I'm looking for an intercooler for my 3.4. I've got a T3/T4 Garrett and was wondering what would be best? Air/air, water/air, or water/water. Also, what is the biggest size intercooler that will fit on the 86 GT and where should it go to get the best airflow?

Air/water would easily be best for the Fiero mounting options. You don't have to expose it to hot engine bay air or do contortions to get it into the stream, and as long as you're willing to do the little extra plumbing, it's more efficient. If you're willing to cut holes, I've seen several people place them in the trunk, if not, it can be fit in the engine bay without too much difficulty.

In an automotive application a water/water exchanger doesn't really have any kind of advantage that makes it worthwile. Not worth the complexity that it adds...

Nate

------------------

My Web page | The Turbo Super Duty Build.
You know that little voice that says it can't be done? I duct-taped its mouth shut and pushed it down a flight of stairs. (Leader of the Insurgency)

I just got a core from frozenboost.com. Hasnt arrived yet, but they are cheap and have good reviews.

Two books that have a wealth of information on turbo charging are "Maximum Boost" by Corky Bell and "Turbochargers" by Hugh Maclnnes. Both talk about intecooling sizes and balancing.

------------------
'86 GT - "The Black Bomb" It'll sneek up on you.

I used a cut-down MR2 intercooler on top with the fan under it as in the photo below. When the fan went, I put bigger fan on top of the intercooler. Not the best looking setup but it works fine and don't mind the function over form race car look.

------------------
[IMG]



Trueleo.com/fiero.htm
RSpiderII@aol.com

What is your projected boost level? That's what should determine the path you take to cool the intake charge.

Here is a compact solution for the water to air cooler option, I'm still up in the air about them until I see intake air temps for comparison to air to air coolers to justify all the hype, considering the cooling surface area will ultimately determine cooling efficiency. Without actual test numbers from systems used on our cars it's all speculative as to whether it will be more effective or as effective as an air to air setup with adequate ventilation on the Fiero.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymot...=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=021

Another more compact option is water/meth injection which is very effective and proven on the turbocharged V6 as well as many other engines and with a reasonably sized tank does not have to be refilled very often. If you tune for water injection alone the cost effectiveness is even greater (unless you refill with bottled water) not that the meth mix is expensive.

Placement on thr Fiero is not good for an intercooler except under the bottom of the car the front would be ideal but plumbing is a pain,unless you are running high boost a water/meth injection system is the best bet and it is cheap to maintain.

I have thought about this a fair amount over the last couple of years. Although I don't currently have a Fiero, I have a good memory from when I owned one years back.

Here are a couple options that I have thought up for mounting the heat exchanger for the water-to-air intercooler. ALL of these mounting methods would assume that you have some sort of rear scoop on the passenger's side 1/4 panel.

1) Move the battery up front and mount the intercooler horizontally under the decklid vent on the passenger's side. Route some lightweight, yet rigid, duct work from the scoop to the underside of the heat exchanger.

2) Leave the battery where it is and mount the intercooler vertically just inside the rear 1/4 panel scoop. You could install a small vent in the front of the passenger's side inner fender liner. Similar to the 90-94 Talon / Eclipse stock setup.

Mounting up front obviously saves the hassle of installing rear side scoops, but then you have the hassle of running the plumbing and mounting of the H/E up front.

Just some random thoughts to throw out there...

------------------
86 GT in route - Questions to come

"Don't even consider keeping up with the Joneses!! They're broke!" - Dave Ramsey

Gunslinger is right on target. Look at Aquamist for a water / alcohol injection system. It works well, cools the hot turbo air and if you get desperate you can drink the water/ alcohol mix (no, not really). The units are easy to install.

------------------

quote Originally posted by Firefighter: Gunslinger is right on target. Look at Aquamist for a water / alcohol injection system. It works well, cools the hot turbo air and if you get desperate you can drink the water/ alcohol mix (no, not really). The units are easy to install.

