fmic with inlet/outlet on same side? [Merged 6-7] sideflow crossflow

[LRS95TSI]

hey i found this intercooler on ebay, i've been looking at a design somehting like this to allow for short route. my question is, does this setup affect performance, i'm looking for about 270 to 300 whp with my setup, any suggestion or feedback would be great.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=7977876193&category=33742

anyone ever seen this setup, or used it? i like the idea but don't know if it's efficient or worth it?

 

[andymoraitis]

Hahn Racecraft uses single sided inlets and outlets. There's nothing wrong with this for your particular turbo, but what's most important is the internal construction of the intercooler. The Hahn has received very good reviews, but we'd need internal shots of the ebay version to see how it looks.

Hope that helps and here's a link to the Hahn unit:

http://www.hahnracecraft.com/hahn/parts/intercool.htm

Andy

 

[Green93TalonTSi]

There are a few different types of setups, that use the same idea. YOu could do a top -to - bottom style FMIC. Where the the endtanks are on the top and bottom, obviously. RRE Has a Griffin setup thats top to bottom, and theres a Spearco core that DSMotorsports sells, and DSM Performance sells a top to bottom. RRE and DSMotorsport are both 18x6.5x3 and 3.5" and the DSMPerformanace ( witch I currently use ) is 24x8.5x3 . All are good cores, just depends on what you want. Piping is also VERY easy for all 3 of those.

 

[LRS95TSI]

im only interested in side by side. i was thinking on contacting JR or JRC and see if they can make me one like i had pictured say 25X9X3. i just want something that would be cost effective for both the piping and the ic itself, but maintain my goals.

 

[Green93TalonTSi]

Its the same thing, both inlet and outlet are on the same side.

 

[Defiant]

You've not seen all the threads closed for bumping?

Don't do it.

 

[EnticivEclipse]

 

[DSM90AWD]

hey i found this intercooler on ebay, i've been looking at a design somehting like this to allow for short route. my question is, does this setup affect performance, i'm looking for about 270 to 300 whp with my setup, any suggestion or feedback would be great.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=7977876193&category=33742

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

This core has been very popular in the side-to-side configurations with great success in large turbo setups (I've spoken to a couple DSMers that use it) as it's size should support 600-700HP.

In the orientation pictured above, I cringe at how much backpressure must be created with the short/square endtanks on the turn and return route. I mean the airflow makes a 180 degree turn in such a small area just looks stupid to me.

What would make more sense would be a curved endtank or even separating the top/bottom halves on "both" ends and run an external "U" bend on the return side. That way the entire core would be utilized evenly and would flow well.

In any case, as your goal is 300 whp, this would be alot more intercooler than you need. Remember a big core takes more time to compress with air = more lag.

I'd instead look to the Spearco/Griffin top/bottom cores which have been in the DSM community since day 1 and are proven performers.

 

[LRS95TSI]

yea i understand what your saying. i used the pic as a reference. i had already decided that the core was too large. i'm looking for 25x8x3 with the endtanks rounded. this core i hope could be fabricated by JR or some1. the reason why i want the ends on both sides is to create easier pipe routings because of my j-pipe and everything else, plus it will save me some money.

 

[DSM90AWD]

Posted response in new thread as was getting a bit more off topic than my own liking

Originally posted HERE

The only problem with the street RRE core is that it is a Griffin. I run the exact size with the Spearco option, 2-221. Flows 1080CFM @ 1.5 PSI drop and is capable of supporting 760HP. Spearco gives specs for their cores at www.turboneticsinc.com just click on the spearco airto air IC's.
PS: I run a 60-1 at 18-20 psi on pump. 6 bolt being rebuilt by Buschur will run higher. It's just not size that determines an IC's specs.

I agree 100%. However there is a huge difference bwt top-bottom and side-side cores w.r.t. flow and efficiency.

This from Joe Schesso of ETS (aka JR)

One big downside of the RRE griffin core is that it is vertical flow. The vertical flow flows a significant amount of cfm, but the effeciency is very low, usually down in the 60% range.

