Possible answer to the old debate? IC VS CC

Posts about anything do to with modifying your car such as fitting aftermarket parts, bodykit, or tuning the engine for more performance.

Moderators: IMOC Moderators, IMOC Committee Members

ENSMR2
Posts: 12008
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:35 am

Possible answer to the old debate? IC VS CC

Post by ENSMR2 »

Just seen a video of the new Ford GT. Apparently it has 400+ horsies. Its mid engined obviously and has side vent similar in position to a MR2. It runs a water to air intercooler (charge cooler) Is this the proof that CC's are a better option?

What do other mid engined super cars run?

20000 word essay please.
User avatar
Driftlimits Performance
IMOC Affiliated Company
Posts: 4928
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:33 am
Location: 01442 601301
Contact:

Re: Possible answer to the old debate? IC VS CC

Post by Driftlimits Performance »

I know people will ALWAYS argue this, but from what I've learnt, for big power a nice big IC would be preferrably. Look at ALL the high power 2's from Japan. ie the pace chargecooler I've heard has a small core and can only hold so much boost. So it depends. IMO if you're wanting around 350bhpish then the CC would be fine. If you were to want to go over that, I think a IC would be more ideal.

But someone will no doubt come and pick holes in what I've said! :D
User avatar
Lauren
IMOC Committee
Posts: 38632
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:37 pm
Location: Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: Possible answer to the old debate? IC VS CC

Post by Lauren »

An IC is more efficient than a CC.

But the problem as always with a mid-engined car is getting enough air to an IC to get the best out of them.

A noble uses an IC but it is pretty well located and has aero aides to direct air through it.

I fabbed up some ducting for my SC which just about halved the IC temps over what they were previously.
stevecordiner
Posts: 875
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: Desk

Re: Possible answer to the old debate? IC VS CC

Post by stevecordiner »

True all the high powered MR2's use boot mounted huge air:air IC's with a giant airscoop on the bootlid.

The fact that toyota had to put a big computer fan on the side of the intercooler in stock location insinuates to me its a crap location for airflow.

Pace's CC used a core only designed to flow to 1.2 bar - why they did that is a bit of an unknown.

I still recon if someone wants to maintain their boot then a chargecooler is the way to go. I'd also stick with the Toyota ones - particularly the ST205 one which even a former TTE boss said can easily out perform the stock internals of the rev 3 / ST205.

2p

P.S. Lotus Esprit turbo - chargecooler
raptor95GTS
Posts: 6213
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:14 pm
Location: glasgow
Contact:

Re: Possible answer to the old debate? IC VS CC

Post by raptor95GTS »

Lauren wrote:An IC is more efficient than a CC.

But the problem as always with a mid-engined car is getting enough air to an IC to get the best out of them.

A noble uses an IC but it is pretty well located and has aero aides to direct air through it.

I fabbed up some ducting for my SC which just about halved the IC temps over what they were previously.


er size for size a cc is MUCH more efficient than an intercooler due to water absorbing 4 times more heat energy per kg per degC than air ever will.

yes they are more complex, just and yes they are heavier but if you want the best cooling without losing your boot then chargecooling is the way to go. The celica unit is good for 400BHP allegedly whereas the pace one pretty much runs out at 330.

Also the celica unit cuts out at least 3 x 90deg bends and about a metres worth of induction piping. Gotta be good for throttle response
User avatar
Lauren
IMOC Committee
Posts: 38632
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:37 pm
Location: Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: Possible answer to the old debate? IC VS CC

Post by Lauren »

But it is not as clear cut as that Allan.

I agree that in a mid-engined car a water/air IC makes a lot of sense.

In a front engined car however you'd be better off with an air/air setup mainly because airflow isn't an issue. I think the air/water was used on the celica for homolagation reasons and because it is less susceptible to damage than an air/air IC.

I had this chat with Adrian (fensport) a long time ago. He uses an air/air in his corolla these days.

