New intercooler idea!... Maby [Archive] - SaabCentral Forums

: New intercooler idea!... Maby


henderd
26th January 2004, 11:35 PM
I was checking out the new audi s3 and saw that it runs 2 small intercoolers at the two front corners of the car.
www.s-cars.org/s3/Gallery/S3_Gallery/s3_gallery_48.html

I think this will work in a 900 clasic turbo.
Has anyone seen this?
Has anyone given this some thought?
I think it will work with one modified (shortened) IC to turbo pipe running to the "new" stock 900IC placed in front of the battrey, a custome crossover pipe to the stock IC then in to the throttle body as usual. I think it will work.
I am in to the "junkyard" upgrades, as I am hardly employed now.

DeLorean
27th January 2004, 12:23 AM
there are a lot of intercooler options out there, many more complex than others! What a lot of people here will tell you is to go with a Volvo 740 intercooler with the C-900. The Volvo intercooler is massive compared to the classic 900 intercooler, and it's front mount so it will get much more airflow as well... the reason my SPG does not have one is because in my opinion the pipe work required to install the unit hangs too low to the ground for a safety margin :( Something to think about may be to get a volvo intercooler and change the end caps to something that's custom. That should eliminate the problems with routing the intercooler pipe work. the dual IC idea is neat, but to my knowledge no one has ever tried it. For all out performance, you want an FMIC. it's simply the best way to go for maximum intercooling. Anyway, just posting a few ideas!


http://www.saabcentral.com/techhelp/c900/volvo_ic/default.htm

That's a link to Petes set up, but you know my problem with that :-? Still, there may be some way to make it work...

henderd
27th January 2004, 12:49 AM
Thanks for the input jeff.
I do not like the Volvo IC: too much front-end modd, susceptible to damage, plus lots of time. I think the extra thermal mass of a second IC would give my modest 15 psi of boost just what it needs (only 91 octane in Denver :cry:). With two IC fans, some ducting in the front bumper, should give me more than twice the stock intercooling capacity.

David

Matthew
27th January 2004, 06:14 AM
The Volvo IC flows only 200CFM due to its thin core and miniature channels. If you accept the rule that required airflow = BHP x 1.5, then the 200CFM Volvo is good for a shade under 134BHP.

The IC is unlikely to saturate due to its huge size, but it will strangle your engine's airflow IMO. This has the effect of making the turbocharger work harder than it has to, with consequent rise in EGT and intake charge temp.

Janne Selinummi
27th January 2004, 06:54 AM
It's also worth a note, that the standard I/C of the C900 is a bad design by flow standards as well. It will feature quite a lot of pressure drop when used under high boost, and two similar units connected would just make that worse. You would end up losing lots of the gained hp because of that pressure drop. I wouldn't go for a Volvo I/C nor a 9000 I/C, since all they are in the end, are just standard OE parts with poor flow. Get a thicker, better flowing core from a truck, for example, and have some smoothly-shaped alloy end tanks made. Then fit the thing in front of the radiator, and you will have real intercooling!

Matthew
27th January 2004, 07:52 AM
The C900 IC as a complete unit is a poorly performing intercooler. However, this IMO isn't due to bad core design but it because of the location, forced airflow U-turn and the small core size.

Forget for a moment all the above factors which compromise the intercooler's performance.

If you analyse cross-sectional area of the channels on a late-model core, they're really quite a good size. In fact, it's a better design IMO than some aftermarket ICs (Pace springs to mind).

If the C900 core was three times the size, with alloy end-tanks and top-to-bottom airflow, you'd have a very capable IC: excellent airflow, significant thermal mass and short channel lengths.

All IMHO of course ;)

tandino
27th January 2004, 08:38 AM
The Volvo IC flows only 200CFM due to its thin core and miniature channels

This test (Autospeed) wasnt a conclusive 'flow bench' test iirc,
Afaic there is no definative cfm test for the Volvo i/c,
Agreed the Volvo i/c is not the best flowing i/c out there but for its chargecooling ability it does a good job for little money,
Throttle response in my car subjectively did not change when installing the Volvo from the stock C900 i/c...
Iirc the tests i have seen highlighted the Volvo i/c was more efficient than the Saab 9000 i/c and there are plenty of 9000's running around producing 300+bhp on the stock i/c.
I also cant see Volvo installing a i/c rated at <134bhp on a car which as standard produced 180+bhp - Volvo have been in the turbo game as long/longer than Saab in terms of HGV's so i doubt they would overlook this simple calculation....

