|
BEGI Manifold Compatible w/ Newer FM Manifolds?
I have the newer direct pulse BEGI manifold with a SR20 T25. I am wondering if the BEGI manifold mounts the turbo in the EXACT same location as a FM manifold?
I am thinking of purchasing the silicone hot side intercooler tubing that FM sells. If it's not exact, I won't be able to modify it since it's silicone. = ( http://www.flyinmiata.com/turbos/ima...G_4002_300.jpg |
shouldn't be an issue.
|
How much is it, now you got me wanting one too.
|
just FWIW.
Intercooling & Interesting Twists The point of this argument is: The heat that finds its way through the walls of the tubes to and from the intercooler greatly contributes to the overall effectiveness of the intercooler system. Taking full advantage of that benefit is a must for any designer. Premise: Never insulate a compressor outlet tube. Testing my own turbo has produced an interesting set of charge temperature numbers. This was particularly evident with respect to the temperature changes in the tube from the turbo to the intercooler. Rather than produce a bunch of equations, I’ll offer the data and suggest a couple conclusions. The conclusions are rather obvious and have design quality and experience implications way beyond the data presented here. The basic layout of the system: The turbo is positioned in the same place we originated 15 years ago, just 3.5 inches out from the head and an inch above the port centerline, right between cylinders two and three. One major change is the discharge of the compressor is now downward and out into the wheel well area. The tube goes forward to the intercooler, through the long tube IC core with baffled inlet, then out the opposite side, turns aft and up into the throttle. Pretty straight forward, but clearly not well understood, as evidenced by other designs offered up in the market. This layout was chosen specifically for the purpose of shedding heat wherever possible. For this test, all tubes were made from mild steel. While seemingly obvious, but obviously not well understood, is the need to let the compressor outlet tube discharge some of the heat from the compressed air exiting the turbo. There is a substantial amount of heat that can be removed from this tube before it gets to the intercooler. EVEN IF THE TUBE STAYS UNDER THE HOOD IT WILL LOSE HEAT, AS THE UNDERHOOD TEMPERATURE IS NOT AS HIGH AS THE TEMPERATURE INSIDE THE TUBE. We have taken the compressor outlet tube into the ambient air stream as quickly as possible. Hence, downward from the turbo and out into the wheel well. Repeat: The design principle: First; The air charge temperature inside the compressor discharge tube is higher than the underhood temperature, and Second, the discharge tube must get quickly out into ambient air temp where it can shed even more heat. Here is how we tested it: Data: We measured temps from right at the compressor discharge and at the IC entry. This data was consistent over several days of runs. Forward speed was held to 60 mph in 4th gear by dragging the brake. Boost was 6 psi. Time under boost was held until temps stabilized.... about 20/25 seconds. Tough on brakes, but we needed good data. The tally is an average of 12 measurements, none of which varied more than 3 or 4 degrees. NOTE: This is a measurement of the temperature drop through the turbo discharge tube only! Ambient F 95/96 F Turbo Exit F 189/191 F Temp Rise F 94/96F Intercooler Inlet F 169/172 F Temp Drop F 19/22 F This data clearly states that approximately 20F is removed from the system through the walls of the tube between the turbo and the intercooler. Cool, eh? Keep in mind that this data represents only 6 psi boost. At 12 psi, the compressor discharge temps will be approximately 90F higher yet. If so, while assuming the “efficiency” of the tube will remain the same, then the simple tube from the compressor outlet to the intercooler will discharge approximately 40/45F. Downright newsworthy. General underhood area temps at the compressor discharge were 112/118 F. Temps in the wheel well area were 97/101 F. This data states three things absolutely clearly: 1. The temperature inside the compressor outlet when under virtually any boost is far higher than the surrounding areas, thus heat exits the tube through the walls. 2. Behavior of the tube: The temperature removed from the system by the compressor outlet tube alone was 19 to 22 degrees F. Approximately equal to the temperature gain accompanying 1.5 psi boost. 3. Temperature out of the Intercooler, is within 5 degrees F of ambient. Conclusions #1: Anyone insulating the Compressor Outlet tube is blowing in the wind. That means their concept of the heat flow is backwards. If done so, their “Quality of Design” is subject to serious question. Conclusion #2: The compressor outlet tube should be made from a material with a high heat transfer capability, such as aluminum. This is precisely why we introduced the “multi-material tube set” moons ago with just that, an aluminum compressor outlet tube. Perhaps a bit in excess of reason, and not of world shaking proportions, but a maximum effort system should have a compressor discharge tube made from silver. Now, wouldn't that be a hoot? Maybe expensive too... Conclusion #3: Porsche will one day build either aluminum, copper or silver compressor outlet tubes, and when they do, we will once again be able to claim we plagiarized their design. Summary: Regardless of where the turbo is located, NEVER, NEVER (NEVER SQUARED??) INSULATE THE COMPRESSOR OUTLET TUBE. What is considered insulating a tube? Wrapping in in fabric or using a heat retaining tube like silicone turbo hose One more reason why the BEGi “quality of design” is superior to ALL others. Should any reader like to verify our data, I’ll lend our digital thermometer to anyone for a reasonable deposit. You must use our Intercooler, tube system and duplicate our test conditions. |
Despite what the above says, I'd be interested in how much the pipes cost as well.
