turbo time
|
| posted on 6/1/05 at 03:08 AM |
|
|
Performance vs. Looks.....
So, this evening I was tinkering with the front suspension, and stood back to have a look at how well the bellcranks would or would not tuck under the
front bodywork....I must have spaced out, and found myself looking over at the intercooler gathering cob webs in the corner. I thought I'd grab
it up and test fit it in the rear behind the engine at an angle (think Noble M12). I planned to put it there, and it would receive air via 2 NACA
ducts. Then I got this crazy Idea, keep in mind, I was never one to care about how a car looks, as long as it handles well, and accelerates like a
sledgehammer hit to the chest:
Now, it would certainly look "less ugly" after it was all cleaned and polished up nice, but obviously it still wouldn't look too
good  . The advantage is VERY VERY short intercooler piping, tons of clean/cold air (no windshield for me), and less lag due to the short pipe
routing with minimal bends. I'm not worried about a passanger seat by the way, so that isn't an issue. I was thinking the biggest problem
might simply be rear visibility. Honestly, is this just too ugly to do? 
[Edited on 6/1/05 by turbo time]
|
|
|
|
|
mangogrooveworkshop
|
| posted on 6/1/05 at 03:25 AM |
|
|
WTF is that..........is it for real?
As for the seat in the way think thats not a good idea. Perhaps flat on the side pod with ducting driving the air down thru it.
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 6/1/05 at 03:33 AM |
|
|
I've raced cars with the radiator mounted directly behind the driver's head, which is one thing, but wouldn't your local authorities
slam your idea as being too dangerous as in damned hot and to near human flesh?
Anyway, it is seriously ugly.
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
dmottaway
|
| posted on 6/1/05 at 01:32 PM |
|
|
how about flat, over then engine. like an MR2?
I vote "too ugly"
dave
|
|
|
phelpsa
|
| posted on 6/1/05 at 01:47 PM |
|
|
Subaru has a top mounted i/c
|
|
|
ettore bugatti
|
| posted on 6/1/05 at 08:49 PM |
|
|
Perhaps you could paint a picture of a head on the radiator to cover it up
|
|
|
Pseudo7
|
| posted on 7/1/05 at 04:59 AM |
|
|
...paint a pic of Sponge Bob Square Pants on it and call it a day!
...seriously, you're kidding, right?
fugly.
Pseudo7...similar, but not authentic!
|
|
|
krlthms
|
| posted on 7/1/05 at 05:53 AM |
|
|
Put cooler behind roll bar, maybe a couple of inches lower if you can, fashion a butch looking ram jet inlet out of carbon fiber (black), stick the
inlet on the front to the radiator/roll bar. Outlet can be molded into engine cover. Voila, you will have a cross between a locost and a black bird
spy plane
|
|
|
chrisf
|
| posted on 7/1/05 at 02:14 PM |
|
|
Why not try an air to water IC. This would certainly help with packaging...not to mention aesthetics.
Also, how much horespower are you planning on running? That IC looks more appropriate in a Skyline than a lightweight middy.
[Edited on 7/1/05 by chrisf]
|
|
|
turbo time
|
| posted on 8/1/05 at 06:43 AM |
|
|
quote:
WTF is that..........is it for real?
I don't know, I found the pic on the net, the mountain motor looks real (in the enlarged version of the pic), but I doubt it's actually
driving those wheels.
Oh, if it's not obvious, the car is Left-hand drive BTW, and I wasn't planning on installing a passanger seat. My original idea was to get
2 sidemount intercoolers (like I'm doing with the radiators) and put them in the sidepods as suggested, but I just happened to have this one, so
I'll make it work.
quote:
I've raced cars with the radiator mounted directly behind the driver's head, which is one thing, but wouldn't your local authorities
slam your idea as being too dangerous as in damned hot and to near human flesh?
Nah, I've never even had an intercooler that got so hot you couldn't hold your hand on it, maybe 120* tops for one this size after a 20
minute track session (FYI, that was w/a 16G running 17PSI though). Oh, and my brother can do safety inspections anyways  .
Maybe it would work on top of the engine, but the heat soak could be quite bad, I may do that though if I can effectively shape the bodywork to vacuum
the air out of that area of the car.
quote:
Put cooler behind roll bar, maybe a couple of inches lower if you can, fashion a butch looking ram jet inlet out of carbon fiber (black), stick the
inlet on the front to the radiator/roll bar. Outlet can be molded into engine cover. Voila, you will have a cross between a locost and a black bird
spy plane
That's a good idea actually, except for me being too cheap to use carbon fiber . I haven't checked the clearance, but it might be too
close to the turbo manifold, which would probably do some intercooler melting, I'll have to check.
quote:
Why not try an air to water IC. This would certainly help with packaging...not to mention aesthetics.
