rob275 1817 Report post Posted April 12, 2016 If that Harrop graph is accurate then it's less efficient than my Sprintex. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ade 517 Report post Posted April 12, 2016 6 minutes ago, rob275 said: If that Harrop graph is accurate then it's less efficient than my Sprintex. That was directly from the Harrop vendor themselves on the FT86club. They even asked the engineers if they could release the data. http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78648&page=15 You had 59C iirc in 10C ambient at Bedford so that is +49C and the harrop is about 10whp more? Were your temperatures at equilibrium at Bedford? as in were they still going up or had they stabilized before you came in? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
long-gone 152 Report post Posted April 12, 2016 Surely, the difference in ambient make comparison of those data impossible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ade 517 Report post Posted April 12, 2016 18 minutes ago, daidaiiro said: Surely, the difference in ambient make comparison of those data impossible. Nope. Its all about how much it goes up over ambient. But for sake of comparison, When cosworth were doing testing in 28C ambient in spain, IATs were ~45C Harrop heat exchangers: Cosworth: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rob275 1817 Report post Posted April 12, 2016 39 minutes ago, Ade said: That was directly from the Harrop vendor themselves on the FT86club. They even asked the engineers if they could release the data. http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78648&page=15 You had 59C iirc in 10C ambient at Bedford so that is +49C and the harrop is about 10whp more? Were your temperatures at equilibrium at Bedford? as in were they still going up or had they stabilized before you came in? Don't think I saw much above 55C at Bedford off the top of my head, though I admit I pay little attention to it these days. My sprintex actually has almost identical power to the harrop... I know at one of the sprints I hit 70C in what was 32C ambient... You'd have to take my word on that though, it's not logged. Only see them temps on long straights, it drops down almost instantly as soon as I take my foot off (well it may take 20 or so seconds) and stays at around 50-55C Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ade 517 Report post Posted April 12, 2016 11 minutes ago, rob275 said: Don't think I saw much above 55C at Bedford off the top of my head, though I admit I pay little attention to it these days. My sprintex actually has almost identical power to the harrop... I know at one of the sprints I hit 70C in what was 32C ambient... You'd have to take my word on that though, it's not logged. Only see them temps on long straights, it drops down almost instantly as soon as I take my foot off (well it may take 20 or so seconds) and stays at around 50-55C Fair enough. Thats probably about the same as my car with the cat back ~250WHP How long were your sessions at Beford? Thing about the above run is if it was only after a few dyno pulls your IATs might be quite low. Increasing IATs lower knock limit so timing has to be adjusted and air density is lower so you lose some power. Air density is 1.25kg/m3 @ 10C Air density is 1.15kg/m3 @ 35C That's an 8% drop in air density for a 25C rise. So 250Whp becomes 230WHP, but its worse in reality as you lose knock limit as well. The Harrop dyno run posted with ~250whp had 33C IATS....... Edit* anyone that actually knows what they are talking about feel free is correct me. I am often wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kodename47 446 Report post Posted April 12, 2016 Rob, a local lad who has Geoff's old white car maxed and stayed at ~80C on his Sprintex on a recent trackday. Not sure if 75mm or smaller pulley. I was surprised that the Harrop saw higher CATs than the E-Force if I'm honest, given that they are in Australia and all. However to say that the high CATs of the bigger blowers is a limiting factor is pretty mute. You'd be building the engine if you're going for a smaller pulley on a TVS1320, that will give you more than enough knock headroom if you chose the correct pistons. Look at the guys running high boost turbos in the States. As always, lower CATs are preferable, but not the be all and end all. Run more boost and higher CATs or make the same power as less boost but slightly lower temps. All being equal, well tuned and setup then they will both run all day and continue to do so. Don't forget there are plenty of cars out there that make good power with less charge air cooling than these kits. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ade 517 Report post Posted April 12, 2016 20 minutes ago, knightryder said: Rob, a local lad who has Geoff's old white car maxed and stayed at ~80C on his Sprintex on a recent trackday. Not sure if 75mm or smaller pulley. I was surprised that the Harrop saw higher CATs than the E-Force if I'm honest, given that they are in Australia and all. However to say that the high CATs of the bigger blowers is a limiting factor is pretty mute. You'd be building the engine if you're going for a smaller pulley on a TVS1320, that will give you more than enough knock headroom if you chose the correct pistons. Look at the guys running high boost turbos in the States. As always, lower CATs are preferable, but not the be all and end all. Run more boost and higher CATs or make the same power as less boost but slightly lower temps. All being equal, well tuned and setup then they will both run all day and continue to do so. Don't forget there are plenty of cars out there that make good power with less charge air cooling than these kits. Me too, I thought the Harrop would be similar to the Edlebrock. All fair points, and i'm not suggesting you cant build an engine for more power from the Harrop/Edlebrock, but as the difference in IATs between cruising on the road and hammering it on the track become larger you lose consistency because on the road you are putting down 400hp and on the track you might lose 50hp over the course of a couple laps. Personally i'd prefer not to have that - the feeling of losing power would really get on my tits. My SC'd Merc does that. Its well documented that most turbo kits are not great on the track as they lose quite a bit of power with repeat lapping, hence why currently the Rotrex kits are the choice for most trackday goers. I mean there is a reason Cosworth chose to design such large heat exchangers right. I am sure they are aware that most people don't look at IATs when picking an SC kit so the extra cost and complexity was consciously designed into the kit. Hopefully Dan and I can get some logs of the Harrop and Cosworth IATs for a bit fairer comparison in the same conditions at Snetterton. 