Saleen S/C's and High Air Inlet Temps

[tmcolegr]

The Afco is not just dual pass but dual core also correct???. I did this same change from the Fluidyne that came with the Whipple which measure 10"x1.5"x21.1875" for a surface area of +/- 211.87". The Afco measured in a little shorter at 9"x2.5"x22.5" for a surface area of 202.85" obviously a little smaller. If yours is a dual core unit shouldn't the second row count as exposed surface area? So then why divide by 2? Why not multiple by 2 since you now, in essence, have the same surface area making a second pass for a total of 45" (22.5"x2) of exposure. Then this would come down to some physics forumal way past my education levels to determine how fast heat is transfered out of your medium (ie water, raditor fluid, etc) X amount of total time exposed/temperurate of outside air or some kind of thing? Not to mention the tanks on the Afco are larger which should still count but at a fractional level compared to the cores and fins.

Perhaps these next 2 pics will answer your question. Both the inlet and outlet connections on the Afco H/E are on the same side. Coolant enters through one end of the H/E and passes all the way to the other end of the H/E, turns the opposite direction and flows back toward the other end of the H/E. In this first picture you can clearly see the tank on the inlet side of the H/E s divided in half - notice the weld line

Now if you look at the other end of the H/E the coolant simply turns around and goes though the other half of the H/E. Notice the lack of a weld line - one common tank

Based on this, the H/E actually has 2 separate cores connected by a common tank.

 

[Back@itagain]

Perhaps these next 2 pics will answer your question. Both the inlet and outlet connections on the Afco H/E are on the same side. Coolant enters through one end of the H/E and passes all the way to the other end of the H/E, turns the opposite direction and flows back toward the other end of the H/E. In this first picture you can clearly see the tank on the inlet side of the H/E s divided in half - notice the weld line

Now if you look at the other end of the H/E the coolant simply turns around and goes though the other half of the H/E. Notice the lack of a weld line - one common tank

Based on this, the H/E actually has 2 separate cores connected by a common tank.

Yeah I know I have the same one. It has a dual core also that I don't think your math took into consideration. Your math is on a 2 dimensional plane if you will and did not account for the second row I believe. For example The Afco is 9" H but it also has 2 row insted of the 1 row in the single pass. So the first pass is 4.5"H X L X 2, so your are really back to 9" if I am making sense through the keyboard. Now that first 9" X L drops down a level and turns around making its way back for the second pass again at 9" X L before going to the I/C. This second pass now makes for double the length. Aside from the reduced size in the fittings, I think part of the problem is most I/Cs are dual pass and not the best option for thermal dynamics. Lets say heat transfer also works on the laws of deminishing returns. This would mean the faster you can get the cold fluid in and back out of the I/C and on the way to the H/E again, the more efficient it would be resulting in lower IATs...just a thought.

 

[tmcolegr]

Not trying to be argumentative, but I'm not referring to air flow, I'm referring to coolant flow. If the core is of the dual pass design, the overall core HxWxD will be divided in half when referring to the quantity of coolant that can pass though the core because it is actually 2 separate cores.

 

[Back@itagain]

Ok maybe this is the source of the confusion...the original H/E is a single core single pass where the Afco is a dual core dual pass meaning two sets of inner tubes carrying fluid across for one pass, dropping down, and two tubes carrying the fluid back across for the second/last pass.

 

[tmcolegr]

Ok maybe this is the source of the confusion...the original H/E is a single core single pass where the Afco is a dual core dual pass meaning two sets of inner tubes carrying fluid across for one pass, dropping down, and two tubes carrying the fluid back across for the second/last pass.

At last something we agree upon

My point is that if the Afco unit, although larger overall, did not have a larger capacity in the first or second set of cores (since they are separated) than the Saleen H/E, it could restrict the flow of coolant.

 

[Back@itagain]

At last something we agree upon

My point is that if the Afco unit, although larger overall, did not have a larger capacity in the first or second set of cores (since they are separated) than the Saleen H/E, it could restrict the flow of coolant.

ok........well we have both gotten off track then since this really just brings up back to the issue with the surge tank. The flow is restricted by the size of the fittings and pumping pressure not the volume of the tank.

 

[scramblr]

What IATs are you guys seeing at what outside temperature?

