Yes it can be that hot and the test can be set to as high as 200*C!

Here is some info I came across to help understand what happens to the compressed air.

"How much hotter the air gets as it is being compressed depends on the pressure ratio (how much it is being compressed) and the efficiency of the compressor. This means that the theoretical outlet temperature can be calculated if three factors are known: the inlet air temperature, the compressor efficiency, and the pressure ratio.

Before this can be done, the temperatures and pressures need to be expressed in the right units. Firstly, temperatures need to be converted to Kelvin (K), a measurement of absolute temperature.

K =°C + 273.15

A temperature of 35°C is therefore the same as 308.15K (or 308K for our purposes).

Boost pressures also need to be converted to pressure ratios. Note that 1 Bar = 14.5 psi.

Boost Pressure in Bar + 1
Pressure ratio = -------------------------------------
1

A boost of 1.5 Bar therefore becomes a pressure ratio of 2.5.

Let's have a look at an example.

If the inlet air temperature to a turbo is 20 °C (293K) and the boost pressure is 1.1 Bar (pressure ratio = 2.1) the theoretical outlet temperature will be:

Theoretical outlet temp = 293 x (2.1)0.28
= 293 x 1.236
= 362K (89 °C)

This means that there is a temperature rise of 69 °C (89 ° - 20 °= 69 °).

However, this doesn't take into account that the compressor efficiency will be less than 100 per cent. If we assume a compressor efficiency of 70 per cent (typical for a good turbo):

69 °
Actual temp increase = ------
0.7
= 98.6 °C
This is a temperature increase of 98.6 ° which when added to the ambient temp of 20° means that the actual outlet temp will be:

20 + 98.6 = 118.6 °(119 °C when rounded)

While the theory is fine, there are a number of factors that affect the accuracy of the calculated figure. Firstly, it is difficult to accurately estimate the efficiency of the compressor. And even if such a figure is available, it doesn't necessarily apply to all the different airflows that the compressor is capable of producing. In other words, there will be some combinations of airflow and boost pressure where the compressor is working at peak efficiency - and other areas where it isn't. While a well-matched compressor should be at peak efficiency most of the time, in some situations it will be working at less than optimum efficiency. This will change the outlet air temperature, usually for the worse.

Secondly, the turbo- or supercharged car engine is not working under steady-state conditions. A typical forced induction road car might be on boost for only 5 per cent of the time, and even when it is on boost, it is perhaps for only 20 seconds at a stretch. (But higher in both aspects for turbo diesels.) In most petrol engine turbo cars, longer periods of high boost occur only when hill-climbing, towing or driving at maximum speed. While all of the engine systems should be designed with the full load capability in mind, in reality very few cars will ever experience this. This factor means that the heat-sink capability of the intake system must be considered.

If the inlet air temperature of the engine in cruise condition is 20 degrees C above ambient, then on a 25 degreeday the inlet air temp will be 45 degrees C. After 30 minutes or so of running, all of the different components of the intake system will have stabilised at around this temperature. If the engine then comes on boost and there is a sudden rise in the temp of the air being introduced to this system, the temperature of the turbo compressor cover (or blower housing), inlet duct, throttle body, plenum chamber, and inlet runners will all increase. These components increase in temp because they are removing heat from the intake air and so limit the magnitude of the initial rise in the actual intake air temperature. As a result, the infrequent short bursts of boost used in a typical road-driven forced-induction car often produce a lower initial intake air temperature than expected.

This doesn't mean that intercooling is not worthwhile (it certainly is) but that the theory of the temperature increase doesn't always match reality. However, taking a theoretical, calculated approach at least gives a general idea of the temperature increase that is likely to be experienced."

 

I ask a few questions and changed a few things in my original post as the guy who made the quote made some errors on the data being provided.

I also received the capabilities of the wind tunnel which are below.

Plus they will provide me with a heat rejection chart.


Charge Air Specification

Flow 0.02 - 0.46 kg/s
Pressure 1.5 - 3.1 barA
Temperature 100 - 200*C

Cooling Air Specification

Size 900 x 800 mm
Flow 30 - 4000 I/s
Face Velocity 1 - 15 m/s
Pressure 10 - 1800 Pa
Temperature 20 - 35*C

 

The Report is a few pages long with lots of different graphs and data etc but here is an example of the data sheet!

Model : Charge Cooler AAF212 in EUDC 5 Confguration
Serial No. : AAF212 - 44D
Dimensions : 440 x 585 x 42 mm
Rows : 42
Tubes : 2
Fins/Dm : 46

Cooling Air Side
Mean Air Air Inlet Out Air dP
Face Velocity Mass Density Temp Temp Static Wall

(m/s) (kg/s) (kg/m³) (°C) (°C) (Pa)

1.50 0.45 1.17 24.8 65.7 25
1.98 0.60 1.17 24.9 57.6 35
3.01 0.90 1.17 24.8 48.4 62
5.03 1.51 1.17 24.8 40.3 134
6.01 1.80 1.17 25.0 38.4 179
8.03 2.42 1.17 24.6 34.9 293
9.98 3.01 1.17 25.0 33.5 420

