View Poll Results: Which do you like?
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 1013. You may not vote on this poll
Poll: FMIC - Front Mount Intercooler
trinydex,
Dude, you are going to hear me say it again too
I guess in the case of doing some type of real testing such as I did it was shown that the air temps did not drop. That was got me so fired up from the very start and the only reason I had any problems with this entire thread/links. Still the only problem I have with it.
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
Dude, you are going to hear me say it again too
I guess in the case of doing some type of real testing such as I did it was shown that the air temps did not drop. That was got me so fired up from the very start and the only reason I had any problems with this entire thread/links. Still the only problem I have with it.
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
Originally Posted by fromWRXtoEVO
Damnnnn!! that is going to hurt someone!! no WHP improvement uh?, that is some incredible feedback dude, also you lost spool up time? WOW, sorry
We've tested our intercooler many many times and like any well designed unit out there, it works.....period. We don't go fast with parts that work worse than stock.
Dave,
thanks a million for doing the test. I trust that your results are true and honest and it will give the consumer a better idea of which direction to go in buying an intercooler.
charlee
thanks a million for doing the test. I trust that your results are true and honest and it will give the consumer a better idea of which direction to go in buying an intercooler.
charlee
Originally Posted by gsnt
There must have been something wrong here. If we made an intercooler that gained no horsepower and had more lag time, do you think, based on the reputation of our companys parts, we would actually sell it? Definatly not. We would have gone back to the drawing board and started over.
We've tested our intercooler many many times and like any well designed unit out there, it works.....period. We don't go fast with parts that work worse than stock.
We've tested our intercooler many many times and like any well designed unit out there, it works.....period. We don't go fast with parts that work worse than stock.
If engine oil and coolant, and gearbox and diff oil temperatures of the vehicle were not normalized between the runs, the variance could well cover the small hp and tq difference.
Also consider the dyno's inherent variance (whatever it is).
Generally on chassis dynos where thermal control is a problem or takes too long to normalize for true back to back tests, and where testing for small power changes that can easily be swallowed up by the variances, it is more accurate to do a batch of runs and take the average.
The minimum engineering standard is an A-B-A test. If the two As match, then B is valid too and can be compared to A. If they do not match, then the difference between the two As is deducted from the difference between A and B. If A-A difference exceeds A-B difference, the test is invalid.
Ideal would be Batch A - Batch B - Batch A - Batch B with same rules applying except now in averages. Still it is tricky because if you do just 3 pulls a batch and normalize for fluid temps, much time will have passed. This is the reason why some companies invest in engine dynos that are known to repeat to within 1 hp on a 1400hp engine with engine fluid temps held to within 1 deg, cell air properties and pressure controlled and no drivetrain to complicate measurement....
...and even then they still go A-B-A to make sure the baseline has not changed. Just to be doubly sure.
Also consider the dyno's inherent variance (whatever it is).
Generally on chassis dynos where thermal control is a problem or takes too long to normalize for true back to back tests, and where testing for small power changes that can easily be swallowed up by the variances, it is more accurate to do a batch of runs and take the average.
The minimum engineering standard is an A-B-A test. If the two As match, then B is valid too and can be compared to A. If they do not match, then the difference between the two As is deducted from the difference between A and B. If A-A difference exceeds A-B difference, the test is invalid.
Ideal would be Batch A - Batch B - Batch A - Batch B with same rules applying except now in averages. Still it is tricky because if you do just 3 pulls a batch and normalize for fluid temps, much time will have passed. This is the reason why some companies invest in engine dynos that are known to repeat to within 1 hp on a 1400hp engine with engine fluid temps held to within 1 deg, cell air properties and pressure controlled and no drivetrain to complicate measurement....
...and even then they still go A-B-A to make sure the baseline has not changed. Just to be doubly sure.
Originally Posted by Fourdoor
I have no problems with Nisei, but wind chill does not explain the discrepancy in results posted on their web site.
Wind chill only effects the heat loss rate from something that is above ambiant temperature. Totally off topic explanation to follow, skip it if you don't care:
If you take a contact temperature probe outside in winter on a calm day with no wind at 20F air temperature and place it on a rock in the shade it will read 20F. If the wind them picks up to 50 mph with air temp still at 20F and you then place the temperature probe on the same rock it will read 20F.
If you take a Hot rock that you have heated up in an oven out side on a calm day with no wind at 20F air temperature it will cool down at a measureable rate determined by the difference in temperature between the rock and the air temperature, and the surface area of the rock. If you then heat the rock up and take it outside on another day with 20F air temperature but with a 50 mph wind it will cool down much faster at a measureabe cooldown rate determined by difference in temperature, air speed, and surface area exposed to the wind.