Here is a comparison of the intercoolers. Since the Griffin is a vertical flow, the measurements are a little different, to compare them the same, ours core is 26.5W x 6.5H x 3.5T, and the Griffin is 6W x 18H x 2.7T

Flow:

ETS
3.5" Core, 116cfm per inch of height
6.5" x 116cfm = 754cfm

Griffin
2.7" Core, 97.7cfm per inch of height
18" x 97.7cfm = 1758.6cfm

Effeciency:

Effeciency is rated for a 25" Core, for every 1.5" increase, efficiency is raised 1%, for every 1.5" decrease, efficiency is lowered 1%

ETS = 80% Efficiency
Core = 26.5" = 81% Efficient

Griffin = 77% Efficiency
Core = 6" = 64.5% Efficiency

So, comparing the intercoolers, the Griffin flows significantly more air, but you could put a 2.5" pipe in there to replace the intercooler and it would still flow tons of air, but would be very inefficient.

I know the Spearco 221 is 3.5" wide (3.125 at the tubes) vs 2.75 wide (2.625) for the Griffin, but the same principals apply. Flows > 1000cfm but at low efficiency.

Another blurb I took from ARE Cooling which supports JRs statements:

The other design mostly is used in the USA., where tanks are on the top & bottom of the core, causing the charge air to make two 90 deg. bends. By using a second manometer with a long thin probe, we found that 80% of the intake charge flows through the end 25% of tubes on our first test tank, which was of reasonable length. Flow rate was good but cooling rate was terrible. When we doubled the length of the tank, 55% of the intake charge flowed through the end 25% of tubes & overall flow dropped 9%, indicating that this design has too have very long tanks, but should be able to be avoided anyway. We also discovered flow 'syphoning' for the first time during this testing. The intercooler was making a strange noise, & with the aid of the second manometer probe, & then removing the tank & using the old tissue streamer on a stick trick, found that air was actually being sucked back up the tubes next too the inlet end, by the same principal as a spray gun operation. This means that some of the already cooled intake charge was being recirculated through the core again. This creates a double loss as not only does the extra syphoned air create more pressure drop, it has already been cooled so takes away core space needed by the hot air. I didn't waste time measuring the % recirculation as we rarely use this design. Please note that this paragraph refers to intercoolers with the inlet/outlet above each other (on the same side). It is reduced noticeably if one tank is reversed, but still should be avoided if possible. A dual pass intercooler is heaps more efficient where both pipes are on the one side, but they require more height for the core

My only reasoning for swiching is even though my stock core flowed a ton, it did not have the efficiency and large cross-section to cool alot of air over an extended period such as in drag racing or running at the dyno. I've done both, heat soaked on both, so will definitely post back with a direct compare

There have been argument for/against each design longer than DSMs have roamed the planets, but figured since I got a good deal on the "Johnny" core, I really had nothing to lose by comparing them on my own car myself

 

[sweet97]

Please report your findings John. At least copomparing the griffin and Spearco of similar dimensons the Spearco has 50% more cooling capacity. I have questioned the 2-221 and was told on DSMchips site that it is a great FMIC that cools GREAT. I also called Turboneticsinc who owns Spearco asking about the efficiecy of the 2-21 and just about got a new a** chewed. I was simply told that Spearco would not have rated the IC to support 760HP if it was not efficient enough. Here I was willing to purchase a NEW IC and was told by the vendor NOT TO BOTHER!? I would like to test the temp going in and coming out but have no found the equiptment. Mark

 

[kevingst]

Good stuff, I look forward to seeing your findings. I can see and feel the real world difference with mine, but it doesn't mean much without numbers to support it.

 

[DSM90AWD]

Please report your findings John. At least copomparing the griffin and Spearco of similar dimensons the Spearco has 50% more cooling capacity. I have questioned the 2-221 and was told on DSMchips site that it is a great FMIC that cools GREAT. I also called Turboneticsinc who owns Spearco asking about the efficiecy of the 2-21 and just about got a new a** chewed. I was simply told that Spearco would not have rated the IC to support 760HP if it was not efficient enough. Here I was willing to purchase a NEW IC and was told by the vendor NOT TO BOTHER!? I would like to test the temp going in and coming out but have no found the equiptment. Mark

Cooling tube area of Spearco = 24.44*5.5 = 134 inches^3
Cooling tube area of Griffin = 19.68*5.75 = 119 inches ^3
Diff% = 13%

I know folks who've run into the 11s with the 2-221 (guy I sold my old tranny to) and Griffin (guy I bought it from), but that was on race gas which aids cooling during combustion and also raises the knock threshhold due to the higher octane value.

