Wade

iTrader: (1)

Jspec,

Do you know where I can find this information on the intercooler tests that you wrote about above?

Wade

rx7tt95

Jspec, I see you took this a bit personally. I certainly don't want this to degrade to something that would deserve a posting on the Vtec forum :-) You and I are simply stating our experiences so let's not make it personal with attacks. Agreed?




Quote by JspecFD:
"Already been done repeatedly both by myself and others. You're merely stating an opinion which, without factual support, is meaningless. BTW, you repeatedly keep missing the technicality that rwhp is being compared. I'll get to your flawed support later... "

I've seen a few posts and dynos, most involved tweaking of the boost and air/fuel ratios. If you could be more specific as to the others, I'd like to see/read about them. I'm open. I'm missing the rwhp statement...are you saying that your 27hp increase was at the flywheel and not rear wheel? Not sure how I'm missing that technicality. In essence, you're saying that the numbers are far greater at the flywheel.



Quote fy JspecFD
"Nope, guess again. If you knew anything about who Ivan is, you wouldn't make such an easy mistake. I find it very telling that you have a predisposition for assuming your opinion is correct without challenging your own assumptions(logical flaw in your reasoning)"

How did Ivan's name get thrown into this? I'm re-reading the thread again and if I understand you correctly, the dyno graph you posted was from m2's site? It's not your own? "My results correlate well with the tests that SCC did as well as others. Thus, most hp gains come from improved IC efficiencies and not from increasing boost. Here's another data point from M2's site comparing a stage 2 to stage 3 setup(only difference is stage 3 adds an IC)"

Could you post your results? I don't care how much I like one particular vendor (and I use a few M2 parts), I take every hp claim with a grain of salt. Healthy skepticism. Everyone wants to sell products and hp number sell products whether or not they're completely accurate. As they say, "your results may vary".

Quote by JspecFD
"Its very revealing that you didn't even bother challenging the data provided from both SCC tests and M2 tests especially when they correlate my results. Just from recent memory(from the Big List), there was an online article on modding an FD from an Australian magazine as well as a list member who did stock IC/PFS IC dyno tests at different boost settings."

Hrm..missed the Australian magazine post. I haven't been reading much of the big list lately. I'd like to see your actual dyno graph of your car showing a similar gain to the M2 map you posted. If that's your map and I misunderstood, I apologize. I used to hold the SCC article as "blueprint" material until I started to talking to many in the know around the country and from the knowledge base on the big list, pre-forum days :-). I've been producing more hp than the SCC car for a longer period of time and yet I am not on my third engine, still the original unit. I did so much research that it would make your head spin. I have the SCC article at home and I'll go back and read it when I have time. I think you can readily admit that there are now better alternatives and methods for achieving similar and greater hp goals. I do not believe that their data is completely unbiased either.

Quote by JspecFD
"I don't think you have posted such a sheet to the forum and challenge you to provide a link to it. A search revealed you referencing these numbers in other posts with conflicting results(apparently you can't keep your numbers straight). The closest match was a dyno sheet you posted comparing the stock IC to the CWC. By your own admittance, no IC ducting was in place making your data worthless. You might want to consider doing some basic research on IC ducting and how an IC functions. Casting even more doubt on your test results, you used a Clayton dyno and previously admitted to some spurious results."

Here you're right. I went back and looked at all the dyno sheets I had scanned in. I didn't have the m2/stock/cwr one all on one graph. My bad. I "know" I have it somewhere. Problem is, I have about 60,000+ images archived at home, so sometimes things get lost. Push comes to shove, I'll head back over to The Dyno Shop and have him print out the correct graph. I probably did fudge the numbers, not purposely. Just tired. I work full time at a newspaper and run my own small company currently. My head has room for only so many numbers, LOL. Anyway...the one showing the CWR vs. the stock was the best CWR (which we stopped early as boost was increased slightly and I hit 12:1afr and backed out), not the middle of the road stuff. We didn't change the boost number in the info section accordingly. All other runs with the CWR and M2 were virtually identical.

