IPP Intercoolers versus Stock Intercoolers ! Part I ~ The Bench Test
09-02-2006, 09:48 AM
#1
AudiWorld Super User
Thread Starter
IPP Intercoolers versus Stock Intercoolers ! Part I ~ The Bench Test
IPP Intercoolers versus Stock Intercoolers ! PartI ~ The Bench Test
What follows is an attempt to provide usable data on the <a href="http://www.innovativeperformanceproducts.com/">Innovative Performance Products (IPP) Intercoolers</a>.
I ran the stock IC's with a stage 3- setup for a few months and decided to address them prior to the winter and preparation of full stage 3.
The decision to use IPP's SMIC's was based on (i) Ease of installation. I didn't want to hack the bumper or lock carrier...drop-in installation was a must (more on this in a later post). They should also use existing shrouds and intercooler hoses. (ii) Price. While there isn't a huge spread between the obvious competitors there was a reasonable savings given that shrouds and hoses didn't need to be replaced. (iii) Performance Improvement. This is a daily driver. The objective is to maintain ultimate drivability and NOT to tweak every last ounce of power out. This can be viewed as "everymans" car and the performance objective is targeted at "improved" not "optimized".
I have done a fair amount of data logging and will be providing before and after comparative info shortly. A very special thanks to Jeff "Flyboy" Jones. Jeff's understanding of data logging and interpretation of the data is outstanding. In my opinion, he is a tremendous resource to the forums and his desire to help is appreciated. I approached Jeff when I ordered the IC's and asked for his time and knowledge with the logging and interpretation as well as suggestions as to what data to acquire. Thanks Jeff!!
Obligatory pics....
<center><img src="http://images15.fotki.com/v344/photos/4/43687/3980928/IPPICsad-vi.jpg"></center>
<center><img src="http://images18.fotki.com/v346/photos/4/43687/3980928/IPPICsaf-vi.jpg"></center>
<center><img src="http://images18.fotki.com/v348/photos/4/43687/3980928/IPPICsae-vi.jpg"></center>
The bench test of the Stock versus IPP Intercoolers was done with both sets at ambient temp. The hope was to be able to provide data regarding rate of temperature increase, heat transfer capacity, and cool-down characteristics...
The cool Intercoolers were set on the floor, 18" from the discharge of a shop fan. A digital thermometer was inserted in the outlet of the IC and a 1000w hair dryer, set to high, was directed in the inlet. The heat source was taped to the inlet to insure the same amount of heat was delivered to both sets.
<center><img src="http://images15.fotki.com/v343/photos/4/43687/3980928/IPPICsa-vi.jpg"></center>
<center><img src="http://images18.fotki.com/v347/photos/4/43687/3980928/IPPICsac-vi.jpg"></center>
I recorded the temp at 30 seconds intervals. When the temp stabilized for a continuous 60 seconds I initiated the fan, set to high to simulate air flow. I continued to record the temps at 30 seconds intervals until the IC temps stabilized for a continuous 30 seconds.
In retrospect I could have done tests at different fan speeds using a wind gauge, I could link the fans air delivery rate to a particular vehicle speed. A speed test was conducted on the street...results to follow.
Here are the results...
Resting Temps were 75 for the stockers and 76 for the IPPs.
At 30 seconds of heat application the stock IC were already showing a disadvantage...Temps = Stock 102 / IPP 83 = Advantage IPP by 18.6%.
At 120 seconds of heat applications the larger size and additional heat sink capacity of the IPPs stretched a 43 degree advantage...Advantage IPP by 21.3%.
At 210 seconds, the stockers had reached thermal capacity at 211 degrees while the IPPs didn't peak until 240 seconds and that was at 185 degrees, Advantage IPP's by 12.3%
<center><img src="http://images18.fotki.com/v345/photos/4/43687/3980928/ICRecoveryRate-vi.jpg"></center>
At 270 seconds, once the temps on both ICs ceased to climb, I initiated the fan at full setting. The temps on the IPPs immediately fell, indicating a much greater capacity for recovery, The stock ICs didn't begin to dissipate a perceptible amount of heat until after 330 seconds...one full minute of recovery time...at that point the IPPs had dropped to 150 degrees...The stockers didn't see 150 degrees until nearly 90 seconds later.
At this wind speed it took 480 seconds for the stockers to stabilize at their coolest temp of 131 degrees...the IPPs actually took a few seconds longer, but at 114 degrees, a 12.98% advantage.
What's this mean to me??
The IPP's exhibited a greater thermal capacity, were slower to reach that capacity and quicker to dissipate the heat and recover. Whether the addition of shrouds focusing the cooling air into the IC fins makes a difference...I don't know. I should have attached the shrouds...but it missed my scrutiny.