Unfortunately with pump (what I've always used), the cooling falls heavily on the FMIC. So if it's not adequate (no matter what the flow rating), then you're killing your performance.

BTW.. I've run as fast as 13.1@102 with my current core on 93oct on my old 16G and 18psi so I'm not saying it's bad. Just that I think I can do better and since this core was so inexpensive, I'd give it a try

My only method of measurement will be via my TMO datalogger and a worksheet that calculates HP/Trq based on RPM/elapsed time. I'd like to get to the track once with the current setup too if time permits.

 

[oldman]

Great info John, subscribing for result.

 

[blcknspo0ln]

jumping on board.. I have a turbonetics top/bottom flow [can't figure out which model] IC that measures 20 x 6 x 3 and 20 x 11 x 3 with endtanks.

I always wondered if it hindered my performance..

 

[sweet97]

Turbonetics owns sperco. Mine is 18.5x6x3.5. From your pic it looks like you have the RRE street FMIC that uses a griffin core. count the bars or spaces between and post. I did not check your mods but will when I get back home. Mark

 

[DSM90AWD]

Just to be clear on things, I'm going to directly compare the 18x6x2.75 24R RRE Griffin core w/Spearco Endtanks vs the Johnny Racecar 8" "backdoor" core which I'm pretty sure is the same core used in the Extreme Turbo "Street" core and the Club DSM core.

Been kinda busy the past week (ya a slacker I am ) but did measure out the JRC core so could compare with the RRE core.

The JRC core has 12 rows each measuring .25" high x 25" long x 2.625" wide = 197 inches^3 total cooling tube area. As stated above the RRE core has 119 inches ^3 total cooling tube area.

Now looking at the tube profile (i.e. the sum of the tubes opening size which would indicate flow capacity):

RRE/Grifffin = .3125" x 2.625" x 24 tubes = 19.69 sq/inches
Spearco 2-115 = .23" x 3.125" x 34 tubes = 24.44 sq/inches
JRC = .25" x 2.625" x 12 tubes= 7.88 sq/inches

Now it would seem that the JRC having much less tube profile that the other two would indicate it's very restrictive. But looking at the data from a similarly-sized Side-Side core from Spearco (2-178):

Spearco 2-178 = .23" x 3.125" x 11 tubes = 7.91 sq/inches.

Spearco rates their 2-178 core as flowing 760cfm and supporting 510HP, so it is my assumption that the JRC having nearly the same tube profile and being the "hybrid tube and fin" style (said to flow close to the bar and plate style), that the JRC should flow enought to support 450-500HP.

Interestingly enough, the total cooling tube area of the 2-178 is only 154 inches^3 (43 inches^3 less thatn the JRC):

Spearco 2-178 = 7.90 x 19.5" (length) = 154 inches^3

So judging by the numbers, the Top-Bottom cores flow a ton of air but have a much smaller area of heat transfer (i.e. cooling potential) which supports Joe Schesso's (aka JR) story.

But the proof is in the pudding, so will have to get the puppy installed this week and make some runs

 

[sweet97]

jumping on board.. I have a turbonetics top/bottom flow [can't figure out which model] IC that measures 20 x 6 x 3 and 20 x 11 x 3 with endtanks.

I always wondered if it hindered my performance..

You should be fine with a B16g however a larger turbo could present problems. I am wondering if my Spearco of the same dimensions but with 50% more cooling tube area will support my 60-1 with the fresh 6 bolt I have ordered? Spearco claims it will support 760HP and flow 1080 CFM @ 1.5 psi drop. Mark

 

[Nanan]

Man I'm having flashbacks of old Fluid Dynamics classes from this discussion.

To skip all the technical mumbojumbo...

Side to Side(S/S): Lower SCFM, Higher Heat reduction.

Top to Bottom(T/B): Higher SCFM, Lower Heat reduction.


If you wanted a T/B IC and wished to have the heat reduction of a S/S it would require a very very tall IC, roughly 2/3 the length of a comprable S/S. The basic idea is that it requires runner length to pull heat energy out of the intake air. But there are so many factors that really you would have to flow dyno the IC at several temp and flow rates.


