Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the ceramic coating alone can have that effect...
Did you run the 4.5 long enough (they werent coated correct?) to have a view about them?

 

Well, soaking is a factor of turbo boost brought about by load on the engine and duration of that load.

The longer the turbos are kept spooling and the higher the boost pressure, the quicker the heat will build up in the coolers, ultimately leading to heat soak.

If you are talking about repeated WOT runs up to 200 kph, then certainly heat soak will eventually hit you as you are loading the engine and spooling the turbos hard. But stopping at 200 kph, you won't see heat soak after 2 or 3 runs; maybe after 4 or 5 runs or so, even 6 or 7 on a cool day.

Remember that it takes 997.2 turbos about 9.x to 11 seconds (depending on tune level) to hit 200, while it takes them 28 to 40 (depending on tune level) to reach 300. As such, the time under load and under heat inducing boost is much longer to 300 than to 200.

If you are talking about gradual, non WOT, speed build-up to 200 kph and then maintaining/cruising at around that speed, then load, hence boost, are minimal and heat will not build up as quickly, if at all on all a cool day. You should be fine with stock coolers.

Again, hope this helps.

 

Hi dianic.

Indeed, ceramic coating alone is meant to not only shorten the cool down period but also improve the thermal efficiency of intercoolers.

This is the theory.

I do not have in my possession any empirical data to support this theory unfortunately. Like I stated, I can only give driving impressions as durametric is not fully functional with the 997.2 ECUs.

The 4.5 inch coolers were not ceramic coated. During the period when I had them on, I was not running the car much so I cannot really express a strong opinion.

For what it's worth, they seemed to me slightly better than stock, but not as good as the 5" ones + ceramic coating.

 

Karim,good to have you in the thread...Just one question...How can you tell whether an IC soaks heat (no matter which IC is)since you dont log IAT?

 

Awesome info Karim. I think your empirical data is pretty convincing and supports your conclusions about IC comparisons.

 

No magic or voodoo there Skand.
I do not have a crystal ball.

The answer is simple bro: performance drop after back to back WOT runs.
Quickest way is for you to launch from standstill or thereabouts and go WOT to over 300 kph 3 or 4 times back to back.
Measure your runs on your PBox and watch your numbers drop after the third or fourth run.
With my 5" TPC/Proto IC, I could make almost double the number of back to back runs before my car's performance started to drop.

Like I stated at the outset, I did not want to enter the thread specifically because I do not have IATs. It's not that I do not wish to log them, I simply had no means to do so.

Skand, I am not challenging your findings bro. I am sure they are valid. You've shown good data.

I just wanted to point out that not ALL aftermarket ICs are worse than the stock ones. That's all.

 

Thanks Dave.
I felt that Paul raised a valid point about putting all aftermarket ICs under the gun. That's the reason I came in, despite the lack of IAT measurements.

Having said that, I think we owe Earl and Skandalis a thank you for their efforts. Many of us simply believe the hype and never really measure the effects of individual components we pay for and install.

What Earl and Skand have provided is an eye opener and a word of caution that we should all heed.

 

Covered nicely Karim . And thats not taking anything at all away from Earl and skands IAT reports which were rather telling .

I'd still love to hear from you skand in so far as "YOUR" butt dyno review.....or, am i wasting my time expecting an answer on that now?

 

Paul,
I told you again my friend I am still waiting for tires...Trust me when correct size tires are installed Vbox will show differences...Imagine that I reinstalled Remus exhaust to have cars setup same as pre ICs install...By doing so difference of times would be due to ICs and only ICs...So please hold on until pirelli finally imports new tires to Greece...HOpefully on Friday I will have them...

 

To make explicit what has been implicit, and to confirm that I understand this great thread correctly :-):

1. Skand showed 997.2 intercooler to be better than 997.1 and *some* aftermarket Intercooler.
2. Karim (love the way you're so careful with your post and your emphasis on "emprical" data) showed his Protomotive/TPC intercooler to have better VBox times after repeated runs than the 997.2 intercooler that Skand used?
3. Skand has IAT data but no VBox, K_DDSL (Karim) has VBox times, but no IAT data?

So.... we are back to square 1, Protomotive/TPC versus 997.2, which one is "better"?