Well, basically, it's a cost/time issue. I've got the $2005 budget and a couple months left (although I have absolutley all the parts and
am only at $1,7xx.00 ), so I'm just using what I've already got. This intercooler flows extremely well, has a very low pressure drop, and
was cheap. In $2005 challenge trim, I could only budget for the intercooler, a high-volume fuel pump, Manual Boost controller, and a nitrous kit, so
only about 290 HP and add another 40-50 to that if I wind spraying it. I hate nitrous though, it would just be for the challange....afterwards, when
there is no more budget constraints, I'll upgrade injectors, turbo etc.. and will be in the 400-420 WHP range...that's when the ridiculous
intercooler might actually be needed. Boy, that was a long-winded response.
Anyhow, thanks for the ideas everyone, it's great when people suggest things that you wouldn't have thought of on your own . I guess
the general consensus though is that it is just too damn ugly to mount it in the roll hoop .
[Edited on 8/1/05 by turbo time]
|
|
|
silex
|
| posted on 11/1/05 at 01:02 PM |
|
|
Are you running that as an intercooler or an aftercooler. Its just that it looks a bit big for an intercooler - more aftercooler size. Its just if you
really want to fit an intercooler, you could probably look for something smaller and fit it elsware more easily.
Murphy's 2 laws
1. If it can go wrong it will
2. In case of emergency - refer to rule 1.
|
|
|
Dale
|
| posted on 11/1/05 at 10:41 PM |
|
|
Intercooler and aftercooler are the same thing as far as I know. Just usually called an after cooller if its used on a supercharger and an
intercooler if used after a turbo- Basically the bigger the better. I am hoping to be able to fit one or two volvo IC's on the sill infront of
the windshield and shielded from the engine.
You could use a bit smaller IC and spray a bit of alcohol in the mist to cool the charge down.
Dale
|
|
|
silex
|
| posted on 12/1/05 at 08:02 AM |
|
|
Not quite, intercoolers fit between the air filter and the turbo and an aftercooler fits between the turbo and the inlet manifold.
Because of this the aftercooler is a much bigger and heaftier piece of kit. first of all it has to be able to cope with the turbo boost pressure - an
intercooler does not, and secondly its needs to be bigger for at least two reasons. The air will expand with heat as it goes through the turbo so
there is a much higher volume of gas exiting the turbo than comming into the turbo. Also there is a greater change in temperature required in the
cooling of the expanded heated air, a larger radient surface area does this better.
So generally aftercoolers are bigger than intercoolers.
Murphy's 2 laws
1. If it can go wrong it will
2. In case of emergency - refer to rule 1.
|
|
|
DorsetStrider
|
| posted on 12/1/05 at 08:43 AM |
|
|
Ok just a suggestion and it depends on the rest of your design plans...but!.....
I'm assuming this is going to be mid engined right? how about if you dropped the i/c in and the rear end of the drive shaft tunnel (since you
won't be putting a drive shaft in there anyway) then you could cut an opening in the bottom of the car to allow aire to pss up into that tunnel.
It might not be as efficent as having it at the roll bar but it would have the bonus of creating a low pressure area beneath the car, low
pressure=more downforce=better grip and handling....
Just thought you might like to think about it.
Who the f**K tightened this up!
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 12/1/05 at 09:33 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by silex
Not quite, intercoolers fit between the air filter and the turbo and an aftercooler fits between the turbo and the inlet manifold.
Because of this the aftercooler is a much bigger and heaftier piece of kit. first of all it has to be able to cope with the turbo boost pressure - an
intercooler does not, and secondly its needs to be bigger for at least two reasons. The air will expand with heat as it goes through the turbo so
there is a much higher volume of gas exiting the turbo than comming into the turbo.
sounds wrong to me. Less volume comes out of the turbo than goes in, cos the air gets compressed. Hence it gets hot, and the intercooler (what you
call an aftercooler) helps get the pressure (EDIT - temperature) back down, primarily to reduce knocking (from the heat) and secondarily to reduce the
back pressure on the turbo (as the air cools it shrinks again).
i cant see the benefit of having a cooler before the turbo - the air going thru it would be the same temperature as the air passing over it, hence no
useful cooling.
quote:
Also there is a greater change in temperature required in the cooling of the expanded heated air, a larger radient surface area does this better.
So generally aftercoolers are bigger than intercoolers.
technically, since the compressed air is hot, it can be cooled efficiently in a small radiator - the larger the temperature difference, the faster the
cooling effect.
i love arguing, so feel free to correct me if im wrong!
[Edited on 12/1/05 by JoelP]
|
|
|
Dale
|
| posted on 12/1/05 at 09:36 PM |
|
|
Your correct in that an air to air cooler-inter/after makes no difference what you call it- maybe it depends on which side of the pond your on?
