WHAT MAKES MORE? INTERCOOLED OR NON?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ต.ค. 2024
- MEGA DATA AND MEGA RESULTS! JUNKYARD, SUPERCHARGED 351W-IC vs NON IC. WHO WINS THIS SUPERCHARGED SHOOT OUT ON A VORTECH 351W? WE RAN THE 351W AT VARIOUS BOOST LEVELS WITH NO INTERCOOLER, THEN RAN TWO DIFFERENT INTERCOOLERS. WE LOGGED POWER, BOOST AND CHARGE TEMPS. WHAT WERE THE GAINS? WHAT WAS THE BOOST? WHAT WERE THE TEMPS? ITS ALL HERE!
Simple = He Told us the secret over and over... The Timing was still set at the "Safe" setting for the Non-IC Intake Temps (non-aftercooled if you want to be technical) and anyone who has "Fixed" the 70s smog engines will tell you Timing = Power if your Air Charge (and Boost Pressures) allow it... Cooler IAC + Less Boost = MORE TIMING!
Speaking of 70s smog engines, did you know that Ford installed the cam 6-8 degrees retarded on the 351M/400? That's one of several reasons they're such gutless pigs, despite 2V Cleveland heads. They may have done it on other engines, but I don't know. A simple hi-perf aftermarket timing chain fixes that.
I must have missed that. I thought he said he kept the timing consistent throughout all the runs.
@@donellmuniz590 GM was doing the same thing during this era. 3 degrees of cam retard ground into the cams and ignition timing retarded -both to help emissions and because all the EGR requires less ignition timing because the fuel, air, exhaust gas mix burns slower.
@@adamarndt7617 I can believe that. Small wonder the 2 bl 350 in my 76 Malibu was only rated at 140 hp! I did not know WHY Ford did it, but the EGR thing makes perfect sense. I do know that a timing chain installed 4 degrees advanced, 14 degrees initial timing, a carb and intake, no EGR, and headers REALLY woke up my 78 F150's swapped in 400.
Same with the Clevo 351 in Australia. Move the cam timing and they really go!
I used to be a hvac installer and I was trained never to make turns as sharp as you are with air ducts because it would creat backup pressure that would reduce air flow. The more sharp bends you make, the less airflow get. Also, the longer the ducts, the less airflow.
Being from Florida I feel like I’d still want the intercooled version with less power because after 3-4 highway pulls the non-intercooled version won’t make more power.
Exactly!
Thats how lots of boost is. All over the world. Charge temps go up,power goes down, saftey fratures start kicking qnd your falling on your face. Intercooled keeps that down and can add ice tank for even better results.
You might be able to get by with water/meth injection instead of an intercooler. Up to you though.
Or the air wont be heated by a heat soaked intercooler since its still just brand new fresh air being compressed unless the piping retains that much heat but it shouldnt
Hahaha half a pull not even 3
Essentially the same power with big intercooler or no intercooler, because same fuel. Timing advance with the cooler charge would up the horsepower safely.
Air flow/velocity. The slower air not only flows more sluggishly, it also reduces fuel evaporation due to a double-whammy effect of 1, lower heat to the fuel, and 2, raising the boiling point of the fuel adiabatically.
Simply put, in a naturally aspirated engine, the temperature rises and the pressure drops, increasing fuel vaporization [more so for a carburetor than fuel injection, but the principle is the same either way] while in a cooled boosted engine, the pressure rises and the temperature drops, making it harder and taking it longer for the fuel to evaporate.
This means 1, less fuel burns efficiently, 2, lower cylinder pressures, and 3, slower fuel combustion [leads to piston bottom knock, fouling, detonation and overheating, all of which can damage the engine].
When dropping the temps and raising the pressure, one needs to make sure that there are proper steps taken to adequately evaporate the fuel before it enters the power stroke.
Some people [and I say 'foolishly', while others say 'advisedly'] rely on the cylinder's internal heat to vaporize the fuel, both cooling the cylinders, pistons and heads [only to then re-heat them while also washing oil off the cylinders and thinning the crank case oil] and force evaporating some of the large droplets of fuel.
