997.2 Intercoolers - Wow!
#437
08-26-2012, 08:58 PM
Basic Sponsor
On another note, sneak preview of the 16 row "prototype" ICs. The theory is that the 16 rows add 30% more surface area for cooling over a 12 row cooler and 15% more over a 14 row. As a tradeoff, there is now less room for the external fins so to help counter that, the external fin density was increased to 15-16 fpi (vs the typical 10-12) with each fin row staggered from the previous. These suckers are heavy!
I took off a set of what appears to be the ICs your talking about off of a FL car as he's going to a huge set up... with that I put them on for a local client that has our k16/billet , Ruf exhaust, 5 bar, and a tune... next week when the clutch is done I will be logging and doing some fine tuning... I can easily do a 0 to 150... not intruding but odd coincidence... not slamming them either but the clips do not fit on the ones I have well.. the round holes do not seem to be holding one side... slid off twice... we had to do some fab work to make them hold the hoses...
__________________
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
#438
08-26-2012, 09:39 PM
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Mojave, CA
Posts: 823
Rep Power: 131 
I took off a set of what appears to be the ICs your talking about off of a FL car as he's going to a huge set up... with that I put them on for a local client that has our k16/billet , Ruf exhaust, 5 bar, and a tune... next week when the clutch is done I will be logging and doing some fine tuning... I can easily do a 0 to 150... not intruding but odd coincidence... not slamming them either but the clips do not fit on the ones I have well.. the round holes do not seem to be holding one side... slid off twice... we had to do some fab work to make them hold the hoses...
#439
09-11-2012, 11:33 AM
Below's a screenshot of a run of mine at Nordschleife last Sunday. Four consecutive laps about 9 minutes each with just few minutes of queuing between them. OAT at start +16C (8AM) rising to +18C.
Tint = Temperature just after air filter
Tmanif = Temperature at TB
Lap times are BTG with ordinary street tires (Hankook Ventus Sport S01 evo).
Full .csv -file available upon request.
Tint = Temperature just after air filter
Tmanif = Temperature at TB
Lap times are BTG with ordinary street tires (Hankook Ventus Sport S01 evo).
Full .csv -file available upon request.
#440
09-11-2012, 01:12 PM
Nice log Pete.
It was quite cold and Nordschleife is a fast track so definitely not a worst case scenario, but you were under 50° for the whole 9 min lap, that is nice.
Would you mind sharing your modifications? From the 1.37 bar peak boost I assume you´re not stock.
It was quite cold and Nordschleife is a fast track so definitely not a worst case scenario, but you were under 50° for the whole 9 min lap, that is nice.
Would you mind sharing your modifications? From the 1.37 bar peak boost I assume you´re not stock.
#441
09-12-2012, 08:30 AM
Yes, it's slightly modified, but while it doesn't have Alpha turbos or any other bling-bling stuff popular here, I prefer to keep the information to myself... 
Anyway, as an answer to your comments about OAT you can find another logging below. The previous one was from cool Sunday morning but this one is from warm Saturday afternoon. Clear skies and OAT varied from +24C to +27C in different parts of Nordschleife.
In general it was mutility and mayhem, lots (and I mean lots ) of vehicles on track and many accidents, it was closed on several occacions. Long queuing in fairly hot conditions raised engine compartment temperature, which can be seen in the other log, a partial view of Run #6. I added some markers ( 2km intervals ) and a satellite map and instead of laps in one run this data is from individual but consecutive runs. On sat I started and stopped logger between laps, on Sunday I kept it on all the time.
IMO 997.2 ICs perform very well in these conditions and type of use. Actually it's very hard for me to believe that any of those AM ones could perform better. Track, especially this track is something completely different from quartermile or trafficlight races.
