Thanks Bernie, can you estimate the ambient temperature for that run?
The official 1HDT Intercooler thread
- Thread starter Enigma
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Thanks Bernie, can you estimate the ambient temperature for that run?
Adam, those figures are with the core not even half full of water.
This was a seperate run up cunninghams gap.
"Pushing 35psi through it, I can see air temps coming out of the turbo in excess of 110°C but have never seen the post IC temps hit 40°C. On the highway at 100km/h with a load of camping gear, fuel, water etc, at an ambient of 24°, the post IC temps sit between 28 and 32° with pre IC temps fluctuating between 70 and 80°.
After a long hard run up Cunninghams gap, the IC water temps rose to 39°, but about 2km later had settled back to below 30.
I should add that I do not have the IC radiator thermo's running all the time. I have a control circuit which switches them on at 30° and off again at 27°(I can override this), so perhaps running constantly would yield even better results."
Last edited:
About to pull the trigger on an intercooler here from Bell Intercoolers.
I was hoping for some tech advice regarding CFMs.
The guys from bell recommended a 3.5" x 10.3 x 12 core ( 12" being the max flow length)
This is rated to 614cfm.
I am wondering if this will be sufficient or if its in my interest on upping it to a slightly larger core with increase CFM capabilities.
The other core I am considering is a 3.5x12.1x12 with 722cfm.
Design will be similar to the HPD top mount with a 2" inlet pointing towards the turbo outlet and an 2.5 or 3" exit on much like exit of this intercooler feeding into a centre entry 3.5" plenum.
Is it worth it for me to go to a slightly larger core? Will I see any advantage or disadvantage?
Punching CFM requirements for the 4200cc turbo diesel with the volumetric efficiency of 3 I am getting these numbers
2400 rpm - 534cfm
2600 rpm - 578cfm
2800 rpm - 623cfm
3000 rpm - 667cfm
3200 rpm - 712cfm
3400 rpm - 756cfm
I'm currently at sea level, and I do make trips to higher elevations like trips to Alberta, I don't want my intercooler being one of those things in hindsight being you should have went bigger. I want to deal with this once.
I was hoping for some tech advice regarding CFMs.
The guys from bell recommended a 3.5" x 10.3 x 12 core ( 12" being the max flow length)
This is rated to 614cfm.
I am wondering if this will be sufficient or if its in my interest on upping it to a slightly larger core with increase CFM capabilities.
The other core I am considering is a 3.5x12.1x12 with 722cfm.
Design will be similar to the HPD top mount with a 2" inlet pointing towards the turbo outlet and an 2.5 or 3" exit on much like exit of this intercooler feeding into a centre entry 3.5" plenum.
Is it worth it for me to go to a slightly larger core? Will I see any advantage or disadvantage?
Punching CFM requirements for the 4200cc turbo diesel with the volumetric efficiency of 3 I am getting these numbers
2400 rpm - 534cfm
2600 rpm - 578cfm
2800 rpm - 623cfm
3000 rpm - 667cfm
3200 rpm - 712cfm
3400 rpm - 756cfm
I'm currently at sea level, and I do make trips to higher elevations like trips to Alberta, I don't want my intercooler being one of those things in hindsight being you should have went bigger. I want to deal with this once.
I used a calculator and I selected with a diesel with turbo charger.
Boost doesnt change the CFM through an intercooler unless its before the turbo inlet, which no one would ever do. Now for a snorkel or a prefilter then things can get really weird with boost as the cfm can change wildly from low to high boost at the same RPM. I found it quite difficult sizing pre filters as too low a cfm range and it restricts with high boost, and one that flows well with high boost essentially inst working at cruise (low boost). That intercooler set up looks like it will work nicely. Go for the thinner core unless you want a big fan on all the time. Fitment will be much easier with the thinner core as well. An inch makes a big difference.
g
g
Ditched the precleaner at the beginning of the summer, had a harder time building boost and I overall exceeded its CFM limit (450cfm). I just have the safari ram head turned towards the windscreen. It made a big difference putting that back on. The next thing will be an upgraded airbox which can be one of my winter projects. I have it all planned out.
So I am leaning towards pulling the trigger on the 3.5 x 12 x 12 personally. I am just deciding how I am going to orient the end tanks and what size of outlet I am going to run into the plenum. The inlet will be 2" into the cooler which was recommended by a few people. I just need to figure out if I am going to somewhat copy the intake of the HPD cooler in terms of location like this:
HPD End tank inlet location
or
Centerlized bottom entry similar to this
I am leaning towards doing an outlet endtank similar to this one just feeding the plenum. s***ty thing is I am going to be buying the cooler before I finish the plenum just so I can build around it so to speak.