This is more pronounced with summertime gasoline mixes [less so with ethanol and methanol added fuels, but more so with nitromethane and water added fuels] because there is less butane and more pentane, hexane, heptane, octane and nonane which have higher boiling points and lower vapor pressures so they do not quickly evaporate in the hot summer.
Since most people race in the summer, this effect is pretty reliable for most racers not using specialized blends of fuel or straight alcohol, which seems to be relatively immune to this problem, due to its very low vapor pressure and boiling point.
While there re still advantages to cooled boost, it depends on many other extenuating factors, especially the type, age and quality .of the fuel being used, the fuel delivery system, and the fuel enrichment settings.
@DD I think your observations on fuel atomisation and burn are on the money, would like to see knock data znd afr changes from run to run as evdnnif timing and fuel not changed between runs could be more suited to better homogenised charge due to evaporation and mixing of said charge who knows maybe even some swirl with more velocity without aftefcoolers
No increase in timing for the intercooled/colder air charges.
DING DING DING....We have a winner!
Seems like something these guys should understand.. It's all about timing.
The biggest point of adding an intercooler is to allow you to run more boost and/or more timing. Intercoolers always pose a restriction to flow and you can see this with the drop in boost pressure. If you keep the non-intercooled timing level and don’t reduce the pulley size to restore boost pressure, it’s no wonder there was a power loss. I’d like to see this test repeated with an optimized timing curve without changing the pulley, and then another test to change pulley size to restore boost level and optimize timing. I’m sure you’ll see big gains with the intercooler.
Think mister Banks established that higher air density produces more power.
He needs a salad bowl. They are magic.
Couple of things:
-Would have been good to measure boost pressure and temperature both before and after the intercooler.
-With that in mind, remember that despite the fixed speed of the blower, the centrifugal compressor behaves on a non-linear curve. If there is less restriction after the blower it will move more mass flow.
-Also remember that the blower fan/compressor curve and thus its performance is purely dependant on the pressure across the blower. So measuring temp and pressure between the IC and blower is important.
-Also that with a higher pressure across the blower, the engine has to work harder to turn the blower = more parasitic loss at the crank
Thus if you're not knock limited you're going to be moving more kg/s of airflow (or lbs/min in the USA ;) ) thus more power available.
What fuel were you using? and was the test knock limited? was it e85 and offering good fuel cooling?
-Best to measure temp in either °Kelvin or °Rankine so that the °△T is relative to an absolute scale. Because science :) Using a non-absolute scale (especially Fahrenheit) inflates the relative differences.
My guess is that the temp and pressure after the blower with the IC was sufficiently high to restrict flow across the blower. With the larger IC recovering most of those gains through improved density after it cooler. It's an interesting edge case. More data points would be ideal ;).
Keep testing. I'll keep watching.
Measuring the pressure before and after the intercooler would be interesting.
Yeah that's an interesting thought. If the blower is so far out of its efficiency zone it's possible that the increase in airflow brought on by the intercooler is offset by an even greater increase in parasitic loss.
@@TurboBaldur Intercoolers never increase airflow. This blower was also well within it's efficiency range.
Drive it around for 20 minutes and see what happens. The non intercooled will be pulling timing once it starts knocking
Excactly
I think the main purpose of the intercooler is to A. lower the charge temperature & B. lessen the chance of detonation and enable you to run more timing advance to create more power. I bet if you had re-adjust the timing in the tune with the larger intercooler it would have surpassed the non-intercooled HP numbers by a good bit.
I’m watching this after just obtaining my 351 and a vortech s trim, this makes me extremely excited in terms of power numbers and where I’m going
"5 liter parts....5 liter power"
It gives me more questions than answers. And I'm happy to know about it. So here is my hypothesis: Maybe this engine has something that separates air and fuel like a very effective swirl so if fuel atomization it's not the right (like a carburetor) the excess heat help the engine to perform a better combustion, so if I'm right putting a good carburetor instead of fuel injection could unlock some power.
