New intercooler pump flow info...

[CPRsm]

Our HE’s that we get made by Griffin are a LOOOOOOOOOT less restrictive then the IC.

tube and fin design? I tried of of their coolers and it wasn't restrictive but it lacked cooling capabilities because it was an extrude type. Went to a staggared fin design and life was good. But that was an IC not a HE

You lost me here. I think we are using different terminology for a few things. Can you elaborate? What is inlet rise?

For you it's not the same because you're looking for recovery. When I build something I want to know the rise of the inlets over a give period. At the start the inlets might be 75 and at the end of the pull/run it's 100, the inlet rise was 25. So we can test with or without ice and the intercooler won't really become more effecient. The rise will still be he same, the ice just changes beginning and ending temps.

A tubo car would be dream![/FONT] fuck yeah. Never ending power curve that just gets worse on an upshift lol

Not that I ever dis-respected you. I do have a lot more respect now though. It’s nice to see someone else understands that hood up/hood down are two completely different things. The “fantasy” dyno runs I see out there drive me INSANE! Great, now Mr. Dyno Graph knows what his car makes all cooled down and the hood open under perfect conditions. No idea that it is making 100+hp less under normal driving conditions and with a lot less air getting to the air filter.

I keep the avatar like that to throw people off lol
I have done it both ways, but do do hood open. Idle drive the temp up at the maf even though they're not really that hot. Cruising temps plummet, so I do dyno open. But there isn't a difference on mine since just bringing the car up to speed drops the temps. I really only open it because I don't use a fan. I stress the intercooler as much as I can. It still only ries 3deg on a pull. So hood up or down is no big deal. But I have checked.

I'd bet that we could learn a thing or two from each-other.

Bet we could. Got a bit to get thru before I get to play with it again but will be in touch when I do

 

[Department Of Boost]

I’m diggin what you guys are getting at as far as coolant flow through the IC vs. HE….I think.

I think I have this right:

You want to move the water through the IC as fast as possible. Water is the cooling medium so the faster you get it through there the more heat it “pulls” out.

In theory you want the water to stay in the HE long enough for it to get to ambient (or so). This would be a perfect situation. There are a couple of ways to approach this.

First is to run more hair through the HE, it’s the cooling medium. Eventualy you will probably run out of air you can effectively gather/put through the HE though (at least in a Mustang chassis).

Once you are “out of air” you can either slow the water down or increase the time the water is in the IC by increasing its size.

Slowing the water down is probably not a great idea because it will slow the water through the IC down at the same time. The key piece of data to have here would be what is the slowest you can run the water through the IC and still maintain the efficency needed. I don’t think I have even reached the point of “reduced efficency” when it comes to moving water through the IC though. Even with two 55gpm pumps I get IAT increases while under boost. In theory you could move the water through the IC fast enough (remember, theory) to show minimal IAT rise under boost. My off the cuff aswer to this is slowing the water down is not a great idea.

Increasing the time that the water is in the HE seems like the best option. And really the only way to do this would be to make the HE bigger. And for most people that is not an option either. The big Afco is as good as it gets unless you are going full custom and spending crazy money.

In theory I agree that keeping the water in the HE longer (once you are out of air) is the best way to go. You can’t go very far in that direction though. And in comparison to the IC the HE water is moving a LOT slower anyway. The internal volume of the IC is a lot smaller than the HE. And for the most part the water is moving through the whole system at the same speed.

So what do you do once you have maxed out on IC (you are pretty much maxed out with whatever you have, not a lot of custom IC options) have the biggest HE you can fit on the car and you are moving as much air through the HE as possible (lots of gains to be had here)? You move the water through the IC faster. Sometimes you take what you can get, not necesarrily what you want. If I could stuff more HE in my car I would. If I could run a larger IC in the manifold I would. But I can’t, so I will go after water speed. Because at the end of the day if the HE is maxed out and you are circulating warm/hot water but it is 1deg cooler than your IAT’s moving the water faster will provide more cooling. Yes, an extreem example.

 

[Department Of Boost]

OK, here we go: Heat transfer rate in (or out) of a moving fluid can be calculated as Q=mc(Th-Tc)............

Ok, you lost me, LOL!

 

[Department Of Boost]

With that pulley combo it makes 23lbs. We dyno'd it with several pulley combinations, and with each change in pulley size we saw an equal (and repeatable) increase in power.

I'll look into a bigger pump, and I'd like to swap the the super big air intake to see if it'll gain anything.

