That's different, but kinda cool!
Yeah and they are getting faster all of the time now with my buddies center plates.2443tt said:The dam rotaries from Pac performance over here are in the 6's now with their mazda MX6 bodies tube chassis car.
Are the issues you had (seats moving, heads not holding up, etc.) with a traditional air-to-water, seperate water tank, or with no intercooler at all? If you talk to the Garrett Engineers, they will tell you that an intercooler is going to be more efficient with ice water passing (flowing) through the cores. Obviously, race car construction is a game of compromises. In the dragster case, you have little/no room and weight is a concern. In the case of a door car, you have a little more to work with, and in the case of "small" tire cars (i.e. Outaw 10.5), a little extra weight over the rear is helpful. Plus, it makes a good place to put the trans-cooler.6secondvw said:Hey Chad, who says it dont work?, we have one on our Dragster, dropped the air intake temps down to 70 degrees, even though the ambient temp outside has been 120 degrees.... valves seats dont move like they use to, heads hold up better, car runs more consistently with it. Yes we still didnt run any faster then without the "ice pack", but we still dont have enough runs on it considering still finding the tune up for it as far as the fuel demand, added weight and other changes we made to the set up. (intercooler, fully loaded added 75 lbs, our 33.5x 17x 16 slicks with beadlocks added 40 lbs more rotating weight then our 33x 14 combo.. that alone added 115 lbs to the rear of our car) then , as we started to creep up on our tune up, we found out that our fuel pump was going bad all the time we were running. when we got it freshened up, it changed our WHOLE set up again, WAY TOO MUCH FUEL!!!., thus the performance at the 2007 Las Vegas Bug-in...on top of having to not run the intercooler.... but thats another story.
considering there the only two cars thats not exactly what i would call proof6secondvw said:but when you look at the fact that both the 2 fastest air cooled race cars in the world (also the 2 fastest EFI and Mechanical injected turbo aircooled opposed engines) both use "icepack" style intercoolers, you cant deny thats proof in the "pudding" so to speek, that the ice pack system is the way to go.
no i do like the salt ideapfer10 said:Water can transfer heat much better than air. The problem with an ice packed box is there are air gaps which actually act as an insulator. Only portions of the ice touch the metal to transfer the heat. It can work fine but using an ice/water solution should be able to transfer more heat if designed right and move that heat away from the charge. As mentioned there are trade offs with any system. If one system can get the job done without adding things like complexity, weight, pumps etc then it probably makes sense to use it. If you put salt in the water you can even get a cooler water solution than 32F (0C) of course the Al isn't going to like the salt solution much.
Try putting some warm beers in a cooler and load it up with ice. In another I will put my warm beer in and fill it mostly with water then add ice. We will see who is drinking cold beer first!
I think pfer10 described it best. With the icebox setup, you have air pockets, which in turn creates "hot spots" on the cores. His beer/cooler example is a perfect illustration. All this leads to is inefficency. You actually need a little pressure to push the water through the hot spots, and the only way you get that is with a water pump. Also, on the ice box setup, you are relying on gravity to "pull" the water and ice through the core. This can be an issue in a situation like drag racing where g-load can affect how gravity works.RodPenrose said:To cadprovw , I am interested to know your theory on why the ice box intercooler is not as efficient .