Why wouldn’t you take advantage of the intercooler and give them a fair chance by being able to go up on timing with cooler air temperatures, that would be the whole point of intercoolers? 🧐
Awsome thanks for the video! Just picked up a water to air cooler like the one you used for 200 with a zr1 heat exchanger. I'm so happy to hear that I will be making safer hp than running non intercooler. Thanks for your hard work Richard.
You know damn well it has to do with ignition timing. Timing is needed to take advantage of the cooler charge. You know that basic rule, every 1 degree of cooler charge you can make 1/2 hp (ie drop 100* can pick up 50hp)...with the appropriate ignition timing...
Fuel injection as well, as the intake manifold temperature changes it’s going to change the fuel inrichment which will need to be fine tuned.
The 110 degree air might be a more aggressive tuned than 80 degrees On the air temperature correction map
there was no correction for temp-we didn't even use a IAT -just a probe from the dyno
Richard Holdener foot mouth...
If you calculate the air density, it comes out nearly exactly the same for the non-intercooled and the larger intercooler, which explains why it made basically the same power. As other people have commented, though, with a little more timing you could get more power out of the intercooled version.
Great testing and information. Would loved to have seen WMI included in the testing.
Banks has a dyno video. Meth adds fuel, water does nothing.
@@AndyFromm real world testing has seen gains from straight water injection dropping heat on blower aplications. There is also the well known decarbonation cleaning you can do with water on a running engine with similar results to seafoam so there are benefits.
Pressure drop 2 psi is at least 40hp. Then timing is optimized for the higher iat. If the same boost level is run you will see more power then non ic. Then timing optimized for the lower iat will make more power again.
I don't know but my call is, the blower displacement is sized for a 5 liter and compensating for the low displacement blower (in this application) by turning it faster is causing this, since the greater pressure of the hot non intercooled air is greater than the gain from cooler air and the attendant pressure drop.
In short there's no excess capacity in this blower in a 351 with this head and cam combination as the blower is too small.
That would be my guess - and it's only a guess.
I feel the same too. The CFM this blower has is just not quite enough for the engine and the intake system.
We have ran similar testing on Yamaha Waverunners which have crankcase mounted Centrifugal Superchargers from the factory.Running up to 30psi the Big Chinese/Ebay intercoolers always made more power than the smaller Vortech/garrett cores.The cheaper cores with less fin density always flow more CFM and with open fresh water cooling intake temps do not change much either way.The larger and cheaper the better IMO
Perfect ! Time to research those vids for 800 hp inter coolers
You said you did not adjust the timing. My hunch is the engine needed more spark timing to make power with cold air. It would have been useful to have an air flow turbine on the inlet to see how much air flow you picked up with the big intercooler.
6:52 Because fuel curve & timing was the SAME as N.A.
IF the timing & fuel had been optimized, the large intercooler would have made more horse power.
You were running a N.A. timing & fuel.
Need AIR temperature readings
1. Test cell temperature
2. Temp. Out the supercharger
3. Temp. in the intake manifold.
Another great non LS upload! Waiting, for the 3 engines, in the back of your truck!😀
Many of you are forgetting, it's a stock, junkyard bottom end. I didn't hear Rich say anything about changing pistons or even the ring gaps (maybe I missed something). It probably has cast or hypereutectic pistons and stock ring gaps. You can't push 'em TOO hard.
The pro of intercooler is cooler intake temp hence more timing and less fuel to control EGT generating more Hp. The con is obviously abrupt the air flow. The pro is much important than the con because the con could be easily compensated. Your experiment showed how much Hp loss due to this con, but did not utilized the pro.
That is probably the most intelligent comment I've seen on any subject lol
I'm sure they did all that. He just didn't mention it this time.