While water injection works, I have always argued that it can never live up to the gains found in a properly intercooled and proper octane setup (guys on pump gas with tiny intercoolers, have at the meth injection all you want). I dont like the "randomness" that water injection could present... bad pump voltage, line popping off, ect small things that wouldnt happen in an intercooled system that you would see instantly.

Air/air intercoolers do work fairly well in place of the stock cat converter in a few of the turbo motor swaps I have seen. While not ideal, it could possibly be slightly cheaper and more streetable, at the cost for some efficiency, and IMO heat soak.

quote Mounting up front obviously saves the hassle of installing rear side scoops, but then you have the hassle of running the plumbing and mounting of the H/E up front.

I and a few others have found an easy solution for that if your not running a/c (it would work if you are running a/c too i guess), but you can use stock heater core tubes and run them next to or in place of the a/c lines, then just patch in about 10ft of hose to connect everything where you want it. A few extra feet of hose increases the "thermal capacity" of your IC fluid, and also is alot easier than trying to move the battery even....

[This message has been edited by darkhorizon (edited 09-30-2008).]

Most people speculate instead of first hand experience before making a comments on many issues,in order for the intercooler to be effective the ambient temperature makes a big difference on the boosted air that enters the engine.The sides will not attract enough airflow like the front will and the length of pipes needed for the Fiero is too long that you would have very serious turbo lag also maintaining boost pressure but if the IC is mounted under the car by the cradle at least the air rushing under the car would cool it.

With the water injector it is not inconsistant in operation once it is properly installed and connections made..........mine has been running for about 3 years with no problem except refilling it.

So...if you're going to plumb a water system, why bother with the pressure switches and all that...Water/air is a pretty simple system. Small tank, one heat exhanger, one pump, one line going to the H/E up front, one coming back. People have a mortal fear of water/air around here for some reason.

quote Originally posted by gunslinger: Most people speculate instead of first hand experience before making a comments on many issues,in order for the intercooler to be effective the ambient temperature makes a big difference on the boosted air that enters the engine.The sides will not attract enough airflow like the front will and the length of pipes needed for the Fiero is too long that you would have very serious turbo lag also maintaining boost pressure but if the IC is mounted under the car by the cradle at least the air rushing under the car would cool it. With the water injector it is not inconsistant in operation once it is properly installed and connections made..........mine has been running for about 3 years with no problem except refilling it.

I agree with you except for the front mount intercooler location being to far. That would automatically shoot down rear mount turbos on cars that are longer than the fiero and we know they put down serious numbers on the dyno. More relevant to this scenario is the 3400 V6, rear mount turbo powered Cavalier on the Z24 forum currently running ~12.3s quarter miles on about 10 psi.

It stands to reason here using the most basic theories of physics and turbocharging, that an intercooler placed a considerable distance from the intake in a front mount location, would actually perform better than a turbo placed a considerable distance from the engine because the cooling effect on the hot exhaust over the distance is detrimental to turbine spool up while all heat lost in the compression side of the system is a plus. With the turbo close to the engine spooling up reasonably fast it is not likely to manifest as an significantly long delay in boost onset with a properly designed system. Further more, the additional cooling effect could yield power improvement to make it well worth the effort. It's speculation now, but a front mount IC is exactly what I intend to install, running the plumbing in the rocker panels and since I've already posted my air inlet temps without an intercooler or water/meth injection, we'll have a baseline for when both anti-detonate measures are installed and how much heat they take out of the system.

If my inlet temps drop from a current 212 deg to below 100, more than enough power will have been gained to make up for any increased time for boost build up, as spool up time will be the same since the turbos haven't moved and likely faster since I will be swapping to a header setup next month.

I have an injection controller for my Snow Performance kit so it should provide much better performance with a linear injection rate vs boost level.

