TDR i/c allows way more air to the radiator
08-07-2007, 11:52 PM
#21
Elite Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
Oh, and it looks like coolant temps are significantly cooler. On a certain mountain run, temps remained barely above my t-stat cracking temperature, while with the AVO ic it would go about 5°C hotter.
Reply
0
0
08-08-2007, 10:20 AM
#24
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
Results:
- spoolup, no change
- topend, slight discernible advantage to AVO (~2%, could be meas error, AEMlog acceleration function)
- temp rise during a 2nd gear run: 4°C vs. 6°C, advantage AVO i/c, BUT the temps drop back down more quickly with the TDR. The AVO appears to have more thermal mass but heatsoak, the TDR airflow cools it down quick. Peak temps on the track, unknown.
I have yet to measure pressure loss.
- spoolup, no change
- topend, slight discernible advantage to AVO (~2%, could be meas error, AEMlog acceleration function)
- temp rise during a 2nd gear run: 4°C vs. 6°C, advantage AVO i/c, BUT the temps drop back down more quickly with the TDR. The AVO appears to have more thermal mass but heatsoak, the TDR airflow cools it down quick. Peak temps on the track, unknown.
I have yet to measure pressure loss.
Reply
0
0
08-08-2007, 01:06 PM
#26
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
thanks timmy.
so basically the generalizations about how bar and plate vs tube and fin compare is supported.
a thick-wall square-cornered extrusion behaves like a big heatsink and a smooth tube lets air flow around it better.
Originally Posted by jasonc sbb
Results:
- spoolup, no change
- topend, slight discernible advantage to AVO (~2%, could be meas error, AEMlog acceleration function)
- temp rise during a 2nd gear run: 4°C vs. 6°C, advantage AVO i/c, BUT the temps drop back down more quickly with the TDR. The AVO appears to have more thermal mass but heatsoak, the TDR airflow cools it down quick. Peak temps on the track, unknown.
- spoolup, no change
- topend, slight discernible advantage to AVO (~2%, could be meas error, AEMlog acceleration function)
- temp rise during a 2nd gear run: 4°C vs. 6°C, advantage AVO i/c, BUT the temps drop back down more quickly with the TDR. The AVO appears to have more thermal mass but heatsoak, the TDR airflow cools it down quick. Peak temps on the track, unknown.
a thick-wall square-cornered extrusion behaves like a big heatsink and a smooth tube lets air flow around it better.
Reply
0
0
08-09-2007, 08:54 AM
#30
"opening area" - as in the area between the tubes- right? The area where the air passes through looks to be twice the thickness of the tube on the TDR, whereas it's the same thickness on the bar and plate. (I think that's your point) Same number of tubes on both ICs?
I wished I liked the wizdom front end, because it looks like it would dramatically increase the front end air flow - the scooper just looks too "form follows function". It would be nice to resolve it in a spoiler.
I wished I liked the wizdom front end, because it looks like it would dramatically increase the front end air flow - the scooper just looks too "form follows function". It would be nice to resolve it in a spoiler.
Reply
0
0
08-09-2007, 12:35 PM
#31
Elite Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
Exactly. However that would suggest a higher pressure loss for the intake airflow. Given that it's not the case, plus the poorer intake air heat shedding, it's possible the TDR has fewer internal turbulators for the intake airflow.
Last edited by JasonC SBB; 08-09-2007 at 12:47 PM.
Reply
0
0
08-09-2007, 01:23 PM
#32
"opening area" - as in the area between the tubes- right? The area where the air passes through looks to be twice the thickness of the tube on the TDR, whereas it's the same thickness on the bar and plate. (I think that's your point) Same number of tubes on both ICs?
I wished I liked the wizdom front end, because it looks like it would dramatically increase the front end air flow - the scooper just looks too "form follows function". It would be nice to resolve it in a spoiler.
I wished I liked the wizdom front end, because it looks like it would dramatically increase the front end air flow - the scooper just looks too "form follows function". It would be nice to resolve it in a spoiler.
Reply
0
0
08-10-2007, 01:48 AM
#34
Elite Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
I noticed that with the TDR, there was a much bigger gap for air to go above the i/c into the radiator. The gap is between the i/c and the bumper horizontal steel box section. In the AVO the gap could barely pass a finger.
Reply
0
0
08-10-2007, 01:54 AM
#35
Elite Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
Today in 85°F weather, 80 mph on the freeway for 20 mins, the a/c, coolant, and oil temps were noticeably cooler. Coolant was ~ 85°C, oil was 87°C max. Small oil cooler in foglight hole. Normally things would be at least 5°C hotter. I'm pleased.
Reply
0
0
08-10-2007, 08:58 AM
#36
Similar to the barNplate vs. tubeNfin argument - is the spacing between heat exchangers. I followed the the thinking that they should all be sandwiched together (I'm assuming your AVO was this way) so that the oncoming wouldn't create a path around the IC. Of course given you're results, it doesn't seem to matter since the coolant temp has improved and your air temps are too.
I guess you'd really need to put the AVO cooler back in their at the same position/angle to make this a legitimate comparison.
I guess you'd really need to put the AVO cooler back in their at the same position/angle to make this a legitimate comparison.
Reply
0
0
08-20-2007, 10:28 PM
#37
Elite Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
So it was a bit hot today and I took the car to my 2 steep cooling system torture test hills. Talked my way out of a 62 in a 40 ticket on the way there. Road was really wide and really deserted with 6 stinkin' lanes. Rich people complaining...
Result: the coolant is at LEAST 5°C cooler than before in similar conditions. That would mean my car can do track days in at least 10°F hotter weather than before.
Road was really wide and really deserted with 6 stinkin' lanes. Rich people complaining...Result: the coolant is at LEAST 5°C cooler than before in similar conditions. That would mean my car can do track days in at least 10°F hotter weather than before.
Reply
0
0
08-29-2007, 06:44 PM
#39
Elite Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
So today it was 98°F out, and I took the car to my torture test hill again.
Result: coolant 107°C, oil 108°C at the top of the hill.
During freeway cruise, coolant was barely 94°C and oil barely 100°C.
With my old i/c, I would get about 114°C coolant and ~115°C oil at the top of the hill under these conditions, and maybe 103°C coolant and 110°C oil during cruise.
A/C was also very comfy on '3', and I'm an a/c fiend.
Peak intake air temps were 55°C; at the bottom of the hill it was 45°C. The highest rise was 6°C, from 8 seconds of partial boost.
Result: coolant 107°C, oil 108°C at the top of the hill.
During freeway cruise, coolant was barely 94°C and oil barely 100°C.
With my old i/c, I would get about 114°C coolant and ~115°C oil at the top of the hill under these conditions, and maybe 103°C coolant and 110°C oil during cruise.
A/C was also very comfy on '3', and I'm an a/c fiend.
Peak intake air temps were 55°C; at the bottom of the hill it was 45°C. The highest rise was 6°C, from 8 seconds of partial boost.
Reply
0
0
