I'm thinking of fabbing a V-mount advice needed
#1
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
which IC set up would have less pressure drop out of the two pictured below?
From what I read regarding Intercoolers it seems to me that the second set up should be better (since the air has to travel smaller path through the IC small tubes) but the overall piping will be longer ....
![](http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a361/BLAGUNA/random%20stuff/manualwindows033-1Small.jpg)
From what I read regarding Intercoolers it seems to me that the second set up should be better (since the air has to travel smaller path through the IC small tubes) but the overall piping will be longer ....
![](http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a361/BLAGUNA/random%20stuff/manualwindows033-1Small.jpg)
![](http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a361/BLAGUNA/random%20stuff/manualwindows033-2Small.jpg)
#3
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Thanks Leatherface, do you mind to elaborate?
Pros and cons from each?
From various articles I see that:
1) The higher the number of tubes, the lower the flow restriction will be.
2) The longer the tubes, the lower the charge temperature will be.
So N2 has way more (in number) shorter tubes - shouldn't that give an advantage?
Pros and cons from each?
From various articles I see that:
1) The higher the number of tubes, the lower the flow restriction will be.
2) The longer the tubes, the lower the charge temperature will be.
So N2 has way more (in number) shorter tubes - shouldn't that give an advantage?
#5
Moderator
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/supporter1.gif)
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/moderator.png)
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,885
Total Cats: 3,075
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Longer tubes mean cooler charge air, which is what you want from an intercooler, isn't it?. They also mean more restriction which is why you want enough tubes to meet your power goals. That means a taller or thicker core if you need it due to restrictive pressure drop.
#6
Boost Pope
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/supporter1.gif)
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/smod.png)
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,339
Total Cats: 6,793
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Corky Bell has done a fair bit of thinking on this topic.
For many years, all of the Bell kits used an intercooler which was built in the short-n-wide configuration. After a lengthy period of debate, research, and testing, they eventually switched over to the long-n-narrow configuration, citing better efficiency, even considering the slightly increased pressure loss. All of Bell's intercoolers are now of this design, and when FM designed their own system after parting ways with Bell, they too adopted this style.
For many years, all of the Bell kits used an intercooler which was built in the short-n-wide configuration. After a lengthy period of debate, research, and testing, they eventually switched over to the long-n-narrow configuration, citing better efficiency, even considering the slightly increased pressure loss. All of Bell's intercoolers are now of this design, and when FM designed their own system after parting ways with Bell, they too adopted this style.
#8
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
If I was doing the second set up I would turn the turbo clockwise having the exit towards the fender well and making a nice smooth (but long) arc.
I think the tubing is way longer but I believe that I can make the turns smooth.
Longer tubes mean cooler charge air, which is what you want from an intercooler, isn't it?. They also mean more restriction which is why you want enough tubes to meet your power goals. That means a taller or thicker core if you need it due to restrictive pressure drop.
1) minimize any signs of lag (first)
2) maximize efficiency (second)
Corky Bell has done a fair bit of thinking on this topic.
For many years, all of the Bell kits used an intercooler which was built in the short-n-wide configuration. After a lengthy period of debate, research, and testing, they eventually switched over to the long-n-narrow configuration, citing better efficiency, even considering the slightly increased pressure loss. All of Bell's intercoolers are now of this design, and when FM designed their own system after parting ways with Bell, they too adopted this style.
For many years, all of the Bell kits used an intercooler which was built in the short-n-wide configuration. After a lengthy period of debate, research, and testing, they eventually switched over to the long-n-narrow configuration, citing better efficiency, even considering the slightly increased pressure loss. All of Bell's intercoolers are now of this design, and when FM designed their own system after parting ways with Bell, they too adopted this style.
Thanks you guys it seems that I'll go with N1 set up - which will also be way easier for me to fabricate...
Last edited by Max_Power; 08-31-2009 at 04:28 PM.
#9
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Another question...
In the past the car (with the same IC as the one in the first picture) was getting 88-97 CELSIUS (not F) at the cold side of the intercooler while driving in the hot (80-100F) streets of LA.
This was with IC-A/C-Radiator running LINK ECU with a GT2560 at 15+psi.
Is that a sign that the IC is too small?
I guess without the A/C the flow should be better and in the V-mouth set up even better (with proper ducting) but aren't these kind of temperatures pretty high?
In the past the car (with the same IC as the one in the first picture) was getting 88-97 CELSIUS (not F) at the cold side of the intercooler while driving in the hot (80-100F) streets of LA.
This was with IC-A/C-Radiator running LINK ECU with a GT2560 at 15+psi.
Is that a sign that the IC is too small?
I guess without the A/C the flow should be better and in the V-mouth set up even better (with proper ducting) but aren't these kind of temperatures pretty high?
#12
Boost Pope
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/supporter1.gif)
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/smod.png)
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,339
Total Cats: 6,793
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Well, it's hard to see much from the one picture, but it looks like the radiator is in more or less the stock position, partially blocking the I/C. If you've got air going through the radiator and then up through the I/C on the way out the hood (in addition to radiant heat transfer from the top tank into the I/C) then that's what Corky refers to as an interheater.
Given the relatively sane level of boost you were making, the intercooler in the picture does not appear undersized. If it were in a front-mount configuration, I'd expect no more than 30-40°F above ambient coming out of it, and that'd be if you were pushing it hard for a sustained run. In the horizontal config, I honestly don't have any first-hand experience to share, other than to say you shouldn't be seeing those temps at that level of boost, assuming good airflow.
Given the relatively sane level of boost you were making, the intercooler in the picture does not appear undersized. If it were in a front-mount configuration, I'd expect no more than 30-40°F above ambient coming out of it, and that'd be if you were pushing it hard for a sustained run. In the horizontal config, I honestly don't have any first-hand experience to share, other than to say you shouldn't be seeing those temps at that level of boost, assuming good airflow.
#13
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Well, it's hard to see much from the one picture, but it looks like the radiator is in more or less the stock position, partially blocking the I/C. If you've got air going through the radiator and then up through the I/C on the way out the hood (in addition to radiant heat transfer from the top tank into the I/C) then that's what Corky refers to as an interheater.
Given the relatively sane level of boost you were making, the intercooler in the picture does not appear undersized. If it were in a front-mount configuration, I'd expect no more than 30-40°F above ambient coming out of it, and that'd be if you were pushing it hard for a sustained run. In the horizontal config, I honestly don't have any first-hand experience to share, other than to say you shouldn't be seeing those temps at that level of boost, assuming good airflow.
Given the relatively sane level of boost you were making, the intercooler in the picture does not appear undersized. If it were in a front-mount configuration, I'd expect no more than 30-40°F above ambient coming out of it, and that'd be if you were pushing it hard for a sustained run. In the horizontal config, I honestly don't have any first-hand experience to share, other than to say you shouldn't be seeing those temps at that level of boost, assuming good airflow.
The car currently has a FMIC... and I'm thinking of fabricating a V-mount.
While the IC was out I was playing with it and I placed it in the opening to see if it fits (that's why the rad is not tilted).
What I was saying is that in my FMIC set up (when the A/C was still there) I used to see temperatures in the range of 88-97 C.
Since I might be fabing a V-mount soon I was wondering if this was an indication that I should also make the IC a bit larger. Otherwise I can use the IC that I have and just change the piping...
Here is the picture of my previous/current set up...
![](http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a361/BLAGUNA/random%20stuff/manualwindows039.jpg)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lincoln Logs
Dynos and timesheets
4
09-23-2015 12:26 PM