As far as the dyno type, I have used both. I have three dynos that I frequent depending on availability and what I need:
Clayton (for load based tuning)One of only two or three in the world-also does dynojet inertia runs.
The Dyno Shop (no built-in wideband)248C
Lethal Injection 248H(built-in wideband that logs w/hp graph)

I've done back to back testing between the Clayton and the dynojet. They're usually within 1-2% of one and other.

I'm confused as to how not having ducting would make the data worthless? It's a stationary dyno, not a chassis dyno in a wind tunnel. If anything, the IC would receive a BETTER shot of air from fans. I also commented that I removed the ducting for the stock IC to equalize everything and make swapping IC's out a less timely affair. Removing the ducting does not make the results flawed.

Quote by JspecFD
"Irrelevent. Wyum got high 10's with an upgraded IC. Maybe you should talk to him since his IC research/knowledge far exceeds anything you've done."

Ok...how is Kevin running 10's with a modded IC relevant? If you read my original objection, it wasn't that an IC at speed at higher boost levels with high flow turbos won't produce better numbers. I drag several times a month. Monitoring my AIT's, they're higher on launch, lower at the far end of the track. That's due to large quantities of moving air being shoved through the ducting at 100+mph. A dyno does not come close to simulating this function. If you measure air intake temps at start on a dyno, they'll go UP in temperature, not down. My original point about dragging with the stock IC is that, maybe, if things are tuned well, you'll see a few tenths drop in your time at most, all other parameters being equal. It's possible to run consistently, very quickly, using the stock IC. Long term health of the engine may be sacrificed, but that's why road racers don't use the stock IC. Yes, the stock IC is bad when you start flowing higher cfm using larger turbos (and even the stock turbos) but the stock IC is not so restrictive that you couldn't come very close to duplicating times with the stock IC. AT the drag strip.



Quote by JspecFD
"I don't think those 'days' of yours have ended. The two of you seem to derive conclusions in a similar fashion. "

Personal attack. Very cerebral. I came to my conclusions by careful testing. Do you honestly think that M2 or SCC don't have an agenda?

My "predisposition" comes from the fact that like many, I expected these HUGE gains (and 27hp is definitely registered on the butt meter!) from swapping in a $1300 IC unit. I challenged that assumption by taking a brand new M2 medium, CWR, and stock IC to a dyno and spending my own hard-earned money on testing. Parameters such as ambient air temp, pressure drop from turbo outlet to the elbow, and air intake temps as measured by the PFC at the start and finish of each run, etc...To say I was surprised would be an understatement. Heck I WANTED to see a larger gain. But I didn't. Tests were done using a very low mileage 95 in perfect health. So if that means my conclusions are naive, so be it.

quote by me:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure you're legitimate JSpec, but I will add that the testing was done for an article and as such, great lengths were taken to equalize all the tests.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote by JspecFD
"Thats really sad then. You apparently lack any technical degree/background if you think testing one car is sufficient. Whats worse, you do no research to confirm your test results with others which would lend support to your conclusions. Instead, you ignore them even though your results are in contradiction with real magazine articles
such as from SCC."

I was trying to be diplomatic here. I guess being nice doesn't get you anywhere. SCC a real magazine? Did you agree with everything they wrote concerning the FD? Since you've been a member on the big list for such a long time, I'm sure you remember the hundreds of posts blasting the articles? How about that part where they said not to turn on your a/c in traffic as it would cause the car to overheat? Furthermore, you do not know dick about my background nor my education. Don't make assumptions. I'd be happy to send you a resume extolling my coverage of the human condition in more foreign countries that you will ever see in your lifetime. Shiv, afik, isn't a journalist. What does he do now? He owns a tuning shop. To say that going to one source produces accurate and unbiased knowledge is pretty naive on your part. Ever hear of sponsorships and free parts? Think they have any influence? You bet. It's part of the business and something I've witnessed on many an occasion.