@@michaelangelo8001 Yes, this experiment showed how much affect the con had.
less fuel for more HP? that would be a neat trick-intercoolers don't add power from timing-its charge density-even at the same timing level (which was kept constant or this would be a timing test)-every other time I have added an intercooler-it made more power, even with no change in timing-that's why this was unusual
@@richardholdener1727 I mean if the IAT is high enough timing must be retarded in order to keep away knock, you know any ecu have that IAT compensate table, this is more often happens on high boost engines. Cooled gas after compressor cost less energy to compress for the same mass, so it should have more mass air flow so the engine would make a little more horsepower. One thing I would imagine is the velocity of the air was loss pass through intercooler this is not temperature or pressure related.
Simply put, less dynamic pressure loss combined with better atomization, and is subsequent cooing effect, homogeneity, and increased burn efficiency...
on the other hand, continue the comparison using a) water injection, or b) methanol injection, to see the effects of further cooling.
BTW, I really appreciate these videos.
You could have bumped up the timing and fuel to take advantage of the cooler charge temps of course even the slightest restriction is going to show a drop in power if you run the same timing and fuel. Until the charge temperature becomes a problem.
I have a 99 s351 saleen I'm working on and wanted to do a aftercooler just like this. Shows me that the aftercooler wont work and back to square one. Thanks for the R&D. Keep it coming
The distance the air travels and the turbulence created with the extra plumbing. With the charge coming off the supercharger directly in to the intake. There is a possible vortex effect happening. By adding the bends of the extra pipe, and the cores in the cooler to flow through that effect is lost. Same issues happen with a tail pipe turbo system. The speed and velocity of the boost charge decreases over distance traveled. The CFM rating drops. Best way to explain it is looking at your air compressor. It's duty cycle vs. cfm. Using a cut off wheel it starts off fast, but slows down while the compressor is running. Your cfm dropped while running the tool. If you don't have a proper compressor to run at a higher cfm rating then the tools duty cycle. You will run out of full power operation quickly. While the tool is still working and the compressor is maintaining a lower air pressure it still work, but not at its max potential.
Rich forgets to tell you that turbo lag is decreased with no intercooler and the turbos will come on sooner in the rpm range. On a supercharged app you have no lag pretty much at all and even with a cooler no lag. Some turbos take too long to spool up
The intercooler version had less power due to boost drop after the IC and since the supercharger sends a fixed amount of air, the restriction of the IC is not made up for like a turbo could with some boost controller tinkering.
But still is best to run the IC as it would be the more stable and more safe too run specially on a street car.
I think in realworld application i.e. in car the temps for non intercooler do to underhood temps and more load from accessory assembly and load generated from drivetrain and actual road force. And agree with you using intercooler regardless
Superchargers have a fix airflow/speed, turbos are tuned by pressure instead of speed.
Always awesome videos and tons to learn thanks man keep that sbf stuff coming..
An intercooler also adds air volume between the motor and supercharger, which need to be compressed and
causes a drop in boost
Every turn in the system adds restrictions, non intercooler was a straight shot, the intercooler had some 90 degree bends one looked more than 90. The cooler might flow well but the tight turns will kill the flow.
PSI of boost is almost a worthless number. Manifold air density is what matters to the road and the dyno.
More intercooler is always a good thing. (Unless it's a terrible intercooler lol)
I think and I not an expert by any means. The engine was happy enough with the boost timing and heat before intercooling so not much to be had after especially taking into account the loss of flow/boost.
What this looks like is an on the edge timing map for non intercooler vers a conservative timing map intercooled. I put money on it that if you add a degree or 3 above 4500 rpm the power would reflect gains. Also the non intercooler engine would have a failure rate much quicker then intercooled. If given testing back to back in a car on a 85^ day the non intercooler engine would be lazy and get worse as the miles are put in vers the intercooled
would love to see a graph of LBS/hr of fuel and LBS/hr of air along with the boost charts to get a better idea of what is happening. I only say this because of a video Gale banks made explaining that boost is just a measure of flow restriction rather than a measure of power potential based on how a higher flowing head with no other changes will register lower boost and usually more power as there is more room to move the air easily.
side note: on my post for the 292 yesterday i neglected to mention how much i would love to see a side by side comparison of the big 3 inline 6's (292, Jeep 4.0, Ford 300) as i know all three can make good power and brutal torque
I feel like if you don't adjust timing and fuel and run ice water through intercooler you won't have a gain especially on a supercharger setup because you're just adding a restriction and decreasing potential boost
But you are getting detonation resistance with a cooler charge. Just a layer of safety at bare minimum even if you don't see more hp.
