me know.

/brox



well, first liquid is out of the question. I already have the intercooler so thats what im using. as far as short route, my main thought was keeping the piping and everything in between the frame rails, and above the supports. I have smashed pipes before do to grounds clearance and such.

I already moved the radiator to allow the piping on both sides of it.

 

[Brianawd]

I did short rout on my vr4. It was a old indy race core 1g kit that I made work on my vr4. My dyno # speak for them self. Just do it short rout.

 

[IncorpoRatedX]

omg guys, im going to make 25342322 HP and my fmic must be 100% efficient!!!!1111!!!!1

 

[rdomeck]

My really short route intercooler! Hood went into primer tonight...

Edit: Guess I'll upload photo's tomorrow. Not working correctly tonight!

 

[Barnes]

I recommend everyone take the scientist approach, and until someone presents back to back comparison of short route fmic vs. stock route they will be treated as equal.

 

[Jason G.]

Quoting Alpha Male:
omg guys, im going to make 25342322 HP and my fmic must be 100% efficient!!!!1111!!!!1

 

[rdomeck]

I'll try again with the photo's!

 

[rdomeck]

click

 

[Boost4U]

That is really cool, are you worried about heat soaking?

 

[broxma]

So I'll address the initial argument about airflow across that core and the part about stagnant air in the core.

With the inlet at a 90 degree angle to the tank, the air will, because it flows like a liquid, hit the flat back of the tank(Front of car) and deflect at a 90 degree angle in all degrees. This means, some will run directly into the side of the tank and redirect again. Some will go down, some up and some right across the core. So three things. First, the 90 degree inlet has some value in that it naturally causes turbulence in the air which is actually part of what makes intercoolers work. If the flow were totally laminar, the efficiency would be garbage. Second, some of the air is very turbulent, especially the air that hits the back of the tank, then the side, then who the hell knows. Each time the air is redirected it is a net loss in engine power with a fairly well calculated constant for redirection at different angles, the 90 box tank design being pretty bad. Third, there would never be literally stagnant flow in the core. It may be woefully inefficient, but it would never stop.

Now the meat and potatoes. The exit. The 90 degree box end tank design is the absolute worst way to get the air out of the core. It requires all air to dramatically redirect to a single point, and remember, the air is being pushed under boost, not being sucked in by the downward travel of the piston. The exit design shown in the first picture would have a horrible effect on the efficiency of the over all system. So much so, I'd advise against it.

And onto further points of order. Why? I know I threw that question out originally Jeff but I meant it from a very serious perspective. From a position of total mutual respect, other than you already have the core, why do you want to go with that system design? It cannot be for throttle lag and if you say turbo lag, we will have had a breech in our bonds of mutual respect. If it is simply due to the current ownership of the core, I do have some advice though as I am not one to just point out problems without offering a solution. Find a shop that can weld aluminum. Cut the 90 degree outlet pipe off. Weld up that hole. Put the outlet on the far side pointing towards the passenger side of the car and run the pipe under and around. Several reasons. The outlet flow will be much improved. The majority of kits use a similar system making it typical\traditional. Tradition is not always a bad thing and often going against that grain shows no improvement and often negative returns(See: How do I make my GVR4 RWD). Many times, we stick with tradition, because it works. And finally, reducing the length of pipe even a large degree will have no effect on the performance aspect of the car.

I'm more than willing to discuss any ideas you have however. If the entire goal is simply to have the pipes within the interior of the frame rails, then your path is set. I abhor the 90 degree exit. The reduction in bends from a normal, straight out, under and around pipe design will be outweighed by that horrible exit design. If the end tank were rounded, all core exit points leading to a smooth transition out the core like on some upper end cast designs, I'd say go for it.

/brox

 

[cheekychimp]

So the ETS intercooler is actually a bad design as well then since although the inlet is positioned better the exit has that exact same 90 degree exit?

 

[cheekychimp]

Quoting Boost4U:
That is really cool, are you worried about heat soaking?



I really don't see why he should be. He's going to get better flow than most people get over their intercoolers and he is now located away from the exhaust manifold, turbo, downpipe, oil cooler (if he has one), A/C condenser (if he has one) and the radiator. What on earth is going to create that much heat in his location?

The only things I would 'consider' adding to that design would be to add JDM style vents so that any heat from the manifold and radiator has a clearer exit to lower under hood temps and adding a fan underneath the intercooler to maintain flow at stop lights etc. There is a huge area under the battery tray where Mitsu located a huge water reservoir to feed models with headlight washers. A very serious puller fan could be mounted under there and a similar shroud built under neath to channel air out that way. Ceramic coat the shrouds and I think this design has serious merit.