|
I was quoted $103 for the hot side. Cold side consists of 2 tubes (long and short): ~$103 and ~$30. Total ~$240.
|
Shit that's not too bad at all. What size of I/C?
|
I was hoping to use the Cxracing one. 18 x 12 x 3. I'm sure some modifications will need to be done to the silicone though. The FM intercooler looks quite a bit larger.
|
Man, after reading what Brain posted, I'm having second thoughts.
|
Originally Posted by kenzo42
(Post 203595)
I was hoping to use the Cxracing one. 18 x 12 x 3. I'm sure some modifications will need to be done to the silicone though. The FM intercooler looks quite a bit larger.
|
Originally Posted by kenzo42
(Post 203595)
I was hoping to use the Cxracing one. 18 x 12 x 3. I'm sure some modifications will need to be done to the silicone though. The FM intercooler looks quite a bit larger.
I'd take what Corky wrote above with a BIG grain of salt. I think what he's testing is flawed, and honestly not terribly relevant in real life. He never tests both types of pipes under the same conditions. He tests the difference between the outlet of the turbo and the inlet of the I/C. Distance traveled could have as much to do with heat shed and the type of material the pipe is made from. But we wouldn't know that because he only shows data to prove his point.The bit of data that we REALLY care about is post i/c temps. I would really like to see the difference between his metal tube and something that insulates. I'm willing to bet that the big assed i/c most are using will eat up the potential couple of degree difference. Corky isn't god, just another vendor. And like FM, Trackdog, Goodwin ... etc, he has an adgena. To sell product. I'm not saying that he's wrong, but I don't see the above as anything more than a criticism of FM's product. Maybe my thinking is flawed. |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 203607)
betcha $10 it's the same exact intercooler FM uses.
I'm going to stencil FM on the front of my china-cooler, increase the value by eleventy-billion. |
the only point he was trying to make was that metal pipes shed heat. so by using his IC pipe vs. one that won't shed any heat would be smart.
cause all else being equal (80% efficient IC). 20° difference in delta could mean an outlet difference of something like 16° out of the intercooler, from a simple pipe alone. will 16° at 6psi make a difference, not likely. but +12psi would be something like a 32° difference. it's just food for thought. |
He states this as a fact. Strongly tells people not to use an insulated pipe, but shows now actual data that would prove this.
If the I/C was 80% efficient (your number) 20* higher inlet couldn't translate to 16* on the outlet, unless something is bustified. Wouldn't it be more like 4*? If I could buy FM's solution at near the cost of doing it DIY I know what I would buy. Even if that means slightly higher IAT. You know as well as anyone that this whole turbo business is a mess of compromises. Theory is just that until someone shows it to be true. Anyway, I'm surprised their I/C piping isn't more expensive. Jay
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 203677)
the only point he was trying to make was that metal pipes shed heat. so by using his IC pipe vs. one that won't shed any heat would be smart.
cause all else being equal (80% efficient IC). 20° difference in delta could mean an outlet difference of something like 16° out of the intercooler, from a simple pipe alone. will 16° at 6psi make a difference, not likely. but +12psi would be something like a 32° difference. it's just food for thought. |
[QUOTE=jayc72;203664]FM offers two different I/C, a big and a little. I'm going to get measurements from inlet to outlet, core doesn't tell you enough since the end tanks could be of different design.