In my case, during the winter months, outside temp <40* my IATs are around 110* - 120*. During the summer with outside temps at 75* - 85* , I've seen IATs around 180 - 200* driving on the highway (100 - 120mph (autobahn)). At the track during the summer outside temps with an engine temp of ~180* my IATs are about 170* when crossing the traps.

I have a Gords H/E and these are the stats for it. http://www.gordsfordperformance.com/specs.html

 

[tmcolegr]

Spoke to Dave at Saleen

The stock Saleen I/C pump is rated @ 317 GPH or 5.28 GPM. However the coolant flow through the entire I/C system (reservoir, pump, H/E, I/C & lines) is estimated to only be 1.5 to 2.0 GPM.

 

[Cobra SS]

some more information on HE's from another forum
http://www.svtperformance.com/forum...520-those-looking-cooling-mods-look-here.html

 

[pacettr]

Subscribing

 

[Barricade]

I know right?....good stuff!

 

[ChevyKiller]

I am curious what the sweet spot is for GPM of flow through the complete system. More is not always better. If the coolant flows too fast though the H/E and doesn't have enough dwell time, there won't be an efficient transfer of heat. Too slow and it will pick up too much heat from the I/C.

I believe you are absolutely correct in your statement that the I/C is the limiting factor for the Saleen S/C. No matter what you do, you can't change the size or efficiency of the I/C.

Yeah - but as I said - you can 'help' by finding that 'sweet spot' for the GPM and you are right about the heat exchanger core size but you've got a good one already (afco).

The reality is the little 'help' I'm referring to will net you 5º-20º range (which is great) but just don't expect to see no 50º+ drops no matter what with the saleen IC.

The right flow is CRUCIAL. Too much is just as bad as too little and sometimes even worse, believe it or not. You should base your pump size according to the IC. The saleen has a very small unit and a smaller pump is actually going to do more for you and placement is also a key. The farther the pump has to push the water also comes into play when you start factoring in when you are actually under load going down the track. Many people don't even think about that.

You want your pump as close to the source and destination as you possibly can get it. If you look at most big drag cars, the IC and pump are always very close to the destination, and rarely (if ever) in the rear or mid of the car.

After all I've learned, I can't stand trunk mount resevoirs anymore for the S197's. Although they let guys hold a lot of water, they hurt more than they help and you are trying to push a long way forward while the car and forces of nature are trying to push it BACK when flying down the track under load.

 

[tbrock]

what gauge setup are you using to measure IA temps?

 

[tmcolegr]

what gauge setup are you using to measure IA temps?

AeroForce Technology Interceptor Gauge which reads IATs directly from the PCM

 

[tmcolegr]

You want your pump as close to the source and destination as you possibly can get it. If you look at most big drag cars, the IC and pump are always very close to the destination, and rarely (if ever) in the rear or mid of the car.

After all I've learned, I can't stand trunk mount reservoirs anymore for the S197's. Although they let guys hold a lot of water, they hurt more than they help and you are trying to push a long way forward while the car and forces of nature are trying to push it BACK when flying down the track under load.

This is the main reason I chose to go with a battery box mounted reservoir rather than a trunk mounted reservoir for my particular application. The pros didn't seem to outweigh the cons. Seems like I read a lot of people, or at least it seemed that way, that have coolant flow problems, pump priming issues or air pockets in the lines after shut down, with trunk mounted coolers.

 

[Department Of Boost]

From what I have seen the inlet/outlet of the intercooler (yes the one in the blower/intake) is your smallest restriction. As was said before you can increase the size of everything else in the system but if you don’t address the inlet/outlet of the intercooler you will not see any wholesale changes.

As far as the “sweet spot” for pumps go it’s a bit of a wives tale according to the three sources that I have followed up on this with. One source was Meziere the other the crew that did the original development on the 2010 FR500CJ and the third Bell Intercoolers.

When the FR500CJ development crew first had the car on the dyno with the big Whipple they were getting 275+deg IAT’s and couldn’t figure it out. Only after they put transparent hose on the intercooler system did it become clear (pun indented) that the water in the intercooler was vaporizing and the only thing coming out of the outlet was “steam”. They were using the standard FRPP water pump. They stopped testing and called Meziere. Meziere set them up with their 55gpm pump and the problem went away, no other changes.

