John, I had the track to myself, so the runs were continuous, and it was 95 ish that day

 

Ahh, gotcha. That makes sense then so effectively your cool down between runs was only 3 or 4 minutes or however long it takes to finish a run, drive the car back to the start area, line up and wait for the lights to drop again. Gotta go check it out sometimes....

 

not even that much time, maybe a minute and I was running for about 2 hours. I was the only car running for about 2 hours. It was my show

 

I bet the clutch took a licking!

 

yup. got a new one after that.

 

Concerning that Top gear video...it isn't hardly a scientific truth, not even a word of god. There is no engine that gives out it's max power at +40C OAT, not even a jet engine.
The question in IC effiency is what's the deltaT of Tmanifold-Tintake and how long it can keep it there. One needs two temp probes for that, one measuring the T of air going in to turbos (Tintake) and other the T after ICs (Tmanifold). Third measuring the T before IC is nice-to-know. It tells things about turbo's and IC's effiency but isn't IMO necessary for the big picture, complete system effiency.
Air filter location has a big effect to Tmanif. Example: OAT +28C / IAT +30C when starting, +56C after 15 minutes of track driving. Why? Because of air filters inside the engine bay, uncontained. Tintake was +51C... deltaT was 2C whan starting, 5C after 15 minutes. Without knowing this someone could have said that ICs are inefficient.

 

Well said.

The GT2RS video is entertaining but isn't really telling us anything useful, other than a subjective "this car performs better in 60 degree air, vs. 160 degree air" - uh, well, no kidding. It's not like datalogging.

Plus, if the GT2RS could've swapped to aftermarket 3.5" ICs at the original event, where the surface temp was 160* - who knows, maybe it would've performed even worse. We just don't know... since there was no comparison made or A/B/X testing done.

 

I fail to understand how people think that 160 degrees is ambient. That is the heat off the tarmac. On a hot 95-105 degree day you can hit 130-150 easily. How a car handles that heat is relevant. Maybe not scientific, still worth noting.

As for the testing earl did, Earl would you happen to have the complete datalog of the test. Did you datalog? Also, do you have the atmospheric conditions during that test, and how far apart those tests were done for both IC's?

 

I did various tests on our 3.5s and 4.5s for years now... Heck I was the first one to do a 4.5 on my own car and do 1000whp 6 years ago... with that said, I can make ICs look better or worse dependent on how I heat them up( even by accident lol) prior to the run.. thus hotter temps outside... or slight heartsoak at idle ( will increase lets say 6 degree C) and directly alter the intake temp at the end of the run.... thus , I really beg to differ on all these tests guys do on different set ups, different temps, humidity,and mind you months apart... this goes for all IC testing not just this particular situation.... I try to do it within 2 hours apart... same car same conditions.... nothing else changing...
WIth that said, I do think that gt2rs are a great improvement over oem and run well with bar n plate 3.5s at 1.2 bar on entry level set ups...

 

Well put.

 

Here are some data logs from champions IC's on a 750hp 997.1 car I think. Not the perfect comparison since cars are different and conditions are different. However, it would be interesting to see the GT2RS coolers in a car of this power level to see what the flow restriction does during a data log of runs.
The jpgs are sequential

 

Does anyone else here notice that the IAT's for the above cannot possibly be correct for the champion IC's test?

ambient temp was 27 degrees and max IAT was 33 degrees.

I know that the measurement of IAT was probably from maf sensor via durametric or something similar, but this does not make sense?



Also, on the graph below, I noticed that there is a huge difference between starting IAT's. 11C versus 19C much larger differential than the quoted ambient temps of 9C and 12C. This test does not appropriately show apples to apples, unfortunately.

Also, this IAT had to have been measured at maf as well. Earl(or anyone else), did you ever compare the IAT to your measured temps out of the IC's. Just wondering how much a difference there is pos or negative in the readings between IAT at maf and measured temp at IC exit?




For anyone to answer this if they can from below quote. GT-TT indicates that for VTG's .2 IC's may be better while for non VTG's the other IC's may be better. Is this because of the quicker build up of heat in VTG's early on due to faster spool up?

 

The temp sensor is co-located with boost sensor at Y-pipe, not at MAF. That'll explain the most of temp discrepancy. Like AM IC's 7C above ambient starting temp vs. 997.2's 3C. Ie it's crap from beginning...
Mine reads consistent 1-3C above ambient at cruise.

 

I did pull after pull in 97 dg heat w/ high humidity and my IATs did not budge, so no, heat soak is not an eventuality.

 

Like pete implied, these particular aftermarket coolers just built and retained more heat during normal driving around. Not much else to do except douse them with water or CO2 before the run. This is why I like to compare thermal performance based on temps over ambient in similar ambient conditions. In this case, it was the same stretch of road, gas, weight etc. About as apples to apples as you're going to get on a back to back test on the road.

The temps at the temp sensor on the y-pipe where within a degree of the thermocouples.