ARC top mount - opinions please!
12-17-08, 03:47 PM
#53
Full Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
first i've heard of it...
i even deal with people with drag cars that have just the one spray before the turbo snout..(the simple water system ive described is what they use)
they have never had a problem with pitting etc as the water being sprayed is really fine..
the coolmist system runs after turbo so it cools initial charge air. then hits it again after the intercooler to drop the temp again.
but anyway im going the arc with water injection..
sorry to take this off topic peoples
12-17-08, 04:49 PM
#55
Oh wah wah wah, I used the wrong word when I meant to say impeller. I got about 2 hours of sleep last night and I'm posting from work. But if you want droplets of water smacking into tiny precision surfaces that are spinning at 100,000+RPM then be my guest.
12-17-08, 05:29 PM
#56
4th string e-armchair QB
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: North Bay, Ontario
Posts: 2,745
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Impeller? That isn't right either. If you use proper the proper terminology, you'll have an easier time convincing people that your opinions are facts. People have done it successfully for extended periods of time without issue.
And, seeing as those compressor blades are cutting the air at 100,000+ RPM, they're heating the air significantly enough that majority of the water hitting it would evaporate before contact.
12-17-08, 06:44 PM
#57
Before you started flaming did you pause for a moment to consider that we live in different countries that have their own versions of English? Both terms are correct, eh?
The air doesn't really start to get heated until it is getting spun around. The damage gets done when the leading edges strike the droplets.
Let's do a little math. If the diameter of the turbo intake is 3", then the circumference is 9.43 inches. At 100,000RPM, the blade tips are moving at 943000 inches per minute, or 56,580,000 inches per hour. At 63360 inches in a mile, that comes out to 892.99 miles per hour, which is pretty damned fast.
People have done it with no ill effects, yes. People have also wrecked their turbos. If the spray is atomized well enough it will probably be fine, but if it's not, due to whatever factor (poor setup, clogged or contaminated sprayer, whatever) it could be bad.
The air doesn't really start to get heated until it is getting spun around. The damage gets done when the leading edges strike the droplets.
Let's do a little math. If the diameter of the turbo intake is 3", then the circumference is 9.43 inches. At 100,000RPM, the blade tips are moving at 943000 inches per minute, or 56,580,000 inches per hour. At 63360 inches in a mile, that comes out to 892.99 miles per hour, which is pretty damned fast.
People have done it with no ill effects, yes. People have also wrecked their turbos. If the spray is atomized well enough it will probably be fine, but if it's not, due to whatever factor (poor setup, clogged or contaminated sprayer, whatever) it could be bad.
12-17-08, 07:25 PM
#58
4th string e-armchair QB
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: North Bay, Ontario
Posts: 2,745
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You sir, are an idiot.
If you do happen to look at anybody who knows anything about turbos, they are described as compressor wheels and turbine wheels. And this is from the good ol' US of A all the way to Japan. And, just because we have health care and a surviving economy doesn't mean you have to get all personal on me here.
FWIW, the picture of that "impeller" is off a supercharger.
Now, can you actually show me a case with someone properly injecting water that has caused damage to the compressor blades? Here is a good example of copious amounts of water injected pre-turbo on a 600whp DD with no problems: http://www.riceracing.com.au/water-injection.htm
Now, I never claimed that oodles of water hitting blades is a good thing, I've been talking about properly atomized water, and properly working WI kits, and clogged/contaminated nozzles isn't really a factor in this discussion.
If you do happen to look at anybody who knows anything about turbos, they are described as compressor wheels and turbine wheels. And this is from the good ol' US of A all the way to Japan. And, just because we have health care and a surviving economy doesn't mean you have to get all personal on me here.
FWIW, the picture of that "impeller" is off a supercharger.
Now, can you actually show me a case with someone properly injecting water that has caused damage to the compressor blades? Here is a good example of copious amounts of water injected pre-turbo on a 600whp DD with no problems: http://www.riceracing.com.au/water-injection.htm
Now, I never claimed that oodles of water hitting blades is a good thing, I've been talking about properly atomized water, and properly working WI kits, and clogged/contaminated nozzles isn't really a factor in this discussion.
12-17-08, 10:03 PM
#59
Impeller? That isn't right either. If you use proper the proper terminology, you'll have an easier time convincing people that your opinions are facts. People have done it successfully for extended periods of time without issue.
And, seeing as those compressor blades are cutting the air at 100,000+ RPM, they're heating the air significantly enough that majority of the water hitting it would evaporate before contact.
And, seeing as those compressor blades are cutting the air at 100,000+ RPM, they're heating the air significantly enough that majority of the water hitting it would evaporate before contact.
If you weren't being such an ***, you'll have an easier time convincing people to actually listen to you.
I think everyone on this thread knew what he meant.
also, from dictionary.com:
impeller - a rotor for transmitting motion, as in a centrifugal pump, blower, turbine, or fluid coupling.
Sure sounds a hell of a lot like a compressor wheel to me. It's actually the correct term to call it. it's actually what a compressor wheel is called....
Last edited by eage8; 12-17-08 at 10:19 PM.
