Register Log In

Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums Modifications Forced Induction Building a Custom Water - Air Intercooler

Print Thread

Page 2 of 5

1

2

3

4

5

Re: Building a Custom Water - Air Intercooler #990487 06/28/04 03:46 PM
Joined: Aug 2002 Posts: 4,970 Land of the watered-down exple... S Swazo OP Hard-core CEG'er
OP Swazo Hard-core CEG'er S Joined: Aug 2002 Posts: 4,970 Land of the watered-down exple...	Originally posted by Buckshot77: 300-325 wheels at the most. I wouldn't go beyond what Tom has seen on his set up unless you really want to push the envelope and possibly pay the price with another rebuild sometime soon. Rick Well, you know I wouldn't want to have to rebuild anytime soon I've had my car torn apart far too long to do that. 2005 Ford F150 SuperCab FX4 1964 Chevrolet Impala SS 1998 CSVT: 354HP/328TQ @ 10 psi, now gone

Re: Building a Custom Water - Air Intercooler #990488 06/28/04 07:07 PM
Joined: Aug 2002 Posts: 4,970 Land of the watered-down exple... S Swazo OP Hard-core CEG'er
OP Swazo Hard-core CEG'er S Joined: Aug 2002 Posts: 4,970 Land of the watered-down exple...	I'm starting to think maybe it's best that I do have a T3/T04E .57/.63, I don't think I'll be seeing much past 7K anyway. I do think I'll be able to have the inlet snout sitting right above the turbo, so no bend to enter the IC. The outlet snout can also be placed for a direct oulet for the TB. I just have to keep the turbulance down and make use of all the surface area of the IC core as possible. Originally posted by livinsvt: Sounds good man. I myself would much rather a tank mounted in front of th car. Maybe a stealth install in the front bumper I will have to see if I can mount the tank under the actual bumper, behind the bumper cover. I'd also have to make a filler neck w/ a marine style screw-in fuel cap in the engine bay Last edited by Swazo; 06/28/04 07:27 PM. 2005 Ford F150 SuperCab FX4 1964 Chevrolet Impala SS 1998 CSVT: 354HP/328TQ @ 10 psi, now gone

Re: Building a Custom Water - Air Intercooler #990489 06/28/04 08:23 PM
Joined: Nov 2000 Posts: 2,454 Des Moines, IA USA B Buckshot77_dup1 Learned patience the hard way
Buckshot77_dup1 Learned patience the hard way B Joined: Nov 2000 Posts: 2,454 Des Moines, IA USA	The 5 mph crash bumper is there. The only space without removing it is underneath it in that open grille area. You could possibly trim out some of that material from the sub bumper but I wouldn't recommend it. Rick Owner of 00 #1611 Silver (Totalled) 98.5 T-Red SVT #6180 Buckshot77@msn.com Misc 3L parts for sale

