997.2 Intercoolers - Wow!
#471
06-28-2013 | 02:04 PM
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 27
From: austin
Rep Power: 23
i decided to to build a monster intercooler for my 993 using the gt2 rs cores. #30 degrees cooler than stock at the texas mile
http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforum...ler-build.html
http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforum...ler-build.html
#472
10-12-2013 | 09:20 AM
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 884
From: In my garage
Rep Power: 121
Here's my test of 997.2 ICs:
100-200 km/h 6.57 sec / 280m
100-300 km/h 24.51 sec / 1560 m
200-300 km/h 17.94 sec / 1280 m
100-315 km/h 29.12 sec / 1949 m
-GPS altitude at the start of the run 530 m, at 200 km/h 522 m and at 315 km/h 468 m.
-OAT +13C, dew point +12C, 1025 hPa. (OAT on instrument panel +15C)
-Aral 102 (RON) SuperPlus fuel
-Location: Autobahn A1 north of Nürburg, direction Köln
-While the IAT curve is similar to other full pulls, the delta T is slightly higher. I must redesign my IC intakes over the rear fenders.
100-200 km/h 6.57 sec / 280m
100-300 km/h 24.51 sec / 1560 m
200-300 km/h 17.94 sec / 1280 m
100-315 km/h 29.12 sec / 1949 m
-GPS altitude at the start of the run 530 m, at 200 km/h 522 m and at 315 km/h 468 m.
-OAT +13C, dew point +12C, 1025 hPa. (OAT on instrument panel +15C)
-Aral 102 (RON) SuperPlus fuel
-Location: Autobahn A1 north of Nürburg, direction Köln
-While the IAT curve is similar to other full pulls, the delta T is slightly higher. I must redesign my IC intakes over the rear fenders.
Last edited by pete95zhn; 10-12-2013 at 05:30 PM.
#473
06-05-2014 | 09:54 AM
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 90
From: oregon
Rep Power: 16
Upper duct done, now on to the lower:
Edit: Step 21.5, you'll need to trim a small piece on the area where you put the stock weather stripping back on (the rubber that goes against the bumper) so it will guide on to the upper portion. I've circled it in red -it'll make sense when you're trying to get the stripping back on.
Edit: Step 21.5, you'll need to trim a small piece on the area where you put the stock weather stripping back on (the rubber that goes against the bumper) so it will guide on to the upper portion. I've circled it in red -it'll make sense when you're trying to get the stripping back on.
I know there is no step 5, but does anyone have the pictures/steps for the missing steps (8, 9, 12, 17)?
Any help would be great.
Thanks
#474
06-12-2014 | 08:05 PM
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 63
From: Chicago
Rep Power: 13
Word! I'm new to 996, but why anyone would buy a mod without relevant before and after data including power curves vs rpm and relevant pressures and temperatures across the rpm curve is beyond me. Data is so much easier to collect than a decade or two ago.
#475
05-11-2015 | 12:36 PM
Banned
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 0
Rep Power: 0
Gents,
I saw that member pete95zhn has been putting the heat to a relatively quick epoxy-based (Araldite 2011) solution for the end tank separation issues that some have had. Judging from his post, it's been to the road course and the writeup is posted on renntrack -no guarantees/use at your own risk of course as it may void any existing parts warranty if you bought them new. Hopefully he'll post it up here. One thing to check for if you're "in there": the crimps from the factory crimping machine are not always fully flat against the end tank so inspect the tabs around each tank and if they're not all the way flat with the tank, crimp each tab individually and make a good flat contact on the tank (I've used channel lock pliers wrapped with a rag -don't over-do it on crimping pressure though).
Recently I've heard some odd comments about the "plastic" end tanks causing more heat soak. Some truth: The end tanks are made from PA66-GF30 polymer with a coefficient of thermal conductivity 477 times less than that of aluminum. With the inlet tank about 6 inches from a 1000+ degree turbine housing, this is a good thing for minimizing convective heat transfer from the turbine housing to the inlet tank and ultimately into the core. In other words, those horrible plastic end tanks actually help keep the heat where it should be so that the ambient air can convect heat away. I attribute this as one of the reasons the .2's recovered quicker than my ETS coolers (and why they are significantly lighter). The disadvantage to polymer tanks is the way they are attached from the factory, which in some cases, has led to separation of the inlet tank (or the gasket getting pushed out). Hopefully that's a thing of the past now if you're willing to do a little DIY.
