KA - In Memory of my Mom (Vincee) and best friend Michael J. Maring
#2206
11-08-2006, 01:10 AM
Originally Posted by cjv
Well like years ago, when we figured out how Ruf's comparable motors always made a little more torque ............... we believe we have now figured out why these IC's were always about 10% more efficient. The cost to gain this additional 10% is less than $500.00.
Of course you first have to start with a good metal core/tank IC. It won't be long before the cat is out of the bag. 
#2207
11-08-2006, 04:33 AM
Originally Posted by cjv
Chasen1211,
I believe Sharkster was poking fun at a certain IC manufacturer who charges about 16K for their IC's. Alot of money to say the least. We could never figure out until recently how they were about 10% more efficient than our custom IC's.
Well like years ago, when we figured out how Ruf's comparable motors always made a little more torque ............... we believe we have now figured out why these IC's were always about 10% more efficient. The cost to gain this additional 10% is less than $500.00. Of course you first have to start with a good metal core/tank IC. It won't be long before the cat is out of the bag.
Sharkster and I have shared alot of info throughout the years, he is aware of what we did.
I believe Sharkster was poking fun at a certain IC manufacturer who charges about 16K for their IC's. Alot of money to say the least. We could never figure out until recently how they were about 10% more efficient than our custom IC's.
Well like years ago, when we figured out how Ruf's comparable motors always made a little more torque ............... we believe we have now figured out why these IC's were always about 10% more efficient. The cost to gain this additional 10% is less than $500.00.
Of course you first have to start with a good metal core/tank IC. It won't be long before the cat is out of the bag. Sharkster and I have shared alot of info throughout the years, he is aware of what we did.
Have you tested a Porsche engine boosting at 1.2 Bar with Secan on an engine dyno?
Have you tested your ICs on the same engine at 1.2 Bar on an engine dyno?
How do you know they are only 10% more efficient?
Engine dyno shows 95%+ efficiency on my intercooler, Secan is less than that, do I think my IC is more efficient than a Secan? No, Maybe 25-30% less efficient if tested like for like, which is still makes mine one of the best out there short of Secan.
Their cost is in the cores and the millions of dollars of investment in world class engineers and R&D that it takes to get them done, not in.......... the $50 coating from (the respected) Cradin Aerospace or similar outfit!
If you are after a quartermile car, keep the cores you have and take them for coating, if not, ditch out the money for those Secan cores or find out the hard way how you spent $250K on an engine that will loose 200HP before you get to the first turn after the long straight.
Please.
#2208
11-08-2006, 04:54 AM
Originally Posted by cjv
we believe we have now figured out why these IC's were always about 10% more efficient. The cost to gain this additional 10% is less than $500.00. Of course you first have to start with a good metal core/tank IC. It won't be long before the cat is out of the bag.
Of course you first have to start with a good metal core/tank IC. It won't be long before the cat is out of the bag. Has anyone ever thought about making IC out of copper instead of aluminum? I only ask because heat transfer in Cu will be better then in Al due to a larger thermal conductivity of Cu. For example I know the better computer CPU heat sinks are made from Cu and the cheaper ones are made of Al. Another thing to think about is copper is roughly 3x denser then Al but (off the top of my head) Cu is stronger then Al so the IC would use less material.
Think of themal conductivity as resistance to heat flow (zero being a perfect insulator):
Thermal Conductiviy (W/m-K)
Cu: 401
Al: 237
#2209
11-08-2006, 12:48 PM
Originally Posted by Jean
This is too funny
Have you tested a Porsche engine boosting at 1.2 Bar with Secan on an engine dyno?
Have you tested your ICs on the same engine at 1.2 Bar on an engine dyno?
How do you know they are only 10% more efficient?
Engine dyno shows 95%+ efficiency on my intercooler, Secan is less than that, do I think my IC is more efficient than a Secan? No, Maybe 25-30% less efficient if tested like for like, which is still makes mine one of the best out there short of Secan.
Their cost is in the cores and the millions of dollars of investment in world class engineers and R&D that it takes to get them done, not in.......... the $50 coating from (the respected) Cradin Aerospace or similar outfit!
If you are after a quartermile car, keep the cores you have and take them for coating, if not, ditch out the money for those Secan cores or find out the hard way how you spent $250K on an engine that will loose 200HP before you get to the first turn after the long straight.
Please.
Have you tested a Porsche engine boosting at 1.2 Bar with Secan on an engine dyno?
Have you tested your ICs on the same engine at 1.2 Bar on an engine dyno?
How do you know they are only 10% more efficient?
Engine dyno shows 95%+ efficiency on my intercooler, Secan is less than that, do I think my IC is more efficient than a Secan? No, Maybe 25-30% less efficient if tested like for like, which is still makes mine one of the best out there short of Secan.