Wow, that’s petty impressive. In my expirience the Kenne Bell’s stop making power at 18,000rpm. They just make more heat and eat belts.

I’m glad I made the switch to Whipple. A BIG one.

 

[Department Of Boost]

tube and fin design? I tried of of their coolers and it wasn't restrictive but it lacked cooling capabilities because it was an extrude type. Went to a staggared fin design and life was good. But that was an IC not a HE

Yep, tube and fin.

They tried selling me on their IC cores too. I wasn't warm and fuzzie about them. So far the Bell IC cores have been treating us real good.

For you it's not the same because you're looking for recovery. When I build something I want to know the rise of the inlets over a give period. At the start the inlets might be 75 and at the end of the pull/run it's 100, the inlet rise was 25. So we can test with or without ice and the intercooler won't really become more effecient. The rise will still be he same, the ice just changes beginning and ending temps.

Copy that, I will have to add that to my vocabulary.

I see about 20-25deg in rise over a run in my car. The problem is that if I am sitting in traffic/running arrands and the cooling system has not had a chance to recover my IAT’s will start in the 120deg range on a 85-90deg day. And by the end of the run I am pulling timing.

Now on the dyno the car runs a lot cooler, even if it is hot out. My starting IAT’s will not be much over ambient so my ending IAT’s won’t pull timing. And because I have so much cooler/capacity it recovers real fast. I’m sure it would perform well if I cooled it down in the staging lanes at the drag strip too.

On the other end of the spectrum is the road race track. Last track day I did it was 100deg out. I wa running a KB 2.6L at 18,000rpm and didn’t have the rear heat exchanger. I was cooling the car down with the pumps/fans for 40min between sessions with the hood open and I was still pulling out on the track with 120deg IAT’s. Half way through the first lap (about a minute) I was seeing 165deg IAT’s and if I didn’t manage them by “soft pedaling” the car down the straight stuff they would get up to 190+deg real fast. I think trying to keep a screw blower “not hot” at 20psi on the road course is a loosing battle unless it is 40-50deg ambient.

I need to stop posting, it's getting late.

 

[Seer]

I'm actually going to run a 3 gallon res and a larger pump in my trunk soon.

 

[CPRsm]

OK, here we go: Heat transfer rate in (or out) of a moving fluid can be calculated as Q=mc(Th-Tc). Note that this equation only applies to fluids that do not undergo a phase change (ie: boiling or condensing). Q= the rate of heat transfer (more means greater power), m= mass flow rate of the fluid, c= specific heat capacity (which is essentially unchanged here), Th= temperature of the fluid prior to cooling, and Tc= temperature of the fluid after cooled. Note that I say "fluid" here. Whether its water, air, fart gas, or beer... It's all the same. Also note that "time" does not exist in this equation. This equation is applied to only one side of the heat exchanger/intercooler at a time and works in either direction. Simple algebra proves that if I do nothing other than increase "m" (increase flow), "Q" increases as a result. This is more heat transfer, and more power. Of course, if you spin the pump too fast (unlikely on an electrically driven pump), run the system low on water, or allow the coolant to approach boiling, flow will decrease due to pump cavitation, but we're getting ahead of ourselves on that.

This math can be used on either the heat-exchanger or the intercooler. There is no difference. It's the exact same heat transfer principles being applied in each situation.

That equation seems more of a constant. If the fluid continues to move, it will pull out heat. The faster it moves the faster it will remove heat.(Timewise. Faster it moves the less heat should be removed because of friction) The problem is that's assuming you will never run out heat exchanger.

TRUST ME: MORE IS BETTER. Please stop using "time" as a variable in this discussion, because it simply does not apply. I'd love to see the mathematical equation that proves "some is good, but more is worse".

There haaaaaass to be time in there somewhere. If it didn't, that would mean that if the fluid where to just sit there without any flow, no cooling would happen? Over time it would, even without flow. at a minimum temperature differences will meet in the middle. But even other things like latent heat is effected by time. Guys purposely put injectors farther upstream because of it. This looks like this one would fit the bill based on time to heat or cool. The equations are different for heating vs cooling. T and Q would switch.

Q=M*Cp*(Ts-Tf)/T


Q is the heat added (or being removed) from the object in watts
m is the mass (weight) of the object in Kg
Cp is the Specific heat of the object material in J/Kg C
t is the time required to cool down (or heat up) the object in seconds
Ts is the starting temperature in C
Tf is the final temperature in C

So if we figure the time required to cool down to ambient, we can compare that to the time the fluid is in the heat exchanger.
But this one seems to be lacking any variable for flow. Seems to be more if an object sits still.