This will probably be my last post on the subject, but am always happy to try and answer questions. Hard to believe it's been over 2 1/2 years since this thread started. Thanks for the support & sharing of info, even from the naysayers who added some valuable spice to the discussion. Even at ~$1360 from Porsche new, I think they're still a steal
Keep the shiny side up!
I saw that member pete95zhn has been putting the heat to a relatively quick epoxy-based (Araldite 2011) solution for the end tank separation issues that some have had. Judging from his post, it's been to the road course and the writeup is posted on renntrack -no guarantees/use at your own risk of course as it may void any existing parts warranty if you bought them new. Hopefully he'll post it up here. One thing to check for if you're "in there": the crimps from the factory crimping machine are not always fully flat against the end tank so inspect the tabs around each tank and if they're not all the way flat with the tank, crimp each tab individually and make a good flat contact on the tank (I've used channel lock pliers wrapped with a rag -don't over-do it on crimping pressure though).
Recently I've heard some odd comments about the "plastic" end tanks causing more heat soak. Some truth: The end tanks are made from PA66-GF30 polymer with a coefficient of thermal conductivity 477 times less than that of aluminum. With the inlet tank about 6 inches from a 1000+ degree turbine housing, this is a good thing for minimizing convective heat transfer from the turbine housing to the inlet tank and ultimately into the core. In other words, those horrible plastic end tanks actually help keep the heat where it should be so that the ambient air can convect heat away. I attribute this as one of the reasons the .2's recovered quicker than my ETS coolers (and why they are significantly lighter). The disadvantage to polymer tanks is the way they are attached from the factory, which in some cases, has led to separation of the inlet tank (or the gasket getting pushed out). Hopefully that's a thing of the past now if you're willing to do a little DIY.
This will probably be my last post on the subject, but am always happy to try and answer questions. Hard to believe it's been over 2 1/2 years since this thread started. Thanks for the support & sharing of info, even from the naysayers who added some valuable spice to the discussion. Even at ~$1360 from Porsche new, I think they're still a steal
Keep the shiny side up!
amazing data - I think the 2rs coolers are the ones for me
#476
11-30-2015 | 07:55 AM
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 57
From: Bristol, TN
Rep Power: 12
These are now $650 a piece on sonnen. Does anyone know where to get them cheaper?
for $1300 a set plus the work that needs to be done I would probably spend a few more bucks and get some markskis or awe setup.
for $1300 a set plus the work that needs to be done I would probably spend a few more bucks and get some markskis or awe setup.
#477
11-30-2015 | 03:57 PM
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,950
From: Virginia
Rep Power: 574
(cough) SRM (cough)
#478
12-01-2015 | 11:04 AM
SRM look great as well.. I like them... he did a great job...
I do not want to start drama but Im tempted to post a full log of a car I was tuning remotely with the gt2rs ICs... intake temps went up to 60 deg C in 4th gear... I had to double chekc if they really were Rs ICs...
just saying,
markski
I do not want to start drama but Im tempted to post a full log of a car I was tuning remotely with the gt2rs ICs... intake temps went up to 60 deg C in 4th gear... I had to double chekc if they really were Rs ICs...
just saying,
markski
__________________
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
#479
12-01-2015 | 12:59 PM
Please post the logs!
I started to post in this thread but the post became to long. I spent several days bedtime reading going through this thread and all the linked threads as well as the thread by TB993tt on RL with all the threads associated to that thread.
Based on that and previous reading/research, I drew a number of conclusions:
- aside from hyper expensive ICs based on cores by Marston or Secan, the GT2RS ICs offer the best efficiency for up to roughly 600-650hp. This is based on mainly on earl3's testing running different ICs parallel to the GT2RS ICs. What surprised me was that they even flow better than most other ICs - as I had read somewhere that bar and plate cores generally flow better than tube and fin.
- very large, all aluminum ICs have additional thermal capacity, so for a quick run (1/4 mile) they can actually provide better performance than the smaller, more efficient GT2RS ICs or possibly even than very efficient ICs such as the hyper expensive Secan or Marston cores. This can also hold true for longer stretches such as the standing mile where you have a a quick run up to speed and then extremely high flows of cooling air; the ICs first act as a heat sink then later get so much cooling air that they do not have to be extremely efficient.
