Now Wayne did make a difference to the performance of the car, but he’s a fat bastard!! 
I could ‘feel’ the difference at Spa. Early on I was hitting max speed on the Kemmel straight quite early but by the middle of Tuesday vmax was coming much later - almost into the braking zone.
I will concede that I was driving my car slower than Sean would have and taking that in consideration (non technical assumption) I would estimate the difference in temps between the Forge and the std cooler would be around 10 degree’s.
The extra 20 bhp would also generate more heat that the stock 240 cars.
Also remember that after lunchtime on the Tuesday both Sean’s and my car were properly heat soaked which would affect the IAT’s. I think the Forge recovers slightly better as well. I was losing around 10 degree’s by the end of the lap before the run back up Eau Rouge and then back upto high 70’s again.
Maybe the stock cooler suffers with long term heat soak worse than the alternate coolers ?
As we have all concluded Spa was probably one off the worst scenario’s we will see and probably not representative of UK track days. Still we still have a problem with IAT’s above 70 which means around 15 - 20 loss of BHP.
The additional cooling from the side scoop mod’s etc looks great value for money. If I can get 10 degree’s reduction for a few hundred quid then great. I’d still like to think about how ‘stealing’ some of the airflow affects other components in the engine bay etc but not sure how you’d test that - maybe we could strap Wayne to the bootlid with a temp gauge and test like that !!! 
Has anyone thought about additional NACA ducts ??? - Lots of cool airflow under the car which could be directed upwards ???.
Also just for reference removing the grill in the roof scoop did absolutely FA for IAT’s. Brought a couple of belgian rabbits back though !!!
That is interesting, the limiting factor has to be the letterbox opening in the rear clam then?
Ade - I’m guessing so but I think people have aluded to that before - hence Reverie’s instructions to dremmel the rear of the clam etc
I just see it as final proof with all the other work that has now been done, do the letter box add side pod airflow.
[quote=Mr Pesky][quote=Boothy]
Sitting waiting for Franks I told you so [/quote]
He’s probably down the pub with Tim Marra.
Can’t wait for a link to this thread to appear on Seloc - bound to be a spotty oik or two there who will know all the answers. [/quote]
I told ya so…
I didn’t want to say it but I’m weak and have little self control…
If you rip the mesh from the side pods you can get a 10-15*f drop of intake manifold surface temp at 60mph… I tested this out 5 yrs ago…
Those dense bar/plate coolers are only good on a front mount setup with its high pressure flow rate, without the flow in the stock location they restrict air flow through the core…
Now see if you can get a VF supercharged car on track and test its side pod mounted A/A setup and see the results… All the VF cars here make more power that any stock or modified A/A intercooler…
You guys should have tested these setups on a DynoPac dyno with a fan blowing on the core to get a true controlled comparison between coolers.
The dyno would give a controlled load duration and nothing puts more load on the car then dyno tuning…
Don’t ya just love R$D 
The bummer is that your induction kit needs a good clean more often when you open up the mesh.
Just to add my 2 penneth…
the collecting trumpets on the intake hose really DO NEED to be as big as is reasonably possible.
Without blowing my own * trumpet * pardon the pun ! Flying aircraft for the last 32 years has taught me a bit about airflow/venturies etc…
Neil wrote ***
I just added some ducting to mine yesterday and it’s helped with the cool down rate but not a huge difference to the peak temps (66 without ducts vs 60 with ducts) although it’s very hard to find anywhere large enough on the road to find the space to do this.***
I suspect you have small collectors ?
I really can’t get my temps ANYWHERE NEAR what you are seeing and I’m running nearly twice the boost …
Ps.removing the rear panel in my opinion will help the cooling immensely as once you introduce this air through the intercooler it needs to get shifted out of the way pretty quick … reducing air pressure in the engine bay is a very cheap and effective thing to do
Chris wrote …
Has anyone thought about additional NACA ducts ??? - Lots of cool airflow under the car which could be directed upwards ???
Entirely the wrong thing to do here in my opinion …
I’ll try and explain …
Airflow under the car is hugely accelerated creating LOW pressure which is great for "sucking " the car to the track …
INLET area needs to be in a HIGH pressure zone or things will mess up .
OUTLET area needs to be in a LOW pressure zone which is why I suggest a rear panel eliminatior.