I'm more familiar with aero engines than automotive engines but from what I've read boost=boost. Meaning, regardless of what temperature the charge air is, absolute pressure is what determines how much oxygen there will be in a cylinder. You very quickly reach a limit with either how much boost or how much timing you can give an engine before reaching the limitations of your fuel. Assuming your valve and ignition timing are static, too much boost will lead to premature or unstable combustion, however, reducing the charge temperature can delay these issues until higher manifold pressures. So reducing charge temperature shouldn't increase boost by itself, but it should allow you to run higher boost.
So like you were saying with a regulated source like a turbocharger, adding an intercooler between the compressor and bypass valve will result in the same boost and lower charge temperature. But with a supercharger where the impeller speed is fixed, I think you would need to adjust pully size to compensate for the added flow restriction to achieve a similar behavior to that of a turbo.
I been playing with WMI on my turbo car. Yesterday was 95f. I have a air air intercooler and right after the outlet is a snow performance WMI nozzle size 3. 50/50 mix was seeing charge temps of 73f.
That's really good.
@@donellmuniz590 I thought it was good as well. It's a noticable difference. It's nice getting timing advance on hot days. Before WMI i would usually see -5 or so.
You can run more timing with the intercooler. Also most run ice water through intercoolers. Although I know on engine dyno's 70 degree water is very common.
Right on
Optimum flash-point for the type of fuel. We found that the ideal temp for 98 octane is 60 degrees celcius.
Now try Non Intercooled with a carb set up....
I've seen Freiburger and Dulcich do that on engine masters. Using a blow-through carb cools the intake charge a LOT versus a port injection setup. Just that additional 6-8 inches the fuel travels with the air in the carb setup pulls so much heat out of it. It's amazing.
@@Shane-Singleton Very True we are using Enderele Mechanical injection on two 427 Tall decks with 8V71 Blowers and Methanol and the injection takes place BEFORE the SuperChargers...and when they are done running on a hot day the Blowers sweat (because they are physically COLD) like your cold beer without the cold sleeve! Its amazing how much the Fuel Atomization Cools the intake as you GO!
I've run lots of blow-through carb tests-it definitely cools the charge air
@@misters2837 especially methanol! But I've run a 2 inch aluminum carb spacer on gas engines, and seen THOSE sweat after a pass too!
I run a Vortech V3 on my V8 Audi S4. I have run it without an intercooler and then with an A2W intercooler both at 6.5-7 psi of boost pressure. The ECU would pull ignition timing from too much knock after most of a 1/4 mile dragstrip pass when running without an intercooler. With an intercooler I can keep the IATs down and not see any ignition timing pull. It seems like this 351 W isn't knock limited.
WE RAN GOOD GAS
@@richardholdener1727 that definitely helps to prevent knock. I would see better results on 104 octane vs 93 octane.
This video, like your meth injection vs intercooler shows how you are crippling your combos by not taking advantage of the cooling by increasing the timing. Personally, I blame the squirrels.
Yes, its half the point of the intercooler (to be able to add much more timing)
Obviously the cooler temp did not increase enough oxygen to overcome the restriction. On a turbo with much higher charge temp, probably would be an increase.
Would be interesting to see differential pressure fore and aft of heat exchanger.
Blow through carb cools the charge.
I like meth injection.
Now turn it up till it blows!
Mr. Pedantic checking in! Technically any charge air cooler that comes after your compressor(s) is an "aftercooler". It's technically only an intercooler if it's between two charge air devices (ie. between two turbochargers or between a turbo charger and a super charger
Modna89 The term ‘intercooler’ was widely penned in Saab’s ads in the ‘80s. Guess the term stuck.