To add some fuel to the flame, my top choices for intercooler would/might :-) have been among these 3, Champion, Protomotive/TPC, and Switzer. Skandalis, you don't have to name names, but it might be a good idea to at least specify the after-market you tested is NOT one of the above 3? The more I think about it, the more I agree with Speed -- appreciate your work but somehow it's not fair to other after market vendors the way not all data/info has been revealed -- not a good idea on a public forum IMHO. There must be a better way for how the information is conveyed.

 

If I understand this thread correctly (a big if LOL), your times might show that 997.2 intercooler is better than than 997.1, but what it won't show is how 997.2 intercooler fares against the "better" after-market intercoolers, no?
In other words, same question remains for those thinking about upgrading. What is "best" still has NOT been defined and the game is not necessarily over?

 

ok...
1)Of course i ve installed Vbox but with wrong size tires...With these tires,the car is slightly slower at 60-130 (0,2sec) but noticeably faster above 200km...However it is not safe to draw conclusions from 2 Vbox tests with different tire sizes...In a couple of days i will have safe data with OEM tire sizes...
2)I did not tried champion because they refused to send me their units (full paid of course) so to compare them against OEM ICs...They dont seem to stand behind their products...All I asked is to lower IAT from OEM ICs...Not much for a set of 3500$ ICs...But the answer was no...
3)I respect and admire the way karim writes his observations in this thread,however since there is no durametric log of IAT,ignition,boost,etc,no one can be sure why the car was slower at repeated runs with stock 997,2ICs...It would be very interesting to observe logs of his car...Maybe then we can determine whether different ICs play a role in that specific car/tune combo...
4)I ve turned my car into an expensive experiment...trying to figure out whether I can make it faster by switching many IC and exhaust brands...But keeping stock VTGs...Hopefully by next week I will have conclusions about 4 different exhausts and four different ICs...Lets see...

 

Cleary, there is a both a qualitative and quantitative aspect to Karim's observations that points to a difference in performance between stock .2TT ICs and Proto/TPC. Sure one could say it may be "something else" but I think that is really a stretch in this case. Stock stock ICs he heat soak after 2-3 runs. With Proto, he was able to get in 6-8 runs. That's huge difference that one can't ignore. It's always nice to put actual numbers behind the observations but in this particular case, I think it is safe to say that the Proto/TPC ICs are better than the .2TT ICs. Otherwise, I don't think Karim will be leaving them on if they weren't.

 

Hi, my 0,5...Euro!
Karim said the stock parts hold 2-3 0 to 300kph before heat soaking , by early 30°C, and TPC's swain coated 7-8, OK...
Please notice my 997.1TT (FVD stage 3 kit, 1,33 at OB/1,17Bar continuous) is UNABLE to reach ONE time 300kph (from 100) by 20°C AT without heat soaking!
(>70°C IAT)
Even by 15°C it is the same, stock 997.1TT IC's hold a 100-300 keeping <55°C only near 5°C AT!

The 100-300 V-box measures go from 32,7' at 25°C AT to 25' at 5°C, same road.

So, TPC's are perhap's, certainly (they must) better than 997.2's, but 997.1's seem far worst than the both!

 

You meant to say "far worst than the both in high speed, high load runs."
For daily drivers, or for those who don't track car, I am not sure the answer is that simple. Isn't the question about high horse power modding is that it works, and works well, but what is the sacrifice in the low end, at 3000 rpm? Is there loss of torque, etc.? It's that thermal vs. pressure efficiency issue again.

Why does it feel we are back to square 1? FWIW, I have a standing offer from GIAC to bring my car back if I ever decide to install an intercooler, for a re-tune (I know this is controversial -- but yes I believe that a new intercooler would benefit from a re-tune). I also have been told that I should then expect to change my clutch for sure - the hp gain is real. I have not done it only because I don't race and the car feels so fast already (virtually no lag and it feels like it's going downhill all the time!).

That brings us to a related topic: Although an intercooler will benefit any existing tune, I think a re-tune will bring more hp. TTdude/Karim, what do Todd/Protomotive and Softtronic say about this? Did they re-tune your car after market intercooler was installed?