ITT: fmic size and piping diameters for optimum efficiency - Page 2 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


DIY Turbo Discussion greddy on a 1.8? homebrew kit?

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 11-18-2012, 05:22 PM   #21
Murderator
Thread Starter
iTrader: (76)
 
18psi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 36,174
Total Cats: 2,575
Default

every thread I just read the inputs are all 50/50 ARRRRRGHHHH

Jason and Brain so far are the only people that actually stated NUMBERS of how much something changed vs just ranting on and on about how they think its better and bla bla bla bullshit that helps no one. I guess that's why this site is one of the best on the webbernetz, lol

So far this is what I gather:

deltafin - better response due to less restrictions and larger tubes, and passes more air through itself and onto the radiator. So pluses and minuses.
bar/plate - holds up to higher pressures better, is sturdier, and possibly has more turbulators inside? again, pluses and minuses.

Also there's the argument of "what are the top companies using?"
Well ARC, one of the top dogs out there uses tube/fin and deltafin.
But then
Precision, another of the top dogs, use bar/plate.

Lastly, OEM's pretty much all use tube/fin. I wonder why? Simply because its more efficient at lower speeds/pressures, or what reason?

Since my miata will be a daily, I'm starting to kinda lean towards the deltafin??? Iono

I mean it worked great on my previous miata:


But then I never tried a bar/plate so maybe that woulda worked just as well?
Attached Thumbnails
ITT: fmic size and piping diameters for optimum efficiency-5480863124_310a758c5c_b.jpg  
18psi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 10:51 PM   #22
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Leafy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NH
Posts: 9,091
Total Cats: 90
Default

The type of the core is not nearly as important as the actual efficiency of the core. If you can get a company to give you the results from their testing then you can compare them. If you cant get them to give you the results then they're scared you wont like the results, or they're *****.

On the tube sizing. Theoretically you just want to size it so that the air flow doesnt hit super sonic. HOWEVER drag is a function of the square of velocity and head loss is directly related to velocity, so the slower moving air is going to loose less energy than faster moving air. BUT going larger in pipe diameter also increases your surface area for skin friction and creates a larger volume of air on the surface of the tubing moving at near zero velocity. Basically, fluids is a crap shoot and you either need to test **** empirically or use a computer. Or do the smarter thing and find someone else who has tested it empirically.

Something like this but more precise. numbers in the table are in cfm. Based on this 2 inch pipe at 20 psi can support ~400 hp with a 1psi pressure drop. So based on this chart, which isnt the most accurate thing but has a bunch of safety factor built in you could come close to or hit your 250 hp goal if you were using 20 psi with only 1.5" piping.
Leafy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 11:16 PM   #23
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
triple88a's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,131
Total Cats: 598
Default

I'd make the hotside same as the turbo outlet and then the cold side same as the throttle body size with the IC having the bigger size pipes of the 2 and using a reducer on the smaller pipe.
triple88a is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 11:25 PM   #24
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: ON
Posts: 523
Total Cats: 2
Default

Tube and fin typically is cheaper to mass produce and IIRC more efficient, thus oem.

On a previous car I experimented with this and ended up using a mx6 intercooler (top / bottom tanks with rear facing barbs made for SHORT ic piping, something in Corky's book about that I believe) with 2" piping and a 2554 sized ihi at 14psi. It did heat a bit at the top end (tiny turbo) but had awesome response and low end. IIRC it was producing 14psi by 2500rpm and tapered to 13 or 12.5psi at red line.

FWIW I have a BEGI #2 and standard BEGI piping and AIT typically goes up 2-3C under 17psi (stock 97 engine) from a 2560, street driving.
inferno94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 11:29 PM   #25
Murderator
Thread Starter
iTrader: (76)
 
18psi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 36,174
Total Cats: 2,575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafy View Post
The type of the core is not nearly as important as the actual efficiency of the core. If you can get a company to give you the results from their testing then you can compare them. If you cant get them to give you the results then they're scared you wont like the results, or they're *****.
Companies that have this info charge $450+ for their cores. I'm sure they have the info, and I'm sure its good, and I'm sure they'll suck my dick, but ebay and similar is about all I'm looking at right now.

That's what makes this discussion tricky.
I intend to test whatever I get and provide actual results.