QUOTE] I didn't realize there are 2 different intercoolers. Are there pics or dimensions anywhere? All they list are the core sizes on their webpage. |
Originally Posted by jayc72
(Post 203681)
If the I/C was 80% efficient (your number) 20* higher inlet couldn't translate to 16* on the outlet, unless something is bustified. Wouldn't it be more like 4*? Turbo Exit F 189/191 F Intercooler Inlet F 169/172 F if we assume the silicone insulates the charge, which it will. then: 189 *.8 = 151.2° post intercooler 169 * .8 = 135.2° post intercooler 151-135 = 16°
Originally Posted by jayc72
(Post 203681)
If I could buy FM's solution at near the cost of doing it DIY I know what I would buy. Even if that means slightly higher IAT. You know as well as anyone that this whole turbo business is a mess of compromises. Theory is just that until someone shows it to be true.
|
Their big one is 24" and the smaller is 19". Not sure what those measurements are of, but the one pictured looks like my I/C. If they are core sizes then my I/C is right in the middle at about 21", with overall of 29"
http://www.cxracing.com/mm5/merchant...Category_Code= FM talks about it here: http://www.flyinmiata.com/index.php?...%20BLK%20GAUGE $100 - a 24" wide intercooler to replace the standard 19" unit. This upgrade is not compatible with air conditioning, and it's also a larger intercooler than the FM II needs on a stock engine. But it looks great and offers a good upgrade potential down the road. |
I'm sure they are talking core....
my 18" overall IC has an 11" wider core :) |
I'm not running a Greddy kit, so Stripes' pipes wont work. And I didn't think he was selling them anymore. I'll build my own before buying them from BEGI.
Math has never been my strong skill :) I see what you are talking about now. However this still means jack shit with out knowing how the other pipes would perform.
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 203696)
no.
Turbo Exit F 189/191 F Intercooler Inlet F 169/172 F if we assume the silicone insulates the charge, which it will. then: 189 *.8 = 151.2° post intercooler 169 * .8 = 135.2° post intercooler 151-135 = 16° true, but you can always buy BEGi's or Stripes pipes as well :) |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 203696)
true, but you can always buy BEGi's or Stripes pipes as well :) |
All that matters is that the heat transfer coefficient for silicon is less than that of a metal.
You get greater heat transfer from the metal pipes |
I'm not disputing that. But how much difference? And does that difference actually have any real impact on the IAT? And if so how much? Ultimately does that have any impact on performance?
I guess it comes down to want the ideal or good enough. |
Originally Posted by jayc72
(Post 203681)
He states this as a fact. Strongly tells people not to use an insulated pipe, but shows no actual data that would prove this.
I have asserted that this is a fact. Am I required to make a trip down to NASA's HQ in Houston, TX to photocopy all of their relevant documentation about the composition of the moon, and then provide lab results which demonstrate the physical properties of puffed wheat cereal? Of course not. This statement is what Hartley Rogers would call "Intuitively Obvious." Likewise, it is fairly obvious that when hot air is contained within a pipe, the pipe is surrounded by air which is less hot than the air inside the pipe, and it is desireable for the air inside the pipe to become cooler, then making the pipe out of a thermally conductive material is better than making it out of an insulating material. |
FYI FM sells two intercoolers, one is compatible with Ac, one is not.
And I totally didn't know this when I got mine! Since I have no AC, I really want the bigger one. In short, if someone is thinking of getting this kit (which I have, and I really like it, and have pics of how to install it, etc) let me know, I might want to sell my essentially brand new intercooler to you for damn close to what it's worth new, and get myself a bigger, non-AC friendly one. I'm sure there is some cooling from the pipes (I wonder how much of it isn't heat-soaking into the metal walls) but the IC does the majority of the cooling. An awesome IC beats metal pipes and a crappy IC. The rubber ones have a couple advantages: Light weight, easy fitment, less vibration transfer, less joints to break. Pics of my install (fm will tell you you need a $250 "intake kit" which I functionally replaced with a $2 bathroom sink u-pipe). (oh, nevermind, I never posted those. Guess I'll dig for them if folks are interested) |
Originally Posted by jayc72
(Post 203739)
I'm not disputing that. But how much difference? And does that difference actually have any real impact on the IAT? And if so how much? Ultimately does that have any impact on performance?
I guess it comes down to want the ideal or good enough. TO put it in perspective. If you take the inverse of the heat transfer coefficient you get its R value. The R value should give you and idea of its comparable insulators |
Yes, but have you stopped to think about the surface area at all here? The air is going through a 2.5" tube. That's 4.9 square inches and only 7.85 inches circumference.