1 Rich reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rob275 1817 Report post Posted April 12, 2016 59 minutes ago, knightryder said: Rob, a local lad who has Geoff's old white car maxed and stayed at ~80C on his Sprintex on a recent trackday. Not sure if 75mm or smaller pulley. I was surprised that the Harrop saw higher CATs than the E-Force if I'm honest, given that they are in Australia and all. However to say that the high CATs of the bigger blowers is a limiting factor is pretty mute. You'd be building the engine if you're going for a smaller pulley on a TVS1320, that will give you more than enough knock headroom if you chose the correct pistons. Look at the guys running high boost turbos in the States. As always, lower CATs are preferable, but not the be all and end all. Run more boost and higher CATs or make the same power as less boost but slightly lower temps. All being equal, well tuned and setup then they will both run all day and continue to do so. Don't forget there are plenty of cars out there that make good power with less charge air cooling than these kits. What track was that on? That'd be Richard, he's on a 75mm Pulley afaik but I haven't spoken to him for a month or so... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rich196 103 Report post Posted April 12, 2016 I am the other sprintex car you are all referring too. Hiii. I would be very interest to know robs complete setup compared to mine, I also assume you IAT temp sensor is the same set-up as mine. My car has Stock air box, and panel filter, sprintex with 75mm pulley, OEM manifold. Decat, and the S&H system. Bare in mind I do drive at 100% on a track day. Im not known for lift and coast. I did Donnington GP. Many hard pulls and big stops on this track. 3-4 flying laps per session, 1 warm up and 1 cool down lap. On track the ambient temperatures were 10-12C all day, coolant temp was always maintaining 90C, and oil temps were ranging from 90-102C 0w30 motul 300V. It was on V power 99 ron all day, Map 2. Intakes temperature by the first flying lap were around 68-73C this would rise to around 78 degrees after a few laps. I was trying to keep to 5 lap stints. At one point they got to 83C. I was reving it out to 7k all day. Last Thursday I did Snetterton 300. 3-4 flying laps per session, 1 warm up and 1 cool down lap. ON track ambient temps were around the 8C mark. All fluid temps were fine. I was in map 1, soft throttle as it was a damp day. IATS were hovering around the high 50's, and peaked at 64C. I will be honest down the straights I was short shifting at 6.5rpm and not reving it out all the way. A few laps I did rev it out and still stayed below 70. I believe the temperature we lower on this day because the track means you have higher average speed and therefore, more air flowing through the cooling, and that it was wet aiding cooling with the water vapour in the air. Also there as probably less load on the engine, as due to wet conditions i was full on the throttle, and then full on the brakes. 1 Ade reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanJ 374 Report post Posted April 12, 2016 I'm away with work at the moment so don't have my laptop and dongle to share the data, in a series of WOT throttle pulls followed by "spirited" driving the highest IAT I've seen so far is 41deg.C but that was a peak some time after the throttle was closed and came down again when pushing air back through the heat exchangers again. Compared to dyno runs with a fixed speed fan at the front, as you go faster on road/track you're pushing more air mass flow air through the CC rad --> cooler outlet water --> greater delta T on inlet air --> cooler inlet air for the same operating condition. Higher ambient temps will reduce the delta T of the CC rad, with the knock on effects thereafter for any fixed spec system. The sensitivity of this will vary from system to system depending on where the limitation of that particular cooling system is. Will be interesting to see how much the increase is on track and will happily share the data when I've got it. 2 long-gone and Ade reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ade 517 Report post Posted April 12, 2016 Will be good to see that data and put the cossy and harrop on the same graphs for comparison. For clarity to others. The 3 datalogs I posted were found from track data for repeated lapping not dyno runs with a fixed fan. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lauren 2259 Report post Posted April 12, 2016 If it's any help when I did a load of testing years ago on my supercharged AW11 with a big pulley I found that power dropped off once the inlet temp got over 70C. I could do this on the road, but my car had a big heatsoak problem at the time. Track is the true test, but if it's getting anywhere 70C, it's going to cost you in power big time really. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ade 517 Report post Posted April 12, 2016 Lauren it not like theres a big cutoff where power drops. As aor temp increases density goes down so you gradually lose power as temps increase. Also knock resistance goes down as temps increase so timing should be adjusted as temps rise also. