Check your information. The stock .2 turbo makes .7bar of boost stock.

 

Ok, why not for the .2 turbo...
But isn't the GT2RS running 1.6Bar with the same Ics?

 

As mentioned previously Skandalis is running ~1.6 bar, actual boost, not requested.

 

I'm not sure about the GT2RS. We haven't seen the car yet so we haven't had an opportunity to explore what hardware it comes with. Our first GT2RS is scheduled for delivery in 2 weeks, so you can bet that we'll do some research as soon as it arrives.

That seems strange, because in his datalog the boost figure is strangely rounded off. Typically actual boost reading will be a number like 1239, 1987, 2126....not a nice round number like 1960, 2350, 2390....etc. I have never seen such perfectly rounded ACTUAL boost figures, which is why I questioned his data. I can't speak for the validity or accuracy of his data because I'm not sure how it was collected, and because of the reason above. It may very well be true. And I stated all along, the .2 coolers ARE great in terms of cooling efficiency.

 

gt2 rs use same.

 

Again, not true. Here's a datalog of my boost.

 

I had not noticed you were running 1.5 bar...

Race gas?

 

Both race and 93 octane tunes run 1.5 bar but with different timing. Have not had any issues.

 

Whilst they do appear "nice" it seems rather odd that you would even think of putting these to the market prior to testing and at the very least pitching the performance up against the likes of the .2tt coolers especially given skands recent and controversial intercooler performance thread. I mean it was a given you were going to get some questions there.

You sure hit the nail right on the head with that one TT!!



So very true. Im sure 6 speeders need to get some quality answers and data. Why pay three and a half large for IC's that just look pretty.....and even then they get tucked away out of sight after install.

 

Thats correct , the GT2RS running 1.6 bar.

 

If you read my first post you'll see that they're not new. All we did was change the top tank to a billet tank. We've had these intercoolers on the market for over a year, and provided plenty of testing that you can see if you'll watch the video.

If you're happy with your .2 intercoolers, then great. These are simply not for you. But the 50+ people who ARE running our intercoolers in high horsepower upgraded turbo applications seem to be plenty happy.

 

I'm happy for those +50 people, but there is no chance I reach them before seeing serious IAT datas...
The 997.2 are probably not the best, bu they are the LONELY we got the proof of their efficience.

Nothing against you Tom, but the internet tool permits that today: we all share all at once, so, easy for good products (and I hope and think yours are), and hard for BS!

 

The video is nicely done although there is a question about the flow data you show and validation of the test method. According to the chart (which I pasted below) it shows the .2ICs as the worst performer and CMS ICs the best @ 2 psi. How relevant is that to the real world since it is pretty well accepted now that the .2ICs are superior to the .1ICs? Wouldn't a flow test at ~23 psi be more appropriate?

 

According to this data, on a car that's flowing 34lb of air per turbo (roughly 700bhp), which is 480cfm, there will be a pressure drop of 4psi (assuming that flow/pressure drop ratio is constant, which roughly is) on the 997.2 IC, that's about 0.3bar. Lets assume another 1 psi loss in the piping to the manifold. With a MAP of 1.5bar, and ambient pressure 0.981bar the turbo will work at 2.89 pressure ratio.
With the CMS core, the loss will be 3.5 PSI, and anything else being equal, this lead to a pressure ratio of 2.80.

Depending on the compressor, this could or could not be an issue IMO. With a 3071R compressor, for example, you slighly move on the map, barely into an efficiency of 0.75 rather than 0.77.
Of course this will cause slightly higher temperature at the compressor discharge, about 164°C (997.2) VS 155°C (CMS), in a 25°C ambient temp.
Supposing an 80% efficiency for both, the IAT will be 52°C (997.2) VS 51°C (CMS).

Now, in this last part could be the "node"...In fact I suspect that the 997.2 IC will not be able to maintain a 80% efficiency at those flow rates (we will find it soon on my car I hope), while the CMS IC could very well be able to match the number, so the difference in IAT's could be higher than that.

Guys correct me if I wrote incorrect things or my clculations are off.

 

I like your analyses Em but I think your pressure drops are too high. Efficient ICs will typically have pressure drops < 1 psi. If you're seeing pressure drops of 3-4 psi then it is time to move to a bigger cooler.