In all seriousness: I'm not trying to be a Mr. Know-it-all, it's just that I keep seeing intelligent, experienced guys making the same basic error. It's my goal for ALL of us to be smarter about the hobby that we love so much.

No not at all dude. Difference between a condescending know it all prick and a discussion or disagreement.

Oh, and I like the plumber joke. That's pretty good. We did "plumb" quite a bit....

LOL, had a Navy buddy tell me that one. We used to go back and forth pretty good.

I’m diggin what you guys are getting at as far as coolant flow through the IC vs. HE….I think.

I think I have this right:

Yep, you got it. No, you can't leave it in the HE forever. That's why at a certain point the returns are minimal. But as long as your HE can keep up you're good. Being too fast and a bad thing I guess I would leave to an engine and radiator.
Have you tried fitting a garrett core? Griffin was already tried with another company and it failed miserably in the GT500 world. Pressure drop was down with them because the fin density was low so they were happy at first. Until the AITs sky rocked during a pass.

 

[908ssp]

Actually the HE is already ten times the size of the IC so the water is in there ten times longer. But again time isn't the issue differential of temperature is. The air from the blower is a lot hotter than the water in the system compared to the temperature of the water to the ambient air temperature.

 

[CPRsm]

If it was equal it wouldn't be good enough. The HE has to be gargantuan compared to the intercooler. Water pulls heat out 14 times better than air. So it needs all the help it can get

 

[Department Of Boost]

If it was equal it wouldn't be good enough. The HE has to be gargantuan compared to the intercooler. Water pulls heat out 14 times better than air. So it needs all the help it can get

I was thinking about this when I was supposed to be getting to sleep and was wondering what the “factor” would be. Is that right. Water transfers heat 14x better then air?! If so right there the HE needs to be 14x bigger than the IC to get the “equal”. And that is assuming 100% good airflow over the HE I am betting.

I just measured up a HE that is about the size of the big Afco and one of our IC’s. These are ROUGH measurements.

IC core I.D. is 30,861 cu mm

HE core I.D is 1,306,449 cu mm

The HE is 42x bigger than the IC. And it is pretty easy for the IC to overwhelm the HE. I’m gueiing that water vs air being 14x is based on a LOT more air movement through the HE.

On paper it looks like the HE is planty big. In reality not so much.

 

[Nuclear]

CPRsm:
The time factor is in the "m". The "m" is mass flow rate. You are right about time being involved, I just did a poor job of explaining it before. In this example, we can use pounds per minute, or kilograms per minute. So please eliminate the "/T" from your equation. I learned the proper equation in engineering school. Q=mc(Th-Tc). I am definitely not smart enough to derive my own equations.
Another way of looking at this: Greater heat transfer occurs when there is a larger difference in temperature between the 2 fluids. That's pretty simple, and it makes sense. Therefore if we reduce the mass flow rate of the "cold" fluid, by the time it reaches the end of the heat exchanger, it will have reached a higher temperature. Now I know it SEEMS like there has been greater heat transfer, but it's that reduced temperature differential that's really hurting our heat transfer.
Also, the example of having a larger intercooler to slow the fluid down for better heat transfer is a confusing example. It cools better because it is larger and has more surface area, NOT because the fluid is slower.
Another reason to flow as fast as possible: Chemistry control. Seldom mentioned when discussing liquid intercoolers, but it's still quite important. A higher flowrate tends to help keep all the surfaces of the system cleaner. A slower flowrate could result in more buildup on the walls of the heat exchanger/intercooler. Even a paper-thin buildup will hurt heat transfer.

All in all, this is an interesting topic to discuss. I hope that someone may have learned a bit from our spirited debate. I think the bottom line is in the results: The ETs, and the dyno sheets. Perform an experiment. Dyno the car at full coolant (air or water, doesn't matter) flowrate, then dyno it at 50% coolant flowrate (keeping ALL other variables constant). See which one makes more power.

 

[Riptide]

Gmitch your system was sitting in the 120s idling on a 85-90 degree day with your current setup or the old kenne bell?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatwat

 

[Fullboogie]

This one is going in the bookmarks folder. There's not much in the way of intelligent H/E threads out there, other than the two I previously posted.