1.53 0.46 1.16 25.2 58.0 24
1.99 0.60 1.17 24.8 51.9 35
3.03 0.91 1.17 24.8 43.5 61
4.99 1.50 1.17 25.1 37.3 129
6.00 1.81 1.17 24.5 34.9 177
8.01 2.41 1.17 25.0 32.9 283
10.00 3.02 1.17 24.6 31.0 419

1.50 0.45 1.17 24.9 54.4 24
1.98 0.59 1.17 25.1 48.6 33
3.01 0.90 1.17 25.0 41.4 58
5.02 1.51 1.17 24.8 35.2 129
5.99 1.80 1.17 25.0 34.0 173
8.00 2.41 1.17 24.7 31.5 281
10.01 3.01 1.17 25.2 30.7 415

1.53 0.46 1.17 24.7 46.3 24
2.00 0.60 1.16 25.0 42.4 34
2.98 0.89 1.17 24.9 36.8 57
5.02 1.51 1.17 24.8 32.2 127
5.98 1.80 1.17 24.8 31.1 171
7.99 2.40 1.17 25.0 29.7 276
9.99 3.01 1.17 25.0 28.7 412

1.51 0.45 1.16 25.0 37.7 24
2.02 0.60 1.16 25.3 34.9 34
3.03 0.91 1.16 25.0 31.3 56
4.99 1.50 1.17 24.8 28.6 125
6.01 1.81 1.17 24.5 27.7 170
8.00 2.41 1.17 24.6 27.0 277
10.02 3.01 1.17 25.1 27.0 409
No Charge Air Flow
1.50 0.45 1.17 24.4 25.2 22
2.00 0.60 1.17 24.4 25.3 31
3.03 0.91 1.17 24.4 25.2 55
4.99 1.50 1.17 24.4 25.3 120
6.00 1.80 1.17 24.7 25.5 161
8.02 2.41 1.17 25.0 25.8 274
10.03 3.01 1.17 25.5 26.3 402

 

Nick, What all this data conclude? Can you get IC efficiency value = Actual Temp Drop/Max Possible Temp Drop and pressure drop?

 

Ok let me email you and bear in mind this is an example report not the actual test as it is being done on the 10th of oct!!

 

Cool Nick. I think this is very interesting thread. Thx.

 

I think he is referring to fender intakes which in most cases remove the duct work to the intercooler. Absolutely related to intercooler testing and a previously ongoing debate among many.

If you don't have proper airflow across the IC, the IC will not perform optimally no matter how many IC's you throw at it.

 

It wont send as your email has changed so please pm if you can cheers.

 

This company is used by F1 teams so I think they know what they are doing

But of course I do agree with what you are saying. It has to be done properly.

If you put intercoolers through the same tests and conditions then you will get a comparison wether you use the ducting or not!

 

Yeh I got ya. 93ls1rx7 was curious about testing the fender intake vs not and someone else said that wasn't important.

If you find the winner of the IC debate and then strip the duct work out what have you done to yourself.

 

http://truth.amsperformance.com/pors...r-intake-test/

AMS pretty much proved that the stock airbox is unbeatable (up to 1000hp).

 

Not to hi-jack, but must respond to Xbox's buy-in of AMS's "scientific proof" re: air boxes. The methodology AMS used in this "proof" is laughable, and AMS is smart enough to know it. Using a chassis dyno to test a cold air intake of any sort is (your choice here) stupid, or suspicious. To test an air intake, the car MUST BE MOVING THROUGH THE AIR. This fact either escaped AMS, or was inexplicably ignored. In the case of a 997 turbo, with intake in the rear, how did AMS, in a stationary building, on a stationary car, both moving at 0 mph,measure ANYTHING ? Like, for instance, car speed through the air, intake air pressure at various speeds, intake air volume at various speeds, ambient air temp, inlet air temp, engine space temp ?
AMS has a fairly good reputation. To keep it, they should stop this kind foolishness.

Rant over. Nick, bless your heart for this hard and valuable work.

 

No probs bumper pip and thank you for your kind words.

I do kind of agree with you about their test too. To test the air box you really need a wind tunnel so it can be the same conditions etc etc if you are doing a static test!

If any other vendors fancy testing your coolers and proving they are the real deal feel free to PM me.

 

Nick-watching with interest.
Test looks scientific enough for TB!! Are his i/c's available to test?
I missed what your i/c's are-can you restate what 1/c's are being tested?
Now-- for all claimants of increased/superior/better 1/c's -- why not participate? If there is a problem with methodology--let's hear it-- and see if Nick can accommodate-- after all-- this is great chance to get some actual science in this issue.

 

Not talking about stock air box vs aftermarket. Talking about fender intakes. To do these, the duct work for intakes to the intercooler on the side of the car behind the door is removed. The intakes are put in this location and in my hypothesis completely disrupt the flow across and therefore efficiently of the IC. This is not a novel concept! I'm blown away that nobody seems to know what myself or 93LS1RX7 were talking about. Guess I better stay in the 996tt forum!