Pete.

mattfaulks
27th January 2004, 09:00 AM
If the C900 core was three times the size, with alloy end-tanks and top-to-bottom airflow, you'd have a very capable IC: excellent airflow, significant thermal mass and short channel lengths.

All IMHO of course ;)

Shall I get the TIG welder out? :lol:

Alex
27th January 2004, 01:30 PM
The Volvo IC flows only 200CFM due to its thin core and miniature channels

This test (Autospeed) wasnt a conclusive 'flow bench' test iirc,
Afaic there is no definative cfm test for the Volvo i/c,
Agreed the Volvo i/c is not the best flowing i/c out there but for its chargecooling ability it does a good job for little money,
Throttle response in my car subjectively did not change when installing the Volvo from the stock C900 i/c...
Iirc the tests i have seen highlighted the Volvo i/c was more efficient than the Saab 9000 i/c and there are plenty of 9000's running around producing 300+bhp on the stock i/c.
I also cant see Volvo installing a i/c rated at <134bhp on a car which as standard produced 180+bhp - Volvo have been in the turbo game as long/longer than Saab in terms of HGV's so i doubt they would overlook this simple calculation....

Pete.

The Autospeed test was a good comparative test, its the shame that the Saab IC wasn't tested at the same time (infact the original wording on the Autospeed test was Saab/Volvo as they weren't sure which car the IC came from) as the 'leaf blower' test didn't really flow enough air to be representative.

uberfast
27th January 2004, 05:11 PM
Yeah I thought about creting a setup useing two c900 8v turbo ic's... the alloy ones. Using an airflow bumper would help out the most py proving a good amoutn of both room for two seperate ic's and to flow a good amount of air to each ic. I'll have to draw a diagram some time.

Widde
27th January 2004, 05:15 PM
I've got my two stock 900ic at my local welder right now :cheesy: . Two are becoming one (crossflow ofcourse :wink: )
The welder has time until march until it needs to be done so it might be awhile until pictures and data will be avaible.

first sketch (pipes will be 2.5" in the finished IC)
http://www.900aero.com/images/tech/ritning.jpg

Janne Selinummi
27th January 2004, 05:23 PM
What about turning the core so that the tubes would be vertical? Then take the inlet-outlet pipes from the ends of the end tanks - this would make for an ideal shape, according to Corky Bell, and it would result in better flow and more even cooling... Just an idea!

ejenner
27th January 2004, 05:55 PM
How does the Abbott chargecooler system fit in here?

Just read the entire thread - (since getting into Saabs) - I only know that intercoolers are important but have heard so much info on different options that there does not appear a to be a device or setup that really stands out.

Obviously Abbotts talk-up they're own system - not always best to go with what you read on commercial sites though!

Matthew
27th January 2004, 06:12 PM
How does the Abbott chargecooler system fit in here?
There was a bit of discussion on the Abbott chargecooler in this thread:
http://www.saabcentral.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11198

ejenner
27th January 2004, 06:28 PM
That's all quite interesting - RE: Abbott chargecooler thread.

Someone was saying the Abbott setup was 140cfm - this post says the volvo unit is 206cfm - if I remember right.

Volvo unit is the obvious way to go - ??

Alex
27th January 2004, 06:37 PM
That's all quite interesting - RE: Abbott chargecooler thread.

Someone was saying the Abbott setup was 140cfm - this post says the volvo unit is 206cfm - if I remember right.

Volvo unit is the obvious way to go - ??

The cfm figures do depend on what test circumstances are used. There is no mention of inlet pressure at all for the Abbott figures and their cfm for the standard c900 IC is only enough for 65bhp!

The Autospeed figures are relative against the other ICs in the test, not absolute values.

boxman
28th January 2004, 05:32 AM
i thought of doing this on a 99 that i fitted a t16 to but
a) there wasnt room
b) i decided that there would be too much heat soak from the turbo its self therefor heating the charge air not cooling it as planned