Quote by JspecFD
"Just because some 'article' was posted at some online website doesn't mean its worth anything let alone be representative of professional journalism(rank amateurs are actually the norm on the 'net)"

Did you ever bother to read the articles? Do you know the history behind them? FYI, I work full time for a daily newspaper as a working photojournalist. Much of my motivation comes from disinformation that I read in publications. As a consumer, I NEED to know the truth and that's why I did my tests. As far as I can tell, you posted someone else's dyno sheet and provided no information of your own.

quote by me:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because a larger IC is more efficient at removing heat from the intake charge, one can run more boost without running the risk of detonation. Thermal efficiency. That's where the hp comes from. Not from the IC design itself. It doesn't work like an intake or midpipe which increases VE. This is why you will not see a 20hp jump on a dyno by just swapping in an IC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote by JspecFD
"Again, you really should've done some basic research. Reading Corky's Bell book would be a good start so you can understand some IC fundamentals. In brief, there's 2 areas where performance is easily gained over the stock IC. First of all, tests have proven that the stock IC acts as a restriction. Secondly, you seem oblivious to the fact that even at the same boost pressure and airflow, a more efficient IC will provide a denser charge of air that allows more power potential."

Reread my quote above. We basically said the same thing. I never stated that the stock unit wasn't restrictive, just that it's not as bad as most people think. Problem is, we're not mentioning boost levels. And charge temp is directly related to VE so perhaps you should be the one doing the reading. You're also assuming by that statement that air is flowing over the IC. It's an air to air intercooler and as such, it's "efficiency" or ability to remove heat rises exponentially with airflow. The dyno has no significant airflow. This information can be verified by the sometimes dramatic rise in IAT's over full-blast runs on the street. It's sort of like ram air. Test say a GSXR-750 on the dyno and it's ram air effect doesn't come into play. But it sure as hell does on the street :-)

Quote by JspecFD
"Still, if you want to live a sheltered world where you can ignore tests like those from SCC and others, thats your choice. As for me, I know my car made an additional 27rwhp just by adding the M2 IC. Got the sheets(from ATP in Fremont), vids, and witnesses and what you 'think' can't change that. Seeing identical results from both my car and SCC tests, you could say a picture is worth a thousand words and puts everything in perspective.

I haven't seen an ounce of that supposed information yet. I would be more than willing to look over this data. I do not know the control conditions you set forth for the test, whereas I have that data for mine. That's why I'm partial to believing my own test results over yours. Provide more information and perhaps I'll be swayed. And a sheltered world is believing everyting that you read. I'm asking people to challenge those notions and do the tests themselves. That way they're truly in the "know". Sort of like masturbation; sure your wife's good at giving you a hand job, but nowhere near as good as yourself. :-) What you learn from testing on your own car does, to a certain extent, apply to only your car. And I admit that perhaps, a different car could produce different results. They could be worse they could be better. My "intention" was to keep individuals from believing that by just bolting on an IC, they'll see a 30hp gain. Do the tests themselves, but don't be disappointed when the results are less.

I guess you never mentioned at what boost level you were testing at. I tested at .8 and .9kg/cm2, essentially high 12psi. Is the stock IC more restrictive than a large aftermarket unit? Absolutely. 27hp worth of restriction? Don't think so. THAT was my only point. To use "your" regurgitated information from Corky's book, restriction is only 1/2 of the equation and is the only part that's really changed on a dyno. Throw some ice on both of them and add air speeds in excess of 40mph and it's a different story.

