a6t8vw Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 good for track? filled with ice/water with a re-circ pump.. this IC is the 4" core big one. 150qt icechest. i might go ahead and try this, it will be properly secured and all that. . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK-Z Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Haha. I think you have better efficiency with a smaller IC if you want to go water cooling. But you work with what you got. You also have to remember. power to weight. Is all that water/ice worth the power you would get, I can see it would be better for endurance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowCarbZ Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 I can see it would be better for endurance. Of course it would! Just think of all the sammiches and Cola you could carry along within arm's reach! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a6t8vw Posted May 30, 2009 Author Share Posted May 30, 2009 Haha. I think you have better efficiency with a smaller IC if you want to go water cooling. But you work with what you got. You also have to remember. power to weight. Is all that water/ice worth the power you would get, I can see it would be better for endurance. im going land speed racing so weight isint an issue, actually more the better... and im looking @500-800hp so it wouldnt slow me down ..lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
510six Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 The above are pics of the Liquid/ Air IC that was previously in my 510, it used a 5 gallon tank in the trunk that circulated icewater to the IC core. Racing at the drag strip in Redding, CA on a 105* day with track temps at around 120* the intake temps in my car were 68*. The second picture shows the Liquid/Air IC core from a friends Bonneville Mitsubishi Galant the IC lowers the intake temps over 200* a GT42 at over 35psi creates a lot of heat, and over 800whp. The core has icewater circulated from a 30 gallon tank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgkurz Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 im going land speed racing so weight isint an issue, actually more the better... and im looking @500-800hp so it wouldnt slow me down ..lol What class will you race the car in at Bonneville? Please give us more details. There are several folks at HBZ that are involved with or own a land speed car that would be very excited to see another Z on the flats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a6t8vw Posted June 1, 2009 Author Share Posted June 1, 2009 BFMS C . begining of last year BFMS "c" record was 189 mph. I recently checked and it was just over 220 mph! damn! Im probably not going to make bonneville this year unless i find 5 grand somehow to finish the car but its coming along. hopefully i can make the last el mirage meet towards the end of the year.. most current pic cheers, andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony D Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I'll see if I can meet up with you at the ElMirage meet in November for the season-closer, if I ever return from Asia! You can put the chest like that, and pack it, you should see if you can take a look at the Liggett setup, or the setup they run on the Sundowner. For your application it will work fine. You might want the weight a little further backwards, traction will be an issue above 140, even with a puny F/GPRO N/A engine! (Car #220) We might have the car back up there by then as well, I've been corresponding with Andy, and we are trying to get our schedules back on synch so we can make some passes and figure out the G/GPRO class once and for all (Got F/GPRO already...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a6t8vw Posted June 3, 2009 Author Share Posted June 3, 2009 I'll see if I can meet up with you at the ElMirage meet in November for the season-closer, if I ever return from Asia! You can put the chest like that, and pack it, you should see if you can take a look at the Liggett setup, or the setup they run on the Sundowner. For your application it will work fine. You might want the weight a little further backwards, traction will be an issue above 140, even with a puny F/GPRO N/A engine! (Car #220) We might have the car back up there by then as well, I've been corresponding with Andy, and we are trying to get our schedules back on synch so we can make some passes and figure out the G/GPRO class once and for all (Got F/GPRO already...) very cool.. if i see your car i will def look for you. andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WizardBlack Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 It would probably work better with an actual air/water intercooler instead of an air/air intercooler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(goldfish) Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 It would probably work better with an actual air/water intercooler instead of an air/air intercooler. I would tend to agree, but I assume you are work under a tight budget and time frame? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a6t8vw Posted June 6, 2009 Author Share Posted June 6, 2009 It would probably work better with an actual air/water intercooler instead of an air/air intercooler. why? only thing i see is the pressure drop is greater than a a/w core... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony D Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Converting a core to water/air is not that difficult and there likely is some efficiency in actually flowing water over the I/C cores to carry away heat into the thermal mass. Then again, putting an external water pump (Like the Bosch Water Pump for the Ford Lightning I/C setup) to a sparger tube under the 'radiator' side of the core and tapping off the bottom of the cooler would probably impart more than enough water flow over the core to make it for all intents and purposes just as efficient an intercooler. Likely with an Air/Air Core at the front of the car to drop some BTU's out first, the one in the water chest will result in more than perfect intercooling, and more than likely make for air considerably cooler than ambient going into the engine. Denisity is your friend! I have seen an L-Engine setup where the turbo went to an Air/Air up front, and then went through a supplementary Paxton Air/Water unit just before the throttle body. Through the Paxton unit, there was a water wetter/water mix circulated from a 21 Qt Dry Sump Tank mounted near the Right Rear corner of the car. The Dry Sump tank would be filled with water/waterwetter and ice. Air densities (especially on dyno runs) were quite interesting! F1 cars in the 80's actually used I/C bypass systems to keep the air at a standard density for proper fueling and fuel atomization. On one make, they needed a 130F intake air charge in order to keep their fuel in a light viscous form---any cooler and they would have 'fuel' that acted like sprayed syrup! Stationary engines also use thermal control to the intercoolers to make for consistent air inlet temperatures regardless of ambient variations/fluctuations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WizardBlack Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 why? only thing i see is the pressure drop is greater than a a/w core... Any way you slice it, AW intercoolers are different than AA intercoolers. There has to be a purpose behind that. Most likely efficiency of heat transfer between the water side and the intercooler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony D Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 Really the only effective difference I have noticed is that they jacket a standard core and make a multi-pass water flow through a standard Air-Air core. Take a good close look at the photo 510 Six posted, and the larger Eclipse unit looks to have been just that. Having seen them making up the Ford Lightning Prototypes at Garrett R&D, this is more than truthful as to what the end unit looked like. Really, the mose efficient method for doing it is to flow the water through the AIR side of an Air-Air cooler, and then flow boost through the core in one pass...but with much thicker core (think like an A/C Condenser). These people aren't making dedicated water-air coolers, in most cases they just jacket the air side and pass the air through where it already went. Paxton flows through the tubes I believe, but when you knock it down...without the jackets you can use it either way. Thermal Transfer makes most of the Intercooler Core Blanks for general industry and is an OEM supplier for most of the automotive truck brands. When you start looking around at their offerings, most are not dedicated water cooled exchangers (multi-pass air flow over tubes) simply because mobile installations do not permit the space for mounting those kind of coolers. So they take what is normally sized for the application and make a water jacket for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.