- earl also tested aftermarket ICs against the GT2RS ICs that showed the heat-sink properties of the heavier aluminum ICs. Yes, the GT2RS ICs lagged behind, but they recovered quickly. And, what no one as yet seems to have tested is what happens after 10 laps on a lower-speed road course where cooling air flow is limited and thermal efficiency is the primary item.
I have a difficult time imagining that, in the above scenario with limited cooling air, your ICs would out-perform the GT2 RS ICs. This is just a conclusion I have drawn from all the reading and research - so I could be wrong. But then there is the issue of weight. And the weight is located almost at the worst possible spot on a 996/7tt.
I would love to see this tested, though.
I do not think you can define one "best" IC. Everything in engineering is a compromise, and Porsche compromises less than other manufacturers on performance related criteria, so modifications are not so easy to make (paraphrased from Bruce Anderson's "The 911 Performance Handbook"). Any modification made to a 6tt will push the compromises Porsche made in a different direction. Your ICs may well be better for straight line racing. After all I have researched, I have a difficult time imagining I will be faster around a track with your ICs (or other large, all aluminum ICs) than with the GT2RS ICs. And I am no where nearly far enough down the slippery slope to blow a figure sum on the hyper ICs.
Pleas DO post the logs you have. And please post the weight of your ICs. It all helps to complete the picture.
Drama is not posting real info and leaving people to argue on speculation.
I started to post in this thread but the post became to long. I spent several days bedtime reading going through this thread and all the linked threads as well as the thread by TB993tt on RL with all the threads associated to that thread.
Based on that and previous reading/research, I drew a number of conclusions:
- aside from hyper expensive ICs based on cores by Marston or Secan, the GT2RS ICs offer the best efficiency for up to roughly 600-650hp. This is based on mainly on earl3's testing running different ICs parallel to the GT2RS ICs. What surprised me was that they even flow better than most other ICs - as I had read somewhere that bar and plate cores generally flow better than tube and fin.
- very large, all aluminum ICs have additional thermal capacity, so for a quick run (1/4 mile) they can actually provide better performance than the smaller, more efficient GT2RS ICs or possibly even than very efficient ICs such as the hyper expensive Secan or Marston cores. This can also hold true for longer stretches such as the standing mile where you have a a quick run up to speed and then extremely high flows of cooling air; the ICs first act as a heat sink then later get so much cooling air that they do not have to be extremely efficient.
- earl also tested aftermarket ICs against the GT2RS ICs that showed the heat-sink properties of the heavier aluminum ICs. Yes, the GT2RS ICs lagged behind, but they recovered quickly. And, what no one as yet seems to have tested is what happens after 10 laps on a lower-speed road course where cooling air flow is limited and thermal efficiency is the primary item.
I have a difficult time imagining that, in the above scenario with limited cooling air, your ICs would out-perform the GT2 RS ICs. This is just a conclusion I have drawn from all the reading and research - so I could be wrong. But then there is the issue of weight. And the weight is located almost at the worst possible spot on a 996/7tt.
I would love to see this tested, though.
I do not think you can define one "best" IC. Everything in engineering is a compromise, and Porsche compromises less than other manufacturers on performance related criteria, so modifications are not so easy to make (paraphrased from Bruce Anderson's "The 911 Performance Handbook"). Any modification made to a 6tt will push the compromises Porsche made in a different direction. Your ICs may well be better for straight line racing. After all I have researched, I have a difficult time imagining I will be faster around a track with your ICs (or other large, all aluminum ICs) than with the GT2RS ICs. And I am no where nearly far enough down the slippery slope to blow a figure sum on the hyper ICs.
Pleas DO post the logs you have. And please post the weight of your ICs. It all helps to complete the picture.
Drama is not posting real info and leaving people to argue on speculation.
Last edited by stevemfr; 12-01-2015 at 01:03 PM.
#480
12-01-2015 | 02:16 PM
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,848
Rep Power: 456
Please post the logs!
I started to post in this thread but the post became to long. I spent several days bedtime reading going through this thread and all the linked threads as well as the thread by TB993tt on RL with all the threads associated to that thread.
Based on that and previous reading/research, I drew a number of conclusions:
- aside from hyper expensive ICs based on cores by Marston or Secan, the GT2RS ICs offer the best efficiency for up to roughly 600-650hp. This is based on mainly on earl3's testing running different ICs parallel to the GT2RS ICs. What surprised me was that they even flow better than most other ICs - as I had read somewhere that bar and plate cores generally flow better than tube and fin.
