denial

iTrader: (27)

Good suggestion but what would be even better is if they drilled the stock IC pipe instead of the IC. That way it's sure to be 100% consistent placement (as you wouldn't have to move the probe b/t tests whatsoever). Even a silicon hose might move around a bit. Plus, at 19+ psi, I'm not sure a hole in the wall of the hose would be leak proof.

EVO Neil

iTrader: (6)

I'd agree with that, that's an even better idea.

Soon2BEVO

iTrader: (41)

Myevostore.com does not have it on their site thats why I asked, I thought maybe another vendor did.

Str8Ryda

Well guyz let me shed some light on the subject. I don't know if you guyz have fmic's on your cars but, if you do then you would kno that NOT ALL fmic's use the stock piping. The greddy has it's own piping and Nisei uses the stock piping, so the putting the sensor in the same piping is not possible.

As for putting the sensor in the exact spot really won't make a big difference. The whole idea behind this testing is to check the fmic, not to check the piping. If you wanted to check the piping and the fimc then you would need to position the 1st sensor at the turbo compressor and the 2nd sensor near throttle body.

Lastly, putting a hole in the silicone coupler would be a bad idea because, as you get into boost. The silicone coupler will expand and you will probably get a boost leak.

Hope this helps you all out.

denial

iTrader: (27)

Well, the idea was not to check the piping. Rather, it simply made yet another variable, probe location, a constant between each test. However, it doesn't look like this is possible if various ICs come with different IC piping. Perhaps for ones that use the stock piping (which would be the majority of the ones on the market)?

Or maybe this is all too much trouble to begin with. If you guys really wanted to be hardcore you would stick the car on a dyno, use a very large fan, and do X amount of runs allowing the car to idle X minutes between each run. Repeat for the other intercooler. This way you are controlling many of the environmental factors. I am aware, however, that the flow of air in this situation is nowhere near that in real world driving. However, if one IC is more efficient than the other, it shouldn't matter, right?

Str8Ryda

If you agree that real world testing is the best and most accurate. Then why would you want to do any other testing? Wouldn't dyno testing create variables in the data that others will not be able to repeat? Since your controlling the conditions of the test?

trinydex

iTrader: (12)

you don't want the dyno thing... becuase on the dyno... you can keep makin' power on a bigger ic when in real life you've already plateued on the cooling efficiency. i mean if you're not looking at hp numbers and just the before nad afters... we could just look at a flow bench test... but that's the whole thing... we want to know what the real inlet temp will be given some situation and we wanna see the temp differential.

and i wasn't tryinna say that i knew anything... i was honestly askin' all the questions above because i don't know if the holes are already there or if the silicon couplers can be tapped (the probe looks like it's a bolt nut type of attatchment where the probe is the bolt, seemed like that clamping would keep things from leaking)

i wasn't tryinna keep things consistent either because multiple runs will average those results out, i just didn't wanna see them drillin' all these ics that people will have to use someday hahaha, not everyone wants probes in their ic.

Str8Ryda

Trinydex,


The end tanks are not drilled.

Hope that answers your question.

Derek888

iTrader: (54)

what mods need to be done in order make the fmic fit? What ic piping are you using for the test?

Zeus

iTrader: (66)

Although I can't see any other option, they never did say whether you had to cut the undertray or not... So what mods to need to be made to fit this intercooler?

denial

iTrader: (27)

I don't agree that real world testing is the best and most accurate in this specific instance. What we're trying to determine here is if one IC is able to cool better than another, right? We're not trying to find out real world inlet and outlet temps. Instead we're just seeing if one IC cools better than the other given the same conditions. Oh, and you do want to control all the variables and publish those controls and conditions so that others CAN repeat the experiment. That's always how it's been done (in regards to scientific publication of experiements).

I'm not sure what you mean by "dyno testing." I suggested performing these experiments on a dyno only because this allowed you some place to freely accelerate the car while it was standing still. I did not intend for it to be used as a measurement device whatsoever like trinydex suggested. What this does is it keeps all the environmental variables the same given that you've designed a strict regimine like I've briefly outlined above. If anything you could test more ICs with more runs on each of them in a less amount of time. Plus you woudln't have to worry about traffic, testing late at night, etc. You could pull as many times as needed on the "dyno." Plus, you could measure and observe the effects of heat soak, something that is beyond your current "real world" simulation.