An air/air works better than an air/water at higher speeds and vice-versa.

Obviously like you say an air/water setup carries weight and complexity as its main disadvantages, but is good in a mid-engine setup as you can site it pretty much where you like.
MR2Mania
Posts: 2149
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:37 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Possible answer to the old debate? IC VS CC

Post by MR2Mania »

Lauren wrote: I think the air/water was used on the celica for homolagation reasons and because it is less susceptible to damage than an air/air IC.


It was used because they couldn't guarantee enough airflow to cool an A-A, partly down to sometimes having to operate mostly at low speeds and partly because the IC could get clogged with mud, etc. A CC is not less susceptible to damage - the cooling rad can still be broken, meaning that you lose intercooling altogether.

The other thing you must consider with a CC is the possibility of efficiency in excess of 100% (try doing that with an A-A IC. Obviously, this doesn't suit everyone, but could be very useful for a drag racer.

If a CC system is designed well, it'll perform as well as any A-A IC system, but in an MR2 it's the best option IMHO.
Mikejc
Posts: 2622
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 8:23 pm
Location: london

Re: Possible answer to the old debate? IC VS CC

Post by Mikejc »

Everybody seems to be of the opinion that the Pace c/c can only flow a max of 1.2bar. This info I believe has all been taken from Neil Johnsons findings?

It's a shame that so many of you would take the findings from one car alone and from that think that they applied to all MR2's regardless of spec. We all should know that one car will react very differently to another car with exactly the same mods. My point is that Neil Johnsons car is a far cry from the spec's most of us are running. And ever likely to run for that matter lol

I like most of you heard the same thing regarding the Pace C/C 1.2bar max situation and so I decided to call Pace direct. I was not met with the same infomation that Neil Johnson was given. In short I was told that their C/C was able to flow a good deal more than the mentioned 1.2bar! Give them a call for yourselves to find out more :)

My own car was tuned at Thor recently and left with a healthy 293bhp @ the hubs which I was told by Thor was around 340ish @ the fly! (shut it Allan :wink:) A new turbo will be fitted in Jan and then it's back to Thor for a remap. Fingers crossed I should be seeing around another 25/35 extra bhp, so I will let you all know if I do infact suffer any flow problems with the Pace C/C.

All this aside, how many of you are aiming for anything higher than 350bhp? Point being that this is more than reachable @ 1.2bar with supporting mod's in any case!

I ran the Spearco I/C in my own car for some time. Temps were anywhere between 50 and 70 degrees at any given time. I'm yet to see the temps rise above 48 degrees with the C/C, even whilst sitting in traffic. Once on the move again temps quickly drop back to between 29 and 40 degrees. Which has left me with more power more of the time! :D

I think Neil Johnsons original findings speak for themselves. After fitting the C/C and without a remap, he gained some 20bhp and in his own words ''what was even more impressive is that this was 1200rpm lower in the rev-range'' (more info on this can be found at www.madcat.co.uk under MR2 story)

So it would seem that the C/C does infact have the edge over the I/C where the Mr2 is concerned at least. So wake up people and smell the coffee people...I rest my case :wink: Mike ducks for cover as people hurl abuse! :lol:

Mikejc
stevecordiner
Posts: 875
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: Desk

Re: Possible answer to the old debate? IC VS CC

Post by stevecordiner »

I believe Neil's findings were what Pace actually confirmed to him in a phone call.

What needs to be considered here is the Pace CC core can only "flow" so much - but 1.2 bar on a GT28 is a lot more air than 1.2 bar on a ct series hybrid.