Quote:
On the tube sizing. Theoretically you just want to size it so that the air flow doesnt hit super sonic. HOWEVER drag is a function of the square of velocity and head loss is directly related to velocity, so the slower moving air is going to loose less energy than faster moving air. BUT going larger in pipe diameter also increases your surface area for skin friction and creates a larger volume of air on the surface of the tubing moving at near zero velocity. Basically, fluids is a crap shoot and you either need to test **** empirically or use a computer. Or do the smarter thing and find someone else who has tested it empirically.

Something like this but more precise. numbers in the table are in cfm. Based on this 2 inch pipe at 20 psi can support ~400 hp with a 1psi pressure drop. So based on this chart, which isnt the most accurate thing but has a bunch of safety factor built in you could come close to or hit your 250 hp goal if you were using 20 psi with only 1.5" piping.
All the charts I've looked at so far tell me 2" is enough for 250. And 300 (though getting close to topping out at that point)

This is why I'm waiting for someone to tell me why that may NOT work out. And hopefully present some evidence to prove their claim.

If not, I'll move forward with this plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by triple88a View Post
I'd make the hotside same as the turbo outlet and then the cold side same as the throttle body size with the IC having the bigger size pipes of the 2 and using a reducer on the smaller pipe.
That's cool, but can you tell me why I should do it?

Its a whole helluva lot easier to route 2" on the cold side between the motor and my oversized rad/stock fans, then have a silicone elbow/reducer go into the TB from 2" to 2.5" (actually have one of these already).


Like I said, I will do it if someone tells me that its beneficial (and post up proof or a good argument)

Quote:
Originally Posted by inferno94 View Post
Tube and fin typically is cheaper to mass produce and IIRC more efficient, thus oem.

On a previous car I experimented with this and ended up using a mx6 intercooler (top / bottom tanks with rear facing barbs made for SHORT ic piping, something in Corky's book about that I believe) with 2" piping and a 2554 sized ihi at 14psi. It did heat a bit at the top end (tiny turbo) but had awesome response and low end. IIRC it was producing 14psi by 2500rpm and tapered to 13 or 12.5psi at red line.

FWIW I have a BEGI #2 and standard BEGI piping and AIT typically goes up 2-3C under 17psi (stock 97 engine) from a 2560, street driving.
Wait so you went from the tube/fin little one to a BEGi #2 and setup is otherwise the same?
If so post up AIT's before/after....
18psi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 11:40 PM   #26
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
triple88a's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,131
Total Cats: 598
Default

Why should you do it? Least efficiency losses.

The hot side being the same size as the turbo outlet means you dont have to scram the air into a smaller pipe after it goes up to whatever the turbo outlet size is. Then the cold side wouldnt have to force everything into the smaller pipe just to expand again to the throttle body size. Of course go by the ID of the piping.

I dont know why you've had so many issues with over the rad setup. Mine was simple as all hell and i'm using 2.25s.
triple88a is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 11:46 PM   #27
Murderator
Thread Starter
iTrader: (76)
 
18psi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 36,174
Total Cats: 2,575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by triple88a View Post
Why should you do it? Least efficiency losses.
What does this mean?
Quote:


The hot side being the same size as the turbo outlet means you dont have to scram the air into a smaller pipe after it goes up to whatever the turbo outlet size is. Then the cold side wouldnt have to force everything into the smaller pipe just to expand again to the throttle body size. Of course go by the ID of the piping.
Yeah except after the air enters the intercooler it still has to be crammed back into a small hole at the end. So whats the difference between a 2" hole and 2.5" hole if for the end result goal the 2" piping is up to the task? (based on the calculations)

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just looking for factual evidence.
Quote:

I dont know why you've had so many issues with over the rad setup. Mine was simple as all hell and i'm using 2.25s.
Whats simple about it?
You need to lower the rad. You also need to tilt it. So either re-locating the lower brackets, the bar, or both. And you need new fans because stockers wont clear. And you need new brackets for the top of the rad. And you need a shroud for the top. That's a ton of stuff, I did a step by step in my 1st build thread. At the time it seemed like a great idea. Then I hated it.

