IPP Intercoolers versus Stock Intercoolers ! Part II ~ Cruise, In-Car Road Tests
09-29-2006, 07:08 PM
#71
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 10,857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK. Fair enough. How come stock IC's had TC?
I saw some severe overboost TC on my old 2+ GIAC (K08x) with AWE IC's. My stock IC's had no overboost TC. I almost think it is better to log block 115 instead of block 3. If your boost is affected, can see it easily.
Bruce
Bruce
09-29-2006, 07:39 PM
#72
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was a bit surprised by that myself. A couple possibilities,
Michael has K04's running on K03 software. He's also using APR software, maybe it's more sensitive to an overboost condition.
I did have Michael log boost to see where the car was boosting to initially, but didn't log boost over a FATS run. We wanted to capture MAF, Speed, and IAT, so we logged blks 003, 005, 011. Boost would have been nice, but with the throttle position from blk 003 we could see that TC was happening. Even if we had the boost log for the FATS I still would not want to say anything about the assumed affect on power, it would be hard to defend anything with the throttle at only 40% for part of the FATS.
I mentioned in a previous reply, if the car is making the requested boost then the pressure drop from the IC isn't a big deal, and HP should not be affected much at all. I believe some of these dyno measured improvements are from cars running more boost than they did on the stock IC's. That's a very different scenario from a car that makes requested boost on both the stock and aftermarket IC's. The car making requested boost with either IC probably won't show any HP gains. The car that makes requested boost on the stock IC's and then makes an excess over requested boost on aftermarket IC's should produce more power, but it's really because the car isn't functioning correctly.
I did have Michael log boost to see where the car was boosting to initially, but didn't log boost over a FATS run. We wanted to capture MAF, Speed, and IAT, so we logged blks 003, 005, 011. Boost would have been nice, but with the throttle position from blk 003 we could see that TC was happening. Even if we had the boost log for the FATS I still would not want to say anything about the assumed affect on power, it would be hard to defend anything with the throttle at only 40% for part of the FATS.
I mentioned in a previous reply, if the car is making the requested boost then the pressure drop from the IC isn't a big deal, and HP should not be affected much at all. I believe some of these dyno measured improvements are from cars running more boost than they did on the stock IC's. That's a very different scenario from a car that makes requested boost on both the stock and aftermarket IC's. The car making requested boost with either IC probably won't show any HP gains. The car that makes requested boost on the stock IC's and then makes an excess over requested boost on aftermarket IC's should produce more power, but it's really because the car isn't functioning correctly.
09-30-2006, 05:13 AM
#73
AudiWorld Super User
Thread Starter
" so you can independently verify that I correctly identified the TC" ??
When the car momentarily ceases to produce power, and then throws a charge pressure exceeded code, then limps into tht next run...I'd call that throttle cut..
09-30-2006, 05:15 AM
#74
AudiWorld Super User
Thread Starter
I logged 115 on a seperate set of logs, but only on the IPP's
So without comparable data on for the Stockers, this wasn't included in the writeup.
I would be happy to share any and all info I have.
I'm not challenging your post at all... but I can assure you it was throttle cut.
I would be happy to share any and all info I have.
I'm not challenging your post at all... but I can assure you it was throttle cut.
09-30-2006, 05:50 AM
#75
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What conditions would you suggest trying to test for? The
true test would be extended high boost, but that ain't happening out on a highway. Or at least I wasn't willing to ask Michael to risk it.
We were trying to do tests that would say something about the capacity of the intercooler to transfer heat, within the limitations of public streets.
It may be a bit premature to conclude the tests weren't that beneficial. I get the impression there is some attribution of the lack of difference to the type of test we did. Once we get done testing the RS4 IC's and comparing those results we may be in a better position to decide if the tests were inadequate, or that the stock and IPP IC's are very similar in terms of temperature performance.
I would like to hear what conditions you think should be tested, we may be able to fashion a test to simulate those conditions.
We were trying to do tests that would say something about the capacity of the intercooler to transfer heat, within the limitations of public streets.
It may be a bit premature to conclude the tests weren't that beneficial. I get the impression there is some attribution of the lack of difference to the type of test we did. Once we get done testing the RS4 IC's and comparing those results we may be in a better position to decide if the tests were inadequate, or that the stock and IPP IC's are very similar in terms of temperature performance.