Sperco and Griffin T/B ICs are fine with big turbo's that do not cause high heat issues like 60 trim or a 20g. You are better off with S/S ICs with smaller turbo's such as T28/b14/16g/18g etc.

All in all, length is more important then width when it comes to the size of the core, but again the ability of the core is very dependent on its flow abilities, type, and density of the tubes.

 

[DSM90AWD]

^^ Good point.

The smaller Top/Bottom seem more suited to big turbos that operate in their most efficient range so wouldn't need as much cooling. However for those boosting the piss out of a 14B/16G, a better cooling Side-Side is a much better choice. Then again a large Side-Side would be the best overall choice for a high HP setup as it would offer both high flow capacity and high cooling capacity.

Another thing to be aware of is heat soak. With my 50-trim at 20psi at the dyno, I was heatsoaking by 5K RPM with a fan providing ~35MPH airflow. Albeit on the road at the same RPM in 3rd gear I'd be going much faster, providing more cooling airflow.

I'm still a bit wary of Spearco claims on their Top-Bottom cores, as said in the ARE article I quote earlier in the thread, a core can perform nicely on a flow bench, but stick some poorly designed endtanks on it and performance can be greatly altered.

 

[Nanan]

IMO the endtanks are just as important or even more important then the core. Think about it, the endtanks are responsable for how the air flows through the IC. In many of the cheap Ebay ICs out there the inlet and outlet are on the same plane, what would make the air decide to flow through the top tubes if it can easily flow through the bottom ones? The flow pattern needs to be offset for an IC to get even distribution and proper heat spread or it will heat soak in one region right by the inlet.

Bad design: Piss poor heat distribution

Better design: More evenly distributed heat spread

 

[ShapeGSX]

^^ Good point.

The smaller Top/Bottom seem more suited to big turbos that operate in their most efficient range so wouldn't need as much cooling. However for those boosting the piss out of a 14B/16G, a better cooling Side-Side is a much better choice. Then again a large Side-Side would be the best overall choice for a high HP setup as it would offer both high flow capacity and high cooling capacity.

The odd thing is that my car has an 18" top/bottom flow Griffen from RRE. I don't think you will find a car that boosts the piss out of a 16G more than my car (other than maybe Curt Brown ). It seems to do ok. Though now I am wondering if trying out a side to side IC would be worth it. Maybe I can find a used Evo intercooler for cheap.

 

[out there]

perhaps you should tell this to reputable shops...
http://www.slowboyracing.com/more.php?id=1008&
i'm not saying you're wrong, just suggesting that there are some cases that offset inlet/outlets might not be possible

 

[DSM90AWD]

The odd thing is that my car has an 18" top/bottom flow Griffen from RRE. I don't think you will find a car that boosts the piss out of a 16G more than my car (other than maybe Curt Brown ). It seems to do ok.

[bow] Josh, 11s on a 16G, yes, you are making some serious power [/bow], but am sure it's been mostly C16. Have you ever run the 16G at 20+psi down the quarter on pump? With my old 16G on 93oct I'd see heat soak by the end of 2nd with gradually increasing knock in subsequent upshifts on my datalogs.

I dont' see how you couldn't do better with a more efficient FMIC, or even adding a water sprayer (ala EVO VIII) to the Griffin core to give it an efficiency boost. Cooler air = more power no matter how you do it

 

[DSM90AWD]

perhaps you should tell this to reputable shops...
http://www.slowboyracing.com/more.php?id=1008&
i'm not saying you're wrong, just suggesting that there are some cases that offset inlet/outlets might not be possible

He's not saying that the core itself is garbage, but the endtanks are just plain stupid (thick cast AL, entry/exit on same plain). Read the full ARE Cooling article I link to in my first post and you'll see why. Not to say this core woudn't cool do the trick on a mid/small turbo (it's friggin huge), just that you could likely improve the efficiency by a huge % just by offsetting the entry and exit approaches.

Look at SBRs own FMIC setup (not this Chinaland eBay special). Now those endtanks are much better designed.

I do know a person running a 60-1 on this exact core with no problems. But he has not pushed it hard as of yet. I was actually considering one of the $190 clones of this core and fabricating my own backdoor endtanks (neighbor is a sheetmetal worker ), though for $245 shipped, figured I'd try the JRC first.