I've tried rear intercoolers on the Fiero and air rushing under the car tends to keep right on rushing until it gets to the end of the car since without a skimmer it is not likely to turn 70-90 degrees upward to pass through an intercooler on its own. Water/meth is probably the most effective for a start until as I suggested earlier, intake air temps are posted to show the significance.

It's all in the planning, get the right turbo for your engine so that efficiency at full boost is greater than 70%, make sure the engine is optimized for your power level with the highest compression practical for your boost level, along with an efficient exhaust system, and intake plumbing and you can work wonders. The homemade turbo V6 front wheel drive cars on the 60 degree and Z24 forums are raising cane on the track with wheel spin, so I know it can be done here to. I've read quite a bit on the subject and seen the documented results. Set a goal and draw up a plan of attack before you lift a tool or spend a penny and you will be successful.

I don't think anyone is arguing that a FMIC will not make power, it is just that it will induce more turbo lag. If anything it should create be capable of more power without detonation because the intake charge will be cooled as it flows down the entire length of the car and not just at the intercooler itself. However it will take slightly longer for all the plumbing on a FMIC to become pressurized which will induce more lag, not turbo spool up lag, but the delay before the created boost fills all the piping and actually hits the engine to start creating power. I encourage you to continue with your FMIC, it will definitely give a base of comparision as to wether the extra cooling is sufficient to offset the delay in boost application to the engine. Also which would be more streetable, sometimes lag is good on the street for high HP cars as it can make stop and go driving more endurable and less of a whip lash session.

------------------
NastyNate
ROMAD - USAF

FWIW I wanted to share my experience with long intake lengths on turbo'd cars, our XR4Ti has a Holset HY35w on it (2.3L SOHC) and our intake length is easily 10 feet including a 28x12x3 fleabay IC (alot of bends). Granted that's nothing like a mid-engined car like the Fiero, yours would be longer, but we don't have much if any lag from the length of the intake. I believe in air/air for simplicity and ease of maintenance standpoint but hey that's me, I don't know how much of a PITA it would be to plumb up a FMIC.

[This message has been edited by Raze (edited 09-30-2008).]

My setup with the intercooler over the vent and fan either over (as it is now) or under works fine. It not only pulls outside cold air over the intercoller but also redirects that air to blow on the turbo too. That setup along with an extractor scoop and thermostat controled fan makes for a very cool engine compartment even with the turbo and headers. In addition it keeps the turbo close to the TB and headers, whereas long tubes are not a good idea. I'm only running 10 lbs of boost, but have 9.5-1 pistons.
BTW: Glad to see that you do want to use an intercooler, I just don't understand why so many people think they don't need one with a turbo? Even the auto makers use them and we all know the bean counters would say no if they were not a real good idea.

------------------
[IMG]



Trueleo.com/fiero.htm
RSpiderII@aol.com

I say go with both the A/W intercooler AND the water/meth injection setup.

If both are good by themselves, then they must be GREAT together..

Here is a pic of my A/W from when it was in the "mock up" stage..

[This message has been edited by Jncomutt (edited 10-01-2008).]

quote Originally posted by Jncomutt: If both are good by themselves, then they must be GREAT together..

I bet you lose power if you run race gas.

Good thing hardly any of us on this forum run race gas on a daily basis. I'll stick with 93 pump, failsafe meth options, and choose not to run 20psi with 9* of knock.

Cheers!

quote Originally posted by F355: I'm looking for an intercooler for my 3.4. I've got a T3/T4 Garrett and was wondering what would be best? Air/air, water/air, or water/water. Also, what is the biggest size intercooler that will fit on the 86 GT and where should it go to get the best airflow?

There is no water/water intercooler for automotive applications. If you want to talk about nuclear power plant, then yes, they do water/water cooling.

Air/water

Advantages

Easier Installation: You install the intercooler, heat exchanger, pump and water lines. Very little or no welding is required.
Takes up less room
Supercooling: An water/air system has the potential to cool the intake charge below ambient temperatures. Drag racers often do this by placing ice in the cooling water. The Ford Lightning does it by using the air conditioner to cool the water for 30 seconds of nice power.