Something like this
or more central
and creating something like Adam has done:
There will be no puller or pusher fan on the intercooler I am running.
Reason being, have a read: http://www.are.com.au/Inter/topMountIntercoolers.htm
Summing it up, the size of the scoop and how much air it grabs is far more important. At this point I am leaning towards a big ugly STI scoop with a splitter (distributes air to the whole core not just to the back). Unless I can find a nicer looking scoop that is what I will probably end up with.
Here is an example of an STI splitter
I closed the hood on a block of 4x4" wood tonight in a few spots and I clear with a little room to spare. I will be cutting the hood support ribs in few spots I am sure to clear the core as I want it as high as possible off the valve cover yet sealed to the hood to get as much airflow possible through it.
The more I think about it it will be centre entry similar to CC4x4s from the bottom and centre exit like adam's job. I think this spreads air to the core better. We will see what the designers think.
So I am leaning towards pulling the trigger on the 3.5 x 12 x 12 personally. I am just deciding how I am going to orient the end tanks and what size of outlet I am going to run into the plenum. The inlet will be 2" into the cooler which was recommended by a few people. I just need to figure out if I am going to somewhat copy the intake of the HPD cooler in terms of location like this:
HPD End tank inlet location
or
Centerlized bottom entry similar to this
I am leaning towards doing an outlet endtank similar to this one just feeding the plenum. s***ty thing is I am going to be buying the cooler before I finish the plenum just so I can build around it so to speak.
Something like this
or more central
and creating something like Adam has done:
There will be no puller or pusher fan on the intercooler I am running.
Reason being, have a read: http://www.are.com.au/Inter/topMountIntercoolers.htm
Summing it up, the size of the scoop and how much air it grabs is far more important. At this point I am leaning towards a big ugly STI scoop with a splitter (distributes air to the whole core not just to the back). Unless I can find a nicer looking scoop that is what I will probably end up with.
Here is an example of an STI splitter
I closed the hood on a block of 4x4" wood tonight in a few spots and I clear with a little room to spare. I will be cutting the hood support ribs in few spots I am sure to clear the core as I want it as high as possible off the valve cover yet sealed to the hood to get as much airflow possible through it.
The more I think about it it will be centre entry similar to CC4x4s from the bottom and centre exit like adam's job. I think this spreads air to the core better. We will see what the designers think.
Last edited:
I woudnt expect a different result if you are using a 3.5 inch 12x12 core. Its actually precisely what I did except my core was 4" and I reversed the end tanks and baffled them for more even internal flow. I was disspointed in the results which is why I recomended a fearsome pusher. 68% was the best I could do which is nothing to desire. Leave room for the fan. The splitter is a good idea if you run a small scoup. My hood scoop was fully sealed to the intercooler and was 5 inches high and 20 inches wide and grabbed tons of air. Looked absolutely lame, but I wanted to see what scoup alone would do. To do it again I would use 2.5-3 inch core with a cowl induction set up and a really good fan (spal).
The fans from your link site 55mm cores which are just a little thicker than 2 inches and only could pull 250cfm? Now I can see why mounting a fan like that is a waste. Serously check out the extreme spal 11 inch fans. They pull more than twice that through 4 core radiators with an ac condenser. The two cant be compared. I think those little spal fans should be restriced weapons.
The fans from your link site 55mm cores which are just a little thicker than 2 inches and only could pull 250cfm? Now I can see why mounting a fan like that is a waste. Serously check out the extreme spal 11 inch fans. They pull more than twice that through 4 core radiators with an ac condenser. The two cant be compared. I think those little spal fans should be restriced weapons.
We have all been told bigger is better in if it creates a slightly larger surface area to cool. I know that most of the temperature change happens within the first couple of inches of the intercooler.
Now I am hoping that choosing a quality core and having better flowing end tanks will up efficiency for me opposed to an ebay one. I know that you modified your ebay one.
The issue with going to a thinner core is I would need to increase the size of the intercooler to get sufficient CFM flows. I'm working with a tight space here.
I don't see how i could fit one of those extreme puller fans under even a 3" core.
Even the ARE guys posting tech saying its far better to have a louvered or splitter directing air though the core.
I'll be buying a few aubers to test out the IC's efficiency. I don't want to set my overall goals of efficiency too high in terms of getting disappointed. But I sure would love to see in the 75-80% range. I don't know if I am hoping too much.
I know I have a few people that are curious with how this all plays out, and may follow my direction if the results yield successful or turn the other way in my failure. Can't hurt but try. Either way I think it will be better than the bolt on eBay HPD copy which I am hearing guys are having a hoot with.