I would like to hear what conditions you think should be tested, we may be able to fashion a test to simulate those conditions.
09-30-2006, 06:14 AM
#76
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If conditions allow, 2 backtoback fats+ tests with heavy braking and as much boost as possible.
I know I'm asking too much so I'll settle what ever you can do on your best effort ; )
Cant really ask too much from voluntary testing.
Night time is my only testing time also and even then there is traffic to watch out for.
Cant really ask too much from voluntary testing.
Night time is my only testing time also and even then there is traffic to watch out for.
09-30-2006, 03:45 PM
#77
AudiWorld Super User
Thread Starter
I'm not sure I understand...
We did a series of no less then 5 FATS runs back to back.. FATS, AFAIK, is WOT, which equals as much boost as possible.
Even though the stretch of road I use is a deserted stretch that goes through a local barrier island, I bring the car down from 90+ to about 40 immediately, and abruptly (quick re-bed of the brake pads and avoid a ticket) Cool-down was left to just a minute or two, done in the same gear, fourth, on every run.
What more are you asking for? and please help me understand why.
Even though the stretch of road I use is a deserted stretch that goes through a local barrier island, I bring the car down from 90+ to about 40 immediately, and abruptly (quick re-bed of the brake pads and avoid a ticket) Cool-down was left to just a minute or two, done in the same gear, fourth, on every run.
What more are you asking for? and please help me understand why.
09-30-2006, 04:32 PM
#78
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what he is suggesting is that there be essentially
no cool down between the FATS. As soon as you get down to around 45 mph from the first FATS you start a second FATS. From a practical stand point it makes the data collecting riskier, and doesn't simulate a real world scenario. It does have the benefit of stressing the intercoolers more, but if you break it down into what it is, a FATS run, followed by a FATS run with the intercoolers beginning at a slightly higher temperature, I don't believe we would have learned that much more about the intercoolers. We could have accomplished a similar effect by idling on the side of the road allowing the IC's to heat up and then doing the FATS. The only thing that is changing is the temperature the IC starts at.
More information is always nice to have, and mulitple non-stop FATS would have been something nice to do, but we could sit around an concoct all sorts of tests that would have involved different procedures but little additional knowledge.
I'm open to hearing other ideas, there might be a good suggestion that somebody in the future can try. I'm still content that the tests that were done are quite valuable.
More information is always nice to have, and mulitple non-stop FATS would have been something nice to do, but we could sit around an concoct all sorts of tests that would have involved different procedures but little additional knowledge.
I'm open to hearing other ideas, there might be a good suggestion that somebody in the future can try. I'm still content that the tests that were done are quite valuable.
09-30-2006, 05:17 PM
#79
AudiWorld Super User
Thread Starter
You know...a few people have been implying that the tests don't simulate conditions- ->
under which IC's are meant to be used.
To this... Five FATS runs, even with a short cool-down in between are far more stressful and less reflective of daily driving.. even hard-core driving. At least for me. The most aggressive street racer doesn't do two races back to back as such a test would be depicting.
It might be closer to what a track event would impose on the car although even there, with drafting conditions and traffic around you the IC's see more turbulent air then a FATS run.
How closely does a dyno pull duplicate a real world road condition?? Blowers pumping cooling air into the shrouds and cool-down period between pulls, with no wind resistence?
So where will this stop? Next someone will suggest we should have tested the performance of the IC's going in reverse.
I believe the tests we did were pretty comprehensive given the restraints we had. I believe the only shortcoming was in the bench test...if I could do that over I would change a few things.
YGM...the RS4 cruise data...about two hours worth.
To this... Five FATS runs, even with a short cool-down in between are far more stressful and less reflective of daily driving.. even hard-core driving. At least for me. The most aggressive street racer doesn't do two races back to back as such a test would be depicting.
It might be closer to what a track event would impose on the car although even there, with drafting conditions and traffic around you the IC's see more turbulent air then a FATS run.
How closely does a dyno pull duplicate a real world road condition?? Blowers pumping cooling air into the shrouds and cool-down period between pulls, with no wind resistence?
So where will this stop? Next someone will suggest we should have tested the performance of the IC's going in reverse.
I believe the tests we did were pretty comprehensive given the restraints we had. I believe the only shortcoming was in the bench test...if I could do that over I would change a few things.
YGM...the RS4 cruise data...about two hours worth.