Disadvanteges

Less Efficient than air/air
Higher maintainence
Chance of pump failure
Heavier than a air/air system


Air/air intercoolers


Advantages

More efficient than water/air intercoolers
Zero maintainence
No moving parts
Lighter than a water/air system

Disadvanteges

Takes up more room than a water/air system
Harder to plumb: I can't imgine trying to run two 2" pipes from the back of the car to the front. They would have to hang below the body, go through the passenger compartment or a new channel would have to be cut into the body to accomodate them. A lambo kit would give a lot more options to locate them in the rear with the various air scoops back there. You could also cut a new vent or use the decklid vents but a fan would be required to move air over the intercooler.

May cause slightly more lag due to larger air volumn between turbo and intake manifold

More clamps and hoses that can come off during boost: When an intercooler hose pops off during boost, you may have a heart attack because there will be a load pop and your engine will immediately die. If you are doing a 1/4 mile run, then your run ends right there. It does not do any harm in itself but it is something that you should be aware of. If your intercooler pipes are in difficult locations to get to, then you may want to use t-bolt clamps to prevent them from blowing off.

Like I said, I'm not sold on the water to air intercooler without seeing datalogs of inlet air temps with their use. I don't see a properly installed coupling popping off under moderate boost unless the pipes have no barb to prevent it, so though it is possible, with proper installation it's highly unlikely and a risk for both intercooling methods as silicone coupling is used in both applications.

On the Fiero the pipes to a front mount intercooler simply need be run inside the rocker panel moldings with extended length silicone coupling across the front cross member, the only location where the plumbing would have to travel a little lower than the bottom of the car, which would allow considerable compression without damage due to its flexibility.

I believe after observing rear mount turbo setups that a front mount intercooler in the fiero running upwards of 15 psi stands to gain more in power than it will loose in pressure build time at an estimated 1% power increase per 10 degree drop in inlet temps and very high probability of a 100 degree temp drop compared to running no intercooler. If I'm wrong I can easily remove it and put it in the rear and we'll all be that much wiser.

quote Originally posted by Raze: FWIW I wanted to share my experience with long intake lengths on turbo'd cars, our XR4Ti has a Holset HY35w on it (2.3L SOHC) and our intake length is easily 10 feet including a 28x12x3 fleabay IC (alot of bends). Granted that's nothing like a mid-engined car like the Fiero, yours would be longer, but we don't have much if any lag from the length of the intake. I believe in air/air for simplicity and ease of maintenance standpoint but hey that's me, I don't know how much of a PITA it would be to plumb up a FMIC.

I'm not surprised at your experience at all given the dynamics involved since initially the compressor side has more pressure than the turbine side in a turbo setup which means the pressure builds quicker on the intake side than on the turbine side which stands to reason that lag will be greater on a turbo charger placed 10 feet away than on an intercooler placed 5 feet away to symbolize a total of 10 feet going and comming back to the throttlebody.

I have a good size intercooler and just for kicks, I covered one end and blew into the other and there was no sensation of having added any air to the inside area, it was about like trying to blow air out of my mouth with my hand pressed tightly against it. As many have said before, a proper installation sees little to no lag, and proper means correct engine setup (compression and camshaft) and gearing, higher stall torque converters or a manual tranny which doesn't have to be clutch dumped on to get a good launch.

quote Originally posted by Joseph Upson: Like I said, I'm not sold on the water to air intercooler without seeing datalogs of inlet air temps with their use. I don't see a properly installed coupling popping off under moderate boost unless the pipes have no barb to prevent it, so though it is possible, with proper installation it's highly unlikely and a risk for both intercooling methods as silicone coupling is used in both applications. On the Fiero the pipes to a front mount intercooler simply need be run inside the rocker panel moldings with extended length silicone coupling across the front cross member, the only location where the plumbing would have to travel a little lower than the bottom of the car, which would allow considerable compression without damage due to its flexibility. I believe after observing rear mount turbo setups that a front mount intercooler in the fiero running upwards of 15 psi stands to gain more in power than it will loose in pressure build time at an estimated 1% power increase per 10 degree drop in inlet temps and very high probability of a 100 degree temp drop compared to running no intercooler. If I'm wrong I can easily remove it and put it in the rear and we'll all be that much wiser.