 

[rdomeck]

I'm not worried about heat soaking....I will start a new thread as not to thread jack this one!

 

[mountaineerjeff]

Quoting broxma:
So I'll address the initial argument about airflow across that core and the part about stagnant air in the core.

With the inlet at a 90 degree angle to the tank, the air will, because it flows like a liquid, hit the flat back of the tank(Front of car) and deflect at a 90 degree angle in all degrees. This means, some will run directly into the side of the tank and redirect again. Some will go down, some up and some right across the core. So three things. First, the 90 degree inlet has some value in that it naturally causes turbulence in the air which is actually part of what makes intercoolers work. If the flow were totally laminar, the efficiency would be garbage. Second, some of the air is very turbulent, especially the air that hits the back of the tank, then the side, then who the hell knows. Each time the air is redirected it is a net loss in engine power with a fairly well calculated constant for redirection at different angles, the 90 box tank design being pretty bad. Third, there would never be literally stagnant flow in the core. It may be woefully inefficient, but it would never stop.

Now the meat and potatoes. The exit. The 90 degree box end tank design is the absolute worst way to get the air out of the core. It requires all air to dramatically redirect to a single point, and remember, the air is being pushed under boost, not being sucked in by the downward travel of the piston. The exit design shown in the first picture would have a horrible effect on the efficiency of the over all system. So much so, I'd advise against it.

And onto further points of order. Why? I know I threw that question out originally Jeff but I meant it from a very serious perspective. From a position of total mutual respect, other than you already have the core, why do you want to go with that system design? It cannot be for throttle lag and if you say turbo lag, we will have had a breech in our bonds of mutual respect. If it is simply due to the current ownership of the core, I do have some advice though as I am not one to just point out problems without offering a solution. Find a shop that can weld aluminum. Cut the 90 degree outlet pipe off. Weld up that hole. Put the outlet on the far side pointing towards the passenger side of the car and run the pipe under and around. Several reasons. The outlet flow will be much improved. The majority of kits use a similar system making it typical\traditional. Tradition is not always a bad thing and often going against that grain shows no improvement and often negative returns(See: How do I make my GVR4 RWD). Many times, we stick with tradition, because it works. And finally, reducing the length of pipe even a large degree will have no effect on the performance aspect of the car.

I'm more than willing to discuss any ideas you have however. If the entire goal is simply to have the pipes within the interior of the frame rails, then your path is set. I abhor the 90 degree exit. The reduction in bends from a normal, straight out, under and around pipe design will be outweighed by that horrible exit design. If the end tank were rounded, all core exit points leading to a smooth transition out the core like on some upper end cast designs, I'd say go for it.

/brox




thanks for the insight.

I got the welding down, the second pic is the intercoolers current state, and the first pic was my first idea.

with the intercooler the way it is, it has to make the 90 the outlet of the intercooler. around here I have a bunch of issues with bottoming out the car, even on a stock ride height. I smashed my in/out pipes on my mirage almost flat. my short route, wasnt for the intention of gaining power, just for keeping it out of danger so to speak. but I dont want it to me so bad that a smaller intercooler that I could move easier actually flow better.

what if I made the pipes come out of the top of the intercooler, then make a 90?
do you believe that the outlet 90 is so bad that having it be a straight shot into the TB wont make up for it? right now, I know it has to be better than stock, but I just want to make the cooler I have work as good as possible.

 

[broxma]

Quoting cheekychimp:
So the ETS intercooler is actually a bad design as well then since although the inlet is positioned better the exit has that exact same 90 degree exit?



I would argue that not only is the 90 degree exit on the ETS kit a bad idea, but unless the inlet side has a diverter, the inlet is as well. On the inlet side, I would argue that a 90 degree inlet is as good, possibly better than a straight in with no diverter. When you have a straight-in inlet, you will see a majority of the air crossing the channels directly in front of the inlet, with a decrease in flow further from the inlet opening. The 90 degree inlet remedies this by spreading that flow outward against the tank. The exit on the ETS kit, well, to yet again quote the same famous American, "You don't have to be Stonewall Jackson to know you don't wanna fight in a basement." In other words, it should be obvious, with only a rudimentary understanding of things, that it's not the best design.




Quoting mountaineerjeff:
what if I made the pipes come out of the top of the intercooler, then make a 90?



I can see that working. It won't be any worse than it is now honestly. If you have the ability, I'd have the 90 bend welded to the top of the exit tank rather than a pipe/coupler/pipe simply to keep the upper profile as low as possible.

/brox