Here in Florida when we originally tested the intercoolers the ambient temperature was about 90ºF (32ºC). Our IAT's during that testing were around 100ºF (37.7ºC) when testing with the new intercoolers, compared to almost 150ºF (65ºC) with the stock intercoolers. As you can see, the difference is HUGE!

We have a few of our big 68mm Billet turbo builds going on in the shop right now. As soon as possible, I will hook up the data-logger and post that information. The engine's are out of both cars at the moment, while we wait for some parts to be completed, but as soon as possible, I will make sure we get that data for you.

 

I would love to see the test.
thanks.K

 

That's right, the message to all Ic's providers is showing us the IAT datas now.
Better flowing is easy, an empty box could do it...
Shining parts is Ok, but cooling is the real need, and on long pulls, 0-150mph is too short, stock parts get heat soaked when charging 5th and 6th, rarely before.

I bought 997,2Ic's cause seen good datas, but I'm still customer for better parts...

 

That's really key isn't it? The question will be what advantage do these intercoolers provide over the 997.2 ICs that you can get for $1000 or so.

 

Really like the core design with these (appear to be very Garrett-esque which is a great thing). I'm sure they'll outperform the .2s. I've noticed that several vendors have moved away from Bell based to more dense cores. When you've only got 14 inches of plate length to cool the air, there can be some worthwhile differences in outlet temps with the dense cores -just have to be careful not to overly restrict the flow by using appropriate thickness and end tank design. Great looking work, CMS!

 

Right, but the price of the 997.2 was the good surprise, I was ready to spend around 3000Euros...

 

Earl did everyone a great favor by establishing a benchmark with the 997.2 ICs in both performance and price. How much better is a $3500 IC over the $1000 OEM, if at all? Under what conditions is it better, etc....While all this nice work is being done, it's the performance that matters. Sorry for the cliche but can't judge a book by its cover.

 

Thank you for the endorsement earl! You're definitely right about one thing....with only a small plate to work with, finding a perfect balance between cooling efficiency and flow is not an easy task! With the core material we're using now, we've definitely found the perfect balance. Even on our most recent 690 whp tiptronic turbo build, the intercoolers held up run after run after run on the dyno. Repeat performance is key!

The 997.2 intercoolers are great, no argument there. If you look at the endtanks on the .2 units, it's obvious that Porsche engineers either took a cue from the aftermarket, or they just progresses their design to an endtank that looks very much like ours (and some others). So while the endtank design is certainly better for flow, the core material is unchanged which leaves a lot of room for improvement in cooling.

Now that being said, the benefit of any intercooler becomes proportionally more apparent as your power output increases. For cars that have a chip/exhaust combo, the .2's would certainly represent an improvement over stock. But if you plan to move beyond that to an upgraded VTG of any kind, you would definitely want to upgrade again in order to maximize gains from the turbos. I always recommend that customers consider what their ultimate goal will be with the car. It's much better to plot a course of mods now, rather then having to replace parts down the road that you've already spent good money for.

 

Tom, did I read in a previous post that you do not need to trim the ducting to make your IC fit? If this is so, how do you account for the difference in core thickness between the 997.1 and 997.2 turbos?

bob

 

Are you sure the core material is the same between .1 and .2 units? The .2s work significantly better so is it due to a different design?

With all due respect, I believe that this has yet to be determined. I bet the .2s will work perfectly fine with upgraded vtgs with neglible differences in performance with other AM ICs for most applications.

 

Looking at the cores a little more closely, yes there are some differences in the two cores. Size is the same, because Porsche did not make any changes to the mounting cages. But there's a VERY important factor that you're not taking into consideration. A stock .1 turbo runs how much boost, as Porsche intended? About 1bar. A stock .2 turbo does just about .7 bar. The .2 intercoolers are designed to be more dense, which is great for cooling, but they're simply not designed to flow as much as the .1 because of stock boost levels. That density which helps cooling is hurting flow at the same time. Sure, at stock boost levels they'll be quite efficient, but try running 2350mb of boost through that .2 cooler and they simply won't handle it. Porsche does not design their intercoolers to work with an 700hp big turbo kit, they design them to work with the factory application. A .1 intercooler actually FLOWS better then the .2, but doesn't cool as efficiently. This goes back to finding that balance I mentioned earlier.

 

That is simply not true. Read through this thread by member Skandalis and others who have chimed in with empirical but convincing data like Karim. Skand is running 2550 mPa of pressure. The .2s appear to work quite efficiently with upgraded vtgs. Maybe there is an aftermarket IC that is better for vtgs but that has yet to be demonstrated in my opinion.

 

Apples to oranges. Their testing simply shows IAT's, and makes no referrence to pressure drop. Skand is also running completely stock VTG's, not upgraded units. I would like to know whether the boost figures in his charts are requested or actual boost numbers, what the variance is between actual and requested throughout the runs, and also what the VTG vane frequency is at each point.

Sadly, the simple fact is that if you're expecting us to go out and do repetitive 150mph tests on a public road, all while stopping and switching between 3 different intercoolers on the same car, it's simply not going to happen. Our testing is done methodically using a flow bench and the testing equipment available to us. We've successfully made well over 750 WHEEL hp using our intercoolers and VTG turbos at a mere 45% vane frequency, which to my knowledge, no one else has done. If you can show me the same performance from a stock .2 intercooler on a modified VTG equipped car, I'll be shocked.

 

Skands car has one of the fastest 60-130 times on record. It doesn't matter if the vtg is stock or upgraded because his system is obviously making outstanding power. Actually, with stock vtg's his compressor map should be less efficient than with your upgraded vtgs so the ICs would have to be working even harder in his case.

I don't expect you or anyone else to do road tests up to 150 mph. You seem to be missing the entire point. I'm not doubting that you have good ICs. My point is how much better are your ICs compared to the .2 ICs because there is a several thousand dollar difference in price. Until you guys do a head-to-head comparison by whatever testing methods you use, you can't claim that your ICs are superior. You can claim it but you have no proof.

 

The GT2RS runs the same parts than the 997.2TT (which I thought running 1 bar, I will check...) and it runs 1.6Bar, do you think its IC's are designed for low boost?
I do not say 997.2 Ics are the best of all, but they are the lonely I can trust in after 6 monthes research, and I won't say what I know following friends tests on AM parts... (they did not all tell me the brands, but I remember what did they order, looking "work of art"...) (I do not speak especially of Skand', others have datas too)
That's why IAT data is really needed, quite easy with a Durametric...
And I repeat: If I could find surely better than mine, I'm still customer, the roads around my home allow me to run 300 almost each time I get out!)