12-17-08, 10:21 PM
#60
wheres aaron cake when you need him?
also some interesting reading...
http://autospeed.com/cms/A_110369/article.html
also some interesting reading...
http://autospeed.com/cms/A_110369/article.html
Last edited by SirCygnus; 12-17-08 at 10:29 PM.
12-18-08, 12:12 AM
#62
4th string e-armchair QB
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: North Bay, Ontario
Posts: 2,745
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I'm sorry that I mislead you to think that I'm trying to convince people to listen to me. I'm actually just trying to promote people to question **** that is false.
12-18-08, 11:11 AM
#64
As long as you have good atomization, you'll be fine with spraying pre turbo.
Stylemon on this forum runs pre and post turbo jets, with no other charge cooling at all - only chemical. You'd have to ask him how his comp. wheel looks, but I'd bet money that they're prefectly fine.
Read up in the AI section of the forum fellas
Stylemon on this forum runs pre and post turbo jets, with no other charge cooling at all - only chemical. You'd have to ask him how his comp. wheel looks, but I'd bet money that they're prefectly fine.
Read up in the AI section of the forum fellas
12-18-08, 12:10 PM
#66
4th string e-armchair QB
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: North Bay, Ontario
Posts: 2,745
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've **** enough on the OP's thread, I'll leave it alone. I apologize to them. And yes, we all run aftercoolers, because our turbo/superchargers are single stage.
12-18-08, 02:37 PM
#68
Wire monkey
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Camberley, Surrey, UK
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bringing it back on topic
Someone mentioned getting one made - when I got mine re-cored, I got them to make a copy at the same time, so although the end tanks are more angular, the basic dimensions and the core were the same size.
A friend runs this on his car which is mostly stock and gets stock figures. So the intercooler doesn't seem to hurt engine performance any over the stock unit.
Cost of making one from scratch was about £370, which with our £ getting ever closer to your $ would be something a little less than $500. I suspect getting it made in the US is going to bring the price down anyways - we pay through the nose for engineering here.
Here's a pic (copy on the left) :
Someone mentioned getting one made - when I got mine re-cored, I got them to make a copy at the same time, so although the end tanks are more angular, the basic dimensions and the core were the same size.
A friend runs this on his car which is mostly stock and gets stock figures. So the intercooler doesn't seem to hurt engine performance any over the stock unit.
Cost of making one from scratch was about £370, which with our £ getting ever closer to your $ would be something a little less than $500. I suspect getting it made in the US is going to bring the price down anyways - we pay through the nose for engineering here.
Here's a pic (copy on the left) :
12-18-08, 05:08 PM
#71
The HKS top mount looks like a better design. Being a tube and fin type it probably dissipates heat quicker then that bar and plate sitting on top of the hot engine.But that's just opinion without any side by side data.
12-19-08, 02:14 AM
#74
Registered Loser
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Whiterock
Posts: 2,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the biggest problem is heat soak. stock top mount is only good for about 3 pulls then you're done. confirmation by the butt dyno. it's the same on a n/a. once the intake manifolds get too hot it feels like the car just lost 20 hp.
I switched to a front mount (already had a aftermarket rad) and I could beat on the car all night. starion with modified end tanks. 80s tech, probably tube and fin, but it did a damn fine job.
removing the bottom heat shield on the stocker seemed to get a extra pull out of it. i also rigged a line off the window washer to spray the cooler and it actually turned out quite well.
the problem with the stock location is the ducting. it's not like a STI where you have a bird catcher on the hood. funny story though, one night I forgot to close the hood all the way and went dragging around. I was able to get quite a few pulls extra before heat soak (verified by the E6K I was running). couldn't figure out why until I got back home. i never tried it again, but it made me think if I were to go with a aftermarket top mount I would use a custom hood and start the scoop closer to the bumper. if you look at the wind tunnel diagram you can get an idea for placement.
I switched to a front mount (already had a aftermarket rad) and I could beat on the car all night. starion with modified end tanks. 80s tech, probably tube and fin, but it did a damn fine job.
removing the bottom heat shield on the stocker seemed to get a extra pull out of it. i also rigged a line off the window washer to spray the cooler and it actually turned out quite well.
the problem with the stock location is the ducting. it's not like a STI where you have a bird catcher on the hood. funny story though, one night I forgot to close the hood all the way and went dragging around. I was able to get quite a few pulls extra before heat soak (verified by the E6K I was running). couldn't figure out why until I got back home. i never tried it again, but it made me think if I were to go with a aftermarket top mount I would use a custom hood and start the scoop closer to the bumper. if you look at the wind tunnel diagram you can get an idea for placement.
12-19-08, 06:59 AM
#75
http://s143.photobucket.com/albums/r...lowDiagram.jpg
The Turbo II hood scoop is clearly in the optimal position for air to freely flow through.
The Subaru STI has a huge ram air scoop because it needs to grab the air out of its flow profile.
The Turbo II hood scoop is clearly in the optimal position for air to freely flow through.
The Subaru STI has a huge ram air scoop because it needs to grab the air out of its flow profile.