While I can agree that based on it's chemical composition, aluminum can only transmit X amount of energy dependant on methodology, the fact that you state that adding a solid portion to the FMIC rather than a split/finned section with greater surface area cannot possibly be comparable, even through radiant heat transfer.

Also, to say that there is NO air passing behind the beam is foolish and unrealistic. While there may not be a direct flow path, you cannot tell me that there will not be any deferral of flow back behind the beam.

There was never even a point in question whether or not the ducting would cool better. That is an obvious answer and not anywhere near what I said. I simply stated that a larger volume, obstructed intercooler would still have greater cooling capacity than a smaller volume cooler with identical airflow limitations. You literally stated that adding a larger intercooler without ducting was no greater than attaching a solid-state heat-sink to your OEM cooler and I said you were wrong.

Regardless of the bar and plate styling of the CBRD intercooler, even the EvoX FMIC has been proven to lower the charge temperature when installed on a Ralliart. Bryan's comparison was the first I could think of and easiest to find, but I'm sure there is a great deal more data out there to be found.

You even go so far as to contradict yourself by stating that despite the fact that the CBRD piece is bar and plate, the significant size increase adds to the greater cooling properties. In case you hadn't noticed, the EvoX cooler is TWICE the volume of the Ralliart FMIC; I would think that to be considered a fairly substantial difference.

Again, this all comes down to a matter of surface area where even though the upper half of the intercooler is partially obstructed, the lower half is not and will receive the same cooling as the OEM cooler while the rest of the charge in the upper half will receive less efficient thermal transfer, but will still experience a temperature drop, nonetheless, creating an overall greater cooling effect vs. the OEM cooler. I realize that Bryan's example is more extreme than a basic upgrade to an OEM EvoX FMIC, but it illustrates the point all the same. I understand why he saw such a significant drop in temperature was because of the vast improvement made in multiple aspects by installing the CBRD version intercooler; yet similar, if not quite as effective, results can and have been achieved by upgrading to the stock EvoX intercooler. If the EvoX FMIC was ineffective, there would be no reason to ever bother with it, yet it continues to be a viable option for those on a budget or with minimal upgrade desire.

Had you read exactly what I said before misinterpreting my comment, coming to your own conclusions, and bringing about a personal attack, you would have realized that I was not saying that your modification was ineffective, nor was I saying that the same cooling effect would be accomplished without the bumper mod. I actually like what you've done and think it looks good, I was just criticizing your emphasis on the necessity of modifying that area in order to reap any sort of benefit from a larger FMIC which is not correct. To optimize the effect, however, I agree with you that modification needs to be done.

 

Agreed, chi.

If you want to go into heat transfer with air, you'll have to take into account a lot of variables... Temperature.... your current speed.....size of IC.... etc. I am no scientist but even if someone took the time and money to see where the benefits lye, I am sure it would be fairly minimal after a certain speed. (Due to the design of the Lancer front end.) No one would disagree that it may help overall, just not a necessity if you go with the bigger IC.

The Radiator is behind the IC right? how does that get cooled with that and the bumper in the way, especially being so close to the Engine?? Fluids find a way..

my2

PS. I know that with liquid Q=mc(Thot-Tcold) The Q and m are rates(dot)
and that Qflux=UA(TavgHot-TavgCold)

Where U is the overall heat xfer coefficient (here it would be the material make up of the fins and core of the IC) and A would be the overall heat transfer area of the IC. TavgHot is the air inside the core and the TavgCold is the Air flowing past. ICs are a cross type flow. So the most heat transfer will happen at the left side(facing front) of the IC. since the difference in temperatures are the greatest.
So designing the IC with a very high k(temperature coefficient of conduvity or something rather) and high strength make best.. aluminum is a good choice...

More flow, more heat transfer, however at a certain speeds since the flow is not directed, it won't flow as perfect through the front of the car and through the IC at higher speeds. If that makes any sense.

 

I completely apologize if you took that as a personal attack, as it was not meant to be. But you accusing me of spreading false information is incorrect. I think you are interpreting my words with a desire to be argumentative. For the record, I have never said that upgrading the intercooler without this mod or something similar was worthless. You will always see better cooling with more surface area or greater mass. My point that you attacked is that the upper portion of the intercooler is not functioning as an air to air intercooler, but merely a mass increase. Do you still doubt that point?