Can this be converted to more usable power, and lower IAT's? I have the logs to determine this, need some time and help interpreting them. I can share this...best FATS on the stockers was 5.1 seconds...best FATS on the IPPs was 4.69 seconds.
More to follow...
Flyboy's comments on the test were greatly apprecaited....
There's no question that this test had some shortcomings. But few people have the resources, time, and desire to perform a rigorous scientific test that can stand up to close scrutiny. What was done here was a best effort with the resources available. In my opinion the shortcomings of the test are not sufficient to invalidate the conclusions drawn from the results that were obtained.
The goal of the test was to eliminate as many variables as we could and evaluate the heat transfer rate of the stock intercoolers and IPP intercoolers. The test does not evaluate the pressure losses caused by each intercooler, and that is a performance consideration that should not be overlooked when considering the overall performance of an intercooler.
Because the sole function of an intercooler (heat exchanger) is to take heat from one gas and transfer it to another, this test allowed for evaluating the relative performance of these two intercoolers. The most telling result I feel is the temperature at which each intercooler stabilized. This is the point where the heat being added into the intercooler by the hair dryer was transferred by the IC fins into the surrounding air, without any affect of forced convection via the fan. This showed how well the intercooler alone did at dissipating heat. The results showed that the IPP intercoolers stabilized at a temperature 25F less than the stock IC's. The only other possible explanations for this difference are that the hair dryer produced an output that was 25F hotter during the stock IC test. Or there was some airflow around the IPP IC's for the duration of the test that was not present during the stock IC test.
Because this test analyzed all portions of the heating and cooling cycle, it was possible to determine if one IC outperformed the other in one particular area, perhaps resistance to heat build up, but then fell short in another, such as the dissipation of the stored heat energy. The fact that the IPP intercooler outperformed the stock intercooler through the scope of the test indicates to me the overall superior heat transfer rate of the IPP intercoolers.
One shortcoming of the test that cannot be overlooked is the lack of IC shrouds. For the cool down portion of the test the entire IC, including end tanks was in the air stream, this would not be the case on the car. It's possible that due to the different materials in the IPP end tanks that the cool down rate could have been skewed. Considering that the end tanks are not designed for heat transfer, it doesn't seem likely that the dramatic difference in cool down rates was a result of the lack of IC shrouds.
What follows is an attempt to provide usable data on the <a href="http://www.innovativeperformanceproducts.com/">Innovative Performance Products (IPP) Intercoolers</a>.
I ran the stock IC's with a stage 3- setup for a few months and decided to address them prior to the winter and preparation of full stage 3.
The decision to use IPP's SMIC's was based on (i) Ease of installation. I didn't want to hack the bumper or lock carrier...drop-in installation was a must (more on this in a later post). They should also use existing shrouds and intercooler hoses. (ii) Price. While there isn't a huge spread between the obvious competitors there was a reasonable savings given that shrouds and hoses didn't need to be replaced. (iii) Performance Improvement. This is a daily driver. The objective is to maintain ultimate drivability and NOT to tweak every last ounce of power out. This can be viewed as "everymans" car and the performance objective is targeted at "improved" not "optimized".
I have done a fair amount of data logging and will be providing before and after comparative info shortly. A very special thanks to Jeff "Flyboy" Jones. Jeff's understanding of data logging and interpretation of the data is outstanding. In my opinion, he is a tremendous resource to the forums and his desire to help is appreciated. I approached Jeff when I ordered the IC's and asked for his time and knowledge with the logging and interpretation as well as suggestions as to what data to acquire. Thanks Jeff!!
Obligatory pics....
<center><img src="http://images15.fotki.com/v344/photos/4/43687/3980928/IPPICsad-vi.jpg"></center>
<center><img src="http://images18.fotki.com/v346/photos/4/43687/3980928/IPPICsaf-vi.jpg"></center>
<center><img src="http://images18.fotki.com/v348/photos/4/43687/3980928/IPPICsae-vi.jpg"></center>
The bench test of the Stock versus IPP Intercoolers was done with both sets at ambient temp. The hope was to be able to provide data regarding rate of temperature increase, heat transfer capacity, and cool-down characteristics...
The cool Intercoolers were set on the floor, 18" from the discharge of a shop fan. A digital thermometer was inserted in the outlet of the IC and a 1000w hair dryer, set to high, was directed in the inlet. The heat source was taped to the inlet to insure the same amount of heat was delivered to both sets.