Taken from the GT4 boards regarding ST205 celicas - note the area I bolded :)

"well - today i had an very interesting phonetalk with one of the former TTE Rallye supervisors alias Mr. Ernst Breuer from belgium.

the reason why i phoned him was primal to find out something about the TTE ECU Specs. the good news is - that these ECUs are still available for about 1500 EUR, but the bad news is: that there are several different types of ECUs impossible to find the right for our street spec ST205s... therefore i just have to vist belgium and find the right one during several dyno-session.

anyway - there are other aftermarket ones for sale like APEXi, etc...

during our telephone conversation i asked him about our CT20B synonym, well it is not a CT20B it is a CT26 with some modifications on the housing, impeller, extruder, etc. this turbo has it's maximum airflow at 1.3 bar beyond that amount of boost it is useless and the blade wheels will blow up on 180.000 RPM. (THIS APPLIES TO THE NON CERAMIC CT26s)

but he told me there is hope - i could buy a WRC CT26 wich holds up to 3 bar and its nearly indestructible okay i meant - lets get into business with this guy... haha - the turbo costs 15.000 EUR and another 40.000 EUR for the WRC Group A BLOCK with pistions, etc... hehe - that is a little far away from my current budget

but the very suprising part follows now... what PS gain will i get with all these TTE modification at the end - he said: around 380 PS - uppppssss wot say it again - YES 380 PS....... i remain silent on the phone. hey with every f*ckin turbo kit from HKS, BLITZ, etc you got more power than these 380 ponies... but u never will get 600 NM out of it - thats the secret... A HA....

during the end of the call he given me some infos about our stock engine and he said that the maximum output will be "REAL 300 PS ON A 4WD RESISTOR DYNO, NOT ON THESE ADULTERATING DYNOJETS" everything behind will destroy the pistion and other internals. so the pistion are our main "weak point"... the same regarding our alu valves rings they will melting at high temps...

on the other good side - our water cooled topmount intercooler has much potential and it won't necessary to upgrade to a lager FMIC... of course there is a special WIC from TTE, but i denied to asked for the price

and finally we talked about EGT temps, he said that temps below 900 C in the ex.manifold are OKI DOKI...

so maybe this report will lift some rumors about the ST205

kind regards
marcus

p.s. forgot something: the first 20 ever produced ST205s fitted with a TTE WRC BLOCK"
MR2Mania
Posts: 2149
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:37 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Possible answer to the old debate? IC VS CC

Post by MR2Mania »

Mike, Pace themselves told Neil that the CC wasn't good for more than 350bhp (they said it was never designed for more).

Anyway, what does Patrick @ Rogue say? After all, he's selling these kits?

CC wise, don't worry, shortly there'll be another CC option! ;)
raptor95GTS
Posts: 6213
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:14 pm
Location: glasgow
Contact:

Re: Possible answer to the old debate? IC VS CC

Post by raptor95GTS »

Lauren wrote:But it is not as clear cut as that Allan.

I agree that in a mid-engined car a water/air IC makes a lot of sense.

In a front engined car however you'd be better off with an air/air setup mainly because airflow isn't an issue. I think the air/water was used on the celica for homolagation reasons and because it is less susceptible to damage than an air/air IC.

I had this chat with Adrian (fensport) a long time ago. He uses an air/air in his corolla these days.

An air/air works better than an air/water at higher speeds and vice-versa.

Obviously like you say an air/water setup carries weight and complexity as its main disadvantages, but is good in a mid-engine setup as you can site it pretty much where you like.


Even though myself and mikejc ( hi ya ) might disagree with quoting flywheel figures :o , his results speak for themselves.

We don't have a front mounted engine so space is a consideration therefore chargecooling wins. It is that simple
Mikejc
Posts: 2622
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 8:23 pm
Location: london

Re: Possible answer to the old debate? IC VS CC

Post by Mikejc »

I do now and have done for some time agreed with you Allan regarding @ the wheels and @ the fly wheel figures. I just quote both because people people tend to follow one or the other :lol:

I myself am only truelly interested in the @ the wheel figure and even this comes 2nd to how the car feels in the real world.

Coming back to some of the comments made on my post above. I state again, call Pace and have a chat with them yourselves. I did so and was given different info to that of Neils original call to them?