This is why you feel colder on a windy day, the heat loss rate from your body is higher even though the air temperature is the same, but a rock sitting in your drive way will be the same temperature no matter what the wind speed is.
Wind chill is a calculated value coorolating the heat loss rate of a human being based on temp and wind speed. When the air temp is 20F but the wind is blowing and someone says that the wind chill is 5F that means that the heat loss rate from your body in that 20F wind is the same as your heat loss rate would be at 5F on a calm day with zero wind.
So Nisei, unless your temperature probe you use for measuring ambiant temperature generates heat as part of it's measurment system (possible but unlikely) your explanation of wind chill is not correct for the strange results in your test.
I don't think you were fudging your results intentionally, but your test was flawed severly in some way.
Keith
PS: You realize Dave has nothing to gain by fudging his results right? If the Nisei design is better Dave will say "Damn, I was wrong.... where can I buy these cores from?" and start making FMIC's of a new design very similar to the current Nisei design. Dave is not shy at all about switching over to something that works better.
Wind chill only effects the heat loss rate from something that is above ambiant temperature. Totally off topic explanation to follow, skip it if you don't care:
If you take a contact temperature probe outside in winter on a calm day with no wind at 20F air temperature and place it on a rock in the shade it will read 20F. If the wind them picks up to 50 mph with air temp still at 20F and you then place the temperature probe on the same rock it will read 20F.
If you take a Hot rock that you have heated up in an oven out side on a calm day with no wind at 20F air temperature it will cool down at a measureable rate determined by the difference in temperature between the rock and the air temperature, and the surface area of the rock. If you then heat the rock up and take it outside on another day with 20F air temperature but with a 50 mph wind it will cool down much faster at a measureabe cooldown rate determined by difference in temperature, air speed, and surface area exposed to the wind.
This is why you feel colder on a windy day, the heat loss rate from your body is higher even though the air temperature is the same, but a rock sitting in your drive way will be the same temperature no matter what the wind speed is.
Wind chill is a calculated value coorolating the heat loss rate of a human being based on temp and wind speed. When the air temp is 20F but the wind is blowing and someone says that the wind chill is 5F that means that the heat loss rate from your body in that 20F wind is the same as your heat loss rate would be at 5F on a calm day with zero wind.
So Nisei, unless your temperature probe you use for measuring ambiant temperature generates heat as part of it's measurment system (possible but unlikely) your explanation of wind chill is not correct for the strange results in your test.
I don't think you were fudging your results intentionally, but your test was flawed severly in some way.
Keith
PS: You realize Dave has nothing to gain by fudging his results right? If the Nisei design is better Dave will say "Damn, I was wrong.... where can I buy these cores from?" and start making FMIC's of a new design very similar to the current Nisei design. Dave is not shy at all about switching over to something that works better.
so the question is... if you stick a thermometer outside of you car... will it get colder...
Originally Posted by bbar
Keith, I think you’re a little confused. I didn’t say, nor did I imply, that water will not boil if the ambient air parcels are saturated. I said that water will not evaporate if the ambient air parcels are saturated. It is a mistake to use the two interchangeably.
There are some non-linear models that explain evaporation relative to relative humidity, but for our purposes this simplified equation should do.
E = 1 – RH
(If you’re interested I can also provide you with the derivation to get this equation, but I don’t want to bore you, nor anyone else reading this!) Anyway, E is the rate of evaporation and RH is relative humidity (in a decimal value...so 70% is .7) So if we have 100% relative humidity, then the equation will look like this:
E = 1 – 1
E = 0
So the rate of evaporation at 100% relative humidity will be zero. Consider as an example a pot of water. If you take a pot of water and put it outside when the ambient air parcels are saturated, then as long water in the pot doesn’t reach its boiling point, the water will not evaporate because the relative humidity is 100%. So since the relative humidity is 100%, there is no energy available to do the work of evaporation. However, if you could somehow heat up the water in the pot (putting a fire under the pot, for example) and heat it above 100C, then it will boil. The steam will not be absorbed by the ambient air parcels because the air parcels are already saturated. What happens is that the steam coming from the boiling pot of water just moves into the ambient air. This will result in a higher local pressure (because there’s more stuff in it now). The water vapor (steam) will eventually cool and since the relative humidity is 100%, it will fall back down (just like rain).
Look up what a sling psychrometer is, or you can look at my first post on the air-to-air intercooler cooling to sub-ambient temperatures. Water vapor in the air, along with wind, will allow this to happen. And moreover, how does the ambient air become saturated in your above description? The Nisei tests were never performed when the ambient air was saturated.
I’m confused. Can you explain this a little bit more? The air doesn’t need to be dry to get cooler than ambient temps (if you have a sprayer it would defiantly help…but it’s not necessary). The air just needs to have some moisture in it (this is so the water molecules will stick to the fins for a second), and the air cannot be saturated (this is so the water on the fins can evaporate to someplace).