What goes in must come back out …
Hope that makes sense ?
This is what the rear end needs to exhaust engine heat…
I think its a real shame that our “Mule” intercooler was tested… this is nothing like our production unit…
As soon as we produced the “mule” and bolted it to the test car it was clear to us that ambient air flow was a major issue with the Exige…
The new version has a core which is 40mm longer and is fed by a longer air duct-but more importantly we have kept the core thickness slim.
Also…, when you add ambient temperatures into the equasion our “mule” cooler showed the biggest temperature drop…?(difference between ambient temperature and intake)
[quote=jfk]Chris wrote …
Has anyone thought about additional NACA ducts ??? - Lots of cool airflow under the car which could be directed upwards ???
Entirely the wrong thing to do here in my opinion …
I’ll try and explain …
Airflow under the car is hugely accelerated creating LOW pressure which is great for "sucking " the car to the track …
INLET area needs to be in a HIGH pressure zone or things will mess up .
OUTLET area needs to be in a LOW pressure zone which is why I suggest a rear panel eliminatior.
What goes in must come back out …
Hope that makes sense ?
[/quote]
Completely understand the theory but as explored before the Exige in relatively standard ride height doesn’t generate enough low pressure to create proper ground effect. Not sure on how low the pressure would be under the car but I take the point- was just a suggestion 
Another test needed with Wayne under the car with a sensor in his mouth !!!
I don’t remember the exact figures but my car gained a dyno proven 20bhp + at Essex autosport as soon as we replaced the OE I/c with the chargecooler setup. That was when the car was in standard tune, with all the other mods the car would generate so much more extra heat I couldn’t even consider an I/c setup. It’s obvious these cars need proper cooling to work anywhere near to their potential and I just can’t ever see an I/c setup of any description bettering a chargecooler setup. Plus by the time you’ve fanny’d around with altering external bodywork, changing shrouds, taking a dremel to your Norfolk plastic 
etc isn’t it better just to do it properly ?
Well done on the testing JSR.
I agree but with my relatively puny 260bhp I can maybe get away with a A/A IC without the added weight. Other issues are keeping the car as close to standard by fitting reversible mods - hoses, scoops etc can all be removed for resale etc.
While a Chargecooler may be preffered by some potential buyers come resale it may scare off people looking for a unmolested standard car. Hence I won’t be dremmeling my clam either. If I wanted to go 300bhp + then the CC is the obvious route along with gearbox etc etc etc…
Chargecooler housing uses the same few bolts as the I/c, electric pump is 2 bolts as is the reservoir. It’s more work changing a headlight bulb.
I’d buy a charge cooled car over a modded I/c car anyday due to the extra engine safety a chargecooler adds. Then again I would say that
So you’d leave the front rad and pipework in place ?
[quote=proalloy]I think its a real shame that our “Mule” intercooler was tested… this is nothing like our production unit…
As soon as we produced the “mule” and bolted it to the test car it was clear to us that ambient air flow was a major issue with the Exige…
The new version has a core which is 40mm longer and is fed by a longer air duct-but more importantly we have kept the core thickness slim.
Also…, when you add ambient temperatures into the equasion our “mule” cooler showed the biggest temperature drop…?(difference between ambient temperature and intake) [/quote]
I’ll be having the new one for sure, and will be easily able to replicate the test.
I am at Bedford this saturday actually… and Sean was thinking of coming!
any ideas when production one will be ready mate?
[quote=proalloy]I think its a real shame that our “Mule” intercooler was tested… this is nothing like our production unit…
As soon as we produced the “mule” and bolted it to the test car it was clear to us that ambient air flow was a major issue with the Exige…
The new version has a core which is 40mm longer and is fed by a longer air duct-but more importantly we have kept the core thickness slim.
Also…, when you add ambient temperatures into the equasion our “mule” cooler showed the biggest temperature drop…?(difference between ambient temperature and intake) [/quote]
Interesting points, so as someone who makes both how do you feel about A2A on the exige?
How well do you think your new IC will work and what kind of HP rating do you think it will be good for? Will you go tube and fin or bar and plate as it seems tube and fin works better on the exige.
Are you going to use a side air set up for it?
cheers
Boothy
MMG are waiting for an account password so they can post on this thread , any chance of admin sending one ?
Thread might be RIP by then - cross post link might be a quicker route ?