I said block, meaning solid. A finned heatsink is still a solid block of aluminum, not composed of extruded tubing or fins. I made no statement regarding the surface area. The point to make was a passive cooling device.

I stated that and I stand by it. Because when you have half of your intercooler blocked, the upper portion IS a passive radiant heatsink. If you think otherwise, you are missing the point altogether. I agree that there has to be a small amount of circular air divergence sending SOME air behind the beam, but that beam is REALLY close to the intercooler, so it is completely negligible.

If I was talking total volume, you would be correct. But I was talking about the portion of the intercooler that is exposed to direct airflow. The CBRD intercooler is thicker and longer than the stock RA, so it has greater cooling efficiency in the "exposed" area. The Evo X intercooler is almost identical in design to the RA, regarding length and thickness. It is merely taller. This is why I was emphasizing the size of the CBRD unit. In exposed portion (in the direct airflow), it is significantly larger, and the Evo X is about the same size.

Please show me where this was stated.

I think we are very close to agreeing, with a few small misunderstandings in place. I am not trying to be argumentative, as it's not beneficial to either of us. You made some good points, and the points that you have made that are valid, I agree with 100%. I made a very simple statement early on that you disputed. I feel like you were taking the statement that a larger intercooler without airflow is just an increase in mass was me saying it wasn't worth it. But I was stating that you will see just as large of an improvement between a fully utilized larger intercooler with airflow across the top over one without as you see from the small stocker to a larger one. Then I just clarified that if you were trying to lead people to believe that the lower delta T that Bryan showed negated the benefits for upper airflow, it was wrong because there were more concrete reasons why he saw such a benefit like he did that had nothing to do with upper airflow.

 

radiant heat transfer is when a material is so hot that its main mode of heat transfer is radiation...

gamma waves and photons (kinda the same thing)
say like hot coals or a piece of molten metal, or the sun.

If you have a stove top on and you put ur hand near th surface you can tell its real hot, thats not radiant heat transfer its just that the difference in temperature is so great that the air molecules get a higher temperature quickly and then rise do the difference in density between them and the surrounding cooler air. That's convection.

 

Thermal radiation can occur 1 degree above absolute zero. An object's ability to radiate heat has nothing to do with how hot it is, as far as a minimum temperature goes..

 

Sure.

Again radiating heat is through radiation, which is IR and EM waves.. not convection which is what we are talking about when discussing the FMIC!

Convection requires molecules, hey look air and the FMIC have those!

Radiation does not, however yes you can say radiation is still there.. of course, just not the primary means of heat TRANSFER.

As I stated before I am no scientist. ButI don't need wikipedia to tell me the difference.\\

MAIN MODE NOT THE ONLY MODE...

 

Don't even post a reply, I am off my box.

┻━┻ ︵ヽ(`Д´)ﾉ︵ ┻━┻


(╯°□°）╯彡┻━┻

The box is gone, get off my nuts, and get off my table, im going to bed.

 

My science professor said if i read the previous 15 posts I can get 3 credits for my class

 

Perhaps not "worthless" but very close to it, citing it as equally effective as bolting on a chunk of aluminum. I agree that the primary reason for temperature decrease, in the case of the larger intercooler, with unchanged airflow characteristics, is the increase in volume. I refuse to believe, however, that it is the only reason.

You state that increasing the internal volume of the cooler in this scenario is akin to attaching a solid-state heat sink (finned or otherwise) to the top of the cooler, which implies in both cases that there is no airflow through the center of the heatsink since it is a solid and is only acting as a radiant transmission point via a single point of contact on the top of the intercooler core. You say this both here:
and here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drew314

I said block, meaning solid. A finned heatsink is still a solid block of aluminum, not composed of extruded tubing or fins. I made no statement regarding the surface area. The point to make was a passive cooling device.

It is impossible that a single metal-to-metal contact patch would transmit the same amount of heat as a flow-through design, ie. a larger core, even in a passive manner when there is clearly more potential for heat loss with greater surface area in-contact with ambient air.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drew314

You will always see better cooling with more surface area or greater mass. My point that you attacked is that the upper portion of the intercooler is not functioning as an air to air intercooler, but merely a mass increase. Do you still doubt that point? ... I made no statement regarding the surface area. The point to make was a passive cooling device.