Their cost is in the cores and the millions of dollars of investment in world class engineers and R&D that it takes to get them done, not in.......... the $50 coating from (the respected) Cradin Aerospace or similar outfit!
If you are after a quartermile car, keep the cores you have and take them for coating, if not, ditch out the money for those Secan cores or find out the hard way how you spent $250K on an engine that will loose 200HP before you get to the first turn after the long straight.
Please.
I understand your train of thought. I also understand the physics of IC's pretty well. I happen to have a pretty good set that we ran at several tracks with full feed back (ambient temps, temps in and out of the IC's and delta's) down the straights, into the turns and out of the turns. KA ha always been set up for handling foremost.
If you can provide the test conditions and and efficiency index for these conditions I will conduct the same tests on my IC's. It will be back on the engine dyno in December. From what I have seen to date, I believe the genie is out of the bottle.
Even if we are wrong, the gains from this process are staggering.Let's stop rah rahing for a certain team or manufacturer and strive to find the actual truth based on some sort of a quantitive test. I really have no problem is saying I'm wrong. I do know we have taken a very good set of IC's and made them much better by applying a heat dispersant coating. This is a fact. I dare say that if you applied this same coating to your existing IC's you would very much notice the difference.
Last edited by cjv; 11-08-2006 at 01:11 PM.
#2210
11-08-2006, 01:28 PM
CJV
I don't have a doubt that this sort of treatment will yield improvements, I have researched it over 2 years ago. What I don't appreciate is statements like the ones below with zero foundation.
This simplistic approach to a fine piece of excellent engineering does not do justice to this thread or either of you two guys. You seem to be trying to find ways to get better cooling when the solution for your biggest ennemy (heat) is right there.
You don't need numbers, you have done a lot of research, check out what the fastest recorded Porsche turbo cars on the 'Ring and the 24 hours of Nurburgring are using if you need real data, and I mentioning those events because of their known stress on turbo engines, not because they are European.
This thread is interesting, keep it up there.
I don't have a doubt that this sort of treatment will yield improvements, I have researched it over 2 years ago. What I don't appreciate is statements like the ones below with zero foundation.
Originally Posted by cjv
Chasen1211,
I believe Sharkster was poking fun at a certain IC manufacturer who charges about 16K for their IC's. Alot of money to say the least. We could never figure out until recently how they were about 10% more efficient than our custom IC's.
I believe Sharkster was poking fun at a certain IC manufacturer who charges about 16K for their IC's. Alot of money to say the least. We could never figure out until recently how they were about 10% more efficient than our custom IC's.
You don't need numbers, you have done a lot of research, check out what the fastest recorded Porsche turbo cars on the 'Ring and the 24 hours of Nurburgring are using if you need real data, and I mentioning those events because of their known stress on turbo engines, not because they are European.
This thread is interesting, keep it up there.
#2211
11-08-2006, 01:46 PM
Jean,
As a side, the GT3 turbo motor has now ran out of fuel with 750 cc injectors, 1.7 bar, 1400 hp in the mid 6000 rpm range. The the injectors are being overdriven as much as we dare.
More fuel is needed as the cam has about 3000 rpm's remaining.
As a side, the GT3 turbo motor has now ran out of fuel with 750 cc injectors, 1.7 bar, 1400 hp in the mid 6000 rpm range. The the injectors are being overdriven as much as we dare.
More fuel is needed as the cam has about 3000 rpm's remaining.
Last edited by cjv; 11-08-2006 at 07:26 PM.
#2212
11-08-2006, 08:55 PM
Originally Posted by cjv
Jean,
As a side, the GT3 turbo motor has now ran out of fuel with 750 cc injectors, 1.7 bar, 1400 hp in the mid 6000 rpm range. The the injectors are being overdriven as much as we dare. More fuel is needed as the cam has about 3000 rpm's remaining.
As a side, the GT3 turbo motor has now ran out of fuel with 750 cc injectors, 1.7 bar, 1400 hp in the mid 6000 rpm range. The the injectors are being overdriven as much as we dare.
More fuel is needed as the cam has about 3000 rpm's remaining.OMG!
#2213
11-08-2006, 11:54 PM
Mike,
The GT3 turbo motor is successful beyond our wildest expectations. Would you believe GT30R turbo's run out of breath before the cams really come on. GT35R's run out of fuel before the cams really come one. What do you think is going to happen with larger injectors or maybe double banks and GT40R's?
PS. Mike, these numbers are not with the GT3 motor set up with the latest heads, cams and modified World Cup intake.
Mike, did you ever solve your MAP problem?
The GT3 turbo motor is successful beyond our wildest expectations. Would you believe GT30R turbo's run out of breath before the cams really come on. GT35R's run out of fuel before the cams really come one. What do you think is going to happen with larger injectors or maybe double banks and GT40R's?
