Mark, have any sound clips of that exhaust?

I'd also like to hear your guess-timate on HP increase going from stock IC's to yours.

 

First of all my best compliments, these ICs are gorgeous..

Then, IMO, we can debate for days about flow....but at the end of the game, what really matters is the end result. So, if they don't give too much pressure drop, and if they give lower intake air temp....job done properly..


Great job!

 

I have a few... the one in the pics above is the loud version (cheaper as well) - same one Corey(Palette) has as well as Robmd who made 1100 rwhp on it...
it's full 3 inch from the turbo to the tips... not all are.. I seen some reduce to 2.5" from muffler to tips.. or the tips are smaller.. etc etc... no harm intended just showing the difference... be good or bad...
the quiet one is made from custom muffler components and has a very unique sound... We use some patent pending quieting material pus the center core is different to most....
Ill be doing some sound clips very soon on Rekenhavics car with with my 800hp package with big 30r type turbos.. no cats, external 44 Wgs and DVs venting out... ... here are some dB sound clips....

this is his car idling inside the garage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4h1tkeLptPs


here is his car inside garage revving....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0w6sxFo36E

here is a dB test

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0x69KiDG3I

 

and Bell cores are generally pretty good at this! Great to see a builder upfront about what cores they use, wish more would do that.

 

thats a Sexy Exhaust!

 

Mark,

When I flowed the World Cup plenum I discovered it flowed more than the 997 GT2 plenum by about 20%. The issue was the balance of the flow and how it would relate to leaning out certain cylinders. This isn't to say under all circumstances it would lean. The issue was there was a better way.

The flow principles also apply to the IC's. Yes, Secam are more expensive, however I believe flow happens to be just one reason why. I believe another is heat dispensing coatings.

Back to the flow, we have done testing on IC tanks. One thing we found is .... to eliminate low pressure spots the areas towards the ends or far side of the inlets need to be really constrained as opposed to opened up. Air will take the path of least resistance and if you don't make full use of all the IC tubes you sacrifice efficiency. There is more, but this is simply one thing we learned.

Once the knowledge is there .......... it doesn't cost any more to build them that way.

It is really hard to say what I am saying without appearing to be criticizing or putting a produce down. My intent is to do neither.

 

Hrm, if you placed Mark's endtanks on a stock core would a flow test at least answer part of the question cjv? If what you are saying is true the OEM end tanks prove that out. But if Mark's tanks on a stock core flowed more that would seem to disagree with what you're saying.

In the end - more power and lower temps sort of makes a great deal of theory moot. The question then becomes for how long can it keep the temp lower before heat builds - if the cores aren't efficient at rejecting heat and are simply a bigger heatsink this would show through on long pulls - certainly at the Texas mile for instance or a loong sustained pull on a load bearing dyno....

Anyone got any reference papers or SAE papers on this? I have seen some testing in Australie by magazines that bears out ICs being as much heatsink as anything else. I have also seen the PDF that was linked in another thread that had low pressure no heat flow testing. I'm not sure either really proves anything where these are concerned....

Mark, what power level are you aiming these for?

 

Yes. Providing you use the engineered flow rate or slightly less than the tubo's the cores were designed for. Inlet sizing would also need to be factored if you want to get where I believe you are going.

You must keep in mind I am not saying Mark's or other's tanks are bad. I saying I believe they could be better. How good is good and what is good enough. As Mark pointed out ......... it costs money.

 

Well, I understand that increased flow doesn't mean increased cooling but if the flow were to concentrate on fewer tubes it seems to me the size of those tubes becomes a restriction and ultimately you won't be flowing as much. I understand the too fast to cool and ideas behind having even flow but if testing to somehow see if the flow is not easily done then testing the end tanks on something we know is restrictive seems like it might be of some use.

Barring that and barring being able to easily do testing with a tank off using a pitot tube what testing CAN be done? I'm sure you've seen the PDF linked in another thread where a large A/C blower was used with a small wind meter - useful data? I think there were some potential flaws but it did show if flow was even anyway. What about high speed pulls on the street or track with temp data measured vs stock coolers on the same car? A dyno pull on a load bearing dyno maybe?

P.S. I'd mention that thicker cores, while having a diminishing effect due to heated air, DO have at least one advantage - mass. Mass is important in an intercooler as it allows the cooler to absorb heat for a longer time before temps begin to climb. The cores eventually warm up, coatings, a spray bar, and\or mass are needed. Some of the testing I was reading even showed the mass rejecting heat INTO the air passing through the intercoolers as it cooled after hard use (lol). Intercoolers aren't just heat exchangers - they are heatsinks too it seems....

 

Looking good MArkski.. May i ask why the labor intensive polishing when you cant see them.. Just an option or standard??

MIke

 

thanks... Standard... yea its sucks doing it but what the hell...

Ill be doing some data logs over the weekend if the weather permits....

 

If you Polish the inside they might yield 5hp more. but someone will chime in that they might loose 5hp too since porrous surface technically has more area to radiate heat