MONZTER

Some more pics of the inside cover and details of the airhorns, dividers

Me too, Thats where I got the idea from. Good book. most of my parts I have been building are based on the "ideal" concepts from that book

A bunch of good post and questions. The purpose of my initial test was to see if I could make the intercooler I already purchased better. I think I succeeded. If I had to do it again, I would not buy the same set-up and modify it. I would go for a completely different tank design that doesn’t flow the air perpendicular across the core in the first place. Have you guys ever seen this site? http://www.gurneyflap.com/bmwturbof1engine.html Some of the old F-1 cars are great inspiration

I love this video and the sound of that straight 6 http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=2005_gemenos_castellana&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&tnr=21&vid=1097229480

Thanks Ron, Even better is that my old Datsun still has the original paint and rust. It makes it that much more fun not having to worry about some pretty paint.

For just the reason stated by Zguy36 above. I thought a bigger taper in the bottom would help even out the flow in the second half of the core and eliminate any dead spots. I knew what direction the air was flowing so I figured a little more room on top would keep the velocity more consistent. I think most intercoolers are symmetrical because they are universal fit and you can then run the air in any direction you want.

Yep I am getting some turbulence in the dead spot where the first and second halves of the core are separated. I will post a close up of that section so you can see it better soon. It’s not perfect, but as you said a lot better than what it was, and I will have to be just happy with that. I actually have plans to make my own tanks from scratch for my next build, and they will eliminate this problem, I just wanted to salvage the intercooler I already bought. I bought it in the first place because I am getting tired of my car never being finished, and I thought I would save some time by having one built. Well after getting it I couldn’t just leave well enough alone.

The software is Cosmos Floworks, I think it’s at its limits with the narrow fluid space in the core. The company I work for just bought CD-Adaptco Star CCM+ and Star Pro-E for our external flow models, seems much more capable as it is the same software used by the F-1 teams. I will re-do some of these test with the new software after I get some training. http://www.cd-adapco.com/products/STAR-CCM_plus/index.html

It seems like there has been alot of talk about the pluses and minuses of the different intercooler configurations for our Z cars. Which is better? Same side inlet and outlet, or opposite side? That’s for another post that has been debated over and over. What I wanted to show was my decision, and what I have found out, and how I have modified it to make what I think is a good solution to an efficient design. My decision was to go with the inlet and outlet on the same side, as I really wanted the shortest possible tubing, not to mention what I believe to be a intercooler with less pressure drop. So I ordered up a Custom sheet metal tank Spearco unit 18x6x3.5 , only to be really disappointed when it showed up, as I have seen better looking agriculture equipment. The inlet and outlet were just butt welded on with no regard to smooth airflow, and the ends were cut nearly square, again not really smooth creative work. Here is a pictures of the stock unit as delivered from Spearco. We have all heard talk of how this type of intercooler recycles the air inside, in a circular motion near the inlet and outlet. Also, it is known as not being very efficient to cooling, because all the air gets pushed to the end of the tank, not letting the air flow evenly through the core. So I modeled it up in Pro-E and set to work doing some CFD flow testing on it for a little look. The test was done very simply, ambient on the inlet side and 25" on the outlet side. I wanted to test total CFM flow as well as pressure drop and distribution of the air. Please keep in mind this is only a quick test and the core is correct in dimensions, but obviously no tubulators, So look at the info for what it is, a comparison between one test and another, not between this test and a actual unit. So you can see in this picture first off is a recirculation effect. The air enters in the bottom inlet, up through the core, out, back down the core, back up the core... click to enlarge the picture and look at the flow arrows. Next is the pressure plot- Finally the velocity plot. So now on to the modifications. First off is the inlet and outlet. I made nice square to round transitions 2.5" inlet and 3" outlet. No longer is there a sharp square edge right before the outlet, you can see the effect on the pressure plot above. Next, I made smoother tapering sections at the end of the plenum. Finally, I made divider plates to basically split the Plenum into two halves, hopefully improving the balance of flow, fixing the recirculation problem, increasing the heat rejection and thus efficiency. Check out the arrows - no more recirculation Pressure plot shows the air is being distributed more evenly through the full core, not just he ends. The smooth inlet and outlet also show the lack of a high pressure flow reducing area right before the outlet. Check out the velocity. The air seems to stay more consistent in speed, I assume this is why there is a little more pressure drop. Check out the numbers. An increase of 162CFM through the same core. So what do you think? Does it look like it all makes sense? Jeff