What am I missing here?
18psi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 11:49 PM   #28
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Leafy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NH
Posts: 9,091
Total Cats: 90
Default

I really dont see why the cold side needs to be larger either except to match the throttle body. You should need less flow cross seciton to move the same mass of air after the intercooler than before it since that air mass will be more dense it will occupy less volume (technically it will always fill the volume since its a fluid and will be at lower pressure but humor me). I would think you would see no losses if you ran two inch the whole way and used a 7.5* draft angle for your taper to the throttle body size. 7.5* draft (aka 15* total) is what we use on the formula car for the expansion after the restrictor we have to run, the University of australia found it to be the best and all our CFD confirmed it. You would have to do your own CFD since this pipe size is larger and you're going to be working with a different density of air, but you will be working with around the same velocities.

Of you could just use 2" and whatever the **** taper you can buy and fits conveniently.
Leafy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 11:51 PM   #29
Murderator
Thread Starter
iTrader: (76)
 
18psi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 36,174
Total Cats: 2,575
Default

I has this
Attached Thumbnails
ITT: fmic size and piping diameters for optimum efficiency-%24-kgrhqf-hse5hgujqb4bo-drdt6mg%7E%7E60_35.jpg  
18psi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 11:53 PM   #30
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
triple88a's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,131
Total Cats: 598
Default

The stock brackets get removed from the stock location, you drill one hole and mount them in the anti sway bar bolts. This will give you enough room for 3" pipes if you cut more of the top support. The stock fans clear, the shrouds clear.

All you need to do is make brackets for the upper radiator support.



Leafy, running bigger than the throttle body colder side will only increase lag a bit but mainly it will make it more difficult since you will have bigger pipe to route. Running smaller will reduce efficiency though per reasons i mentioned above. Take the flow of the engine, take the cc difference of the pipes and see how much extra lag it will cause.. not much.

I finished my ic setup in 4 hours total and that includes going to the hardware to buy stuff since i broke one of the bolts that hold the antisway bar since i decided to be dumb and use my impact wrench.

I also have AC and PS.
Attached Thumbnails
ITT: fmic size and piping diameters for optimum efficiency-p081110_1626_03.jpg  

Last edited by triple88a; 11-19-2012 at 12:12 AM.
triple88a is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 02:52 AM   #31
Newb
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Decatur, Ga
Posts: 33
Total Cats: 5
Default

Ive been researching this as well.

Im cobbling together a system based on the msm hotside pieces for a goal of modest power increase/ minimal tweaking and maximum simplicity. I was unable to secure the oem charge pipes, but having seen how kinky they are, I feel I am just as well to not have em.

If MSM guys top out at 230 at the most, using the turbo to its maximum efficiency, Im wondering if, considering that I am not going to build the engine, there is any reason to go over 1.5 inch charge pipes at any point in the system other than reducers to mate up to the throttle body and intercooler.
This of course presumes that running the smallest pipe to reach your power goals is truly the best choice. For my share, if this car makes 200 at the wheels Ill be happy as a pig in ****.

Theres simply not alot of info on using small pipes like that. Im asking myself if its because of the mental "little dick pipe" factor or if there is a more practical reason not to based on out of boost driveability or flow or some other unaccounted for variable.

Do MSM feel choked out at high rpm?
Animus21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 03:48 AM   #32
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
triple88a's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,131
Total Cats: 598
Default

In other words run an inch and 3/4 exhaust with the smallest turbo you can find with the smallest piping for the intercooler? The last time i was on this forum i thought we picked stuff with optimal efficiency, not whatever is easier of stuff that is easy as it is.
triple88a is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 08:59 AM   #33
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 3,325
Total Cats: 235
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by triple88a View Post

Leafy, running bigger than the throttle body colder side will only increase lag a bit but mainly it will make it more difficult since you will have bigger pipe to route. Running smaller will reduce efficiency though per reasons i mentioned above. Take the flow of the engine, take the cc difference of the pipes and see how much extra lag it will cause.. not much.
Why though? I don't have any numbers, but I am going to guess that if 2" is enough for the hotside, why would it not be as efficient on the cold side? Running smaller will only reduce efficiency if you are trying to push more air through it, right? If we are still only pushing 250-300hp worth of air through, I don't see why it wouldn't work.

