Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

well i always thought of da v/top mount coz of dat fact ur awayz getting ar in even if sideways + shorter pipes + more room for MASSIVE radiator nd twin fans (tripple fans ? :) )

but den again wudnt realy want 2 cut bonnet up nd access for engine wud be a lil bit limited

ok lets switch this thread up a bit... we in theory know that this wont work well due to the amount of heat and air blockage...

Now lets throw in the AC cooler... how would you fit that into the equation if removing it is not an option?? i was thinking of pairing the AC cooler and the radiator together on the bottom of the V-mount... with the cooler in front of the rad.

mount it underneath the radiator so that gets bashed before the radiator does :laugh:

ok final solution... sorry would have got pics but i forgot to take my camera.

but the run down is a comprimise and cost effective...

GTR intercooler mounted upsidown where the radiator sits, radiator mounted behind it (AC removed for other reasons) gotta see it to appreciate it, the piping is so short, everything is protected by the core support and all at almost no extra cost... ill try to mock it up again tommorow for pics... but i might have to wait till i get some parts from the US and complete the install...

actually it's quite scientific as to why intercooler belongs in front of rad. It's called counter current exchange in animals (which is where I learnt about it anyway) it's basically the optimum way to transfer heat between fluids. The underlying principles are well described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countercurrent_exchange

Shortening the length of the pipe will reduce lag, however you are sapping the IC of most of its efficiency, it is only cooling air around what? 40 degrees? as opposed to your radiator which is cooling water from around 80. You would basically reverse the counter current exchange.

Edited by Sarumatix
actually it's quite scientific as to why intercooler belongs in front of rad. It's called counter current exchange in animals (which is where I learnt about it anyway) it's basically the optimum way to transfer heat between fluids. The underlying principles are well described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countercurrent_exchange

Shortening the length of the pipe will reduce lag, however you are sapping the IC of most of its efficiency, it is only cooling air around what? 40 degrees? as opposed to your radiator which is cooling water from around 80. You would basically reverse the counter current exchange.

basically what was said a page or two back... but thanks for the recap....

I'd like to see this new setup 4d-whore. Sounds cool.

If you WERE going to keep the aircon with a V mount, I would say it'd be best to put it right in front of the V mount. i.e.-

_

V

r

e

s

t

of

c

a

r

The air condenser isn't very hot after all, and due to it's size wouldn't block enough air to matter much at anything over 20-30kmh - maybe under it would make some difference however.

I think so long as air is being forced into each cooler properly with baffles/air dams it'll be ok. Without that I don't think it'd be anywhere near optimal efficiency. If you're not going v mount and you want that little extra you should try a small lip (like garden turf size) below the engine as well.

haha yeah its pretty thin but unfortuantly we had a conflict cause one system was R112 and the other was R134 or somthing... i wasnt to keen on keeping it anyways since it weighs like 70lbs... thats about 5 horses right there.. and it was just annoying i dont mind not having AC i told my jap friend that if he wants it he can transfer it himself haha... the japanese are pussy's when it comes to hot weather and rain...

i hate the cold myself...

Edited by 4DoorWhore

they cut the entire core-support out of the car to do that... i was moving my dummie rad and core around and just couldnnt see any better way to do it then the setup i picked... vmount is more efficient but the cost changes a bit... but i think the response will be the same between the two

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...