voidhawk

iTrader: (20)

that is exactly the bolt that's been trying to poke a hole in my pipe. I did not get the female nutsert in my pipe kit (nor instructions or all of the clamps), but I'll contact them and see if I can get one. Thanks!

mdsevo06

iTrader: (41)

If you build it, they will come.

dayf

+1

Smoothgangsta

iTrader: (11)

If the stock intercooler pipes are adequate then why not replace the cheesy flex couplers with the Samco couplers instead so they don't pop off during high boost.

This is the thinking I am seeing with WORKS only offering the Samco couplers.

Az3ar

iTrader: (18)

Exactly, Samco hoses are the safest best way to go.

EVOIIIM3

iTrader: (1)

Yes, still on stock turbo, however, I had the car dyoned the other day, and it was massively heat soaked after 3 runs. The stock flex piping was flexing like a body builder on steroids.

This tells me that the stock intercooler is reaching it's max thermal efficiency. Since WORKS stuff is on the conservative side, & they engineer there parts, they should be able to make a good balance between thermal efficiency & pressure drop.

Piping doesn't have to be larger diameter to work more affectively. There are a couple of bends & joints that can be fixed to smooth everything out. Ceramic coatings would really help post turbo to the intercooler.

I do feel a 4in t-back VS a 3in T-back would have different plots threw out their range. The 4in would spool a little later, and have more up top.

Not all mods are for ultimate HP, getting better throttle response & temp control would be worth it for me. Also the piece of mind knowing the pipe hoses would not flex, fall off or fail.

x838nwy

While I have not seen dynos, the stock LICP does have bends in it that seem to me unecessary. The stock pipe does also narror down to around 1.5" and stays that way for quite some lenght. {there's a thread what shows pics of HPFreaks LICP vs. a stock one}. I don't think we'll see a significant difference in peak power, but I'd expect quicker spool.


If you're comparing diameters, I agree that up to a point, there is not much more to gain. However, the pressure drop along a pipe is reduced no matter how much flow you're talking about. And less pressure drop is better efficiency.

And with respect, I think you're looking at this the wrong way around. What we want is more air flow. The pressure drop is a loss we have to bear. For example, if you want 20psi at the intake manifold, and you're loosing say 1psi in the pipe, then just at the exit of your turbo you're pusing against 21psi. If you reduce the pipe loss to say 0.5psi then you'd see 21.5psi at the manifold. The numbers are random here but it serves the purpose of explaining my point hopefully.

The 2" pipe will be harder to blow the same flowrate of air though and that's the main point. The density of the air doesn't become appreciably higher in pipes. If ic pipes touch engine parts then they will become hot through conduction which is bad, agreed.

It's a dimishing return thing. The difference between 2" and 3" will be much more pronounced that between 3" and 4". Also (3/2)^2 >> (4/3)^2 so that's what one would expect. From several discussions, it appears that less back pressure = more performance for turbo cars. However, for the flow rate we're talking about, going to 4" will probably reduce pressure drop very little over the 3".

I'll post a link to the thread showing the two side by side. I agree the stock pipe isn't all that bad, but it can be improved upon, IMO.

I've read many posts about the improved response. I think you will find them through a search.

I've been thinking about this a long time and it's a yes and no. A larger volume in the intercooler will cause lag and bigger does not equal better. What is desirable for a stock turbo is something with a similar volume to the stock ic but with less pressure drop and perhaps a little better cooling effect (higher efficiency in the flow rate range of the stock application). IMO the ARC 079 fits the bill. {note, most ARC sold are 073wide which are very large and good for large turbos}. I'm sure others do also.

Agreed. However I do think the stock can be improved upon only if slightly. The improvement, however slight, will come at no loss in engine life so I'm all for it.

Anyway, perhaps WORKS do not feel that they can produce a LICP that's significantly different/better than those out there. This is no disrespect to them and really I respect them more for not doing a 'me too' product.

saiyanzzrage

iTrader: (11)

maybe they dont make one because there are a ton of other companies out there that do make them

also, works would charge way more than they do because its WORKS and is far superior...

Az3ar

iTrader: (18)

I skimmed quickly through what you wrote "don't have much time". However, I speak from engineering stand point. Its physics and its math, AIR rushes out faster if it was under pressure...
.
Yes if you are boosting 30 psi I will tell you to get bigger pipes. However, if there are any gains from any "well developed" pipes out there it will be minimal and the cost will be not cheap. Aluminum as we all know is a very delicate material and is very hard to bend because its easy to collapse and crush, that's why most of the IC pipes out there are made of SS "easier to make and cheaper for the vendor"


Back pressure in theory is necessary for every car for low end torque and low RPM throttle response.