Running the supercharger takes power. Back pressure in the output of the supercharger puts more load on it. So running no intercooler reduces the losses to run the supercharger. So you didn't make more power, you made the supercharger run more efficiently. Try running a big air to air and see what happens.
The piping losses might have really been high. Need to data log pressure out of supercharger and in manifold to determine the actual drop due to restrictions.
He doesn't need to do anything.. he knows the answer. He's not looking for losses.. he didn't LOSE anything. The boost isn't lost or restricted.. it's just hot air that's been cooled.
EGT? AFR? Timing? We repeatedly hear on this site how horsepower is complicated; if the tune was the same, the results will be vastly different between these three configurations. Bet that the big cooler was really lean and no cooler was almost too fat. Check out Gale Banks' claims on flow and density versus boost pressure. Good project, though. Looking forward to more.
AFR was 11.8 on both-timing was 30 degrees on both
@@richardholdener1727 Thanks for the reply, and for the more recent video on timing and A/FR. I still think this is an issue of flow and fuel density and not cooling and boost pressure. Can't instrument the past, but to figure out what is going on I would look at inlet and exhaust port temperatures with AFR and at least a separate O2 sensor on each header. Don't think that I don't like the site or your videos, though. Still looking forward to more.
Richard . I know this is beyond late , and may have been brought up, but what if you took the same set up and added ONLY methanol?
Finally, thank you. Intercoolers do not make more power. Cooling air after its been pumped by a compressor does not add more air, it restricts air. Intercoolers do not make more power; timing makes more power. When you take a knock limited setup and retard timing, then cool the air so its no longer knock limited and run full timing, of course it makes more power. Intercooling is a bandaid for inadequate fuel. An intercooler is a restriction in the intake tract that costs power if full timing can be run without the intercooler.
I disagree
@@richardholdener1727 do you have more test results where you didn't change anything (including timing) other than add an intercooler?
It's good to see the Edelbrock Power Package deliver as advertised. They claim 410 hp from their 351W kit, and you got a little bit more. And that's on a junkyard short block!
we made 459 hp with a carb on this
@@richardholdener1727 Wow! Why so much more than advertised? A different dyno protocol? Or did Edelbrock test theirs with EFI?
@@donellmuniz590 his numbers are always higher because no accessories turning, straight headers with no exhaust etc plus it has no driveline loss not sure if they were quoting crank hp or not.
The intercooler would have more of an advantage in the car with the hood closed at driving speeds. I understand the logic of the video but an engine in an open dyno room and the engine in the car with the hood closed is way 2 different scenarios
Could it be that the potential to run more timing with the properly sized intercooler was not taken advantage of, in addition to the restriction of the intercooler itself? Consider the following extremes:
1. An NA setup with and without an intercooler. I'm going to guess the Intercooled setup will always make slightly less power.
2. Running 91 AKI in an engine tuned to 87AKI. The potential for more power is there but not realised.
Id like to add a metric you haven't considered at all.
Pressure drop. If you want to see whats really going on with these IC setups you need to measure pressure drop in the charge pipes pre IC and manifold. I bet you 100$ that the boost PSI pre IC is much higher.
Adding an IC also increases restriction regardless of the size of the IC. the more pipe and bends you add to the system the more resistance to flow.
id also bet the people that design these inter coolers don't take pressure drop into account. Pressure neutral IC's are the only way to go. that means the PSI at the turbo/ supercharger is the same PSI at the TB.
Love your videos!
Richard knows exactly what's going on. He's just stimulating conversation.
Richard, does the inter cool company publish the design approach of cooler. Approach difference between entering water and leaving air. This tells you the efficiency of the heat exchanger and if the water flow throw exchanger is at design or airflow across exchanger is at design.
we actually measure pressure drop and temp drop on the core
I'm thinking that supercharger couldn't push more. It wasn't making more power because it wasn't efficiently putting air in. My bet is go to a bigger charger, intercooled would make more, even at the same boost because it won't heat the charge as much.