 

[Department Of Boost]

Gmitch your system was sitting in the 120s idling on a 85-90 degree day with your current setup or the old kenne bell?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatwat

That is with the new setup. With the KB under the same conditions it would have been in the 150’s.

It doesn’t help that my IAT1’s are in the 110-115deg range sitting in traffic. I’m going to seal that stuff up and make it so I am getting air from outside the engine compartment. That will help for sure.

There is also a lot of heat soak coming up through the bottom of the manifold from the motor. We have some tricks we are going to try there too.

 

[Riptide]

I figured it was the kenneth bell sir. Just wanted to be sure. The whipple > kenny b


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatwat

 

[CPRsm]

CPRsm:
The time factor is in the "m". The "m" is mass flow rate. You are right about time being involved, I just did a poor job of explaining it before. In this example, we can use pounds per minute, or kilograms per minute. So please eliminate the "/T" from your equation. I learned the proper equation in engineering school. Q=mc(Th-Tc). I am definitely not smart enough to derive my own equations.

Pffft, me either. I googled that shit son lol

Another way of looking at this: Greater heat transfer occurs when there is a larger difference in temperature between the 2 fluids. That's pretty simple, and it makes sense.

Of course 100% agree.

Therefore if we reduce the mass flow rate of the "cold" fluid, by the time it reaches the end of the heat exchanger, it will have reached a higher temperature. Now I know it SEEMS like there has been greater heat transfer, but it's that reduced temperature differential that's really hurting our heat transfer.

I also agree here. In this example the fluid is the cooling medium. It would work much better to put 10gallons of coolant thru an engine over 2 minutes, than 5. On the surface it seems as if slower worked better only if you look at the temperature of the water of the 5gallons. It would be warmer. But as it began to warm it's ability to draw heat diminished because of the temp differential closing. I get that 100%.

Also, the example of having a larger intercooler to slow the fluid down for better heat transfer is a confusing example. It cools better because it is larger and has more surface area, NOT because the fluid is slower.

Mmmm, it can be purely because of size. Just depends on how it's designed. And this is the kicker.

Heat exchanger or intercooler 12in tall, 18in wide. Flow path is left to right in the 18in channels. If we took and made the length 22 instead of 18, the fluid flow would get 22in of contact as it moved thru the cooler. Now we take the flow path and change it to 16x18. Larger volume in this manner slows the fluid movement thru the cooler. There is more surface are, but a given mass does not gain contact itself. If you followed one molecule of coolant thru the cooler it wouldn't get any more contact to cool in the taller cooler, like it did in the longer HE. The taller flow path created more volume in a manner fluid has to slow down. The same technique is use in intake plenum to slows the air down and let it turn into the closest runners like this.
http://www.exileturbo.com/products/item_details.asp?idProduct=41

Longer than 18in produces more contact with larger temp differentials and is prefferred to a point because it does work better.(even though the rate of return declines the farther it goes down the HE). But there is a restriction point, and space constraints. But making the He taller will slow it with out giving the same mass more contact area. Without a projector and in person that's all I got LOL

Dyno the car at full coolant (air or water, doesn't matter) flowrate, then dyno it at 50% coolant flowrate (keeping ALL other variables constant). See which one makes more power.

Faster coolant will make more for sure. My line of thinking is purely for recovery though. I probably should phrase it moving it too fast results in dimishing returns if any.
I wonder though, Mitch, did you notice over powering the capacity faster with faster flow?

 

[908ssp]

You keep think it terms of short busts of power. While most people look at the system as continuous power. Under continuous load volume is volume it doesn't matter if it is a taller heat exchanger or a wider heat exchanger, surface area is what matters and the water goes in and out at the same rate. And the faster it goes through the higher the temperature differential and therefore the more heat will be shed to the air.

 

[CPRsm]

Water goes in and out of the hose ends of the HE at the same rate. It does not flow across the core at the same rate. The taller it is, the slower it moves. The shorter, the faster.
If what you say is true, there is no cooling difference between any intercoolers as long as they are the same core size. That's simply not true

 

[Department Of Boost]

I figured it was the kenneth bell sir. Just wanted to be sure. The whipple > kenny b


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatwat

Blower speed is not that huge of a factor under normal driving conditions. But it does make a difference (every little bit helps).

I was spinning my KB to 18,000rpm

The Whiple is spinning at 12,500rpm

That's a LOT slower.

And the Whipple is making 133hp more at the same boost level as the KB.