Dear o dear …
The 747 was designed in 1967 Jon …
Where were CFD programs then ???
Not even the pocket calculator was invented !
Good job there were windtunnels or we’d all be tryin to swim the Atlantic 
Scaled down models are tested in windtunnels before going into manufacture .
Don’t start me on Aerodynamics or we,ll still be on it till we both have walking sticks !!
[quote=Boothy]Sorry but I don’t get it, the job of the intercooler is to cool air. Hot air enters at one side and travels across the core being cooled by heat transfer into the core. The higher the performance of the engine the hotter the air is that enters the core and it’s also traveling faster through the core having less time to transfer the heat.
I just cannot see how if a core is not working with a lower output engine feeding more heat into it can possibly make it work better.
Seems to me that with the low cooling airflow in the exige the denser cores just cant work as there is not enough air to keep them cool and they are heat soaking. [/quote]
Hi Boothy
Basically with a uprated set-up the more heat that is produced the more effectively it can remove it.
With a STD cooler with very little internal surface area the extra heat of a modified engine will cause it to soak.
So are you saying the hotter the charge the cooler the discharge will be with a modified engine and your intercooler ?
Dude you gotta do a better sales pitch than that…
Looking at the pics of the standard and the Forge cores again , they are both very similar , both tube and fin cores and I would say the Forge is not any more restrictive or dense than the standard cores, the Forge intercooler is bigger in size so it has more area for heat transfer for the cooling scoop air + the same for the charged air so why did it not work as well as the standard intercooler on this test , could it be it needs more boost to fill the larger area to work ?
I’m going to get my car back on a dyno and do some testing .
[quote=moomin]could it be it needs more boost to fill the larger area to work ?
[/quote]
The Forge was within a couple of degrees and that really could be down to anything so allowing for some error I would say its very similar to standard in the test.
I really don’t get the more boost theory, with more boost you get more heat and as far as I understand physics if you cannot cool the air down now, by making it hotter (even under more pressure) you cannot make it cooler.
This is all coming down to air flow and more importantly pressure (not the same as flow) across the cooling fins.
I would love to see the same coolers on an uprated car.
ok then if lets say an intercooler has the same core inch per inch as the standard one but bigger with more area to cool than the standard both ways you would think it would cool better than the standard not worse.
i dont know the answer , i think it needs testing though .
Phew, I’m glad I have a charge cooler…
A very good and interesting read though.
[quote=Boothy][quote=moomin]could it be it needs more boost to fill the larger area to work ?
[/quote]
The Forge was within a couple of degrees and that really could be down to anything so allowing for some error I would say its very similar to standard in the test.
I really don’t get the more boost theory, with more boost you get more heat and as far as I understand physics if you cannot cool the air down now, by making it hotter (even under more pressure) you cannot make it cooler.
This is all coming down to air flow and more importantly pressure (not the same as flow) across the cooling fins.
I would love to see the same coolers on an uprated car. [/quote]
Your wish is our command !!! I have already been talking with JSR about swapping coolers on my car at Donny at the end of October. I know my car is only 260ish bhp but it should give us an indication if the theory of more power makes the uprated I/C’s work more efficiently.
A 300bhp I/C’d car would complete the test - any offers ???
And let’s not forget Lotus motorsport made an intercooler that was the same but bigger and I think was standard fit on the 255 cup , they must have done some testing .
Didn’t they then not bother for the 260cup cars?
True but why bother with the cup 255 ?
Didn’t the Cup255’s have a standard roof scoop rather than a full scoop?
Anyone know what boost psi the 255 cup and the 260 has , are they the same ?
Is the exiting of the air a problem with the std engine cover? I ask because BSK asked me if I’d seen any gains after I’d fitted there�s (obviously not being NA). I assume there is a benefit…
Edit to say, Hi again Liam, welcome to the forum btw, hope you’re well mate.
Dear o dear …
The 747 was designed in 1967 Jon … Maths, geometry, physics and airflow still existed. Just took a lot longer and were less accurate due to low sampling rates. Or are you saying that Boeing just guessed the shape of a plane, made a model, put it in the windtunnel, then repeated the process until sucessfull? There must be a pretty big pile of models up in Seattle!
Where were CFD programs then ??? See above and below
Not even the pocket calculator was invented ! Pretty sure Boeing would have been able to sort something out. Didn�t they have half of Big Blue or something back in the day???
Good job there were windtunnels or we’d all be tryin to swim the Atlantic
Scaled down models are tested in windtunnels before going into manufacture . The first person that can scale down nature will retire very wealthy. Appreciate that everyone initially uses scale models, but you�d be surprised how inaccurate they are compared to the real thing, especially when you are talking about cars.
Don’t start me on Aerodynamics or we,ll still be on it till we both have walking sticks !!
An Exige is still not a plane!
To be honest, I think we are on the same lines, just going at it at a different direction. Windtunnels certainly are the most useful tools, but are big, expensive, slow, suck power like you wont believe and you need to have physical objects to test things out. CFD is expensive, but don�t have the rest of a windtunnels drawbacks. Pretty sure your neighbour would object to one in you garden, but wouldn�t even know about a CFD package on your PC. They are both there to prove a concept works or doesn�t. Theres more than one race car that has been mapped perfectly in CFD, produced, passed all the windtunnel testing, and still not worked when it gets to the track.
nope still the same, the gains were all from throttle opening and mapping, the 270kit for the 2-11 has a smaller pulley so therefore more boost
Just spoken to Parky and asked why the 255 cup had the motorsport intercooler and the 260 has not, turns out that the 255 was the last of the true Lotus sport cars pushed over as a rolling chassis from the Lotus factory , the Cup 260s had been made in the Lotus factory so he thinks cost would have come into it .
Does anyone have an anenometer? Little airspeed measuring devicy thing. Would be interesting to see airspeed around the intercooler and feed pipework, and out the back of the core.
My suspition is that the there is a limit to the density of external cooling fins. If its too dense, the low volumes/pressure of air getting to the cooler simply can’t get through.
That still dosnt explain why the forge with it’s similar designed core didn’t work , not unless it’s because its bigger it reduces the pressure of the air from the scoop .
Sorry, meant the outside airflow across the core, rather than internally.
Will take some pics and get Sean to post them up