I think that nice intercooler is nice and can flow 120lbs/min but I bet your boost pressure/push was higher for the 1200hp runs. I think it was around 9-11psi for this one. If the air is twice as dense in the 1200 run it would make sense that this would flow halfish. No? Love the channel kinda wanna do something like this but smaller and pushing some less practical limits lol. Hope I got it. Thanks
I feel you limited the intercooler applications because you didnt adjust the tune at all between the tests. Isnt that the benefit of the intercooler? Cooler air so you can run more timing and less fuel. If you take that out its mostly an airflow restriction. Hmmm.
Not uncommon in the Mustang world to see 170,180,190,200f on these vortech blowers with boost and no intercooler. These are with real temps under hood heat. I run water meth to help bring it back down to 120-140f. When I’m worried about racing a splash of 100-110 unleaded removes my worry of knock.
Happen to remember by chance what blower that kit uses? V1-S? And what was the crank pulley size?
If fuel was the same and lowering inlet temps gave you more pounds of air per hour then you needed to add more fuel to see an increase in power. That assumes the cooler provided a denser air charge at the same air velocity. That and you may need to use an even smaller pulley. The turbo can not catch up to make up the pressure loss from the contracting air when cooled. As an exhaust driven turbo might. What was the AF ratio with and without coolers, were you leaner with the coolers?
Wrong direction with your hypothesis
We want merch! Tell me where I can buy "The Other Guys" shirt, and I will buy it. Great video, like usual!
Comment #2: Richard! Could you do some dry sump testing based on how much vacuum is being drawn in the crank case? Also - any idea how engines like NASCAR are able to handle upwards of 28 inHg, but if I did that on my car I would suck the oil straight out of the bearings?
Boost elves get stuck inside the intercooler core.... obviously
the worst kind of elf
Would love to see non intercooler E85 vs M1 fuel. Measure inlet temps and egt's at say 15-20 pounds of boost. Interested to see how E85 cools combustion vs M1. Methanol should be better, but how much better?
About 3xs the fuel so yeah pretty good on the intake end as for egts it's not much cooler. When we ran meth we saw 1450 happy on e85 we see 1450.. on long runs the meth gets closer to 1700 but we don't do landspeed. E gets to 1800ish on the same runs. So it's cooler but not by much but if your running enough boost and have enough spark you can keep it at 900 like in a blower motor and it lives happy. Can't do that as easy on e85.
Richard, was the link posted for the video, i did not see it. I really would like to see the mentioned video. Like to mention I currently have a 390W with a Vortech in a 86 Mustang while using the stock hood, and no holes cut into the hood either.
I would say it is probably because it mixes the gas better
It sounds to me that you didn't maximize the tune the changes (especially timing). The cooler air charge temps should have allowed more timing. Also it could have be overly lean/rich which would have killed power.
the cooler denser air slows down the flame front....
Which allows you to add more timing to make more power... which you didn't do at all...
So you didn't change timing to take advantage of the cooler denser air....
And you also had less boost overall...
You didnt do a proper and equal test
So even without any tuning changes.. it made the same power on less boost...
That means its making more power with the intercooler
I have only one question, what type of fuel were you using ?, I don't see volume problems what I believe is ( doesn't mean it is a right believe ) that K-energy in the fuel is important, but there is a limit to it before you start entering in to detonation, in the NO intercooled test you just had not reached the K-energy threshold for detonation there for it was the best charge at that amount of boost, you want the most energy in that mix before you reach the threshold of the mix and enter in detonation, heat is energy up to the point that you enter in detonation, if you had a Higher compression engine then you will see that the Intercooler will be beneficial because you already got to the threshold of the K-energy quicker, then you want to cool the charge to be able to avoid the detonation, as well if you added more boost then you will see that the NO intercooled application will reach the K-energy threshold and you are limited to timing, and there is where the aftercooler will be beneficial.
Changing a little the topic of cooled charge, do you have test comparisons of Carbureted supercharged engine NO intercooled vs EFI NO intercooled, to see how far can you run a carbureted engine before needing a aftercooler since the charge is cooled as it mix with the fuel and you have sort of J-Thompson effect going thru it, and how far you can run a EFI before you need a intercooler.