Re: Building a Custom Water - Air Intercooler #990490 06/29/04 03:22 PM
Joined: Aug 2001 Posts: 5,810 Ozark, AL W warmonger_dup1 Hard-core CEG'er
warmonger_dup1 Hard-core CEG'er W Joined: Aug 2001 Posts: 5,810 Ozark, AL	Originally posted by Swazo: I'm starting to think maybe it's best that I do have a T3/T04E .57/.63, I don't think I'll be seeing much past 7K anyway. I do think I'll be able to have the inlet snout sitting right above the turbo, so no bend to enter the IC. The outlet snout can also be placed for a direct oulet for the TB. I just have to keep the turbulance down and make use of all the surface area of the IC core as possible. Originally posted by livinsvt: Sounds good man. I myself would much rather a tank mounted in front of th car. Maybe a stealth install in the front bumper I will have to see if I can mount the tank under the actual bumper, behind the bumper cover. I'd also have to make a filler neck w/ a marine style screw-in fuel cap in the engine bay You guys have pictures of my aluminum intercooler resevoir and you can see that it will fit easily in the space by the engine coolant resevoir. It doesn't have to be a fancy aluminum container, it can be a plastic cylinder or wide diameter PVC sewer pipe with end caps cemented on and fittings mounted. Remeber, it will never get over 220F so PVC for liquid puposes will be fine. I've already got enough measurments to PROVE that the small tank for the intercooler is superior to the large volume trunk mount in all ways except for using ICE. Using ICE is a pain in the ass by the way. Maximum loads on the stock rods: These stock rods will handle 400HP unless there is a defective one and will probably hold more than that. Assume the 7000 rpm safe limit for the rods and pistons. Take the torque that I already hit with the stock rods, 330 FT-lbs at the wheels. Calculate the horsepower from that torque but using a higher rpm: HP=TQRPM/5252 HP= 3306750/5252 HP= 424 HP The secret is keeping the torque up as the engine revs up. Now the pistons are another story. I know that the later pistons are doing just fine so far but I have no idea what the end result will be. I'm guessing with a good tune they can still sustain 400 HP like the rods but if there is any pinging or even borderline detonation at those loads it will probably crack one. Forged pistons are a safe bet but rods I am no longer worried about. I have been running on the 01 3L escape block and it has been excellent so far. No oil burning, no excessive blow-by, quiet and smooth. The fuel economy is 26 MPG on the highway and about 15 in the ciy. This is with 7 pounds of boost normal and 9 pounds for extra 'fun'. The car is running awesome, sounds great and only needs another set of tires. So don't worry yourself about an easy 350HP or so. I'll put it this way, my car runs so well, is so complete that I am getting bored with it. I am in need of a new challenge. I am even contemplating selling the car just so I can take the money and buy a new BMW to start on. never satisfied I guess. Tom By the way, I am home on leave for two weeks before I return to Iraq. I'll be checking CEG a bit more often to help with advice during the time. Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760 356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas! See My Mods '05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red '06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black

Re: Building a Custom Water - Air Intercooler #990491 06/29/04 04:15 PM
Joined: Aug 2002 Posts: 4,970 Land of the watered-down exple... S Swazo OP Hard-core CEG'er
OP Swazo Hard-core CEG'er S Joined: Aug 2002 Posts: 4,970 Land of the watered-down exple...	I'll have to see if stilov has any of your pics and I'll check it out your tank setup. I did see one with your IC though... It sounds like you're at where I'd like to be with my SVT. Running 7-9 lbs of boost with no issues. Keep the torque up as engine rev's up? With SVT cams and FI...that should be fairly easy to do with proper tuning, right? Or do you have something else in mind? I noticed you were talking about a variable boost contoller in another thread.... 2005 Ford F150 SuperCab FX4 1964 Chevrolet Impala SS 1998 CSVT: 354HP/328TQ @ 10 psi, now gone

Re: Building a Custom Water - Air Intercooler #990492 06/30/04 02:51 AM
Joined: Aug 2003 Posts: 2,097 CO S stilov Hard-core CEG\'er
stilov Hard-core CEG\'er S Joined: Aug 2003 Posts: 2,097 CO	daymon...I am just running air to air, but will be doing an ic sprayer. I hope to get it running very soon...well it runs now, but no boost...BAD TURBO!! 98 E0 SVT with some stuff

