CBRD more testing...
if that ends up being the case cobb should have some research to do, i mean if a program that costs a few dollars to download and a $100 for a cable can out tune their protuner program which i can't imagine is cheap and the AP that cost the user $500 then i guess we know who wins that battle
which sucks because i like not having to have a computer around to reflash my car to different octanes or uninstall it for dealer trips...
now if ecuflash could make an "APP" for andriod that would allow you to just swap maps with it instead of a computer i'd sell my cobb AP in a heart beat
well can't wait to see what happens when you get the turbo and manifold on the car, do you approx time line for that? or any picture of it so far?
Last edited by robyn402; Feb 11, 2011 at 04:09 PM.
...Since we switched from the EVO X CBRD big fmic to the slightly smaller Ralliart Specific intercooler I was able to log that change... Basically my goals were accomplished... smaller and more compact but Identical spool because of the smaller core (less volume) but denser core (slightly higher pressure drop)....
The core is rated to 750 Crank hp... (our evo X 850-900)... so it is more than adequate for even the most demanding ralliart owner!...
The core is rated to 750 Crank hp... (our evo X 850-900)... so it is more than adequate for even the most demanding ralliart owner!...
Last edited by 03chi-town0Z; Feb 14, 2011 at 05:29 AM.
Thread Starter
Account Disabled
iTrader: (60)
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 7,363
Likes: 8
From: york, pa 17402
can you elaborate on the wording that you use regarding the "denser core"? you mention identical spool characteristics, which i would assume means there are no flow restrictions when compared to the stock or evo based intercoolers. so does the pressure drop result from the larger overall volume of the cooler then if there arent any flow restrictions? basically does denser core relate to more passages through the smaller design equating to nearly the same overall surface area being cooled in order to rate this smaller core nearly as high as the larger variant? but then you say the volume is smaller than the evo core, so you wont lose as much pressure from the huge increase in size so that would have to indicate that this core is more restrictive than the evo core if you are still seeing more of a pressure drop than with the evo core? or is my brain just working backward and the lack of restriction in a core with more passages/runners is creating the drop? im just confused on wording and my brain can't seem to work it out on its own. i realize that pressure is just one number to consider and overall airflow is what's important, which is why a larger turbo can make more power at a lower boost pressure because of overall volume of air being moved. if you were able to provide some flow numbers instead of just rated hp numbers would be awesome
maybe in my wording!
In the comparison between the two Intercoolers we offer- the EVO X and the new Ralliart Specific...
EVO X is larger.. slightly less density compared to the Ralliart on the AMBIENT airflow side.. this was done to use a large core but allow ambient airflow to the radiator....
The Ralliart being slightly smaller (aka less overall aero blockage of the radiator)... we used a slightly denser core both ambient and internal than the EVO X intercooler...
The ralliart being denser has slightly more restriction in the CORE but less volume to fill in the tanks and overall charge row length...
I hope this makes sense...
I cant even compare them to the stock stuff.. the stock stuff is tube and fin and lacks the mass to properly cool in high performance applications.
cb
I'm aware of that, they had previously mentioned that they were offering the RAD turbo in a lite and full version like the BBK & BBX.
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/8999280-post30.html
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/8999280-post30.html



I love the boots & hat!!!