- very large, all aluminum ICs have additional thermal capacity, so for a quick run (1/4 mile) they can actually provide better performance than the smaller, more efficient GT2RS ICs or possibly even than very efficient ICs such as the hyper expensive Secan or Marston cores. This can also hold true for longer stretches such as the standing mile where you have a a quick run up to speed and then extremely high flows of cooling air; the ICs first act as a heat sink then later get so much cooling air that they do not have to be extremely efficient.
- earl also tested aftermarket ICs against the GT2RS ICs that showed the heat-sink properties of the heavier aluminum ICs. Yes, the GT2RS ICs lagged behind, but they recovered quickly. And, what no one as yet seems to have tested is what happens after 10 laps on a lower-speed road course where cooling air flow is limited and thermal efficiency is the primary item.
I have a difficult time imagining that, in the above scenario with limited cooling air, your ICs would out-perform the GT2 RS ICs. This is just a conclusion I have drawn from all the reading and research - so I could be wrong. But then there is the issue of weight. And the weight is located almost at the worst possible spot on a 996/7tt.
I would love to see this tested, though.
I do not think you can define one "best" IC. Everything in engineering is a compromise, and Porsche compromises less than other manufacturers on performance related criteria, so modifications are not so easy to make (paraphrased from Bruce Anderson's "The 911 Performance Handbook"). Any modification made to a 6tt will push the compromises Porsche made in a different direction. Your ICs may well be better for straight line racing. After all I have researched, I have a difficult time imagining I will be faster around a track with your ICs (or other large, all aluminum ICs) than with the GT2RS ICs. And I am no where nearly far enough down the slippery slope to blow a figure sum on the hyper ICs.
Pleas DO post the logs you have. And please post the weight of your ICs. It all helps to complete the picture.
Drama is not posting real info and leaving people to argue on speculation.
I started to post in this thread but the post became to long. I spent several days bedtime reading going through this thread and all the linked threads as well as the thread by TB993tt on RL with all the threads associated to that thread.
Based on that and previous reading/research, I drew a number of conclusions:
- aside from hyper expensive ICs based on cores by Marston or Secan, the GT2RS ICs offer the best efficiency for up to roughly 600-650hp. This is based on mainly on earl3's testing running different ICs parallel to the GT2RS ICs. What surprised me was that they even flow better than most other ICs - as I had read somewhere that bar and plate cores generally flow better than tube and fin.
- very large, all aluminum ICs have additional thermal capacity, so for a quick run (1/4 mile) they can actually provide better performance than the smaller, more efficient GT2RS ICs or possibly even than very efficient ICs such as the hyper expensive Secan or Marston cores. This can also hold true for longer stretches such as the standing mile where you have a a quick run up to speed and then extremely high flows of cooling air; the ICs first act as a heat sink then later get so much cooling air that they do not have to be extremely efficient.
- earl also tested aftermarket ICs against the GT2RS ICs that showed the heat-sink properties of the heavier aluminum ICs. Yes, the GT2RS ICs lagged behind, but they recovered quickly. And, what no one as yet seems to have tested is what happens after 10 laps on a lower-speed road course where cooling air flow is limited and thermal efficiency is the primary item.
I have a difficult time imagining that, in the above scenario with limited cooling air, your ICs would out-perform the GT2 RS ICs. This is just a conclusion I have drawn from all the reading and research - so I could be wrong. But then there is the issue of weight. And the weight is located almost at the worst possible spot on a 996/7tt.
I would love to see this tested, though.
I do not think you can define one "best" IC. Everything in engineering is a compromise, and Porsche compromises less than other manufacturers on performance related criteria, so modifications are not so easy to make (paraphrased from Bruce Anderson's "The 911 Performance Handbook"). Any modification made to a 6tt will push the compromises Porsche made in a different direction. Your ICs may well be better for straight line racing. After all I have researched, I have a difficult time imagining I will be faster around a track with your ICs (or other large, all aluminum ICs) than with the GT2RS ICs. And I am no where nearly far enough down the slippery slope to blow a figure sum on the hyper ICs.
Pleas DO post the logs you have. And please post the weight of your ICs. It all helps to complete the picture.
Drama is not posting real info and leaving people to argue on speculation.
Last edited by pwdrhound; 12-01-2015 at 02:34 PM.