Cooling the air going into the turbo is going to have no effect what so ever if its an air to air as its already at ambient temp unless your using an
icewater to air cooler-- but its still going to be reheated by the turbo. On the engine I am using - Ford lima 2.3l turbo there are quite a few
people using the holset 35 instead of the stock garret T3 and are boosting the engine in the high 20's lb range with only large as possible
coolers between the trubo and intake. Optimum cooling can be had if you air to air to bring the temp down to the 120 deg farenhite range and then an
icewater to air to drop it way down - but that is only usable for short bursts.
A resonable size air to air after the turbo will will suport 300-400hp at a cool enough temp to ward of the detination.
Dale
|
|
|
silex
|
| posted on 13/1/05 at 12:48 PM |
|
|
Ok saying the volume exiting the turbo than comming in was a very poor choice of words, I actually meant in the system, the aftercooler is bigger and
holds a greater volume in it as more cooling effect is generally required.
However, saying putting a cooler before the turbo has no effect because its the same air temp is wrong.
Think of it like this - your stood in the middle of a field. its zero degree C outside but the air is perfectly still - How cold do you feel.
Now your in the same field, same air temp, but there is a 40mph wind - Do you feel alot colder - Why ? the air temperature has not changed.
The same principle applies to a cooler before the turbo, although it obviously will not have the same temperature differential as after the turbo. It
still works because if the air is colder comming in, the temperature it reaches under compression will also be lowered - Boyles law still applies.
Murphy's 2 laws
1. If it can go wrong it will
2. In case of emergency - refer to rule 1.
|
|
|
Volvorsport
|
| posted on 13/1/05 at 02:07 PM |
|
|
the point is though that the air wont be cooled enough by a pre turbo intercooler to be efficient , and pressure drop etc , imagine the efficiency
needed to drop below ambient temperature !! The closer you get to ambient air temp the harder it is to squeeze more efficiency out of the system -
if ambient air temp is passing over the intercooler , what temp will be inside it ?
Dale - youve got a 2.3 lima engine ? some of those guys fit volvo 16v heads (big power) - u must know some of the guys from turbofords ?
www.dbsmotorsport.co.uk
getting dirty under a bus
|
|
|
Dale
|
| posted on 13/1/05 at 05:46 PM |
|
|
Yes Volvosport, its a lima and I wish I had the 16 valve head for it but not going that route --well not yet as I dont think it will be necessary to
put that much power in a 1400lb car- fun maybe dangerous maybe - but certaily would end up with a 8 second 1/4 mile. Mine is basically stock and I
plan on putting a sheet metal upper intake on it sideways over the 4 inline lower to bring the throtle body down and pointed to the back of the car
and do a header to free up the turbo a bit and make routing the intercooler on the rear engine sill .(vented) With a decent exhaust and a modest
18lbs of boost should get me 200 hp minimum at the wheels. I think once I am used the the car a winter project will be to port the head and maybe do
a mega squirt on it and pull an extra hundred hp out of it--that may require going to a holset turbo- but they are dirt cheap as turbos go and very
good quality.
Dale
btw on turboford I am dnutbrow
I dont post much as I am new to the motor but have learned alot
[Edited on 13/1/05 by Dale]
|
|
|
blueshift
|
| posted on 18/1/05 at 02:49 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by silex
However, saying putting a cooler before the turbo has no effect because its the same air temp is wrong.
Think of it like this - your stood in the middle of a field. its zero degree C outside but the air is perfectly still - How cold do you feel.
Now your in the same field, same air temp, but there is a 40mph wind - Do you feel alot colder - Why ? the air temperature has not changed.
The same principle applies to a cooler before the turbo, although it obviously will not have the same temperature differential as after the turbo. It
still works because if the air is colder comming in, the temperature it reaches under compression will also be lowered - Boyles law still applies.
There seems to be some confusion about physics here. The reason you feel colder when you are exposed to moving air is because you are hotter than the
air moving around you (and because your sweat is evaporating, but mostly the colder air). If you were colder than the air moving over you, it would
make you hotter (point a hairdryer at your arm and find out).
If you are the same temperature, apart from the sweat effect human bodies get, you will not be cooled or heated by moving air. Otherwise fridges would
just have a fan in them instead of all that plumbing.
An intercooler between the air filter and the turbo would do nothing except restrict air flow into the turbo - unless you put your air filter
somewhere stupid so that it was sucking air over the exhaust manifolds or something. You would not do that. If the air going into the filter is the
same as the air going over the "intercooler" in that setup, it would not change temperature.
Intercoolers go between the turbo and the inlet manifold, to cool the compressed and heated air from the turbo.
For more information see this:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/turbo7.htm
Here endeth the lesson
|
|
|
derf
|
| posted on 18/1/05 at 07:09 PM |
|
|
I think you would probably have a better results, and functionality, if you put the intercooler at a nice angle in the passenger seat, and angle it.
Then make an airduct directing air downward toward it.
|
|
|
