anyone know if a Subaru Impreza IC would have benefit on an FC.

 

front mounted? I'm sure, but then again, front mounting the FC intercooler is an improvement too. However, if you're going to go through all the trouble of doing a front mount, I'd get a bigger IC core to begin with.

Steve

 

no i mean top mounted... i also know that Subaru offer a air/water intercooler for there cars, i almost got my hands on one a wehile back. I'm still trying to wriggle it free of my friends grasp :

 

There is a thread out this I think. Not the air/water though.

Someone said that our IC's are well developed and had a bit better technology in making them. Don't know if that's true though.

Also I can't remember but they said something about the heatsoak.

 

speculations anyone?

 

did a search found nothing

 

No you didn't...

https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.p...hreadid=247730

It's a silly idea. I have no idea why you think it would be an improvement in the first place.

 

dont call me a liar... i did search. Maybe i'm not intelligent enough to search it out correctly. And i never suggested it would be better... just wonder if it could be.

 

cyprus... Basically, it's not a good idea for two reasons:

1) The stock IC doesn't run at max efficiency. This suggests that while it could cool more, it can't, because of its location. Replacing it with a more efficient intercooler will not solve this problem because the problem is not efficiency, it is location.

2) Water to air intercoolers are advantageous because of their size(they fit where air-to-air intercoolers sometimes won't), but they are victim to heat soak and generally aren't preferred(unless you drag race and use ice water). So unless you're planning on a drag car(in which case, you want a front mount anyway), a water-to-air intercooler is a big complicated bad idea.

Steve

 

1) what?? that doesn't seem to make sense. if something better running at 70% efficiency is tested against something not as good running at 70% efficiency, which would win?
thats how i understand what you're saying. if not, please elaborate.

2) yes, front mounts also block radiators and oil coolers. water also cools MUCH better than air (put a pot on a stove, let it air cool. do it again and pour water on it. water cools many times better).
and a lot of top drag cars use air-to-water, how can you say a front mount is just better?

BDC has successfully run a street driven 400+whp daily driver with a custom air-to-water setup. it can be used, even though, yes, it is *more* complicated. so are many great things, though. some worth it, others not.

 

1) There's not enough room/air flow under the hood for a larger intercooler to be effective. That was the point I was trying to make.

2) IF he's planning on dragging, then a water-to-air IC is a great idea. But for daily driving or endurance racing, it's not. Water-to-air intercoolers heatsoak very quickly, they're ideal for dragging, because in between runs you can fill up with ice water.

Steve

 

okay, so 1) the hood is the inefficient piece.
but still, you said "So unless you're planning on a drag car(in which case, you want a front mount anyway).." i was saying either can be used. both have been used by great race teams. and yes, heat soak is bad, but there's complicated ways around it.
for simplicity sake, go with a front mount (but only as big as you need; try to avoid blocking the entire radiator). but, if you know how to do it, an air to water can work for you.

you know whats funny? look at what we're talking about now and the original question. it happens.

 

We're loosely on topic. I agree. FMIC or bust.

Steve

P.S. I think I've decided to try out one of the ARC 3 row TMIC and put the debate to rest. I'll measure the haltech intake charge temps with both and see exactly if there is any difference. I'll post up the results when I get around to that(ha!)

Steve

 

the stock ic runs about 70% efficent, you can read about it here

http://www.nopistons.com/forums/inde...opic=23748&hl=

 

That number doesn't mean much. At that particular speed, that particular ambient temp and that particular engine airflow and boost, it applies. Any other time it'll be different, so it tells you very little.

 

he tried several different levels of boost and gears and its always around 70%, which is not great but its not horrible either.

if that tells us very little how do we get numbers that tell us more?

 

from what I've been told, there is literally no airflow going through that scoop when the car is at speed. the reason I was told is that it's a low pressure point on the body. Dunno if it's true, but it makes sense.

 

Gears won't make a difference, although boost should depending on how efficient the turbo is at that boost. The point is that if you change the car's speed (airflow though core) or ambient temp you'll get different figures. At the speed he tested at on that particular day, the IC was 70% effiecient. Do it at night and it'll be more efficient. Repeat on a hot day and it'll be less. Front-mount it and it'll be better too.
It's just not that simple as there are far too many variables. You can't just get one all-encompassing number. Measuring IC efficiency is best done when comparing one IC to a replacement one, like when upgrading. taking before and after measurements under similar conditions (speed, boost, temp) will show you how much more efficient the new IC is on your car.