Again, sorry I offended you and you took it personally. I'd just advise others to take the info from both of us and draw their own conclusions since neither of us, apparently, has a degree suitable for a dissertation in this matter :-)
Michel

rx7tt95

I'll repost some of the dyno sheets I have at home later on. I"ll also try and dig up the dyno sheet with all three graphs (m2,CWR,stock). FWIW, the person who loaned me the new M2 IC for testing (Jeff) is on this forum. Mindphrame is his forum name and he has the copy with all three graphs on the same plot. Phil Babcock at The Dyno Shop in Ft. Myers is also one of the most trustworthy guys in terms of dyno operators. Again, I had no motivation to fudge any of the numbers. I only offer the information as just that; information.
Michel

fdracer

inukai,
how the hell would a fmic add 60-80 hp? also, i take it these are all fwhp figures?

MazdaMike

now i got a question if u got a FMIC i dont know but my general knowledge of physics would lead me to belive that the IC would restrict air that was previously going to the radiator. hense making ur engine run on colder intake but hotter coolant. i dont know what is reccomended to do after FMIC, bigger rad also?

JspecFD

iTrader: (2)

Wasn't intending to add anymore to the discussion since its getting boring but if you'd like a more specific reference, I'll cite October 1999 SCC magazine issue, page 222 and the dyno sheets therein. Max power gain is listed as 25.5hp. There's also some interesting temperature data on page 218. Their data shows the stock IC cooling down the intake charge 55 degrees F versus 150 degrees for the M2 IC. They state "the results clearly show that the M2 intercooler's performance is world's apart from the stock intercooler's, regardless of ambient temperature"

A good summary quote: "The dramatically larger M2 performance intercoooler dropped the temperature of ingested air to near ambient and provided another pound of boost at the manifold while simultaneously reducing the load on the turbos"

KevinK2

And there lies the problem with that test ... with M2 IC low pressure drop, boost rose from 12 psi with stock IC to 13 psi with M2 during dyno run, so much of that 25.5 hp was likely due to boost increase.

The road results in the bar graph were mixed-up and in error, but in the table appears to be correctly listed. The 3rd gear road acceleration data table showed a 67F drop with stock IC, and 155F with M2, for 88F improvement (a little more considering 1 psi higher boost).

But, did not list the air temps during dyno run, only said M2 rose 49F during 4th gear pull.

So for comparison, assume same temp results during dyno run. M2 intake at 90F vs stock IC at 180F, increased density is (460+180)/(460+90) = 1.16, or +16%. So just based on density issue, m2 should raise power from say 300 rwhp to 348 rwhp at same boost? even more for less backpressure with M2 and higher VE? Even if heat soak at dyno made temps only 45F cooler, thats still 8% denser for 24 more hp at same boost?

Only true if the timing and a/f ratios are optimised or consistently close to optimal for the 2 conditions, which is not likely to happen with the same industrial grade m2 chip.

In theory the power difference should be there, but rarely have seen the tedious dyno runs needed to really dial things in to enjoy the potential, and isolate the IC effect.

greenhornetfd3s

IMO
I think that a FMIC on a FD is not the way the mazda engineers had in mind as where to put a performance intercooler. Mazda designed the FD with every consideration to performance and drivability. If the car was meant to have a front mount intercooler it would have had one from the factory.

The SMIC or HMIC is a better solution to the problem of blocking the radiator. If you look at the Mazdaspeed
A-spec kit, the hood has vents in it, the front bar has a larger opening to facilitate better cooling to both the radiator and the intercooler.

Another added benefit to the HMIC and SMIC upgrades is the ability to have that upgraded IC while still having an IC sticking out front for everybody to see.

but again thats my opinion

rx7tt95

There was a big discussion in regards to SMIC vs. FMIC about a month ago. I'm still of the consensus that if you're going to road race, a FMIC is going to put you in a world of hurt on hot days, maybe even cold ones.