I found with petrol high performance cars that keeping the core around 3" thick was the cut off point for cost benefit. Anything over that was for the boys trying to compensate if you know what I mean. You want to maximize the amount of surface area make the core larger with a max thickness of around 3". On my swap I'm using a later Isuzu 4HE1T after market performance intercooler that is only 2.5" thick but 22"x13" so I have lots of cooling surface.
That NPR cooler is sweet Jereme. I really like its design.
Why not put two of them 2.5" cheapo ebay cores (12x12) one in front of the other right on top of the valve cover. That would give you the cfm you want with a thin core and double the surface area. connect them via y pipe. There not expensive and saves you from a custom end tank job. I contemplated it myself if I were to get a 1hdt. I think if you angled the front one down a bit in line with the hood it might tuck under a scoup too. I personally like the cowl look and prefere the pusher fan idea rather than a pull. And yes I know pullers are more effecient, but they are pesky to fit. I only found the need for maximum intercooling when I was WOT for long periods of time and rarely used it for day to day driving. That is where the fans are nice cus you dont use them all the time, but when you need them you get ideal air flow at the flick of a switch.
g
Why not put two of them 2.5" cheapo ebay cores (12x12) one in front of the other right on top of the valve cover. That would give you the cfm you want with a thin core and double the surface area. connect them via y pipe. There not expensive and saves you from a custom end tank job. I contemplated it myself if I were to get a 1hdt. I think if you angled the front one down a bit in line with the hood it might tuck under a scoup too. I personally like the cowl look and prefere the pusher fan idea rather than a pull. And yes I know pullers are more effecient, but they are pesky to fit. I only found the need for maximum intercooling when I was WOT for long periods of time and rarely used it for day to day driving. That is where the fans are nice cus you dont use them all the time, but when you need them you get ideal air flow at the flick of a switch.
g
Many people who have independently tested their top mounts have reported that turning the fan on, even at highway speeds increased their efficiency.
mudgudgeon
Resident galah
I think the main advantage of going to a thicker core is it will allow a greater airflow and less pressure drop as well as providing a greater surface area for heat transfer from the air charge.
compare A 12*12*2.5 core vs 12*12*3.5 , the 3.5 will provide less resistance/greater flowor intake air.
If the 2.5 is marginal on CFM capacity, increase core size. A bigger core won't be less effective than a smaller one, even if the gains are diminishing. If the core gets heatsoaked, a larger core will take longer to shed the heat.
I guess it comes down to packaging it all.
Have you considered having the end tank on the outlet side made in sheet metal to curve down to meet the manifold plenum (similar to z()ltan's, I think he has posted pics here?), that way outlet and manifold become the new larger plenum. It may? Allow a longer core and allow you to package it close to the rocker cover.
compare A 12*12*2.5 core vs 12*12*3.5 , the 3.5 will provide less resistance/greater flowor intake air.
If the 2.5 is marginal on CFM capacity, increase core size. A bigger core won't be less effective than a smaller one, even if the gains are diminishing. If the core gets heatsoaked, a larger core will take longer to shed the heat.
I guess it comes down to packaging it all.
Have you considered having the end tank on the outlet side made in sheet metal to curve down to meet the manifold plenum (similar to z()ltan's, I think he has posted pics here?), that way outlet and manifold become the new larger plenum. It may? Allow a longer core and allow you to package it close to the rocker cover.
mudgudgeon
Resident galah
Z()LTAN's, incomplete, but gives general idea.
I wouldnt totally agree with that from my expereince. A thicker core might net less pressure drop with higher IAT giving you lower egts, but if the smaller core gives you better IATs with only slightly more pressure drop it would be a better application. Trial and error comes into play here alot which sucks. That is why I recomended increasing internal volume by increasing surface area. Then you get the best of both worlds. If you want to run a 4inch core then a crazy strong fan might actually make it work properly. Its really hard to get any solid numbers in regards to pressure drop and certain cfm for these intercoolers. Bigger is better for intercoolers, bigger surface area that is, not thicker or longer core. For the overall price of these coolers, why not just mix and match them? There only like 100$ each.
Last edited:
How are you getting these numbers? I get way less than that, around 215cfm at 3000rpm at 100% VE for you. Id have to say that is not requiring a super high flow intercooler. You might be looking at pre turbo CFM like you did for your precleaner. Am I way off base here?
The problem with going thick 3.5-4" that that about ambient air traveling thought the core heats up as it goes. I think it was Turbonetics tested this and found that after the ambient air had traveled 3" through the core its was no longer cooling the charge air enough to justify the thicker core. Basically the air had absorbed as much heat has it could in the given time it had in the core or something like that.