I asked the Meziere guy who was the one that worked with Ford if the pump could be too big and he said no, not in an application like this because of the flow restrictions built into the system. He said that even if the entire system was 3/4" I.D. including the inlet/outlet of the intercooler that the intercooler core was enough of a restriction that you could not pump water through too fast even with the 55gpm pump.

And, I have been working with Bell Intercoolers (IC) on a more efficient setup for my own car and they concurred that the “restriction” in the system was the intercooler core itself, not the rest of the system. And again, they said you couldn’t have too big of a pump. Then the conversations rolled around to is a dual pass IC an efficient way to go or is it used mostly because of packaging. ALL of the engineers down there agreed that the IC’s that you get with the respective blowers are dual pass because of packaging. I was told in no uncertain terms that a single pass intercooler set up correctly is more efficient as long as the inlet/outlet are sized correctly. A -12AN in/out on a intercooler core that is 10x5x5 (which is on the large size of the IC’s that come with most blowers) is a good start. But dramatic improvements can be seen running two -12AN in/out on the same size intercooler. Of course a standard FRPP pump will not be enough for a setup like this but again I was told that there is still such a significant restriction through the core that a 55gpm pump can be run and it will still not be able to run the coolant through too fast.

I’m currently working on two IC “improvements”. One for street cars which I will be using my own car for testing. 2.6KB at 18psi. First step is a 10x5x5 IC core set up as single pass with a -12AN in/out running a 20gpm Meziere. Second step is swapping in a 55gpm Meziere. And if improvements are noticeable at that point I’ll probably test with a 10x5x5 IC core run single pass with two -12AN in/out’s. I doubt that at 18psi there will be a dramatic improvement going with the dual in/out but it’s easy to test.

The other application is on a friends “GT500” motored back halved race car that is still only running the stock GT500 blower but he is spinning it to 20,000rpm so the IAT’s are ridiculous! We probably won’t be making small steps with his car. We will most likely be going for the largest IC core we can jam in there and be running single pass with two -12AN in/out’s with a 55gpm Meziere.

It’s cold up here though so there won’t be any test data till at least late spring though unfortunately.

 

[kahmann]

Does anyone build an aftermarket intercooler for a Whipple?
Is there a typical maintenance regiment for these intercoolers, stock or otherwise? How often should they be pulled out and cleaned or checked for broken welds?

I've upgraded to a C&R heat-ex and Moroso battery box reservoir, but my IAT's are still off the charts. While a step up from 1/2" NPT to 5/8" or 3/4" fittings might ease some restriction at the reservoir, what is written above is 100% accurate, in my opinion. The intercooler itself is by far the biggest restriction in the system.

 

[Department Of Boost]

Does anyone build an aftermarket intercooler for a Whipple?

I haven’t seen a thing available. And that is a lot of the reason I have been looking into the intercooler thing.

As far as maintenance goes not much to do. The last time I had mine apart I inspected it but there was nothing to see. And before I put it back together (in the manifold) I pressure tested it for leaks and there were none. Leaks would be the biggest thing I would be worried about but I doubt they are common.

 

[Simon]

Well I didn't reinvent the wheel, but I did put a huge resevoir in my trunk. It holds 10 gallons, even though I only put 3-4 in it for normal driving. At the track, I drain some of it out and put all or most of entire 20 lbs bag of ice in it. My first pass at the track I gained 3 mph and .3 on my ET. I ended up perfecting the launching with the new power and got 4 mph and .4 of ET. I didn't data log before and after, but it was a stock KB 2.6 running 15 psi. Unless the car sat for an hour with a fan running on the HE it would pull timing on the dyno. I didn't do before or after data logs, but track times tell me it helped tremendously.

I was concerned with coolant flow also. I knew water getting pumped to the back would be an issue. The water leaves the HE and goes directly to the rear tank, it drops in and filters through the foam in the tank. A second indentical IC pump pulls the water out of the tank and pushes it directly to the blower.

In normal weather, I can make two passes before the IC water gets hot enough to pull timing. It cost me $10 in ice per track day (~5 bags generally) and I run pure water so I can dump the water anywhere.

Not as innovative as finding a restriction, but it works . . .

I have never had air bubbles or problems with flow or cavitation.

 

[zuritausmc]

subd