What core do you have?

 

I agree with your point Chad. Especially when it comes to higher compression builds where the charge air temperature before being compressed in the cylinder... is critical. I think the next big improvement of commercially available charge air coolers for the Evo will be in weight reduction department as 03white stated.

**Completely non-scientific viewpoint***
I've had both the older ETS core and the newer ETS core... granted I've never done back to back testing, I've been very happy with their products. I've known the guys at ETS for a long time and they're passionate about product testing and engineering a successful product.

 

I don't have much back to back data to add to this discussion, but I can say this much. I ran all of my passes in my sig up to my best of 10.30 on my FP Red using an ETS 3.5inch core and my 9.96 with an ETS 4.0inch core. The 4inch was purchased prior to their new design that Michael is advertising as an even more improved core then the previous. I have had great success with ETS's cores and will continue to run them.

 

I dont have a evo

 

I do agree.... the weight of the "well working" fmic's is hard to eat... but... there has been no revolutionary technology recently to help us along.

ideas have come and gone, we've looked into carbon tanks.. but the weight is mainly in the core... meh....

cb

 

Don't do me any got the old ets 3.5 not new fin design.

 

I was able to achieve my results with the old fin design. I have yet to use an ETS intercooler with the new fin design. The old ones did the job for me no problem, so with an even more efficient core that they are advertising now, I wouldn't get too caught up on needing thorough hard concrete testing. I'm sure it will only get the job done even better then it already has at a great value.

 

speaking of carbon... I got a new job

 

When you say "smaller" are you refering to a thinner core or reduced frontal area, or both?

 

I am currently running a Nissei old style FMIC, but want badly to upgrade.

 

Depends on the setup, I would imagine. I would probably reduce thickness before frontal area first, but there is some interesting things I'm starting to notice on the Garrett intercooler specs. If you look at HP/lb and HP/Volume, a few cores kind of jump out at you as being more efficient then the others. If you go by an effective density, I'm thinking these cores may have a higher fin density then the others.

I'll be purchasing a core here shortly and based on the numbers, I'm probably going to try out a different core then I had originally planned. This core will be shorter in flow length, which greatly reduces cost. It should support far more HP then I ever intend to make while being about 8 pounds lighter then the core of interest in this thread.

 

Did you actually get your new job? Congrats buddy btw I fly out in a hour

Mikey

 

Have a good trip, Mikester!

 

Hopefully the weather doesn't effect your trip. It's going to be NASTY in this whole region (Mid-Atlantic/Northeast) tonight! Safe trip, duder.

-Jalla

 

Yeah, I would tend to agree with you right off the bat! Given my druthers, I would also favor increased IC frontal area over increased core thickness, given the choice. But, I think that the Evo VIII/IX package is limited as to how far you can increase an IC's frontal area within the constraints of the car's pointy front end design.