Duct mod write up:

Standard disclaimer -I assume no responsibility if you screw up your car, what worked for me may not work for you. These duct mods are non-reversable.

The write up is for getting the factory passenger side 996tt ducts on a passenger side 997.2 intercooler. The driver's side is the same process, but it’s a mirror image type thing. Having the intercooler in front of you while you’re doing this will help you understand the steps! Read all the steps through first while looking at your intercooler & visualize what each one is doing. If you have questions or something doesn’t make sense, just ask. This is one way to do it, other’s may see a better way.

Stuff you'll need:

-Dremel tool with a cutoff wheel & 120 grit sanding wheel
-Drill with 1/8" bit
-Rivet gun (I used an Arrow RH-200 that’s like $15 at Lowe's)
-1/8" short rivets (I used Arrow RSS 1/8IP) –note, you could get by with zip ties here, but rivets seemed like a more robust option
-6"x18" 0.025" thickness Aluminum sheet metal (I used Steelworks Hillman #11232 from Lowe's)
-RTV sealant (gray or black preferred)
-Rubber Weather stripping (I used 2 packs of MD 01033 from Lowe's -you could use the RTV here in a pinch)
-Zip ties (I used GB 14" plastic cable ties from Lowe's)

I've assumed that as this point you've gotten the bumper removed, intercoolers off of the car and out of their frames (see Renntech.org spark plug DIY writeup for info here). Go ahead and release the metal duct straps & remove the ducts from your stock ICs. Give the ducts a GOOD cleaning.

Here we go:









Note: There is no Step 5, oops.

 

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.

 

Once again excellent write up...I would like to mention that plastic can store much less heat compared to aluminium...So the main disadvantage of plastic end tanks (till now) was their stricted design...but these ICs have excellent design end tanks and so they are way better than aluminium...On the other hand they should pressure tested to verify perfect sealing...

 

Earl tested pressure at 30 PSI he said sooner.

 

awesome!

 

two fallacies here. First I don't think there is anyway you can prove that containing the heat to the core is better than aiding the core in dissipating heat by giving it more conductive cooling through the end tanks by making them aluminum. This has not been shown anywhere and is counter to heat transfer. The area where the end tanks are is a lower heat area than the air flowing through the tanks. This will cause conductive heat transfer away from the flowing air. Really, the difference is probably not worth mentioning in either case but if you have testing to the contrary I'd like to see it as that absolutely makes no sense unless you can show that the air outside the end tanks is hotter than the air flowing inside the end tanks.

The other fallacy is that plastic end tank manufacture is cost prohibitive. Plastic is cheap and easy to make. Injection molding machines can make millions of these in less time that it takes to make marginal number of aluminum end tanks. I have been involved in the plastics industry in the past, so I know enough about injection molding. That is why plastic end tanks are installed on all cheap factory IC's.

Another advantage to aluminum is that it is more durable. way more durable.

The main advantage to aluminum is it's ability to withstand higher heat and much higher pressure over time without degradation. They are welded on not clipped on.

Funny how porsche has had problems with plastic cooling lines in cayenne's that they switched over to aluminum, since the plastic ones were cracking due to hardening with age.

don't get me wrong, I think these are a good deal but there are reasons why all the expensive IC's have aluminum end tanks and it is not cost.

these are a great deal and I thank earl for going through the trouble of all this testing.

 

Having read the thread it seems from the good testing done, that these do have a benefit over the std ones.
However I believe that you can only really see the true efficiency when running under full load. As there seems to be a need for more tuners to realise information, I don't think there is anything wrong in me publishing the testing that I have done on my ICs. They are 5 inch protomotive, or effectively the same that you can get from Markski.
I can see from the testing that has been done in this thread, that there is a drop in IATs, but to be fair, this is not loading the car. At 130mph you cannot judge. I have see other manufacturers (aftermarket) which fair just as well when compared to the new ICs.

So let me show you what really happens when you load a car and run on high boost - 1.6 bar. I ran for 16 miles, with a two mile straight included, and ran up to 207mph. At the finish of each straight, I kept the car between 60mph and 150mph where conditions allowed. The AT was 12c on the day. When I started the 4 laps, I had the car sitting for a while so the IATs were around 25c to start with.

Now look at the IATs under full load on the attached chart, see the recovery time etc.

These work. Look how long I was at 1.6bar on boost. That's around 800hp.

In summary, if you are going bigger, then Proto/911 Tuning or others will work. If you are doing basic stuff then I am sure these new ICs will be an improvement.

Just my opinion, but at least you have some proper data for the big stuff.

 

Earl, I wonder if you could comment on this. I pulled this pic off of CMS's youtube ad for their new ICs. To test pressure efficiency, they ran the various ICs through a 2psi bench and measured CFM.

 

Given the density of the core, it doesn't surprise me. You're trading some pressure drop for better temp control. They key is to have a good balance. Overly restricted flow will manifest in the form of increased charge temps (compressors must do more work) & a later boost threshold, which, at least at my level, is a long way from happening. We'll see how they do at the 550-600hp level when I get the 16g's & injectors on.

What's very interesting, and cjv alluded to it earlier, is how well the stock 997.1 with its "crappy" end tanks and 1 7/8" inlet/outlets flows compared to a 3.5" Bell core with revised end tanks and bigger inlet/outlets. Virtually no difference, though the Bell option is probably keeping lower temps.

 

subscribed! Earl tks for your great work!

 

Hi everyone, I'm following this very interesting thread since some time too and I'm really thinking about getting 2 of those nice coolers.

But in regard of the data acquisition and comparison, doing it on the same car by changing just one intercooler and than measuring, it could be that the data collected can not be compared.
The reason why I say it, is that we do not know or measure the pressure drop of the intercoolers and that the ME7 system can only request one boost pressure and controls both turbochargers with the same PWM value. Therefore if one intercooler has a higher pressure drop, the other side (with less drop) will have to work more to equalize the request...
So one turbocharger will have higher compressor out temperatures than the other.

just my 2 cent..

Regards

 

not hard for me to check compressor outlet temps

 

earl...go ahead and check them...you just need to relocate the sensors...

 

Earl, thanks for taking the time and nice job. Enjoy your car safely.

 

Nice giants Mark. Thats some nest level s__t. Good luck smashing that time!