But in all seriousness, this is probably too much trouble. At least you guys are actually doing some TESTING and EXPERIMENTING, unlike many others out there. For that, I give you props.

denial

iTrader: (27)

I emailed Nisei asking about the undertray. Hopefully they'll get back to me or someone here will finally answer that question.

Zeus

iTrader: (66)

trinydex

iTrader: (12)

well... i'll state an example where the dyno testing method may become a problem.

if you have say a greddy r sepc core which is good at cooling but is light in weight and compare it to an avo core which is much heavier...

on the dyno you will most likely see that the rspec core heat soaks quickly because it doesn't hold the heatsink mass to do otherwise.

the avo core will probably do fine all day on a dyno.

now in real life... would the rspec REALLY heat soak (and by heat soak i mean the ic gets hot enough that it can't really keep up anymore, raising its outlet temp) that easily? now this all has something to say about cooling efficiency but no one ever runs 7200 rpms while getting 30mph of air flow right? so you gotta find out if the makers of the cooler thought hard enough to maximize the efficiencies in the appropriate environemental parameters (real life air flow).

and is the avo's mass really that necessary? people that don't do the APPropriate testing... can only overengineer their product to the point where it'll get the job done on a dyno AND in real life... but how much more weight does that put on the nose?

these are the questions that can be answered with real world testing... by looking at the temp differentials with real world air flow over them; it doens't matter what ambient is... you want to know if the ic is maxed out... or if it's got too much over engineering and excess weight. it's not as rigorous but puts out the information that is most relevant.

Str8Ryda

Quote:

Originally Posted by denial

I don't agree that real world testing is the best and most accurate in this specific instance. What we're trying to determine here is if one IC is able to cool better than another, right? We're not trying to find out real world inlet and outlet temps. Instead we're just seeing if one IC cools better than the other given the same conditions. Oh, and you do want to control all the variables and publish those controls and conditions so that others CAN repeat the experiment. That's always how it's been done (in regards to scientific publication of experiements).

Denial,



You start off saying you don't agree "real world testing" is NOT the best & most accurate. Then you go on to say you are just want to determine which intercooler cools better....and that your not interested in the "real world" inlet & outlet temps??? Now, if you want to know which "COOLS" better??, then aren't the temperatures very important???



The difference of performing on dyno and “real world” road conditions…. On the dyno if you're not going to test for power gains you lose the elements that affect the data such as LOAD, AERODYNAMICS, GRAVITY, which will change the outcome of temps. Example: LOAD alone changes the air to fuel ratio. As you know, as the air to fuel mixture becomes leaner (example of :10.5 to 1 vs. 11.0 to 1) there is a huge difference in the EGT (exhaust gas temperatures). By changing the EGT you change the dynamic of turbocharger itself, things like thermal load, turbine shaft speed, inlet velocities, spool up time, etc., to name a few. Back to point – by changing the dynamic of the turbocharger (through A/F) you will have Higher real world inlet temps with a leaner A/F ratio – which by creating LOAD on the engine you will automatically lean out you’re A/F ratio. This is the biggest reason why good tuners will tune richer on the dyno (one that has “No Load Capability”) and then conclude tuning session with a fine tune with a “real world” road test.



Regarding the “control of environmental variables”, could you be more specific on which variables your talking about?



You state being able to measure the effects of “heat soak”. A common misconception is: Most people are under the impression of “heat soak” occurring while driving in “stop & go” traffic, in this day and age that is far from the truth. With ALL MANUFACTURERS focused on building FMIC’s sized for upgrades, it would be beyond difficult to “heat soak” any FMIC. Back to Point – has it crossed your mind that by NOT taking advantage of the surface areas provided by the manufacturer’s you may be creating scenario’s that are invalid??? What I mean is: By blowing a fan at a portion of the FMIC vs the entire intercooler the cooling efficiency is affected & the test may not be valid? Or by blowing a fan that is only capable of say 40mph… when in the “real world” you would be traveling at speeds over 100mph, the testing is fair? I believe the benefit of “real world road testing” over dyno testing is definitely more accurate.



I think I know what your trying to get at with the dyno test. Correct me if I’m wrong. By testing on the dyno you can just get how well the heat will transfer. Which I believe would be great BUT, only for one pass / run.



What you are not taking into consideration is that since we are dealing with “air to air” coolers. We need the outside ambient air to flow through the cooler at the “realistic” rate to cool the intercooler itself or the results will be corrupt.



By testing on a dyno I believe AT BEST you will only be able to conduct a “Heat Sink” test. It will NOT reveal the intercoolers “cooling efficiency”.