Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I was going to run WMI, but was told but so many people not to, I am kinda glad I didnt now, you are right water stays cooler for longer, but once it warms up it is almost impossible to get cold again with the size heat exchanger you can fit in most cars without lots of cutting etc.

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It'll be a water to air intercooler. The water stays cool for a fair while after u slow down. 12psi is pretty low tho. Hottest days here in Tas are about 35 degrees at the very most and i won't have air con or anything. Also I'll be running a Haltech with air temp compensation set up to run richer once air temps get too high for my liking.

had nothing but trouble with W2A they heat soak way to much, i even tried a 600x400 radiator and an extra reserve in the boot to slow down heat soak. Under bonnet temps just kill the benefits... if you could mount the w2a in the cabin away from under bonnet heat it would be great.... just not practical.

There's a LOT of shit out there in terms of crap water to air intercoolers. I think that crap (75% of the stuff out there) gives it a bad name. I'm gonna give it a go in what i think would work with a massive overkill of radiator area (multiple radiators). Also the huge total surface area of the fins inside the intercooler is hundreds of times more than the outer surface of the heat exchanger. i can't see how it'd be affected by under bonnet temps any more than it does to intercooler piping. The thought of 30cm of total piping length plus an intercooler half the volume of a conventional fmic is too good not to at least try. i want near instant throttle response and full boost at about 2500rpm!

increase to 10:1 on pump your crazy... on E85 then your talking.

AEM ecu is awesome providing its the version 2. My favourite plug in ecu atm behind PFC.

crazy? maybe 11:1...or even 12:1 with E85... many can do all day with those comp ratios.

Higher comp is more efficient but too much with not good enough fuel means detonation.

Higher comp will make more power for the same level of boost, all else being equal.

Higher comp will bring boost on quicker.

Lower comp allows running more boost without detonation on the same fuel.

I read a lot about -9's and -5's. -9's fit a perfect to street car for what most people say, but once it reaches the upper rpms it runs out of it's puff, this is where the -5's shine.

Here's a dyno graph with a comparison of -9 and -5's, the taller line is obviously -5s, but you can see that the -9's match the description as above.. and notice that the -5's are only 300 rpms behind. But notice the torque curve... even though not sooner, but it allows you to say in gear longer before it dives down.

v4qiyg.jpg

They follow nearly nearly identical paths on the up climb (the difference noted above), the -5's does it more efficiently. I plotted both the -9's and -5's compressor maps. Like I said 77% over 74%, less hot air the better. Tuning and cams can make the -5 spin sooner.

I am after a track build, what ever gets me around the corners faster and have enough top end to keep up in the straights. Raising CR will allow more off-boost power, which for a tracker that means a fatter power band to be used. My differential ratio is 4.363, so naturally in the higher rpms...with this...it would make the -5 spin sooner...and in the end I would have a lot of top end too. A bit of tuning can make the -5's respond sooner as well.

i call bogus on the comparo.... ramp rates are not the same between runs.... i have the same dyno and can tell you the only way to split the runs like that is to either run a 4sec start delay to build boost or increase the ramp rate in seconds..

Power correction is in DIN which over inflates the power by a bit too (about 10-15rwkw @ that power)...

There's a LOT of shit out there in terms of crap water to air intercoolers. I think that crap (75% of the stuff out there) gives it a bad name. I'm gonna give it a go in what i think would work with a massive overkill of radiator area (multiple radiators). Also the huge total surface area of the fins inside the intercooler is hundreds of times more than the outer surface of the heat exchanger. i can't see how it'd be affected by under bonnet temps any more than it does to intercooler piping. The thought of 30cm of total piping length plus an intercooler half the volume of a conventional fmic is too good not to at least try. i want near instant throttle response and full boost at about 2500rpm!

we were using PWR kits.

we were using PWR kits.

I REALLY hate putting down Australian companys but that is exactly what I was talking about. The core design is terrible. The ratio of coolant to charge air area is way wrong and tube and fin intercoolers with the charge air going through the tubes like in an air to air is very inefficient in a water to air core.

Best is a very fine bar and plate design with lots of fin surface area. Also the coolant passages don't need to be anywhere as big as the air passages because the coolant can transfer heat much easier than water. This means more area for the charge air in the same physical dimensions.

Plazmaman or ARE are the way to go.

I agree that getting the heat out of the water is the hardest part and a huge challenge. I don't even know if it'll be any good but i'm willing to take the risk. I'm only aiming for 220-240rwkw and the car has heaps of frontal area to use for the radiators. (one in the middle where a FMIC goes , fully ducted and one off to the side where an oil cooler is usually mounted)

Edited by bradsm87

I REALLY hate putting down Australian companys but that is exactly what I was talking about. The core design is terrible. The ratio of coolant to charge air area is way wrong and tube and fin intercoolers with the charge air going through the tubes like in an air to air is very inefficient in a water to air core.

Best is a very fine bar and plate design with lots of fin surface area. Also the coolant passages don't need to be anywhere as big as the air passages because the coolant can transfer heat much easier than water. This means more area for the charge air in the same physical dimensions.

Plazmaman or ARE are the way to go.

I agree that getting the heat out of the water is the hardest part and a huge challenge. I don't even know if it'll be any good but i'm willing to take the risk. I'm only aiming for 220-240rwkw and the car has heaps of frontal area to use for the radiators. (one in the middle where a FMIC goes , fully ducted and one off to the side where an oil cooler is usually mounted)

yeah we gave up on them, ran a decent 115mm tube and fin cooler and car never ran better.... (bar and plate was just too heavy).

Higher comp is more efficient but too much with not good enough fuel means detonation.

Higher comp will make more power for the same level of boost, all else being equal.

Higher comp will bring boost on quicker.

Lower comp allows running more boost without detonation on the same fuel.

Increasing comp also reduces EGTS when running on E85.

about 9.7:1 and 18psi would be the highest I'd go on pump 98.

I know a guy who runs an 11:1 SR20 running 23psi on E85!!!

running big cams means you can get away with higher static comp ratios as the dynamic compression ratio decreases as well, keep this in mind.

  • 1 month later...

http://www.kb-silvolite.com/calc.php?action=comp

Here is the calulator I was going to use but I do not know the "Deck Clearance (in.)Note: Neg. nubmer above deck, Pos. number below deck" if anyone can help?

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

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...