Anyway, as an answer to your comments about OAT you can find another logging below. The previous one was from cool Sunday morning but this one is from warm Saturday afternoon. Clear skies and OAT varied from +24C to +27C in different parts of Nordschleife. In general it was mutility and mayhem, lots (and I mean lots ) of vehicles on track and many accidents, it was closed on several occacions. Long queuing in fairly hot conditions raised engine compartment temperature, which can be seen in the other log, a partial view of Run #6. I added some markers ( 2km intervals ) and a satellite map and instead of laps in one run this data is from individual but consecutive runs. On sat I started and stopped logger between laps, on Sunday I kept it on all the time.
IMO 997.2 ICs perform very well in these conditions and type of use. Actually it's very hard for me to believe that any of those AM ones could perform better. Track, especially this track is something completely different from quartermile or trafficlight races.
#443
09-28-2012, 07:31 PM
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Mojave, CA
Posts: 823
Rep Power: 131
Couple of quick updates:
1) I'm finalizing an inexpensive DIY inlet tank tab reinforcement option for those running big turbos and high boost (>1.5 bar) that are concerned or have had issues with the tank forcing its way out of the crimped retention tabs.
2) To clear up assumptions on flow limitations (either way), I'm sending a cooler off to be flow tested at representative airflow levels required to make 400-800hp on a 996tt. A curve with pressure drop vs flow will be provided (instead of the single data point showing flow at a very low pressure drop previously posted).
Initial 16 row cooler comparison should be done soon as well.
1) I'm finalizing an inexpensive DIY inlet tank tab reinforcement option for those running big turbos and high boost (>1.5 bar) that are concerned or have had issues with the tank forcing its way out of the crimped retention tabs.
2) To clear up assumptions on flow limitations (either way), I'm sending a cooler off to be flow tested at representative airflow levels required to make 400-800hp on a 996tt. A curve with pressure drop vs flow will be provided (instead of the single data point showing flow at a very low pressure drop previously posted).
Initial 16 row cooler comparison should be done soon as well.
#445
09-29-2012, 08:22 AM
Couple of quick updates:
1) I'm finalizing an inexpensive DIY inlet tank tab reinforcement option for those running big turbos and high boost (>1.5 bar) that are concerned or have had issues with the tank forcing its way out of the crimped retention tabs.
2) To clear up assumptions on flow limitations (either way), I'm sending a cooler off to be flow tested at representative airflow levels required to make 400-800hp on a 996tt. A curve with pressure drop vs flow will be provided (instead of the single data point showing flow at a very low pressure drop previously posted).
Initial 16 row cooler comparison should be done soon as well.
1) I'm finalizing an inexpensive DIY inlet tank tab reinforcement option for those running big turbos and high boost (>1.5 bar) that are concerned or have had issues with the tank forcing its way out of the crimped retention tabs.
2) To clear up assumptions on flow limitations (either way), I'm sending a cooler off to be flow tested at representative airflow levels required to make 400-800hp on a 996tt. A curve with pressure drop vs flow will be provided (instead of the single data point showing flow at a very low pressure drop previously posted).
Initial 16 row cooler comparison should be done soon as well.
#448
10-18-2012, 11:28 PM
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Mojave, CA
Posts: 823
Rep Power: 131
Flow Test Results
Cliffs: Porsche/J Deus did their homework but if you’re inside your motor, it’s probably time to upgrade from these coolers –just be sure you’re upgrading.
I was able to send a cooler off for flow testing. The gentleman doing the test had already run recent back to back tests on 8 aftermarket Audi B5 S4 intercooler sets. Since the core width, thickness and endtank design are similar to the 996/7 platform, I thought it would be an interesting comparison. The biggest difference is in core length, which for the 996/7 is around 14” vs 8-10” for all the S4 coolers. All things being equal, a shorter core length will have less pressure loss (higher flow capability) than a longer core because the air has a shorter path of resistance. As such, I didn’t expect the 997.2 coolers to fare very well against the S4 options in the flow department.
Quick side note: if you’d like to have your core flowed against the 997.2 and all these S4 coolers, let me know and I can put you in contact with the flow bench owner. The cost was very low.
