tired of the same ol' FMIC

[OutToWinPAHC]

What about a chemical intercooler...... just make sure its filled up

[Naloos13]

Get this.

where is this from???

[PyroTecK]

its an aussie setup... i spent some time googleing it up yesterday. it sure as hell isnt cheap even after conversion.https://www.modyourcar.com.au/...p4467

[nocashmotorsport]

way too expensive..just do a stock side mount with a bigger core.

[Crunkrich]

This dude's got a pretty nifty setup: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

[H8tred]

water cooled is a **** load of extra work for little gain and less reliable on the street

I'll agree with the extra work, and the truth stops about there. Air to water is very beneficial to a street driven car. 1. Shorter pipe runs. 2. No heat soak. 3. You can mix other types of coolants to obtain better thermal conductivity.

It can be made as reliable as you want it to be. Saying that a water to air setup is unreliable would also say that any fluid pumping mechanism is just as unreliable including your engines cooling system. Kinda make you wonder why we use radiators and coolant at all if air to air is so good. Why isn't everyone driving an old VW?

Now for gains, just the reduction in pipe length alone yields better performance than a FMIC with the same cooling ability. Not to mention stable intake temperatures.

Just because I know you'll argue, I'll even go as far as laying out tried and true scientific data.

At 77º F/25º C Air has a thermal coefficient of 0.024. Water 0.58. Balsa wood conducts heat better than air at 77º F.

Now, ways to improve the FMIC would be to make it out of copper or silver since they both conduct heat better than aluminum. However, it's all about price. Which is why FMICs are the standard in the first place. It doesn't mean that they're better.

[Cruiserdude]

As much as I admire the ingenuity of your idea, from how I understand it, it simply won't work too well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you want to put an intercooler where your stock airbox is, and put the intake directly behind it, so it draws all of its air through the intercooler. Of course, you put a filter on top of the intercooler so no debris gets in either the cooler or the intake.

Okay, the whole point of an intercooler is to remove the extra heat added to the air from the act of compression, so you get lower, denser charge temps. As you know, no matter how efficient your compressor is, it still heats the air up as it compresses it. So, a turbo heats the air, the intercooler cools it down. Therefore, it would stand to reason that the cooler the air is coming to either the turbo or the intercooler, the cooler it will be coming out, as the change in temperature is proportional rather than a specific degree amount, if that makes sense.

Now, if your intercooler core is efficient enough to be worth its weight, it will be transferring a good bit of hit to the outside air, which of course removes heat from the charge air inside. Your design does touch on a very important of intercooling, the airflow behind the IC. People pay alot of attention to airflow over the front of the intercooler, but very little to providing a good exit path behind the cooler, which is just as, if not more, important. In order for air to flow freely and quickly through the intercooler core, one must provide low enough pressure behind the cooler to pull air through, or else the air will stagnate in the core, and only the face is gets fresh airflow, drastically reducing your efficient (cooled) surface area. This is why top-mounts are so bad for endurance purposes, because in addition to the extra heat soak, there is often very little space behind the cooler, which is why such massive hood scoops are actually necessary to force air through the cooler and out the other side. Whereas v-mounts with exhaust vents in the hood are great, as the vent and duct behind the cooler pulls ALOT of cool air through the front. Front mounts are a space/cooling compromise, and take advantage of the rad fans (when they're on) to improve airflow, and are of course the most common, though they can be augmented with electric fans of their own. Your setup is very effective at creating a low pressure area behind the cooler, and pulling fresh cool air through, by using the strong vacuum already available from the compressor inlet, so props for that.

However, as I said, if your cooler is any good, the air behind it gets really hot, and with your setup, that's whats delivered to the turbo. Then it gets heated even more by the turbo, and is that much hotter coming into the intercooler. This means the intercooler will either be incapable of removing the extra heat, or if it can remove it, will simply deliver it back to the intake system, of course causing compressor outlet temps (and therefore cooler inlet temps) to rise even higher. So, you're effectively creating an endless cycle of rising heat soak, and in fact, your design is quite similar to the furnace-less heat pump setup found on many modern home HVAC systems. The better the i/c cools the air, the hotter the intake air is, so the more heat the cooler must shed, which raises temps higher, and so on. Besides, you're certainly not going to lose any heat with all of this occuring within a foot of the turbine and exhaust manifold. Hate to say this, but on paper anyway, this simply won't work. Besides, if you think adding a circuit for a water cooling setup is above is too much trouble, fabbing this up would be above your head as well. As I said, props for the ingenuity, but for the time and money, you're far better off with a v-mount setup. Or, for a simple and cheap stealth solution for the street that will work well even while stopped, get a copper volvo rad, coat it with black thermal paint, and put electric fans behind it with either a user or temp controlled switch.