PS. Mike, these numbers are not with the GT3 motor set up with the latest heads, cams and modified World Cup intake.
Mike, did you ever solve your MAP problem?
Last edited by cjv; 11-09-2006 at 12:34 AM.
#2214
11-09-2006, 12:11 AM
Originally Posted by yellowturbo
So why do Ruf motors make a little more torque?
This was going back about four years ago. They accomplished this with enlarge intake piping to the turbo's that also had less heat conductant properties.
#2215
11-09-2006, 12:16 AM
Originally Posted by red944
Just a thought I had.
Has anyone ever thought about making IC out of copper instead of aluminum? I only ask because heat transfer in Cu will be better then in Al due to a larger thermal conductivity of Cu. For example I know the better computer CPU heat sinks are made from Cu and the cheaper ones are made of Al. Another thing to think about is copper is roughly 3x denser then Al but (off the top of my head) Cu is stronger then Al so the IC would use less material.
Think of themal conductivity as resistance to heat flow (zero being a perfect insulator):
Thermal Conductiviy (W/m-K)
Cu: 401
Al: 237
Has anyone ever thought about making IC out of copper instead of aluminum? I only ask because heat transfer in Cu will be better then in Al due to a larger thermal conductivity of Cu. For example I know the better computer CPU heat sinks are made from Cu and the cheaper ones are made of Al. Another thing to think about is copper is roughly 3x denser then Al but (off the top of my head) Cu is stronger then Al so the IC would use less material.
Think of themal conductivity as resistance to heat flow (zero being a perfect insulator):
Thermal Conductiviy (W/m-K)
Cu: 401
Al: 237
It is my understanding copper under vibration conditions work hardens and cracks.
CopperNickel might be nice if you could find the cores made by someone. Copper does indeed have better heat transfer.
Last edited by cjv; 11-09-2006 at 12:32 AM.
#2216
11-09-2006, 01:26 AM
Just a boxster?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Maple Valley WA
Age: 47
Posts: 2,825
Rep Power: 164 
Cjv
Like the other 150K+ other view/viewers to this thread I find you to be a dedicated patient person. I am wondering if this coating that you speak of would be contusive to use on my self contained Super charger.
Best of luck in the exploration to the edge of perfection.
Josh
Like the other 150K+ other view/viewers to this thread I find you to be a dedicated patient person. I am wondering if this coating that you speak of would be contusive to use on my self contained Super charger.
Best of luck in the exploration to the edge of perfection.
Josh
#2217
11-09-2006, 11:15 AM
Originally Posted by cjv
Jean,
As a side, the GT3 turbo motor has now ran out of fuel with 750 cc injectors, 1.7 bar, 1400 hp in the mid 6000 rpm range. The the injectors are being overdriven as much as we dare. More fuel is needed as the cam has about 3000 rpm's remaining.
As a side, the GT3 turbo motor has now ran out of fuel with 750 cc injectors, 1.7 bar, 1400 hp in the mid 6000 rpm range. The the injectors are being overdriven as much as we dare.
More fuel is needed as the cam has about 3000 rpm's remaining.I am a bit confused, I thought the engine was still not assembled, yet you are saying that you ran 1400FWHP?
On what turbos did you see the 1400FWHP at 1.7 Bar?
Thanks
#2218
11-09-2006, 12:54 PM
Originally Posted by Jean
CJV
I am a bit confused, I thought the engine was still not assembled, yet you are saying that you ran 1400FWHP?
On what turbos did you see the 1400FWHP at 1.7 Bar?
Thanks
I am a bit confused, I thought the engine was still not assembled, yet you are saying that you ran 1400FWHP?
On what turbos did you see the 1400FWHP at 1.7 Bar?
Thanks
I have two motors that leap frog each other as things change. I am also working with another individual, we share parts and information because we have very simular motors. He is also in the testing stage.
The above numbers were derived with GT35R turbo housings.
Last edited by cjv; 11-09-2006 at 12:57 PM.
#2220
11-09-2006, 01:48 PM
Originally Posted by Jean
I see, very interesting.
Those turbos will max out around 1200Hp at 1.7 Bar, close and plenty enough HP anyway
Those turbos will max out around 1200Hp at 1.7 Bar, close and plenty enough HP anyway
Actually, they are a Hybrid GT35R. The power was there and it surprised everyone.
Plenty of hp? Maybe. I'll tell you after the GT40R turbo's have been tested.
Actually, we have a new little problem. Talking pure power, the GT40R's look like the way to go followed by the GT35R's. Obviously, these wouldn't work well on the track due to lag or response time coming out of the turns. The GT30R's have great response but they run out of poop just as the cams are starting to really come alive (around 6700 rpm's). Do you have any suggestions?
Last edited by cjv; 11-09-2006 at 09:15 PM.