I have hand tested this on a car on the dyno after a run the front of the 4" core was cold and the rear was warmer telling me that the air traveling through the last 1" or so of the core is not getting cooled as much as the front 3". This was on a front mounted setup on a petrol engine making 850whp at 28psi.
No science or math to back that up just what i read years ago on turbonetics tech bulletin and my own results.
I have hand tested this on a car on the dyno after a run the front of the 4" core was cold and the rear was warmer telling me that the air traveling through the last 1" or so of the core is not getting cooled as much as the front 3". This was on a front mounted setup on a petrol engine making 850whp at 28psi.
No science or math to back that up just what i read years ago on turbonetics tech bulletin and my own results.
I agree with your first two paragraphs, thats how I view it.
I am not going to do an intake manifold like Zoltan's plenum because I want to be able to access the valve cover, glow plugs and injectors without having to rip the intake manifold off. I am trying to design it simple to cut down on fabrication I have to get someone else to build. I want it simple enough i can just take in and get welded.
Do you think if you matched and fully 100% sealed the core to the hood (assuming you haven't sorry), have you thought about putting a splitter on? Apparently it makes a big difference, try and even flows through your core.
http://www.widman.biz/English/Calculators/CFM.html
I selected a turbo charged diesel.
I select a non turbo diesel and yes it comes out about half of a DI diesel.
Does this change even when fitting an IDI diesel with a turbo? The fuel is cranked up a bit.
I would hope to get the thinnest core in while still maximizing surface area and CFM requirements for my engine. I don't want this cooler being the big restriction in my system. I have just read a few places that the top mount 12x12x3s are apparently restrictive according to Graeme. Now is this soley due to the 1hd-t or 1hz air flow requirements or just poor intercooler design and intake manifold.
I can't download that turbonetics document, the link doesn't work.
Though I have read this:
http://www.turbomagazine.com/tech/0304_turp_intercooler/viewall.html
I just want to do this right and once....
Ok. Im going to give my accounts. Its not going to be popular, But it is what it is. Ive tested dozens of different intercoolers now.
Surface area to ambient is of the upmost importance. A thicker core is absolutely not better. It does increase flow and reduce pressure loss. But this is couteracted by further drag and transfer of heat, the further from direct ambient flow the less efficient "as you have qouted". Take a top mount air to air. Thicker is not better at all full stop. As you MUST fit and run a fan. Top mount ATA's dont run anywhere near enough ambient air flow. Unless your intercooler is 12" x 12" and your scoop open surface is 12" x 12" on a vertical plain to ambient air. But thats never going to happen as you wont be able to see the road. It still wont be as good as a front mount as there is an engine in the way adding to heat its trying to dissapate. Which is why a front mount is 100% better. Its 90 degrees to ambient air flow and has a large surface area away from any excessive heat.
The only acception to this "thicker is not better" rule is a WTA. It transfers the heat transfer evenly accross the core no matter what thickness or size. Providing flow and design is correct. It also incorperates a full size radiator thats 90 degrees to ambient with a large surface area. It can cool extremely well with very little pressure drop.
Qouting some intercooler companies is pointless. ASE used to run their front mount upside down hiding it complete behind the bullbar and said it work perfectly with no direct air flow. As it radiates heat. With out ambient flow stripping the heat away, WHY EVEN BOTHER.
Surface area to ambient is of the upmost importance. A thicker core is absolutely not better. It does increase flow and reduce pressure loss. But this is couteracted by further drag and transfer of heat, the further from direct ambient flow the less efficient "as you have qouted". Take a top mount air to air. Thicker is not better at all full stop. As you MUST fit and run a fan. Top mount ATA's dont run anywhere near enough ambient air flow. Unless your intercooler is 12" x 12" and your scoop open surface is 12" x 12" on a vertical plain to ambient air. But thats never going to happen as you wont be able to see the road. It still wont be as good as a front mount as there is an engine in the way adding to heat its trying to dissapate. Which is why a front mount is 100% better. Its 90 degrees to ambient air flow and has a large surface area away from any excessive heat.
The only acception to this "thicker is not better" rule is a WTA. It transfers the heat transfer evenly accross the core no matter what thickness or size. Providing flow and design is correct. It also incorperates a full size radiator thats 90 degrees to ambient with a large surface area. It can cool extremely well with very little pressure drop.
Qouting some intercooler companies is pointless. ASE used to run their front mount upside down hiding it complete behind the bullbar and said it work perfectly with no direct air flow. As it radiates heat. With out ambient flow stripping the heat away, WHY EVEN BOTHER.