I own two turbocharged vehicles. I can tell you from experience that a flaree on a pipe is not a 100% guaranty that the coupling will not come off. The only way to be absolutely sure that it will not come off is to use t-bolt clams on flared pipes. Screw clamps come off all the time. If you overtighten a screw clamp then it damages the clamp. You may think that every coupling is on good but you never know until there is pressure in those pipes. Every additional coupling that is used is two more clamps that can blow off. If you use all t-bolt clamps then you are looking at about $4 per clamp times 2 per coupling times the number of couplings in the system. Running intercooler pipes from the back of the car to the front is going to require quite a few couplings. You can do the math.

As far as turbo lag goes, you can do some match to get an idea of how much extra area you will be adding with such long pips. Counting bends and whatnot from the back of the car to just in front of the radiator you are looking at about 15 ft of piping. That is 10 ft more than a "typical" front mount intercooler setup. Double that for both pipes and you have 20 ft of extra piping. If you use 2" pipes then you have 5.2 cubic feet of additional air that needs to be filled before you can build up pressure in your intake manifold. So if your turbo is moving 300 CFM @ 15 psi then it will take ~1 second for the turbo to fill that additional space with pressurized air. That is 1 more second of lag in addition to the traditional turbo lag before the exhaust gasses build up enough pressure to build boost.

What you are discussing is very doable. Just don't go into it with assumptions that may not be true.

Sorry, but the coupler issue is more hype than an issue for me as far as the number of years I've run different turbo setups with and without an intercooler and no disconnects under pressure. I'm certain there will be some effect but doubt it will be along the lines of 1 second before any boost is sensed at the intake. When I complete the task I will post the performance results so that we all know fact from fiction. Turbo lag is determined by system design not tradition, that's one of the problems with turbo theory, it is assumed that you can't have one without lag in the same way many still preach you have to lower compression whenever you add boost regardless of the compression ratio and intended boost level. I will do the calculations as you do make a valid and unignored point.

[This message has been edited by Joseph Upson (edited 10-01-2008).]

quote If you use 2" pipes then you have 5.2 cubic feet of additional air that needs to be filled before you can build up pressure in your intake manifold. So if your turbo is moving 300 CFM @ 15 psi then it will take ~1 second for the turbo to fill that additional space with pressurized air.

I did a quick calculation for 24ft of 2.5inch pipe, and came up with .81 cubic feet...

I also dont understand why you think air/water intercoolers are "inefficient" compared to an air/air? Also weight is not really a fair comparison... I have seen heavy air/air intercoolers.

quote Originally posted by darkhorizon: I did a quick calculation for 24ft of 2.5inch pipe, and came up with .81 cubic feet... I also dont understand why you think air/water intercoolers are "inefficient" compared to an air/air? Also weight is not really a fair comparison... I have seen heavy air/air intercoolers.

You are correct. My math is a off because I screwed up the conversion from inches to ft. That is .43 cu. ft not 5.2 so that is less than 1/10th of a second to fill the extra length of pipe.

Air/water intercoolers will always be less efficient than a/a intercoolers because fresh air is the median removing heat from the intake charge. On a w/a intercooler there is an additional median: water. It is probably better described as air/water/air intercooler. When transferring heat the larger the temperature difference between the materials, the more heat that is transferred. Because water is recirculated, it comes back into the intercooler at a higher temperature than the ambient air. So the temperature difference is not as much as when the intake charge is cooled by the ambient air. Water can absorb more heat but it still has to transfer that heat somewhere so it goes to the heat exchanger. No matter how efficient the heat exchanger is, it cannot cool the water back to ambient air temperatures before the water goes back to the intercooler. So the water in the system will always be hotter than ambient air temperatures. When out of boost, it will actually heat the air coming into the engine rather than cool it.