Now, an intercooler has ~15 channels, about 1/2x3" passages. That's a 22.5" of cross section and 105 inches of circumference. That means the air travels through the intercooler at 22.5/4.9 ~ 5 times as slowly through the intercooler, so it has a LOT more time to exchange heat with the outside world. Now, the area that it's in contact with is 105/7.85 ~ 13 times as great. This dedicated aluminum cooler is touching a lot of air, for a long time. You can touch the tips of a fork that just came out of a pot of hot water for an instant, and be ok. But go ahead and lay your hand flat on a hot pan for 10 seconds, and see how it goes. (Actually, don't do that. You'll burn yourself badly and require medical attention). In short, for a given length of travel (IC or IC pipe) you get over 61 times the cooling. So, get an intercooler 1" wider, and you've totally negated five feet of aluminum tubing. It's good to get it, and the point is valid, going out of your way to insulate tubes is DUMB. Get a nice intercooler (like, buy mine!) and be happy. Shorter tubes with less bends will show better gains since you don't have to heat the air as much to get it through them. |
You guys are right. It makes a difference, I never argued that really. My issue is that Corky is saying to NEVER EVER use an insulated pipe on the hotside. With out actual testing of both how can he possible make this claim? Other than to take an authoritative stance to discredit another vendor. OEM have been using non-metal pipes for ears on boosted cars, why didn't he speak out about this before? It was only after his competitor entered the market with that product that he writes his article.
If that article was written by Tom at FFS how well would it be received. I'm done. |
Yeah it was a direct slap int he face to FM in response to some of their remarks. I agree, an insulated pipe should have been tested, but I assume a silicone charge pipe will shed 0 heat. The argument is valid....i posted it for face value, just food for thought.
if the article was written by tom it would be full of ups and downs and id rather walk the dog than read it. |
Originally Posted by jayc72
(Post 203664)
I'd take what Corky wrote above with a BIG grain of salt. I think what he's testing is flawed, and honestly not terribly relevant in real life. He never tests both types of pipes under the same conditions. He tests the difference between the outlet of the turbo and the inlet of the I/C. Distance traveled could have as much to do with heat shed and the type of material the pipe is made from. But we wouldn't know that because he only shows data to prove his point.The bit of data that we REALLY care about is post i/c temps. I would really like to see the difference between his metal tube and something that insulates. I'm willing to bet that the big assed i/c most are using will eat up the potential couple of degree difference. .
As for testing both sets of tubes: FM makes the opposite claim that we do. However, is anyone else crying foul and challenging their testing procedures? Do they have actual data and numbers to back it up? You should have the same standards for everyone. If we had a set of tubes, I would be happy to test them. I think the fact that the metal tubes shed heat prior to the IC is proof enough that they are better. Insulated tubes cannot shed heat. Period. Distance traveled does not matter in this comparison since both sets of tubes are flowing in the same direction, place and manner. Corky isn't god, just another vendor. And like FM, Trackdog, Goodwin ... etc, he has an adgena. To sell product. I'm not saying that he's wrong, but I don't see the above as anything more than a criticism of FM's product. Stephanie |
I think the fact that the metal tubes shed heat prior to the IC is proof enough that they are better. Summary: Regardless of where the turbo is located, NEVER, NEVER (NEVER SQUARED??) INSULATE THE COMPRESSOR OUTLET TUBE. Jay :hustler: |
Originally Posted by jayc72
(Post 203874)
But how much better? Enough to warrant this? :
Originally Posted by Stephanie Turner
(Post 203826)
Insulated tubes cannot shed heat. Period. Distance traveled does not matter in this comparison since both sets of tubes are flowing in the same direction, place and manner.
I think that's the point, Jay - if the tube drops 20*, and the intercooler 40, or the tube drops 1, and the intercooler 57... You haven't lost a lot. The distance traveled is only to say that you would need an obscene amount of metal tubing to make up the difference of a marginally bigger intercooler. Sure, you could have, well, an 24" intercooler on the end of a rubber hose, or an 18" intercooler on the end of 30 foot IC pipe, and get the same effect. Assuming there was airflow over this, and the weight of such a device wouldn't make the car front heavy and all sort of other silly conciderations (the biggest one being the compressor needing to generate 5-10 psi more to overcome the loses in such a system.... All that said though, there's no reason to give up the free benefits from a well conducting metal tube. Perhaps you could run radiator water through it, since compressor outlet temps are high. Got me. |
Originally Posted by jayc72
(Post 203874)
But how much better? Enough to warrant this? :
I need a dead horse smiley :) Jay :hustler: |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:33 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands