Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3
K
KiDkEmP Offline OP
Newbie
OP Offline
Newbie
K
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3
I have read up on this for a while searching all previous posts, but with the streetflight kit, how come you couldn't use a front mount intercooler instead of water cooled?? what are the advantages of water cooled? Also i was thinking about with the street flight kit of getting an hks ssq bov, would i have to custom mount that? I don't have a contour as of yet, i have a mazda mp3, and after a recent tranny problem i have decided to get rid of it, and i am joining the contour bandwagon, and i am trying to find out as much as possible right now

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,732
R
Hard-core CEG'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG'er
R
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,732
there is absolutely no room for a front mount intercooler


Russell Oval Port 3L Nearly Done MTX75 w/ Homebrew Zetec FD and Torsen Complete
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 839
S
Veteran CEG\'er
Offline
Veteran CEG\'er
S
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 839
Yeah under the hood is stuffed, stock. I believe you have to move the battery out of the hood just to get the turbo/super in.


The Spickle New Car: Infra Red '04 FSVT Former Car: Black '98 CSVT, #3137/6535 "The Unluckiest car.. ever"
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,676
S
Hard-core CEG'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG'er
S
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,676
From what I've been told, because I've belabored this point with Stazi countless times in posts years ago, there isn't any room for the plumbing to have a front-mount IC with everything static in a Contour SVT. Modding the bumper won't even help, the engine bay is too tight (and when you think about it, where would you run the plumbing on BOTH sides of the intercooler to get to the turbo on the driver's side?)

Water IC is better in our situation because of the space limitations, and according to a recent post from Warmonger, getting the water tank mounted in the front as opposed to the trunk is better for cooling since less liquid is stored in the front (space limited, again), and it ciculates faster, cooling off the intake car faster). . .Biggest advantage to water cooled is that it's cooled wether you are driving or sitting in traffic, in an air-to-air, you'll get serious heat soak in around the town driving compared to a water cooled. . .

As for the bov, talk to sf, they should be able to put it in lieu of whatever BOV they offer. . .don't think you need a special mounting area for it, but that's just from pictures of stazi's car with the SF kit on it that I'm working from. . .

good luck with the project. . .and welcome to darkside You'll never quit modding your 'tour, the aftermarket has become too big. . .

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,025
B
Hard-core CEG'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG'er
B
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,025
Are water/air intercoolers more efficient than air/air intercoolers? I know Warmonger has seen an 80% effeciency rate with his intercooler (without ice iirc) and i think i read somewhere that water/air intercoolers can have over a 100% effeciency. Can air/air IC's do just as well?


Jim Hahn 1996 T-Red Contour SE Reborn 4/6/04 3.0L swap and Arizona Dyno Chip Turbo Kit 364 whp, 410 wtq @ 4,700 rpm
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
R
"Absolut Rara."
Offline
"Absolut Rara."
R
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
Originally posted by beyondloadedSE:
Are water/air intercoolers more efficient than air/air intercoolers? I know Warmonger has seen an 80% effeciency rate with his intercooler (without ice iirc) and i think i read somewhere that water/air intercoolers can have over a 100% effeciency. Can air/air IC's do just as well?




Yes and no. How's that for a good answer?

Water has somewhere between ten and fifteen times the heat transfer rate compared to air, so on the intake charge side, a proper a/w core can be significant;y smaller than a proper a/a core to remove the same amount of heat from the intake charge, given an equal temp of the cooling mediums.

The problem (and some benefit) w/ water to air comes in with keeping the temperature of the water down. With a/a you constantly have fresh ambient air flowing through the core always at the ambient air temp. The a/w core is constantly circulating the same water, which heats up when it passes through the core. To keep the water as close to ambient as possible, you have to install a heat exchanger (a radiator) somewhere in the free airflow to get the heat out of the water. This increases the complexity of the a/w vs. an air to air by a significant margin. Now, a big benefit of the w/a in certain applications, is the fact that for short periods of time, you can decrease the temperature of the water significantly below ambient (with ice, or other extremely cold stuff ) allowing efficiencies to exceed 100% for those short periods.

The only way to emulate the "ice water trick" w/ an air to air setup is with some sort of sprayer that sprays cold water, CO2, N2, or something like that, onto the intercooler when needed. I've never seen efficiency numbers from these sort of setups, and it would vary extremely from setup to setup, especially due to the base core's potential efficiency.


Balance is the Key. rarasvt@comcast.net

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5