The reason that I said what I did is because, whether or not you were talking about volume increase, there still is one and therefore your statement was false when comparing the larger intercooler core to the addition of a solid heat sink. You are correct that larger mass AND larger surface area will both equate to greater dispersion of heat, but you did not isolate one from the other and therefore the statements you made were misleading. Again, you are correct in saying that the upper portion functions mainly as a passive, radiant heat-loss device; but there is some amount of airflow passing through the fins of the upper portion, whether it be from redirected air deflecting off of the rest of the cooler or through the efforts of the cooling fans or any other feasible means of flow. Regardless of volume or flow-rate, however, there is still air and therefore the upper portion is still performing the task of an air-to-air cooler, though not as efficiently as one with greater airflow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drew314

I completely apologize if you took that as a personal attack, as it was not meant to be.

I don't take anything on the internet personally, as it is the internet, though I would think that there are at least a few users with my same beliefs and perceptions of the functionality of a larger FMIC and some of them may very well take offense to comments such as these:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drew314

The long and short of it is if someone thinks an intercooler doesn't perform better with airflow going over the entire surface area as it was designed to do, they need to buy a honda.

While this is the one place that you do mention that airflow over the entire surface would perform better, your earlier posting states otherwise and so correcting yourself at this point while relating to the previous context could lead others to believe that anyone who opposes your un-revised posting "needs to buy a honda" (which is irrelevant anyways since I've personally gotten my *** handed to me by a turbocharged honda a couple of times) Like I said, I take no offense, but that may not go for others here with much thinner skin than myself. As we see on here, time and again, plenty of people can become quite touchy when it comes to these subjects and debates, while I like to take it as a learning experience for everyone and as long as the context remains civil, it will always lead to greater understanding for everyone involved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drew314

Please show me where this was stated.

I'm sorry, I should clarify here as well. I meant to say that you emphasize the necessity of bumper modification to reap the benefits of a larger intercooler vs. the benefits of some other passive device, ie. solid-state heat-sink. I strongly disagree with that comparison, as evidenced in the rest of my posting, and that was the basis for my comment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drew314

But I was stating that you will see just as large of an improvement between a fully utilized larger intercooler with airflow across the top over one without as you see from the small stocker to a larger one. Then I just clarified that if you were trying to lead people to believe that the lower delta T that Bryan showed negated the benefits for upper airflow, it was wrong because there were more concrete reasons why he saw such a benefit like he did that had nothing to do with upper airflow.

An unobstructed larger intercooler will outperform an obstructed one which will outperform the small original one, we both agree on this obvious fact. It was not my intention to lead people to believe otherwise, or to believe that the only reason for lower temps was the increase in size as the switch to bar and plate design also has a huge impact on cooling efficiency. I was just using his illustration as an easy-to-comprehend data point for reference purposes demonstrating the capabilities of a larger, yet still obstructed intercooler.


I'd also just like to mention, for the record, that I could also come on here using formulas and gas-law properties and the like to aid in my explanations, but I personally choose to attempt an explanation in lay terminology so that a greater number of readers may understand the context of the debate. In a way, it is actually more difficult trying to verbalize an explanation that a simple mathematical equation could explain, so I apologize if there is any confusion or unnecessary elaboration on my part. I just felt it would be more beneficial to the entire community since those of us with the knowledge of thermal dynamics, fluid dynamics, gas-law, etc. can apply the necessary theories and formulas where necessary and those without that extra technical knowledge will still have some idea what the hell we are talking about. Basically just saying that, for many, explanations like this may as well have been written in Klingon:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jechttt

with liquid Q=mc(Thot-Tcold) The Q and m are rates(dot)
and that Qflux=UA(TavgHot-TavgCold)

Not to say that the additional technical information isn't welcome, and it most certainly is valuable, there are just a number of people on here who do not understand it and therefore it makes the entire discussion irrelevant to them; so they stop reading and it inhibits their ability to understand and learn from the information being presented.

 

Hey Bryan, do you know if it was from the standard EvoX or the RS version or what the difference, if there is any, may be?

The problem is that I'm showing two different part numbers for the JDM front crash beam for GSR and RS, neither of which matches the USDM part number we have on file. I'm guessing the RS may be even more reduced in size/weight in order to fit with the RS theme, but I'm not sure and haven't received a reply from our overseas rep as of yet.