It may be that you want that air moving slower (bigger pipe) or faster (smaller pipe) but I doubt it significantly changes the efficiency until you start to get near the limits of the 2" pipe.
thenuge26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 09:26 AM   #34
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Leafy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NH
Posts: 9,091
Total Cats: 90
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thenuge26 View Post
Why though? I don't have any numbers, but I am going to guess that if 2" is enough for the hotside, why would it not be as efficient on the cold side? Running smaller will only reduce efficiency if you are trying to push more air through it, right? If we are still only pushing 250-300hp worth of air through, I don't see why it wouldn't work.

It may be that you want that air moving slower (bigger pipe) or faster (smaller pipe) but I doubt it significantly changes the efficiency until you start to get near the limits of the 2" pipe.
By my math for the same air mass (aka what directly relates to the power you can make). The hot side intercooler piping should require more flow than the cold side. It will be colder so the molecular drift speed of the air charge will be slower but that is only a noticeable part of the total air velocity in turbulent flow. We should be in transitional flow between the intercooler and the throttle body since the piping isnt really long enough for fully developed flow to develop. Unless you go with a long *** routing then based on my rough math it would develop into turbulent flow.
Leafy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 09:27 AM   #35
Murderator
Thread Starter
iTrader: (76)
 
18psi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 36,174
Total Cats: 2,575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by triple88a View Post
The stock brackets get removed from the stock location, you drill one hole and mount them in the anti sway bar bolts. This will give you enough room for 3" pipes if you cut more of the top support. The stock fans clear, the shrouds clear.

All you need to do is make brackets for the upper radiator support.

[IMG]https://www.miataturbo.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=60218&dateline=1353297 238[IMG]
I finished my ic setup in 4 hours total and that includes going to the hardware to buy stuff since i broke one of the bolts that hold the antisway bar since i decided to be dumb and use my impact wrench.
Yeah, except that looks half assed to me and that's not something I'd be proud of or happy with.
Like I said, in my 1st build thread, I did it PROPERLY and completely, making sure everything is fastened, shrouded, and correct, and the process I outlined is what it takes to DO IT RIGHT.

And you still end up hacking up the rad support (which is necessary, I had to do it too) to get the pipes to be able to pass through there.

I don't like that. At all.
Quote:
Leafy, running bigger than the throttle body colder side will only increase lag a bit but mainly it will make it more difficult since you will have bigger pipe to route. Running smaller will reduce efficiency though per reasons i mentioned above. Take the flow of the engine, take the cc difference of the pipes and see how much extra lag it will cause.. not much.

I also have AC and PS.
You keep using this word.
I have a feeling you have NO ******* CLUE what it means

I'm trying my hardest to keep this conversation productive, but please, if this is all you have to say just don't post.......This is not the exhaust side. Saying simply "bigger is better" isn't going to cut it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Animus21 View Post
Ive been researching this as well.

Im cobbling together a system based on the msm hotside pieces for a goal of modest power increase/ minimal tweaking and maximum simplicity. I was unable to secure the oem charge pipes, but having seen how kinky they are, I feel I am just as well to not have em.

If MSM guys top out at 230 at the most, using the turbo to its maximum efficiency, Im wondering if, considering that I am not going to build the engine, there is any reason to go over 1.5 inch charge pipes at any point in the system other than reducers to mate up to the throttle body and intercooler.
This of course presumes that running the smallest pipe to reach your power goals is truly the best choice. For my share, if this car makes 200 at the wheels Ill be happy as a pig in ****.

Theres simply not alot of info on using small pipes like that. Im asking myself if its because of the mental "little dick pipe" factor or if there is a more practical reason not to based on out of boost driveability or flow or some other unaccounted for variable.

Do MSM feel choked out at high rpm?
Do not mistake a tiny turbo and choked up exhaust killing power with small IC pipes. According to the calculations in this thread, 2" is more than enough for 200. Only way to test this of course, is find someone running a larger turbo/exhaust on an MSM and keeping the original fmic piping and look at their plot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by triple88a View Post
In other words run an inch and 3/4 exhaust with the smallest turbo you can find with the smallest piping for the intercooler? The last time i was on this forum i thought we picked stuff with optimal efficiency, not whatever is easier of stuff that is easy as it is.
The word EFFICIENCY gets thrown around in here like a 2 dollar hooker.

Yet people fail to realize that using SMALLER PIPING thats OPTIMAL for the power and flow targets, is the definition of efficiency.

