Dr Jitsu hows the proto compared to TPC intercooler.,design n pricewise?your input is appreciated.

 

Are you making the comparison that you are the Peyton Manning of Porsche "how to go fast knowledge"? The analogy decodes as "I can't change my own oil, but I can tell ya how to change yours"....lololol

 

I don't know anything about the TPCs. I got a good deal on my Protos.

Markskis' (911 tuning) ICs are almost identical to Protomotives'.

 

Well, I placed 3rd overall at the Supra nats one year and won the 60-130 2 years in a row. I have ton of roll on kills and beaten a guy that I think is probably one of the best street racers in the country.

The only reason I don't go out for the night action at the Supra Nats anymore is simply that at 780-790 rwhp I just can't hang w/ the 1400 hp Lambos and 1250 hp GTRs.

I think if I had one of those cars that yes, I could hang w/ the big dogs. I am certainly not the best, but I am certainly better than any of the guys posting on this thread.

 

Bad107 is not talking about core thickness but tube diameter. Core thickness only helps cool air while increasing pressure drop, there is a happy medium to be discovered here. If turbo out diameter is only 2 inches, there is no reason to go any bigger than that anywhere else downstream. Smoother straighter tubing is beneficial over the stock stuff for sure. The shorter, smoother, and more uniform you can make the system the better but the 3" pipes and stuff is all hype. YOU CANNOT FLOW MORE THAN YOUR TUBO OUTLET!! I dont care if u put 10" pipes on!! Having 2.5-3" piping downstream from there only detrimentally slows velocity while keeping volume relatively the same.

 

Lets put the thicker is better argument to bed (or at least stir the conventional thought pot a bit). They work OK as heat sinks for ultimate flow and are worlds better than stock, but as heat exchangers, they lag the thinner, more dense (and generally more expensive) cores in IAT control. There is a reason motorsport teams with emphasis on endurance and 6 figures into heat exchanger R&D keep returning to a ~3.5" core.

Here's the popular 5" cooler on an "800hp" GT30 car vs a very dense, but expensive 3.5" cooler on a 660hp VTG car (read: lots of heat), both cars running 1.5-1.6 bar of boost, both to 300kph and both within 1C ambient. The 660hp car gets there a touch (0.5s) quicker but the real takeaway is in the IATs as the thinner core peaks and then actually starts cooling down as speed increases.

5"



3.5"



Absolutely! and this entire argument dies quickly when we get into the merits of chemical intercooling (aka water/meth injection). A well setup $500 kit can clobber $20,000 ICs -if you've got a big enough tank. Also, so much depends on how the car will be used -road racing and mile type events with sustained loading come to mind for this discussion.

Yeah hopefully we can stick more to a technical discussion.

On another note, someone just DIY welded 2 997.2 cores together with endtanks on a 993 Turbo and, so far, has seen Secan-like results of ~20C over ambient (its on R-list). We'll see how they do in warmer temps.

 

Damnit man! Just because your car is fast doesn't mean you know why! That's all me and bad have ever tried to get in your head. Anybody can spend $25k and step on the gas!

Just because manning can throw a ball that doesn't mean he understands newtons laws of motion. That's the analogy you were looking for. Everybody knows how a football is made.

 

Okay I give up. I just showed independent data done in the same conditions on the same road on the same fuel on the same car with the only difference being Brand "E" ICs replaced with 997.2 coolers. The latter clobbering Brand "E" in both IATs and elapsed time under sustained loading on a 650rwhp+ car (60-130 in the 5s) all the way up to 200mph.

Am I missing something here folks?

 

I understand what you are saying (thicker is not, simply by being thicker, better) but I just have not seen that in the real world. I am going by what I have seen. Yes, poorly designed thick ICs are probably not better than thinner well designed ICs.

Having said that, the ICs I have seen from Switzer, Protomotive, and Marksi (which are identical to Protos) have outperformed everything else.

I beleive that someone a while back even compared the Secans (I think CJV knows about this comparo) and the Secans were not as good at cooling for big turbo applications.

And of course a 660 hp car (and that is probably flywheel) is going to run cooler than an 800 whp car. What "popular IC" were they using, anyway?

 

Did you miss the bit about the 660hp car accelerating harder than the "800"hp car? That claimed power vanishes quick when IATs start tickling 50C. I can guarantee you that VTGs at 1.55 bar run hotter than GT30s at 1.55 bar.

Lets call it Brand "P". I'm not talking about bang for the buck here, these 3.5"ers run more than 10k USD and they should do better -its just an example that thickness needs to be optimized, not maximized -at least in terms of cooling.

 

Here is the thread I was referencing. Note that my car was below 45 c for pull after pull after pull in high heat and humidity.

https://www.6speedonline.com/forums/...r-cores-4.html

 

Sorry, but if you are trying to convince me that a 660 hp car is out accelerating an 800 hp car then we live in different universes. My car accelerates as well on the 10 pull as she does on the first.

Like I said, I am happy to line my car up against this 660 hp car. I have had enough bench racing, if you want to run me in the real world, let me know. Everything else is BS.

 

Nice discussion. As an intercooler core gets thicker its effectiveness as an intercooler decreases. This is because as the air moving thru the core is heated the differential heat is less so the last inch of a 5" core does a lot less heat "exchanging" than the first inch. The other thing to consider is the mass of the intercooler. A intercooler with more mass takes longer to heat up (or cool down). For a short blast a big intercooler packed with dry ice would be great, no air flow is needed because the cold mass of the intercooler keeps the air cool. Eventually this intercooler would heat soak once the dry ice was evaporated. Because of this a intercooler that rocks on the dyno might suck on the track. There is also flow to consider. As you start increasing HP the flow become important. A intercooler that can give of tons of heat does little good if it is chocking the engine for air. On the track you need a intercooler that is the best at transferring heat on both sides. A thicker core may not have the airflow needed to effectively remove heat at the track. If the fin density is the same then a thicker core is more restrictive to the outside air passing over the cooler as the frontal area is the same but the air has more fins to get past. High HP for short blast and a large mass with good flow is best. For a stock turbo pushed past its efficiency point on the track a “efficient” core to get rid of heat is needed but flow is not as important. In the end the "best" intercooler depends on your needs.

p.s.
I never plan to run larger than K16 turbos and live at 5000+ ft in thin air. Heat exchange efficiency was my goal because turbos heat the air more at altitude and intercoolers don’t work as well. I have 997.2 intercoolers.

john

 

My internet ***** size 8==================D

My real ***** size 8===D


I always wonder why the tuners and sponsors of these boards never really have much to say when it comes to technical discussions. You know the ones with dynos and experience with numerous cars not just one or two.

 

Ok, here we have one gentleman who has done no testing (or doesn't have the data anymore) yet claims his expensive 5" ICs are superior to the 997.2 ICs that he has never had in his hands. Sounds like someone trying to justify an expensive purchase. On the other hand, we have another gentleman that has done rear world testing with REAL data to back up the tests of the 997.2 ICs. Seems like a no brainer to me..... Show me the numbers. Fluid dynamics is a very complicated topic and bigger is not necessarily better especially when you start talking about area rule, vortex generators, compressibility, etc.. My guess would be that Porsche probably has access and funds to much better R/D to test the effects of the above elements than any of the tuners here.... Finally, why don't the manufacturer of the EVOMS IC or some of the other popular large ones just send a set to Earl and have him do a direct comparison test. I am sure Earl would return them after the test. They probably won't since they might be surprised at what they find out...... Until a direct comparison test is done between the various ICs then all of this is just a "mine is bigger and better than yours because I said so" argument...