Amazingly, I was at a Chin Motorsports event at Homestead a few weeks ago and there were two Supras, both roadracing, both running front mounts. I'll post a pic of one. Next event I'm at, I'll have a chat with them. From the looks of it, their FMIC's leave space left/right for air to get by. Someone else on the forum, can't remember who, was working on getting air to the radiator UNDERNEATH the FMIC which seems to be a not half bad idea. Move the IC up a bit more, use the "mail slot" of the GTC/FEED front ends, add a horizontal second splitter in the main mouth and run ducting to the radiator underneath the FMIC. Assuming you have a suitably "large mouth". Make sure the FMIC doesn't completely block up the front end and leave space on both sides of the FMIC. The Supra's extra girth helps here in it's width. A properly ducted/vented hood would be a necessity to draw air out of the back of the IC however. It'd be complicated, but it might work. Just a thought.

Kevin, thanks for the math. My brain is waaay too tired to debate this issue any further :-) It's important to note that the data was collected on a moving vehicle (referring to IAT's) not on the dyno. On the road I fully believe that a larger IC can provide nice power gains with proper tuning and more boost. Just not on the dyno.
Michel

rx7tt95

Here's the Supra pic...notice the space on either side of the IC. I do not know who this guy is off hand, maybe someone from the Supra forum knows him. I took this pic at the Chin Motorsports event at Homestead International Raceway about three weeks ago. It'd be interesting to hear how these guys do temp wise on a road course.
Michel

rx7tt95

Here's an image of the dyno graph mentioned by JspecFD. It's CWR vs. stock. For the life of me, I can't figure out where I put the graph with all three. I'll have to contact Jeff to see if he has a copy.

The first three runs with the CWR were spent dialing the boost back to the desired level. The last run, #6, the boost was raised a bit and I started to go lean so we stopped the run. Run 4 is the average between the highest/lowest runs I made that day with the CWR IC and the stock graph was the highest.

I made four runs on the stock IC and six with the CWR with timed cool down in between runs. IAT's were measured at the start and end of each run and we tried to keep things consistent as possible without using up lots of time sitting around waiting.
Michel

maxcooper

I definitely don't want to get into any kind of flame war, but this does not make sense to me:

I wouldn't trust the results of duct-less tests to be anything like tests with ducts or car-in-motion performance. The air blowing through the IC will be really hot from the radiator. The small, light stock IC holds and absorbs less heat than the big CWR. Advantage: stock. The CWR has less pressure drop than the little stock IC. Advantage: CWR. Observed result: they make the same power. Is this what happened? I don't know, but the duct-less tests leave this as a possibility.

-Max

GoRacer

iTrader: (2)

He is guesstimating gains from stock SMIC to FMIC and including the other mods. His list also looks like a stage1, stage2, stage3, etc. If i'm not mistaken, he is a professional RX-7 race car driver in Japan, so I don't see how you would doubt his info even if they are approximate. Maybe it's just his translation.

poss

iTrader: (5)

has anyone thought that it might be related to other mods on the car? for instance, on a stock FD, slapping a big intercooler is not gonna make much difference. but putting it on a car with a port job, free flow intake and exhaust, etc. might make a world of difference..?? just a thought.

(also if this has aready been brought up, i apologize, I got a little tired of reading the graduate level thesis' from JspecFD and rx7tt95. )

inukai

Hi fdracer

You cannot believe this info?
In Japan, even not famous shop can get at least 350 HP
with FMIC + Air cleaner + Good Exhaust + ECU (boost up)

RE-A mods are at most 0.95 bar (13.57 psi ?) boost.
Because more than boost will cut down stock twin turbos life.

Dream works (Shop in Japan) FD is 410 HP with stock turbos
with 1.05 bar boost (15 psi ? )

Hi Goracer

Thank you !!