Using LARGER PIPING, that's OVERSIZED for the goals, is in-efficient.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thenuge26 View Post
Why though? I don't have any numbers, but I am going to guess that if 2" is enough for the hotside, why would it not be as efficient on the cold side? Running smaller will only reduce efficiency if you are trying to push more air through it, right? If we are still only pushing 250-300hp worth of air through, I don't see why it wouldn't work.

It may be that you want that air moving slower (bigger pipe) or faster (smaller pipe) but I doubt it significantly changes the efficiency until you start to get near the limits of the 2" pipe.
This is the way I look at it.

I hope someone smarter than myself regarding these topics can point out the flaw in this logic.


PAGING:
Joe Perez
Brain
y8s
Savington
???????
Anyone else that knows what the word EFFICIENCY means.
18psi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 09:30 AM   #36
Murderator
Thread Starter
iTrader: (76)
 
18psi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 36,174
Total Cats: 2,575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafy View Post
By my math for the same air mass (aka what directly relates to the power you can make). The hot side intercooler piping should require more flow than the cold side. It will be colder so the molecular drift speed of the air charge will be slower but that is only a noticeable part of the total air velocity in turbulent flow. We should be in transitional flow between the intercooler and the throttle body since the piping isnt really long enough for fully developed flow to develop. Unless you go with a long *** routing then based on my rough math it would develop into turbulent flow.
This makes sense...To me...considering the coldside piping will be extremely smooth and relatively short, or just about as smooth and short as the hotside....I don't see it getting overly turbulent or requiring a step up to oversized piping.
18psi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 09:33 AM   #37
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Leafy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NH
Posts: 9,091
Total Cats: 90
Default

The only way efficiency applies to intercooler piping is pressure drop. The less pressure drop along the piping the more efficient it is. Pressure drop is really easy to calculate, if you know how to find Reynolds number its then a simple bit of math and a look up in some tables for head losses in the bends. And you dont worry about the flow being overly turbulent you worry about it going too fast. You hit super sonic speed and your flow gets fucked.
Leafy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 02:12 PM   #38
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
triple88a's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,131
Total Cats: 598
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18psi View Post
Yeah, except that looks half assed to me and that's not something I'd be proud of or happy with.
Like I said, in my 1st build thread, I did it PROPERLY and completely, making sure everything is fastened, shrouded, and correct, and the process I outlined is what it takes to DO IT RIGHT.
That's without the top cover on ya noob.

Theres nothing half assed about that setup. I actually took the top cover off 2 days ago... everything is tight as it gets.

Attached Thumbnails
ITT: fmic size and piping diameters for optimum efficiency-dscf0005.jpg  
triple88a is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 03:49 PM   #39
Newb
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Decatur, Ga
Posts: 33
Total Cats: 5
Default

My over the radiator setup is going to be similar to yours. I didnt have the nice TDR pieces to work with, so I made some ABS ones. I actually had to mount the radiator in the old AC condensor hole locations to tilt the rad forward at the bottom. the intercooler Im using is unusually large for this sort of setup. Ill probably run 2 inch piping, cause why not? it will be fine, and not as close to critical mach as 1.5 would be for the power Im aiming for.

exhaust is going to be 2.5............most limiting factor in my setup is the turbo, but hell. if its good up to power levels that exceeding would necessitate building the engine, Im going to use it. It was cheap and is in good shape. fuggit.


Attached Thumbnails
ITT: fmic size and piping diameters for optimum efficiency-004_zps7a00036c.jpg   ITT: fmic size and piping diameters for optimum efficiency-005.jpg  
Animus21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 04:05 PM   #40
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 3,325
Total Cats: 235
Default

Unless your turbo can't be seen without a microscope, your 2.5" exhaust will probably be your limiting factor. I think even the 2554 is limited by a 2.5" exhaust.
thenuge26 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Project Gemini - Turbo Civic on the Cheap Full_Tilt_Boogie Build Threads 57 07-19-2017 05:11 PM
Another Cast Manifold Corky Bell Prefabbed Turbo Kits 18 11-22-2016 10:01 PM
OTS Bilstein to motorsports ASN conversion stoves Suspension, Brakes, Drivetrain 5 04-21-2016 04:00 PM
Expected intake temps on the track? tazswing Race Prep 20 10-03-2015 12:04 PM
Going back to stock. Need some 1.6 parts. Trent WTB 2 10-01-2015 01:15 PM


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:58 PM.