<center><img src="http://images15.fotki.com/v343/photos/4/43687/3980928/IPPICsa-vi.jpg"></center>
<center><img src="http://images18.fotki.com/v347/photos/4/43687/3980928/IPPICsac-vi.jpg"></center>
I recorded the temp at 30 seconds intervals. When the temp stabilized for a continuous 60 seconds I initiated the fan, set to high to simulate air flow. I continued to record the temps at 30 seconds intervals until the IC temps stabilized for a continuous 30 seconds.
In retrospect I could have done tests at different fan speeds using a wind gauge, I could link the fans air delivery rate to a particular vehicle speed. A speed test was conducted on the street...results to follow.
Here are the results...
Resting Temps were 75 for the stockers and 76 for the IPPs.
At 30 seconds of heat application the stock IC were already showing a disadvantage...Temps = Stock 102 / IPP 83 = Advantage IPP by 18.6%.
At 120 seconds of heat applications the larger size and additional heat sink capacity of the IPPs stretched a 43 degree advantage...Advantage IPP by 21.3%.
At 210 seconds, the stockers had reached thermal capacity at 211 degrees while the IPPs didn't peak until 240 seconds and that was at 185 degrees, Advantage IPP's by 12.3%
<center><img src="http://images18.fotki.com/v345/photos/4/43687/3980928/ICRecoveryRate-vi.jpg"></center>
At 270 seconds, once the temps on both ICs ceased to climb, I initiated the fan at full setting. The temps on the IPPs immediately fell, indicating a much greater capacity for recovery, The stock ICs didn't begin to dissipate a perceptible amount of heat until after 330 seconds...one full minute of recovery time...at that point the IPPs had dropped to 150 degrees...The stockers didn't see 150 degrees until nearly 90 seconds later.
At this wind speed it took 480 seconds for the stockers to stabilize at their coolest temp of 131 degrees...the IPPs actually took a few seconds longer, but at 114 degrees, a 12.98% advantage.
What's this mean to me??
The IPP's exhibited a greater thermal capacity, were slower to reach that capacity and quicker to dissipate the heat and recover. Whether the addition of shrouds focusing the cooling air into the IC fins makes a difference...I don't know. I should have attached the shrouds...but it missed my scrutiny.
Can this be converted to more usable power, and lower IAT's? I have the logs to determine this, need some time and help interpreting them. I can share this...best FATS on the stockers was 5.1 seconds...best FATS on the IPPs was 4.69 seconds.
More to follow...
Flyboy's comments on the test were greatly apprecaited....
There's no question that this test had some shortcomings. But few people have the resources, time, and desire to perform a rigorous scientific test that can stand up to close scrutiny. What was done here was a best effort with the resources available. In my opinion the shortcomings of the test are not sufficient to invalidate the conclusions drawn from the results that were obtained.
The goal of the test was to eliminate as many variables as we could and evaluate the heat transfer rate of the stock intercoolers and IPP intercoolers. The test does not evaluate the pressure losses caused by each intercooler, and that is a performance consideration that should not be overlooked when considering the overall performance of an intercooler.
Because the sole function of an intercooler (heat exchanger) is to take heat from one gas and transfer it to another, this test allowed for evaluating the relative performance of these two intercoolers. The most telling result I feel is the temperature at which each intercooler stabilized. This is the point where the heat being added into the intercooler by the hair dryer was transferred by the IC fins into the surrounding air, without any affect of forced convection via the fan. This showed how well the intercooler alone did at dissipating heat. The results showed that the IPP intercoolers stabilized at a temperature 25F less than the stock IC's. The only other possible explanations for this difference are that the hair dryer produced an output that was 25F hotter during the stock IC test. Or there was some airflow around the IPP IC's for the duration of the test that was not present during the stock IC test.
Because this test analyzed all portions of the heating and cooling cycle, it was possible to determine if one IC outperformed the other in one particular area, perhaps resistance to heat build up, but then fell short in another, such as the dissipation of the stored heat energy. The fact that the IPP intercooler outperformed the stock intercooler through the scope of the test indicates to me the overall superior heat transfer rate of the IPP intercoolers.
One shortcoming of the test that cannot be overlooked is the lack of IC shrouds. For the cool down portion of the test the entire IC, including end tanks was in the air stream, this would not be the case on the car. It's possible that due to the different materials in the IPP end tanks that the cool down rate could have been skewed. Considering that the end tanks are not designed for heat transfer, it doesn't seem likely that the dramatic difference in cool down rates was a result of the lack of IC shrouds.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
markN1689
Audi A3 / S3 / RS 3 MKII
190
04-25-2024 09:14 AM
rayjr13
Parts For Sale - Archive (NO NEW POSTS HERE)
10
04-12-2016 04:43 PM
ZPA117
A4 (B8 Platform) Discussion
4
09-08-2015 11:55 AM