BNA_ELLIS

I live in cold London. In the summer when it's hot I get good performance form my rx7. I have at the moment a standard intercooler. Now it's autumn and the ambient temp is a lot lower, The acceleration is absolute different class. Why because the lower ambinet means more dense air which means more power. All in effect thats really happening is the my stock intercooler is giving the performance an aftermarket intercooler would.
HOW well an aftermarket would simply be more efficient at cooling charge entering the engine. With temp so low in london that in effect is what my stock intercooler is doing the charge temp is alot lower because of climate in uk so air entering engine is more dense. I can tell you for myself as well as other rx7 owners in uk. At this time of year when it gets cold the rx-7's deliver alot more power. If i was to have two rx7's in exactly same condition mileage compression etc. And they wer elined up next to each other one in summer temp an dthe other in autumn temp the one at autumn temp would woop the other rx7 easily thats how much difference it makes. Without raising boost levels.
That is simply a fact.

Regards

Brian

Wade

iTrader: (1)

There were way too many holes in the M2/SCC tests to draw any real conclusions. The articles read like an M2 sales brochure.

I agree with rx7tt95 that if all else is equal (including IC temp AND boost), the difference in power between IC's should be very small (likewise, virtually the same 1/4 times/MPH can be achieved with the stock IC compared to an aftermarket ID if done carefully).

I also agree with others that an IC upgrade usually results in more overall power (cooler intake temps more often).

The difficulty with comparing IC's is there are so many variables - the biggest one being the speed of the car and the airflow to the IC, which tremendously affects the IC's temp and the power from the car. There is a time element that needs to be considered in addition to speed and airflow.

A very difficult topic...

Wade

rx7tt95

Max, I thought about the radiator thing. All three IC's were bone cold when installed and all pretty much received the same amount of "radiated" heat from the radiator. None got hot during the test, mostly due to the fams blowing on the car in betweeen runs but AIT's for the last run had a higher start temp than the first runs definitely.

The ductless tests were done on the dyno, not on the street and as such, not much, if any air, flows through them. I would never presume to road test them without ducts :-) The only tests I did on the road were for pressure drop and not all were done on the same day hence I haven't posted any info on those tests. They were also done using an "analog", not a digital guage so tenths couldn't be read correctly.
Michel

SuperCorrado

I completely agree with JspecFD. I am a MechEng senior at Univ of Toronto and am currently doing my undergrad thesis on improving the IC in the Corrado G60. First of all, most stock IC's restrict air flow which can be easily 'freed up' by better end tank design, piping, and even the fin geometry of the core itself. At 10 psi, one can expect to realize 0.5-1.0 psi of extra boost by utilizing a better IC. Second, an improved IC will have a better overall heat transfer coefficient, and will lower the intake charge air even more. This is beneficial for numerous reasons: cooler air is denser=more oxygen molecules=more combustion=more power (provided there is a corresponding upgrade in the fuel timing); cooler air raises the 'detonation threshold', meaning even more boost can be applied without fear of damaging the engine; cooler air reduces the thermal load on the engine...meaning the engine itself will be more efficient and reliable in the long run. For more info, read my thesis (once it's done ), or, as suggested, pick up Corky Bell's Maximum Boost...an excellent read!

rx7tt95

SuperCorrado,
Go back and read all the posts again. We're all aware of the benefits of an upgraded IC. That was never in question. What was, however, was the ability of an improved IC to make upwards of a 30hp difference on the dyno by itself, at the same boost level. THAT simply doesn't happen. Being a mechanical engineer in the making, I'm sure you realize that an air to air intercooler needs that external air component flowing over the cooling fins of the IC to actually work. :-) JSpecFD was wrong. He simply pulled a dyno sheet off of M2 site and posted it as fact without noting that more boost resulted in most of those gains. So if you're agreeing with JspecFD, then you'd be wrong. Don't make me tell your professors! :-)
Michel

SleepR1

Chuck has his HMIC ready. He's waiting for the inlet duct to be made. I think the HMIC's efficacy will hinge on the design of Chuck's inlet duct, and of course the use of a vented hood

http://www.rotaryextreme.com/rehmic.html

SleepR1

Say, if all I plan to do is run 10 psi of boost, do I still need an upgraded intercoole for track driving??