Basically I've been working on shedding weight (and yes, considering some form of bumper mod for increased airflow) and was going to switch over to a USDM EvoX front beam when I figured the JDM beam would probably be even smaller/lighter due to the safety regulations being less-strict in Japan (and traditionally JDM crash beams are smaller, which is why you need to use them or modify/remove your USDM spec completely when installing some JDM bumpers) Is there any way that you would be able to confirm any sizing difference between USDM-JDM as well?

I'm sure I'm not the only one here interested in this data if you were able to provide it, and I will continue to research the possibilities on my own as well

 

No idea on difference between GSR/RS.

I do know the JDM crash bar is like half the size of the USDM one.

 

I think its just been upgraded to 4 Credits

I think everyone can calm down and just look at an RA with stock vs RA with X FMIC and when tuned the X FMIC helps to get more HPssssss and TQsssssss i dont have the dyno charts but i know there are some out there.

 

Excellent, thanks for the confirmation. Exactly what I was figuring would be the case.

It seems as though I'll just have to wait for our Japanese source to get back to me at work in regards to the possible differences on the RS part to explain the difference in part #s. I'll report back when I find out, but don't anyone hold their breath, those guys take FOREVER!!!

 

I agree with this, as does my statement that you are having such a problem with. I think now the discrepancy is in how much is the secondary air that is taking the path of greater resistance through a low pressure zone is benefiting the cooling in the upper portion of the intercooler. Our engineering department just spent 20k on a fluid dynamics software, so when I get the necessary geometry modeled in, I will give you real world data with flow characteristics. I completely stand by my premise that the amount of airflow passing through the upper portion of the larger intercooler is insufficient for it to operate as an air to air intercooler with forced convection, and it is, as I have stated, just a radiant heatsink.


I didn't isolate one from the other because, in this context, that is apparent. Since we are talking aluminum in all configurations, you cannot add mass without adding surface area. Back to my previous statement. Without proper airflow, the upper portion of a larger intercooler is just a heatsink. Whether you want to call that an increase in mass, volume or surface area, it is not an increase in forced convection intercooling, sans the minimal airflow diverting around the beam.


Again, not to be a stickler in this disagreement, but please quote where my other posts "states otherwise" that airflow over the entire surface area would perform better. That is the entire reason this mod was created. And not to emphasize the irrelevance of the fact that you had your *** handed to you by a boosted Honda, me stating that if you don't understand how a turbocharging system works, you should buy a honda is not irrelevant. Honda engines are high revving-high compression engines that typically don't need an understanding or requirement of turbocharging, hence, if you don't know about turbochargers, buy a honda. It is only a pejorative statement if you make it one. I'm quite sure there are quite a few NA hondas that will hand you your ***, as well. But that too, is beside the point.


We can agree to disagree, although it seems to me that you are agreeing the upper portion is primarily a radiant heatsink without airflow, but this statement....

is what I take as extremely misleading. Going through the numbers, just the "exposed" area of the CBRD intercooler versus the stock RA, there is a 75% increase in volume. In total volume increase (behind the crash beam included), it is a staggering 234% increase, meaning it is over 3 times the size of it and almost double the size of the evo X intercooler. Using this data, comparing IAT to that of the stock RA intercooler, to negate the need for upper intercooler flow through for effectiveness is completely fallacious, and that's what I feel most people would draw from your statement and data, as you presented it.

All in all, I think we are on the same page, even though you have garnered the support of people who think something has to be molten to radiate heat, and "scientists" study thermal and fluids dynamics, in leiu of ME's like myself. I don't know if that is a positive or a negative...lol. It seems that you think I am amplifying the requirement in sending air through the upper portion of the intercooler via an oversimplification, and I feel you are undermining the value of doing that and the fact that an intercooler in near stagnant air is just a passive heatsink, no matter how it is accomplished or implemented. Atleast our methodologies match, for the most part. I will try to get everything modeled and analyzed in the fluid dynamics software soon, so I can bring you over to the darkside in the realization of how little air is going around that beam, even though the mitsubishi engineers have already done the work for us and came to my conclusion in the Evo X . BUT, if I model it up and I am wrong, I will be the first to admit it. We shall see. Thanks for the concern with keeping valid information in the community, and I hope you can see I am trying to do the same. That's why I took exception to you saying I was spreading false information. But we are allowed to professional disagreements...lol.

 

that looks great.