bigger intercooler???
Jun 16, 2010, 09:28 PM
#31
Do not EVER spray it, especially with rattle can. I can not stand to see people do this. You reduce the intercooler's effectiveness by putting a skin on the aluminum that reduces it's heat transfer effectiveness. That's IF you are successful enough to spray the thing without cloging any of the fins with a blob of paint out of your $.99 rattle can. You clog fins and you reduce cooling even more.
You want it black (and I agree, it looks slick), you get the thing Anodized black, it put's a layer of Aluminum Oxide on the aluminum, then dies that layer black. It's .001" thick, and has virtually no impact on the intercooler's ability to transfer heat.
You want it black (and I agree, it looks slick), you get the thing Anodized black, it put's a layer of Aluminum Oxide on the aluminum, then dies that layer black. It's .001" thick, and has virtually no impact on the intercooler's ability to transfer heat.
I kind of agree and disagree with you. You will never ever in your life will clog a intercooler by aplying a light thin layer of spray can paint. The paint hardly travels one inch inside the fins.
You would need to actually buy like a gallon of paint and start brushing the intercooler with several coats in orther to "clog" the intercooler. I do agree with you that it looks much better and professional to anodize the intercooler instead of painting it with a $.99 spray can but made no mistake, you wouldn't reduce cooling capacity at all. What you accomplish painting a intercooler with a spray can is a very thin and superficial coat of paint completely insignificant to the intercooler efficiency.
Carlos
Jun 16, 2010, 10:07 PM
#32
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Mesoamerica/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 7,905
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
Where did you find the data to backup your assertions? Did you test a bare aluminum vs. a lighly sprayed core? If so, then post up. I guess that I'll have to take a can of paint remover to the leading edge of my IC core.
Jun 16, 2010, 10:19 PM
#33
Stock turbo + stock intercooler - wastegate line * E85(racegas) = 381whp
The most I have ever seen is 389. A 4" ETS intercooler on my car and the horsepower difference is 53whp (I made 434 stock turbo). 2 cars same exact mods, back to back on the dyno, the only difference was one had a 3.5" ETS intercooler. The aforementioned 389 for the stock intercooler, 422 for the 3.5" ETS equipped car.
The thread title is not and should not be a question but rather a statement.
It should read Intercooler!!!
The most I have ever seen is 389. A 4" ETS intercooler on my car and the horsepower difference is 53whp (I made 434 stock turbo). 2 cars same exact mods, back to back on the dyno, the only difference was one had a 3.5" ETS intercooler. The aforementioned 389 for the stock intercooler, 422 for the 3.5" ETS equipped car.
The thread title is not and should not be a question but rather a statement.
It should read Intercooler!!!
Jun 18, 2010, 11:02 PM
#40
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Mesoamerica/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 7,905
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
I don't want to misquote you Michael, but in another thread you mentioned that there might be drawbacks to the 4.5" Garrett core vs. the 3.8" Garrett core in certain applications. Could you expand on this? Do you think that the 4.5" Garrett core is overkill under all circumstances on the larger stock framed turbos at higher boost levels on pump gas? Sorry for the OT.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
WTB[SouthEast]: bbk full ball bearing turbo
heliarcpro
For Sale/WTB - Engine / Drivetrain / Power
3
Apr 18, 2017 08:43 PM
evo4life400
Evo Engine / Turbo / Drivetrain
36
Aug 18, 2009 07:44 AM