Speaking of inter coolers I’m looking in to building a air to water for a diesel truck could you make a video on sizing of inter coolers and any other info you might have. This is a hard topic to find on the internet as if it’s some kind of big secret.
Air temp drop means pressure drop (but at the same time increase of density). If this were a turbo, as you said, the power would be higher at the same pressure level. At the same time, you would be able to add timing with those lower inlet temps so the tuning wasn't done completely.
I'll just have to do the best I can with I've got. If I find that I need an intercooler I'll add that later.
less pressure in the plenum and the cfm loss from the air having to turn?
It’s restriction from the core of the intercooler. You’ll loose some pressure from cooling the air since it’s denser so takes less space. But, with that little one it’s just to restrictive so the core just won’t flow enough air.
Nobody in their right mind adds an intercooler, an effective intercooler, and doesn't increase the timing because of the lower intake temperature. Yes, his test is correct with what he is doing but what he didn't do was compare those tests with appropriate increases in timing. He would see a lot more HP by doing this.
we had enough octane to already run the timing
would have been interesting to see a super overkill intercooler to see if it can ever really be too big
Not unless you run into a spacial constraint in your car or truck. But of course large volume will increase turbo lag and driveability.
In a perfect world your intake charge would be ambient or below thanks to evaporative cooling from the fuel charge.
Great question! I didn’t see a picture of the actual piping to the throttle body from the blower and through the “good” intercooler. I suspect lots of turns and increased restriction compared to the very efficient-looking run non-intercooled. How ‘bout meth injection or throttle body (sniper) injection with E85 on a good single-plane? Compared to the good intercooler... Thanks for all the good info!
Factory 302 blocks are known to split in half at 600hp. Won't the 351W eventually do the same?
351W goes north of 1000 hp
What about charge temp tests on carb vs efi vs intercooler?
Maybe intercoolers aren't as important / effective at boost levels under 15psi, especially in short burst situations (drag racing). A cool test would be tesing for knock at different IAT levels, with different fuels, and different boost levels.
We ran test many years ago with pro charger vortec and turbo the vortec made the least amount power out of the three .same car same boost same gasoline. Vortec least efficient
my guess.. unlike turbos, superchargers dont heat the air as much .. 70 degree water is not much below atmosphere of the room, and with the volume of air moving through system, the air going into the engine is not much above atmosphere temp any ways.. the intercooler setups also massively increase the volume before the intake, and since superchargers have a fixed volume/psi vs rpm scaling you are losing boost efficiency, sacrificing any minor temp gains from the intercoolers.. would have been completely different for a turbo system.
Yeah that's not correct
@@superkillr such an informative response ...
How come the torque curve is so flat? I thought centrifugal charger setups yield a rising torque curve. I want a centrifugal setup that has a flat torque curve too! Please share your secret in how to obtain this torque curve! :)
a rising hp curve produces a flat torque curve (and vice versa)
@@richardholdener1727 From what I've seen most centrifugals go on the dyno, the torque curve keeps rising until almost redline and maybe peaks and drops a little, while the hp curve keeps rising forever.
"You know... the thing"
Mismatched parts and poor control of some variables combined with no apparent timing adjustments?
Now with a 4ft coldside pipe in front of the fan like rearmount guys that dont run intercoolers lol
Do you have more plumbing to pressurize with the intercooler in place so the boost rise was faster and the temperature did not catch up to the inefficiency
Back pressure and angles
Do you ever tested a difference in charge air temps using a injector on the pipe? Like those water methanol kits, or even a fuel injector.
The owner of procharger has a drag car that has two injectors dumping meth straight into the blower. Cool car
Technically its an aftercooler.
Intercoolering is between compressors on a compound set up.
Aftercooling aft means??? Its the last before the engine.
These terms come from World War II fighters, And I missed used by the car industry
with a turbocgarger system maybe the intercooler would be more diferencen than centrifugal superchargers
Turbos auto adjust boost. That's the great thing. So 10 psi non intercooled... and it will hold 10 psi intercooled. Now that's when you see a power increase for sure.