Setup:
There can be some variations between flow benches and the configuration of the cooler. My 997.2 cooler was tested by drawing ambient air from the inlet tank (the outlet tank was hooked up to the flow bench) as it is hooked up on the car. I had a section of 996 hose on the outlet going into the bench and the inlet was open (which actually decreases flow slightly from the abrupt transition into the cooler). Testing was done on a flowbench with a PTS manometer.
Results:
Right off the bat, the 997.2 coolers flowed 305 cfm at 2psi of pressure drop (77F, 1013.25mb) and 218 cfm at 1 psi of pressure drop. A little different than the CMS flow test showing 235 cfm at 2 psi of drop but to be fair, flow benches, like dynos, can show some variation (though 30% is a lot!).
Below is a picture of an 8.0”W x 10.0”L x 4.5”T Evolution Racewerks S4 cooler (picture from myaudis4.com). This is a thick beast of a cooler with nice looking end tanks and a big high flowing core. It has enabled 666 awhp on a 4WD dynojet, 637 awhp on EPLs very tough dyno and been subjected to >25psi of boost with TiAL’s 770 S4 turbo kit. Build thread here: <www>.audizine.com/forum/showthread.php/324874
Lesson learned is that looks can be deceiving and that testing via methods that isolate the component under test is the only way to know what’s really going on. On looks alone, the ER coolers should have crushed the .2 cooler. The 997.2 cooler actually outflowed these things by a decent margin. Here is a table of results vs the S4 intercoolers.
Note the effect of core thickness –not really there! I think channel inlets, turbulator and end tank design are huge. Some of the lower density & thicker cores actually flowed worse!
Beyond about 2 psi of pressure loss, the results were extrapolated for all coolers using a least squares fit, but the same trends were there for all the coolers.
So the real question is “When do the 997.2 coolers become a restriction?”
Garrett turbo engineers recommend no more than 3.8psi of pressure drop through an intercooler. Based on that, I put some thought into converting flows #s and trying to cap these coolers at some hp or mass flow level as the coolers approached a predicted 3.8psi pressure drop (~1700-1800kg/hr for the combined set). Chassis dynos vary significantly and few have access to engine dynos so it was difficult to put a power number on it.
The best way I could think to put it is this:
Your stock rods are probably in danger as these coolers start to hurt you significantly flow wise. There are a few outliers I’m sure but I think it’s a decent rule of thumb. If you’re building your motor, it’s probably time to move up in intercooler flow capacity –just be sure you’re actually moving up.
Next up, an inlet tank reinforcement option for those who are concerned or have had issues.
A note on flow tests: flow is measure against some depression (or pressure drop), this is NOT directly related to boost pressure. I’ve heard some say things like “the flow test was only done at 2 psi, therefore the flow test at that pressure is meaningless and should be run at 20 psi of pressure drop to match boost pressure” NO. Basically the pressure drop is what your turbo will have to overcome to move x mass of air per unit time through whatever restriction is present. If I’m running 14 psi of boost (measured near the throttle body), generating some mass flow and my intercoolers cause 3 psi of pressure drop, my turbos have to make 17psi to overcome the intercooler restriction (holding other factors constant for simplicity’s sake) to make 14 psi on my gauge which is tapped in downstream of the intercoolers. The closed loop feedback nature of the wastegate system moves the compressor up in pressure ratio (PR, the y axis on compressor maps), increases rpms, and if too much of a jump in PR happens, you can overspeed the turbos and drop efficiency.
I was able to send a cooler off for flow testing. The gentleman doing the test had already run recent back to back tests on 8 aftermarket Audi B5 S4 intercooler sets. Since the core width, thickness and endtank design are similar to the 996/7 platform, I thought it would be an interesting comparison. The biggest difference is in core length, which for the 996/7 is around 14” vs 8-10” for all the S4 coolers. All things being equal, a shorter core length will have less pressure loss (higher flow capability) than a longer core because the air has a shorter path of resistance. As such, I didn’t expect the 997.2 coolers to fare very well against the S4 options in the flow department.
Quick side note: if you’d like to have your core flowed against the 997.2 and all these S4 coolers, let me know and I can put you in contact with the flow bench owner. The cost was very low.
