Thread: TMIC discussion
View Single Post
Old 03-23-2007, 12:44 PM   #2
Unabomber
Big Ron
Moderator
 
Member#: 18062
Join Date: Apr 2002
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: I can save you a ton of cash
Vehicle:
on car parts so PM
me b4 j00 buy

Default

http://www.bellintercoolers.com/pages/techFAQ.html pretty much is the God source of information that you are seeking. We can honestly debate this day and night, but without back to back testing of a few types with a MAHA dyno (the only dyno that creates real airflow), tempIN and tempOUT gauges to rate effeciency, and some logging of pressure through a flow bench of units......we are going to state our theories to infinity.

Personally....I have heard that tube and fin is more effecient, especially so for the JDM tube and fin models like ARC. Downside is they are terribly expensive. Another key is core thickness. Dan at Prodrive told me that Prodrive's test (for WRC?) concluded that at speeds, the rear of the Impreza engine bay becomes a low pressure region shunning flow downwards. Their testing proved that a thinner TMIC is better for effeciency. The only manufacturer who has found this to be true as well and has created a TMIC that is specifically thinner is the brand new Process West unit, though it's a bar and plate as they stated that quality Japanese tube and fin units would have killed the pricing. Process West also took the additional and HIGHLY important step of creating a purpose built splitter/shroud which is critical in the effeciency of the intercooler. Notice that only APS and Process West have been smart enough to have matched splitter/shroud units? Why? Those Aussies tend to test vs. zip a bunch of crap onto the market.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Unabomber is offline   Reply With Quote