Re: Building a Custom Water - Air Intercooler #990493 06/30/04 05:46 PM
Joined: Aug 2001 Posts: 5,810 Ozark, AL W warmonger_dup1 Hard-core CEG'er
warmonger_dup1 Hard-core CEG'er W Joined: Aug 2001 Posts: 5,810 Ozark, AL	Originally posted by Swazo: I'll have to see if stilov has any of your pics and I'll check it out your tank setup. I did see one with your IC though... It sounds like you're at where I'd like to be with my SVT. Running 7-9 lbs of boost with no issues. Keep the torque up as engine rev's up? With SVT cams and FI...that should be fairly easy to do with proper tuning, right? Or do you have something else in mind? I noticed you were talking about a variable boost contoller in another thread.... Ok, this might be long but its worth it! We always talk about horsepower but in the end it is the shape of the torque curve that is really important...and of course the amount of torque. As I stated above, mathematically horsepower is a timed summation of all the torque. It is linearly related to RPM which is a factor of time. However torque is not a linear function in itself. You want to make the torque as linear as possible so that the power continues to build all the way to redline. Since most engines make torque only over a narrow rpm range, the torque at higher and lower rpms is usually less than in that optimal range. You want that torque in your optimal range to be matched to your transmission and your redline (powerband). SVT did a great job of this with their cams for NA and the cams still work well for FI. However, they are not the only way to go. I have tested both SVT cams and Escape cams now with approximately the same levels of boost and with the same intake manifolds. The SVT cams produce a flatter torque curve at the expense of the peak torque numbers. The escape cams allow more of a peak and sacrifice more torque above and below the optimal rpm range. So decide whether you want a flat torque curve with less overall torque or a peaked torque curve with higher peak torque. In the end you want to maximize your torque curve in your operational range so that your horsepower curve NEVER sees a negative rate of change... i.e. never starts to dip back down. Since there is more than one way to skin a cat lets look at the possibility with the SVT cams and with escape cams. lets look at the rpm range of 4500-7000 rpm, the maximum width of your shifting powerband and where you want the most torque and consequently the fastest car. SVT cams: less peak torque, holds the torque longer as rpm goes up because they "breath better" or have more overlap between intake and exhaust lobes. More overlap means better high rpm breathing. Easy to make good power with moderate boost but harder to pressurize the cylinders because the boost begins to push out the exhaust valve in the intake stroke due to the overlap. If you want bigger power you just raise the boost until the engine blows up or you get the level you want. The torque curve will still be reasonably flat. Escape cams: Big torque peak around 5000 rpm with a faster drop off than the SVT cams above 6000rpm. Peak torque is higher due to less overlap but peak power happens about 5800-6000 rpm, in effect losing 1000 rpm of opertional range from 6000-7000. If you use a boost controller like the GReddy E01, you can program boost per rpm. You can flatten the torque curve by having a linear increase in boost or by a more rapid increase in boost. The easy way to make these cams perform better than the SVT cams is use low boost and let the excellent low-rpm breathing of the cams fill cylinders easily, making good power and then as power starts to drop around 6000 rpm you just add incremental amounts of boost to keep the torque curve linear. To get the same peak torque with SVT cams you have to raise the boost even higher than the escape cams over the whole range and not just at the end. Things that will help the escape cams work well would be headers rather than simple stock manifolds like I am using right now and of course a nice big 3" exaust. Secondary butterflies in the intake manifold are not necessary at all with escape cams and definitely not with a turbo though they make driveability in non-boost situations with SVT cams better. With a good intake and exhaust along with a programmable boost controller and you can hold the torque level to a safe 325 ft-lbs all the way to redline. 3257000/5252= 433HP* You can even keep the boost low in certain gears so that you can prevent wheelspin. With SVT cams you can still use the programmable controller to keep the torque at the desired level and achieve the same results but your boost will be higher because the cams have more overlap. Still neither will be a problem as long as the turbo is boosting in an efficient range. I don't see enough of an advantage from one cam system over another for me to go and change them out at this time, especially sinc the turbo is the great equalizer. I would use what was available and not go seeking out SVT cams unless I already had them. Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760 356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas! See My Mods '05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red '06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black

Cam wars 101 #990494 07/01/04 03:49 AM
Joined: Sep 2000 Posts: 9,602 KC, MO D DemonSVT_dup1 Hard-core CEG'er
DemonSVT_dup1 Hard-core CEG'er D Joined: Sep 2000 Posts: 9,602 KC, MO	After Tom's long winded speech I will state that once moving it's HP that makes you accelerate faster. More HP will beat more TQ everyday. It's a given the SVT cams will make more HP because they hold more torque longer into the powerband and HP is just a function of torque and rpm. So the question is... ...is the overall shifting powerband of the SVT's more rpm average out to be stronger? I think it will be and it's a definitely fact the HP will be much higher. Also his numbers for the escape cams were skewed a little higher in the rpm range then they should be. The escape cam's powerband does end around 6000rpm but peak efficiency comes just after 4000 rpm. If anything Tom should be running with "no secondaries" since the power curve starts before they really even open. The Escape cams seem very well suited to running 3000-6000rpm. This is a good range for slightly better longevity but not for making the best overall power out of our engine. However you can also argue that they make more then enough power for this platform as is. I would not disagree with anyone there. Also you can argue the cams are free with the oval port engine! (non-SVT owners) Now comparing the fresh oval port engine (with escape cams) to the leaky hybrid (with SVT) is not a fair comparison. The hybrid was losing an unknown amount of power and efficiency from all the ring blowby. It was not up to optimum cylinder filling or burn. So maybe it all comes back to the fact neither will ever get any traction anyway so more HP (i.e. in 3rd and 4th) means a quicker and faster car. I could bring up the fact I like more overall power verses more peaky power too. Case in point my current 3L engine. 2000 SVT #674 13.47 @ 102 - All Motor! It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.

