[s-cars] An interesting FMIC "fact" (?)

[glewis5000]

Mike said:

> ~1. ..... and the IC I have, which is more efficient than the one Amoroso
> used.
>
> Sorry Gary, that's one call I doubt.

Agreed based on what I said.  My bad, should have said:  "My IC is more
efficient from a pressure loss standpoint, and considering the *RS2 turbo at
26 psi manifold pressure having to push 29 psi to meet demand*, probably
equally or even more efficient from a cooling standpoint in totality".  A
10"x24" side to side should cool better than what I have ABSOLUTELY.  But
the CFM is rated at 1/2 of what I have due to pressure losses.  An RS2 turbo
at 26 psi manifold staring at 28-29 psi because of pressure losses is a heat
pump.  A big turbo might overcome this (I suspect what Hap has does), but an
RS2 turbo shouldn't based on the compressor MAP I've been looking at.  My
line in this discussion was over ScottJ's comment that we needed a better
turbo BEFORE replacing the stock IC when running the RS2 ~26psi-ish
programs.  Too much data, empirical and real, says otherwise.

> I've seen/BTDT with the Spearco cores,
> long before Spearco was acquired by Turbonetics.  While it has been
sometime
> since we tried the Spearco core, unless Spearco has drastically changed
its
> supplier &/or type of core construction IMO, I would doubt the Spearco
core
> would be nearly as efficient as the that core I think you are referring to
> as "Amoroso's."

> OTOH, since the damn thing is 24" long, its "efficiency"
> superiority over the last 8" or more inches is probably irrelevant.  By
> "efficiency" I intend to say heat transfer abilities.  It's entirely
> possible however that the Garrett cores, length for length, may be more
> resistant to flow, hence greater pressure loss, than the Spearco version.

I was thinking more of the side-to-side vs. top to-bottom arguement,
considering all cores being equal.  Examining core differences is another
issure entirely.  We'd need a ton more testing and data as you've added a
third vairable.

I honestly believe your set-up is probably the most efficient there is
rolling, again, cores being equal.  The goal should be a properly sized
SQUARE core.  Yours seems to get closest.  I'm just too much of a sissy to
cut so deeply into the bumper.
You should get Hap to slap your IC (and probably bumper) on his car.

> For that however, one would need some pressure sensors and reading before
> and after the IC.

Yes.

> ~Contrast that with a properly sized FMIC.
> ~Pressure drop is less than 1/2 psi.
> ~Efficiency is over .8 (80%!!!!) at 20 mph.
> ~So an RS2 turbo at say 25 psi (1 psi over requested of 24 psi) is
> ~at 72% efficiency, exit temps are 309F.  (309F-70F)* (1-.8) + 70F =
132.8F.
> ~It is almost HALF as cool as stock.
>
> Gary, if memory serves me correctly, with Hap's &/or the "Amoroso" 24"
long
> x 10" tall FMIC, exit temps under the above scenario would most likely be
> within 20°F of your postulated ambient, or @ 90°F +/- 10° under highway
> driving conditions.

Agreed again, my calcs are at 20 mph through the IC.  At FWY speeds cooling
should obviously be better, but I don't have the data, so I'm mum here and
will rely on your data-points.

I suspect your set-up will net less than 1 psi loss, again, cores being
equal.  I will eventually post my results as soon as I bottle the harvest
from 2002 vintage.

Gary Lewis