If that is not a good enough explaination, you can find a lot of information about why a w/a intercooler is less effient with a simple web search.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: If that is not a good enough explaination, you can find a lot of information about why a w/a intercooler is less effient with a simple web search.

Its amazing how many of my search results were directly about the fiero...

quote Originally posted by Jncomutt: Its amazing how many of my search results were directly about the fiero...

I have no idea what you mean by that statement. Do you think that just because you drive a Fiero that it does not have to follow the laws of physics?


Back to the topic on hand, here is a great web site about intercoolers that will probably make most forum member's eyes glaze over:

http://www.gnttype.org/tech...rbo/intercooler.html

In particular is this paragraph about water/air intercooling that is important:

quote Air-to-water. If we use water as the cooling medium instead of outside air, we can see a big improvement for several reasons: Water can absorb more energy with a lower temperature rise. This improves our DTlm, makes it bigger, which makes Q go up and outlet temps go down. A well designed water cooled exchanger also has a much bigger U, which also helps Q go up. And since both DTlm and U went up, you can make the area A smaller which makes it easier to fit the intercooler in the engine compartment. Of course, there are some practical drawbacks. The need for a water circulation system is one. A big one is cooling the water down after it is heated (which means another radiator). This leads to another problem: You heat the water, and cool it down with outside air like the Syclone/Typhoon. You can't get it as cool as the outside air, but maybe you can get it within 20 degrees of it. Now you are cooling the turbo air with water that is 20 hotter than the outside air, and you can only get within 15 degrees of that temperature so coming out of the intercooler you have turbo air that is 35 degrees hotter than outside! (turbo air is 15 deg over water temp which is 20 deg over outside temp). You could have easily done that with an air to air intercooler! But... if you put ice water in your holding tank and circulate that... Then maybe the air temp coming out of the intercooler is 15 deg above that or 45 to 50 deg. Hang on! But after the water warms up, you're back to the hot air again. So, great for racing, not as good for the street.

The bottom line is that as long as you have a pack of ice to cool your water/air intercooler, you will do better than a air/air intercooler. When the ice is gone, air/air is superior. Water/air intercoolers should only be used in drag racing and where air/air intercoolers are impractical.

quote When out of boost, it will actually heat the air coming into the engine rather than cool it.

On 3800's I have noticed that hotter air intake temps during cruise helps out gas mileage slightly... at least I gained from going from a fender well intake setup to a hot air setup on my daily driver L67.

Interesting topic

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: I can tell you from experience that a flaree on a pipe is not a 100% guaranty that the coupling will not come off. The only way to be absolutely sure that it will not come off is to use t-bolt clams on flared pipes. Screw clamps come off all the time. If you overtighten a screw clamp then it damages the clamp. You may think that every coupling is on good but you never know until there is pressure in those pipes. Every additional coupling that is used is two more clamps that can blow off. If you use all t-bolt clamps then you are looking at about $4 per clamp times 2 per coupling times the number of couplings in the system. Running intercooler pipes from the back of the car to the front is going to require quite a few couplings. You can do the math.

I totally agree on this, if you're running lower boost levels in the 10-15psi range chances are you're not going to be popping couplers off w/screw type clamps, but when you start talking about >20psi it will become an issue, we had this exact thing happen to us and we went from screw types at $0.50 each to ebay t-bolt clamps @ $2 each (you can get them cheap if you look hard). But we needed almost 30 of them, so it can be expensive but they are worth their weight in gold. Also to keep coupler costs down don't go silicone, it's expensive and around heat at high boost likes to fail, we've popped 2 couplers this way. Instead we went with large diameter heater hose, aka 'stick hose' from NAPA for large diesel truck coolant systems. It's got a burst rating up at 75psi at 200+ F, which means it'll never pop, and the nice part is it's VERY cheap compared to silicone and can easily be 'necked' down with a t-bolt clamp for IC size changes.

