How efficient is the Conquest Cooler?

[opie]

Anyone have any data/opinion on how efficient the 14 row (read:bigger tube) Conquest intercoolers are? Assuming the inlet tubes were not limiting the flow. We're talking the core here. Thanks for the input. I'd like to pick one of these up if anyone has one. Doug.

[Lockjaw]

The one I used had 5 psi of pressure drop with the stock ZX turbo. I used the stock inlets and outlets on it.

 

Not recommended IMO.

[Tony240ZT]

Do you know if yours was the 14 row, for sure?

[Lockjaw]

Don't they have two for the conquest, a small one and a big one? I know mine was larger than a friends.

[opie]

I've never seen a big and small size, but I've owned 4 so far(I've only used a Supra MK III), but 2 of the DSMs were 16 row and 2 were 14 row. They were both the same Hi/Wi/Depth. I've seen a small NPR that looks very similar. The 14 row appears, and is reported by others, to have larger tubes and higher flowing. It comes from the later model Dodge and Mit Conquests.

 

I sold off all my Z mod stuff and found that I haven't cured the Zbug. I just got a 71 and then found a good 82 zxt + diesel engine for a possible swap. If I can find another 14 row, I thought I'd give it a try. I've seen lots of negs on the restrictive inlets, but not specifically the core. Doug(opie).

[Lockjaw]

I would like to see a Z with a deisel swap done. Bet no one has gone that route before.

[Scottie-GNZ]

I am not a big fan of OEM CAR I/Cs and my logic is simple. Any L28ET looking to install an I/C is probably looking to turn up the boost and increase HP. Many OEM car I/Cs, like the StarQuest, were designed for engines smaller and with less HP than a stock L28ET. How can it be expected that these I/Cs would efficiently, repeat, efficiently support a warmed-over L28ET? Only way possible is if the OEM designed in quite a bit more capacity than the targeted factory HP rating. Lets say the target HP for the L28ET is 275hp, achievable with the stock turbo. In order for the StarQuest I/C to efficiently support this, it would have to been designed with about 70% additional capacity. I dont think so.

 

That is not to say you cannot still use it and get decent performance, but how efficient is it? Remember the objective of an I/C is to reduce the intake charge allowing you to increase boost w/o increasing heat and w/o significant pressure drop. Since you are measuring boost at the intake, it is difficult to know the actual boost at the turbo. As pressure drop increases, the turbo has to work harder to get the desired boost at the intake. The harder the turbo has to work, the hotter the charge it is delivering and the less efficient the I/C, the hotter the charge at the intake.

 

An example of this is when I hit the limit on the Big NPR. I ran into a brick wall at about 400rwhp. The car was performing "OK" but had some strange problems, like not being able to run more than 20psi and more detonation than I liked. turns out at 20psi at the intake, the turbo was pushing 30psi and 325* charge!!

 

At some point you get diminishing returns and start entering a danger zone, too much heat. I prefer to see folks target the large truck desiel I/Cs and OEM car I/Cs designed for higher HP applications like the Porsche 944, SupraTT, GN, etc. ANy one of those can support 300hp efficiently.

 

Bottom line. If you are looking to crank up the boost for serious turbo performance, the I/C is the one thing not to skim on. As tempting as a $75 StarQuest might look, if you have to upgrade later, chances are the plumbing is wasted and you end up spending more in the end.

[Lockjaw]

That was very well put Scottie. He is right BTW.

 

I like my HKS one, but will be upgrading it soon to a big intercooler.

[opie]

Makes good since. What spawned the thought was that Bell dual core I/C on Scottie's page and I thought a similar design on the Conquest cores might be a good alterative for a motor that would eventually develope 350hp. I know this isn't an original idea, but the higher flowing DSM coolers might have made some difference. (2) 14 row(big tube) coolers would stack well and mods would cost 100 or under, and such.

 

Adding up the cons, I think something like the Bells would be much better served. I am a little concerned with the flow to the rad on an a/c equipped car with such big coolers, though. Thanks, Doug(opie)

[opie]

Good info. Thanks for the knowledge.

D.

[Scottie-GNZ]

The overheating problem is a concern. However, if someone like me running a 28" wide Bell I/C, big tranny and oil coolers have no cooling problems at all, then anyone with similar equipment SHOULD also not have a problem. Of course, there are other variables like timing, etc, but I believe the key is having adequate airflow from the fan and releasing the underhood hot air.

 

I have a Griffin rad, about 15/85 coolant mix with RMI-25, WaterWetter, 160* thermo. I think the key is a shrouded fan that moves lots of air and 280Z hood vents recently replaced by a cowl hood. Even under extreme racing at the track in 90+* temps, I rarely ever see 180*+ water temp.