Also once again I ask the question...How many of you out there intend to run more than 350rwhp in any case? Even if the fact that Neils findings on his own car do apply to our lesser spec'd 2's, and we are unable to flow more than 1.2/1.3bar. The fact is that the C/C is still running near 100% efficiency up until this point. Show me a I/C that can make this same claim on a mid-engined car!?

I must once again say that I have run both an uprated I/C (in stock location) and the C/C now. And can tell you hand on heart that the C/C has made a huge difference in the way the car performs. The I/C would heat soak with ease where as the C/C is yet to ever do so. Like already said, ''this leaves you with more power more of the time'' :wink:

Mikejc
MR2Mania
Posts: 2149
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:37 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Possible answer to the old debate? IC VS CC

Post by MR2Mania »

Mikejc wrote:I myself am only truelly interested in the @ the wheel figure and even this comes 2nd to how the car feels in the real world.


Then you'll understand the difference between "at the wheels" and "at the hubs", right?
Mikejc
Posts: 2622
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 8:23 pm
Location: london

Re: Possible answer to the old debate? IC VS CC

Post by Mikejc »

I can't believe that in all the above text, you picked up on that! :lol: :wink:

Mikejc
MR2Mania
Posts: 2149
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:37 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Possible answer to the old debate? IC VS CC

Post by MR2Mania »

Mikejc wrote:I can't believe that in all the above text, you picked up on that! :lol: :wink:

Mikejc


:lol: LOL! It's just that I'm fussy about dyno readings because I've been on a lot of different dynos and also used to work at a tuning place that ran the dyno brilliantly, IMHO. I also have made a dyno plot tool for comparing results, so it's important for me to be able to compare plots fairly that were done at different places. See here:
http://www.mr2mania.com/plot.php

I pretty much agree with you about the CC stuff. I currently have a Spearco AAIC on mine, and now that I'm not running WI, I'm shocked at the intake temps that I've seen.

You're right about the Pace setup being fine for a car with bolt on mods, as you're never likely to run more than 1.3bar (not safely, anyway), but if you've invested in forged pistons and are prepared to do some more expensive mods (standalone, turbo, etc), you'd want an IC solution that would compliment them. This is where the Pace one falls short, according to what Neil is experiencing.

I'm about to install an ST205CC on my car, running it in a similar way to JJ, and will datalog the whole lot, just as I've done for the Spearco:
temp at air filter
temp out of turbo
temp out of IC
temp at throttle body

It should make interesting reading... ;)
raptor95GTS
Posts: 6213
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:14 pm
Location: glasgow
Contact:

Re: Possible answer to the old debate? IC VS CC

Post by raptor95GTS »

Mikejc wrote:I do now and have done for some time agreed with you Allan regarding @ the wheels and @ the fly wheel figures. I just quote both because people people tend to follow one or the other :lol:

I myself am only truelly interested in the @ the wheel figure and even this comes 2nd to how the car feels in the real world.

Coming back to some of the comments made on my post above. I state again, call Pace and have a chat with them yourselves. I did so and was given different info to that of Neils original call to them?

Also once again I ask the question...How many of you out there intend to run more than 350rwhp in any case? Even if the fact that Neils findings on his own car do apply to our lesser spec'd 2's, and we are unable to flow more than 1.2/1.3bar. The fact is that the C/C is still running near 100% efficiency up until this point. Show me a I/C that can make this same claim on a mid-engined car!?

I must once again say that I have run both an uprated I/C (in stock location) and the C/C now. And can tell you hand on heart that the C/C has made a huge difference in the way the car performs. The I/C would heat soak with ease where as the C/C is yet to ever do so. Like already said, ''this leaves you with more power more of the time'' :wink:

Mikejc


agreed on the 350rwhp and the fact that the chargecooler is better :D:D

Jings, 2 agreements in the one post ;)
raptor95GTS
Posts: 6213
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:14 pm
Location: glasgow
Contact:

Re: Possible answer to the old debate? IC VS CC

Post by raptor95GTS »

stevecordiner wrote:I believe Neil's findings were what Pace actually confirmed to him in a phone call.