Goodluck!

[This message has been edited by Raze (edited 10-02-2008).]

My IAT is after the intercooler. I'll let you know what sort of temps i'm seeing with this horrible air/water intercooler as soon as I start running some real boost through this thing.

As far as A/A, i have done actual testing and they heat soak fairly regularly in typical driving. The temps will rise as you drive. If you log the IAT you will notice that they start high from cruising, then as you increase the air flow through the inside (high boost pull, for instance) they drop steadily until they reach a certain point then flat line. I'm sure there are differences depending on platform, but this was the activity I found on a 3000gt

Thanks! That is a lot of helpful info! I hate to be any more of a pain, but I really want to hook this turbo up perfectly. For piping, what is the best option as far as reliability and strength? Am I going to have to get a new manifold instead of the stock GT one? And finally, I would like to know if an air/air IC placed where the cat was would be sufficient for 10-15 lbs of boost? Sorry I didn't specify boost before...

Boost pressure is actually one of the most usless things to talk about in a discussion of turbos intercoolers ect... Try talking in lb/m or CFM.

quote Originally posted by darkhorizon: Boost pressure is actually one of the most usless things to talk about in a discussion of turbos intercoolers ect... Try talking in lb/m or CFM.

It's too late for that, he's already purchased his turbo, that's the lingo he would have needed to make sure he chose the best compressor combination for his engine and intended power range. I've noticed that most of the turbo setups I've read about are running turbos based on what they have seen in someone elses build instead of actually using the compressor maps. When I first started turbocharging I chose a turbo based on the engine the turbo was removed from.

Thanks a ton! I'll look into that and definitely pick up that book.

You're looking for the volume of the pipes:
V = Pi * r² * h
so
V = 3.14 * 6.25in. * 288in.
V = 5652 in²
V = 39.25 ft²

So according to about.com and if my math is right that is how much piping needs to be filled up.
http://math.about.com/od/fo...surfaceareavol_3.htm (bottom formula)

------------------
My Car Site
www.flexyourrights.com
Signatures are a waste of bandwidth!

quote Originally posted by Primaris: You're looking for the volume of the pipes: V = Pi * r² * h so V = 3.14 * 6.25in. * 288in. V = 5652 in² V = 39.25 ft² So according to about.com and if my math is right that is how much piping needs to be filled up. http://math.about.com/od/fo...surfaceareavol_3.htm (bottom formula)

My twin turbo combo should move a calculated estimate of 211 CFM if boost reaches 7 psi by 2700 rpm with a 60% intercooler efficiency (expected to be much higher) with 2.25" plumbing and about 120 deg average air temperature.

That result of 211 CFM entered in this calculator; http://not2fast.com/gasflow/velocity.shtml yields an air speed of 127 ft/sec.

24 ft minus the approximate length of rear mount intercooler plumbing ~ 8 ft = 16ft, 16 ft / 127 ft/sec= .126 sec longer before boost pressure reaches the intake manifold theoretically from moving the intercooler to the front of the car.

Although estimated, if my calculations are correct, the power gained from dropping the inlet air temp 100 or more degress should trim a good bit more than .126 sec off the quarter mile time. I will be using an intercooler and water/meth and expect my 212 deg inlet temps to drop by at least 100 degrees total at 7 psi and even more as the boost climbs because my turbo efficiency goes from ~62 % at 7 psi to over 70% at 10 psi. and my total intercooling effect will certainly be much greater than the conservative 60% efficiency.

I was just posting the math, because the numbers about the area listed above didn't make sense to me.

I hope it works out great for you. The only thought I have about avoiding lag it to have the blow off valve close to the throttle pate as possible because that much air is going to have its own momentum when it get there.