I recommend changing the hoses to samco hoses and that’s it.

x838nwy

Again, I think you're looking at it the wrong way around regarding the pressure and flow. Please read this one.

What we're trying to achieve here is a certain flow rate of air down a pipe. The pressure I'm talking about here is the loss in the pipe. Fluid flow between two points is driven by the pressure difference between the two points, but the essence here is that with a smaller diameter pipe you will need a greater pressure difference between those two points to achieve the same flow- this is the pressure 'loss' I'm talking about. The higher the velocity the air flows the higher this loss will be. Losses also comes from change of sections, bends and any number of things you put in the pipe line.

Since we have to put in work to overcome this pressure difference, we are effectively wasting energy. As an example situation of what I'm currently working on at work, one ducting system flowing 20,000cfm needs a 45kW fan. Another flowing the same will need a 75kW fan. The fans will be the same size but hugely different power and rpm because the second line is 35m longer. If I make the pipe in the second line 4" larger in diameter but the same length, I can use 55kW motor in its fan and a lower rpm.

What you're talking about I assume is if you have a pressure source (like a compressed air cylinder) and the higher the pressure inside the faster the air will come out of a given opening. This is true, but if we compare the compressed air cyl. to a turbo, the turbo will have to 'push' harder to achieve a higher boost pressure or give a higher flow rate.

Back pressure in exhausts is a 'good thing' for NA cars. I am no expert at this but I'm speaking from experience also. For turbo cars I think the turbine is causing enough pressure and the benefits of a more efficient turbo fully overshadows the benefits any back pressure would have.

Finally, you can make pipes out of anything you want to suit your needs. If they can make good quality al pipes then that's great. Apart from weight (and debatably durability), I don't think there's a lot of difference.

MitsuJoe

iTrader: (133)

Did anyone from works actually respond to this post yet?

Why should any of us regulars argue this point when WORKS has engineers that do this for a living?

x838nwy

I can't comment on why Works hasn't responded. perhaps they just don't think the gains from the pipe is worthwhile. who knows?

Anyway, assuming the pipe is 3ft in straight length and equivalent bend lengths is about 27" -> 5.25ft total length for estimates.

Assume flow is 600cfm and pressure at the exit of the turbo is 1.5bar (~1.5atm)

The stock has 1ft at 1.5" diam or thereabouts. To flow 600cfm, this 1ft length will cause a pressure drop of 0.0457bar.

The rest is 2.5" diam and there's approx. 4.25ft left of it. This will cause a further 0.
0158bar of pressure loss.

So in total we have a total loss of 0.0457 + 0.0158 = 0.0615bar at a flow of 600cfm with the stock pipe.

If we take the whole 5.25ft length and make it 2.5" (rather than having the 1.5" neck), the flow at the same 0.0615bar pressure loss is 1092cfm. That's 1092 vs. 600 cfm for the same pressure difference across the entrance of the licp. Obviously this doesn't happen because of the turbo probably won't flow that much.

But if we look at it another way, the pipe that's 2.25" all the way will only cause a pressure drop of 0.0196bar at 600cfm. Compared to 0.0615bar shown above.

Does 0.042bar really matter? Well, that's up to you. In this example, the stock will show 1.4385bar at the ic entrance while the plain 2.5" will show 1.48bar. A 2.9% increase. To put 3% into perspective, that 8.4hp on a 280hp car. {i'm NOT saying this is what you will see, btw}.

Jamie@WORKS

iTrader: (10)

This is what we do with our own EVOs. We've produced one-off I/C pipes in various diameters and did not see appreciable gains. Granted, it does increase the "bling" factor, but performance wasn't there... especially for the price.

Az3ar

iTrader: (18)

Here is your answer

x838nwy

I think the key word here is appreciable. Perhaps the region of 3-5hp is not significant in comparison with other errors in the process.

Jamie, are these upper or lower pipes? Have you tried competitor's products? I would have thought this would be the quickest route to determining if it's worthwhile. Can we see some plots?

I'm not trying to be an a$$ but I think we're all interested to see plots so we can conclude this issue.

The maths don't lie, so I'm pretty sure there is something to be had. There is something to be had, but as I've been saying, slight. I doubt it's going to be 10whp or something. But like I said, for the effort, lack of complexity and zero chance of damage I'd say it's worth it.