As I said, though, I definitely admire the ingenuity of this idea, as it represents the out-of-the-box thinking that drives the industry. All I'm saying is that if I understand your idea correctly, it won't work as well as the stock side mount, as much as I hate to say it. Correct me if I misunderstood, and I'd love to hear more thoughts on this subject, as there may very well be something to this idea, I just don't see how it could work well as you described.

[wa-chiss]

As much as I admire the ingenuity of your idea, from how I understand it, it simply won't work too well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you want to put an intercooler where your stock airbox is, and put the intake directly behind it, so it draws all of its air through the intercooler. Of course, you put a filter on top of the intercooler so no debris gets in either the cooler or the intake.

Okay, the whole point of an intercooler is to remove the extra heat added to the air from the act of compression, so you get lower, denser charge temps. As you know, no matter how efficient your compressor is, it still heats the air up as it compresses it. So, a turbo heats the air, the intercooler cools it down. Therefore, it would stand to reason that the cooler the air is coming to either the turbo or the intercooler, the cooler it will be coming out, as the change in temperature is proportional rather than a specific degree amount, if that makes sense.

Now, if your intercooler core is efficient enough to be worth its weight, it will be transferring a good bit of hit to the outside air, which of course removes heat from the charge air inside. Your design does touch on a very important of intercooling, the airflow behind the IC. People pay alot of attention to airflow over the front of the intercooler, but very little to providing a good exit path behind the cooler, which is just as, if not more, important. In order for air to flow freely and quickly through the intercooler core, one must provide low enough pressure behind the cooler to pull air through, or else the air will stagnate in the core, and only the face is gets fresh airflow, drastically reducing your efficient (cooled) surface area. This is why top-mounts are so bad for endurance purposes, because in addition to the extra heat soak, there is often very little space behind the cooler, which is why such massive hood scoops are actually necessary to force air through the cooler and out the other side. Whereas v-mounts with exhaust vents in the hood are great, as the vent and duct behind the cooler pulls ALOT of cool air through the front. Front mounts are a space/cooling compromise, and take advantage of the rad fans (when they're on) to improve airflow, and are of course the most common, though they can be augmented with electric fans of their own. Your setup is very effective at creating a low pressure area behind the cooler, and pulling fresh cool air through, by using the strong vacuum already available from the compressor inlet, so props for that.

However, as I said, if your cooler is any good, the air behind it gets really hot, and with your setup, that's whats delivered to the turbo. Then it gets heated even more by the turbo, and is that much hotter coming into the intercooler. This means the intercooler will either be incapable of removing the extra heat, or if it can remove it, will simply deliver it back to the intake system, of course causing compressor outlet temps (and therefore cooler inlet temps) to rise even higher. So, you're effectively creating an endless cycle of rising heat soak, and in fact, your design is quite similar to the furnace-less heat pump setup found on many modern home HVAC systems. The better the i/c cools the air, the hotter the intake air is, so the more heat the cooler must shed, which raises temps higher, and so on. Besides, you're certainly not going to lose any heat with all of this occuring within a foot of the turbine and exhaust manifold. Hate to say this, but on paper anyway, this simply won't work. Besides, if you think adding a circuit for a water cooling setup is above is too much trouble, fabbing this up would be above your head as well. As I said, props for the ingenuity, but for the time and money, you're far better off with a v-mount setup. Or, for a simple and cheap stealth solution for the street that will work well even while stopped, get a copper volvo rad, coat it with black thermal paint, and put electric fans behind it with either a user or temp controlled switch.

As I said, though, I definitely admire the ingenuity of this idea, as it represents the out-of-the-box thinking that drives the industry. All I'm saying is that if I understand your idea correctly, it won't work as well as the stock side mount, as much as I hate to say it. Correct me if I misunderstood, and I'd love to hear more thoughts on this subject, as there may very well be something to this idea, I just don't see how it could work well as you described.

I understand exactly what you're saying. I forgot that 1 important thing, compressing air heats it up. I feel dumb for forgeting that cause I already knew that. Just like the idea I had about using the cold A/C line to wrap around the intake. The loss of power from the compressor would off-set or even be greater than the gain from colder air. A "double-edged sword".