Setup:
There can be some variations between flow benches and the configuration of the cooler. My 997.2 cooler was tested by drawing ambient air from the inlet tank (the outlet tank was hooked up to the flow bench) as it is hooked up on the car. I had a section of 996 hose on the outlet going into the bench and the inlet was open (which actually decreases flow slightly from the abrupt transition into the cooler). Testing was done on a flowbench with a PTS manometer.
Results:
Right off the bat, the 997.2 coolers flowed 305 cfm at 2psi of pressure drop (77F, 1013.25mb) and 218 cfm at 1 psi of pressure drop. A little different than the CMS flow test showing 235 cfm at 2 psi of drop but to be fair, flow benches, like dynos, can show some variation (though 30% is a lot!).
Below is a picture of an 8.0”W x 10.0”L x 4.5”T Evolution Racewerks S4 cooler (picture from myaudis4.com). This is a thick beast of a cooler with nice looking end tanks and a big high flowing core. It has enabled 666 awhp on a 4WD dynojet, 637 awhp on EPLs very tough dyno and been subjected to >25psi of boost with TiAL’s 770 S4 turbo kit. Build thread here: <www>.audizine.com/forum/showthread.php/324874
Lesson learned is that looks can be deceiving and that testing via methods that isolate the component under test is the only way to know what’s really going on. On looks alone, the ER coolers should have crushed the .2 cooler. The 997.2 cooler actually outflowed these things by a decent margin. Here is a table of results vs the S4 intercoolers.
Note the effect of core thickness –not really there! I think channel inlets, turbulator and end tank design are huge. Some of the lower density & thicker cores actually flowed worse!
Beyond about 2 psi of pressure loss, the results were extrapolated for all coolers using a least squares fit, but the same trends were there for all the coolers.
So the real question is “When do the 997.2 coolers become a restriction?”
Garrett turbo engineers recommend no more than 3.8psi of pressure drop through an intercooler. Based on that, I put some thought into converting flows #s and trying to cap these coolers at some hp or mass flow level as the coolers approached a predicted 3.8psi pressure drop (~1700-1800kg/hr for the combined set). Chassis dynos vary significantly and few have access to engine dynos so it was difficult to put a power number on it.
The best way I could think to put it is this:
Your stock rods are probably in danger as these coolers start to hurt you significantly flow wise. There are a few outliers I’m sure but I think it’s a decent rule of thumb. If you’re building your motor, it’s probably time to move up in intercooler flow capacity –just be sure you’re actually moving up.
Next up, an inlet tank reinforcement option for those who are concerned or have had issues.
A note on flow tests: flow is measure against some depression (or pressure drop), this is NOT directly related to boost pressure. I’ve heard some say things like “the flow test was only done at 2 psi, therefore the flow test at that pressure is meaningless and should be run at 20 psi of pressure drop to match boost pressure” NO. Basically the pressure drop is what your turbo will have to overcome to move x mass of air per unit time through whatever restriction is present. If I’m running 14 psi of boost (measured near the throttle body), generating some mass flow and my intercoolers cause 3 psi of pressure drop, my turbos have to make 17psi to overcome the intercooler restriction (holding other factors constant for simplicity’s sake) to make 14 psi on my gauge which is tapped in downstream of the intercoolers. The closed loop feedback nature of the wastegate system moves the compressor up in pressure ratio (PR, the y axis on compressor maps), increases rpms, and if too much of a jump in PR happens, you can overspeed the turbos and drop efficiency.
Last edited by earl3; 10-19-2012 at 12:29 AM.
#449
10-18-2012, 11:51 PM
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Mojave, CA
Posts: 823
Rep Power: 131
997.2 vs ETS 16 row
Also ran these coolers against ETS's 16 row cooler. Pretty good battle.
Initial results here:
https://www.6speedonline.com/forums/...7-2-gt2rs.html
Initial results here:
https://www.6speedonline.com/forums/...7-2-gt2rs.html
Last edited by earl3; 10-19-2012 at 12:00 AM.