There are some non-linear models that explain evaporation relative to relative humidity, but for our purposes this simplified equation should do.
E = 1 – RH
(If you’re interested I can also provide you with the derivation to get this equation, but I don’t want to bore you, nor anyone else reading this!) Anyway, E is the rate of evaporation and RH is relative humidity (in a decimal value...so 70% is .7) So if we have 100% relative humidity, then the equation will look like this:
E = 1 – 1
E = 0
So the rate of evaporation at 100% relative humidity will be zero. Consider as an example a pot of water. If you take a pot of water and put it outside when the ambient air parcels are saturated, then as long water in the pot doesn’t reach its boiling point, the water will not evaporate because the relative humidity is 100%. So since the relative humidity is 100%, there is no energy available to do the work of evaporation. However, if you could somehow heat up the water in the pot (putting a fire under the pot, for example) and heat it above 100C, then it will boil. The steam will not be absorbed by the ambient air parcels because the air parcels are already saturated. What happens is that the steam coming from the boiling pot of water just moves into the ambient air. This will result in a higher local pressure (because there’s more stuff in it now). The water vapor (steam) will eventually cool and since the relative humidity is 100%, it will fall back down (just like rain).
Look up what a sling psychrometer is, or you can look at my first post on the air-to-air intercooler cooling to sub-ambient temperatures. Water vapor in the air, along with wind, will allow this to happen. And moreover, how does the ambient air become saturated in your above description? The Nisei tests were never performed when the ambient air was saturated.
I’m confused. Can you explain this a little bit more? The air doesn’t need to be dry to get cooler than ambient temps (if you have a sprayer it would defiantly help…but it’s not necessary). The air just needs to have some moisture in it (this is so the water molecules will stick to the fins for a second), and the air cannot be saturated (this is so the water on the fins can evaporate to someplace).
Originally Posted by davidbuschur
trinydex,
Dude, you are going to hear me say it again too
I guess in the case of doing some type of real testing such as I did it was shown that the air temps did not drop. That was got me so fired up from the very start and the only reason I had any problems with this entire thread/links. Still the only problem I have with it.
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
Dude, you are going to hear me say it again too
I guess in the case of doing some type of real testing such as I did it was shown that the air temps did not drop. That was got me so fired up from the very start and the only reason I had any problems with this entire thread/links. Still the only problem I have with it.
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
cuz firstly i can say the wave function of one hot molecule of air traveling through an intercooler occupies a larger space. and then i can say the wave function of multiple particles that are cold traveling through the same space are more dense. so which causes more pressure drop? the more energetic able to move but LARGER hot molecule... or the closer packed, less interacting and harder to displace COLDER molecule.
and all these things about moisture... moisture is the largest variable in global warming, all current models that "prove" global warming exists do not account for moisture at ALL! why? cuz the computer can't handle it... so us throwing atmospheric science terminology around concerning how it's affecting the intercooling is totally subject to arguement. plus... the moisture can affect things in BOTH ways... and DOES! so how do we account for that... it's all speculation and the reality is it don't even matter! cuz things were done on the same day for both units.
what do i think? i think it's all in the numbers. nisei didn't fudge their stuff, they said when they started testing... they had to move sensors around... they said they did this as fairly as possible. br says the same, who do you believe? does it really even matter? they're close. i have a nisei... i don't give a crap if you buy a br.
David, can you comment on the shape of the curves between the Nisei and the Race FMIC, or post up the two dynos overlayed? I'm wondering about spool-up and area under the curve.
Originally Posted by davidbuschur
So I thought I would post on test procedure in general.
Peace
wow i missed 3 pages of some fun debates. ok so the BR race is superior to the Nisei, but there is still the cost and fitment issue. do u have to trim the bumper support for both intercoolers? i thought the nisei was a direct bont on? i stand by buschur products and i would like to see how these intercoolers did on a high hp evo such as big AL's . im wondering if there would be more of a difference between the two with considerably more power? all in all either choice is a good one.
and shive u really got some ***** comming on here and saying that directly to david like that. un called for.
and shive u really got some ***** comming on here and saying that directly to david like that. un called for.
Originally Posted by deadbeatrec
wow i missed 3 pages of some fun debates. ok so the BR race is superior to the Nisei, but there is still the cost and fitment issue. do u have to trim the bumper support for both intercoolers? i thought the nisei was a direct bont on? i stand by buschur products and i would like to see how these intercoolers did on a high hp evo such as big AL's . im wondering if there would be more of a difference between the two with considerably more power? all in all either choice is a good one.
and shive u really got some ***** comming on here and saying that directly to david like that. un called for.
and shive u really got some ***** comming on here and saying that directly to david like that. un called for.