What needs to be considered here is the Pace CC core can only "flow" so much - but 1.2 bar on a GT28 is a lot more air than 1.2 bar on a ct series hybrid.


er depends on where you measure this ;) 1.2 bar in the manifold is gonna be 1.2 bar no matter what turbo is boosting ergo the same amount of airflow.

Took a while for me to be lead to that conclusion but when you think about it, its right. Yes a bigger turbo will provide cooler air so there will be a difference in the amount of air but that's purely down to the temperature difference.
jonno
Posts: 1157
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:34 pm
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Possible answer to the old debate? IC VS CC

Post by jonno »

Actually Pace agreed that the core would become restrictive at much over 1 bar, although I ran it with a CT26 at 1.7 bar and made 360bhp. The GT28 makes that power at 1.2 bar but wont seem to go much higher, regardless of how much boost we run.

They have given me a new core to test last Friday which is now on the car, although I havent even had a chance to drive it, nevermind look at the ECU logs yet!. If Pace didnt think there was a problem over 1 bar why would they send me a new core FOC and ask for me to test it? - Regardless the original is a fantastic core upto 350bhp, very predictable. Ask anyone who I took for a few laps around Donington :)

Essentially it looks like they have used a similar 13 row core but with a different fin pattern - it looks tighter to me but they are convinced it will be good enough to flow 2 bar. I wont know for sure until tommorow afternoon when I am going to have a couple of hours testing it out - if the logs show an improvement I will book it into Pace in January to see exactly what the difference is.

As for the CC/IC debate - in Mid engined cars IC's are pointless unless they are boot mounted and see PLENTY of cold air. IC's may be more efficient, better, sexier etc etc but unless you throw serious amounts of cold air through them they dont do anything at all!. CC's take alot of beating in those circumstances.

Besides dont the recent results speak for themselves? Everyone with CC's are making good numbers.
Forever Feels Like Home, Sitting All Alone Inside Your Head...
MR2Mania
Posts: 2149
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:37 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Possible answer to the old debate? IC VS CC

Post by MR2Mania »

allan welsh wrote:
er depends on where you measure this ;) 1.2 bar in the manifold is gonna be 1.2 bar no matter what turbo is boosting ergo the same amount of airflow.

Took a while for me to be lead to that conclusion but when you think about it, its right. Yes a bigger turbo will provide cooler air so there will be a difference in the amount of air but that's purely down to the temperature difference.


A "bigger" compressor WILL give more mass flow rate at the same boost, which is what you're interested in. I say "bigger", but what is factually correct is "more efficient". It's the compressor's efficiency for a given boost pressure/flow rate that affects how much the air is heated up by. That's why a good IC upgrade can yield better results than a turbo upgrade because you can make a bigger improvement to intercooler efficiency.

Having said that, some recent turbos have very efficient compressors, although it's difficult to tell compared to stock because I've never seen a flow map for a stock CT26 or "CT20b".
Mikejc
Posts: 2622
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 8:23 pm
Location: london

Re: Possible answer to the old debate? IC VS CC

Post by Mikejc »

Found a little more out today. It turns out that Neil Johnsons car recieved the prototype Pace C/C. This i'm told had a different core from the one's sold now! So it may be the case that the one's now availible will not suffer as Neils did. Something I hope to prove in time...

I also learned some more regarding Neils visit to Thor to have his car tuned. It turns out that on his first run he was indeed able to flow more than 1.2bar (1.7bar I believe), but from there things went wrong for some unknown reason as yet. But in short. After that first good run his car would make no more power with any more boost than it could at 1.2bar. Something not right there I think?

For more tech info regading the above please contact Patrick at Rogue Systems :wink:

Mikejc
Post Reply

Return to “Modifications”