Re: Cam wars 101 #990495 07/01/04 03:01 PM
Joined: Aug 2001 Posts: 5,810 Ozark, AL W warmonger_dup1 Hard-core CEG'er
warmonger_dup1 Hard-core CEG'er W Joined: Aug 2001 Posts: 5,810 Ozark, AL	Case in point...where's your dyno sheet? We all know you can drive good, maybe you're just making the most out of a 200 wHP hybrid. Or maybe you've built an oval port monster...with all that tuning capability you had better be able to maximize it. I have to suffer with a chip that I can't alter any timing on and the only way I can adjust air fuel is with my emanage. Both engines have had the identical timing curves. -Hey the engine wasn't leaking that bad though it had a significant amount of blow-by...It still passed Ford's compression test standards. The big benefit my old engine had over the new one is the gargantuan header pipes that it had versus the low-budget stock manifolds. I already told you that these were meant to prove a point about costs. Costs. The stock rods have proven to handle 330 ft-lbs, Chris spent what, $700+ for forged rods and on 15 pounds of boost hit 360 Ft-lbs? I'm sure those rods he bought can handle twice as much, but can the rest of the motor produce it? I think the experiment has proven many things about costs. I know for less than $1500 I have a turbo ready motor and the piping for the turbo. Back to the old engine comparison: - The old engine had huge primaries on headers and fed into pretty much a similar up-pipe. - The old engine had SVT cams - The old engine produced 295-303 wHP on 91 octane and stock 7# wastegate spring. The new motor made 328 wHP on 92 octane(91 would not have hurt) and about 8-9psi. - Torque was much higher but dropped off at a faster rate therefore only looks like it is a little bit better. With the addition of well designed headers, MSDS headers in fact to my turbo piping instead of stock manifolds, I will make even more power throughout the torque curve at the same boost levels. That much is obvious. The better pipe diameters on headers will allow better breathing at high rpm than what I currently have now as well, in effect reducing the effect of the torque drop off. Last question, If it is not going to perform better, then how come my 1/4 mile trapp speeds for both engines at the same boost pressure was the opposite of what you predict? It was 1.5 MPH faster in the 1/4 with the new motor and the same boost? BTW, the low-budget 3L motor was turning just shy of 110mph in the quarter on ~9 psi and 92 octane with just the front mount intercooler tank. I'm not saying that SVT cams are not going to make more power, I just don't think they will make a significant amount more to justify switching. Once I upgrade the manifolds to headers and do the comparison then I will know if it is worth switching back to the SVT cams. Of course I'll post the f*cking results as I always do...to help people... I guess. Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760 356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas! See My Mods '05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red '06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black

Re: Cam wars 101 #990496 07/01/04 03:11 PM
Joined: Oct 2000 Posts: 6,760 On the short bus R RTStabler51_dup1 Hard-core CEG'er
RTStabler51_dup1 Hard-core CEG'er R Joined: Oct 2000 Posts: 6,760 On the short bus	wow someone woke up on the wrong side of the cot this morning. Tom, I want you to go outside and look at all the sand surrouding you, and then be happy that you have your car and wife to come home too :-) Originally posted by warmonger: Of course I'll post the fcking results as I always do...to help people... I guess. Ryan* Trollin!

Page 2 of 5

1

2

3

4

5

Link Copied to Clipboard

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5