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lauren 2259 Report post Posted April 12, 2016 Yes, I get that, Ade. But when I did testing, it seemed to be the point where it really cost power and I really felt the deficit on the road and the track. Took about two laps as a rule. 1 Ade reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanJ 374 Report post Posted April 12, 2016 43 minutes ago, Ade said: Will be good to see that data and put the cossy and harrop on the same graphs for comparison. For clarity to others. The 3 datalogs I posted were found from track data for repeated lapping not dyno runs with a fixed fan. Agreed, to muddy the waters further there's a reasonable difference to be had from running 100% coolant at one extreme, which is worse than running pure water at the other end. I'm on 100% coolant at the moment and in hindsight that was a mistake, priority is get brakes and oil cooler fitted before Snetterton rather than sort that out though! 1 Ade reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ade 517 Report post Posted April 12, 2016 43 minutes ago, Ade said: Will be good to see that data and put the cossy and harrop on the same graphs for comparison. For clarity to others. The 3 datalogs I posted were found from track data for repeated lapping not dyno runs with a fixed fan. Agreed, to muddy the waters further there's a reasonable difference to be had from running 100% coolant at one extreme, which is worse than running pure water at the other end. I'm on 100% coolant at the moment and in hindsight that was a mistake, priority is get brakes and oil cooler fitted before Snetterton rather than sort that out though! Dan that a very very good point!!! Matt@Cosworth thinks my IATs are a tad high as most cars run about +12C on track. I remember I used about 60% ethylene glycol rather than the 25% he recommends in the instructions. I wonder if thats why mine are a tad higher. Never thought of that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ade 517 Report post Posted April 12, 2016 Yes, I get that, Ade. But when I did testing, it seemed to be the point where it really cost power and I really felt the deficit on the road and the track. Took about two laps as a rule. Yes there seems to be apoint where you first notice the drop in power as it becomes significant. It could also be that the ecu doesn't start pulling timing till then but when properly set up on our cars I would expect it to adjsut timing based on measured IATs. 1 long-gone reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanJ 374 Report post Posted April 12, 2016 16 minutes ago, Ade said: Dan that a very very good point!!! Matt@Cosworth thinks my IATs are a tad high as most cars run about +12C on track. I remember I used about 60% ethylene glycol rather than the 25% he recommends in the instructions. I wonder if thats why mine are a tad higher. Never thought of that. That probably does explain the difference, its a double whammy because it impacts the convective heat transfer at the CC rad and the heat exchangers in the inlet manifold, cursing my stupidity for not remembering this at install time now! Have your brakes arrived yet btw? 1 Ade reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ade 517 Report post Posted April 12, 2016 16 minutes ago, Ade said: Dan that a very very good point!!! Matt@Cosworth thinks my IATs are a tad high as most cars run about +12C on track. I remember I used about 60% ethylene glycol rather than the 25% he recommends in the instructions. I wonder if thats why mine are a tad higher. Never thought of that. That probably does explain the difference, its a double whammy because it impacts the convective heat transfer at the CC rad and the heat exchangers in the inlet manifold, cursing my stupidity for not remembering this at install time now! Have your brakes arrived yet btw? Regarding brakes. I'll give you three guesses but you'll get it in one.....grrrrr Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kodename47 446 Report post Posted April 12, 2016 So how about increasing in cylinder cooling then? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ade 517 Report post Posted April 14, 2016 One thing I thought about, is that with the data from the Harrop, it inst clear where the oil cooler is mounted. Its quite common to stick the oil radiator in front of the intercooler which has an affect on airflow and thus IATs. I know the Edlebrock (NoSoJDMs car on ft86club) and My Cosworth dont have anything mounted in front of the intercooler. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deacon 1357 Report post Posted April 14, 2016 On 12/04/2016 at 0:18 PM, Ade said: Its well documented that most turbo kits are not great on the track as they lose quite a bit of power with repeat lapping, hence why currently the Rotrex kits are the choice for most trackday goers. It's interesting that in Japan the majority of tuners seem to go with Turbo's rather than superchargers. All of the top TA cars are turbo'd from the likes of Blitz, Greddy, Bandoh, Rasty, etc Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ade 517 Report post Posted April 14, 2016 Just now, Deacon said: It's interesting that in Japan the majority of tuners seem to go with Turbo's rather than superchargers. All of the top TA cars are turbo'd from the likes of Blitz, Greddy, Bandoh, Rasty, etc And here! Fensport car is turbo Time Attack = short stints. Not saying they cant be made to work, but a lot of the turbo kits run high in IATs. Greddy included. I'm sure that the Greddy time attack car has lot of cooling modifications over a standard GT86 kitted with a Greddy Turbo. Bonnet vents help alot and are something I am considering. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mark@Abbey M/S 235 Report post Posted April 14, 2016 I have data from a full 2.3 Cosworth and the Harrop on the dyno at Abbey. The Harrop and Cosworth are very very close in regards IAT climb from a r Will find time to get the data up on here for everyone to see, Share this post Link to post Share on other sites