T/A KID

iTrader: (12)

427 what was rotor speed of the blower??
The 2.9 is "rated" at 1720cfm which equates to arround 1100-1200 Flywheel

427

iTrader: (3)

I had the pulley for max rotor at 6500rpm, that was power peak. The cfm math jives with fuel consumption also, that puts turning the SC at 140-240hp. That is very good for the superchargers I have used over the years. I like the 2.9 very much, although I would like to test with some inter cooler changes someday.....

Kurt

T/A KID

iTrader: (12)

427 thanks for the info. Interesting you bring up info about the intercooler, I talked to Gerhard at Bell intercoolers and he metioned the inlet/outlet being side by side was not very efficient. Bell is currently building me a intercooler with the inlet on one side and outlet on the other on opposite ends, suppose to be the most efficient design.

I suppose aftermarket companies dont do this because of packaging constrants, but the OEM does this as well.

427

iTrader: (3)

That is the intercooler change I wanted! I ran as high as 35psi water pressure and could not stop the outlet water climbing during a run. I need more volume across the core and the one I have runs water in and out at one end, cutting the flow volume by more than half. I would like that same core change, but I cannot get the guys at Whipple to answer emails asking if that is available.

Kurt

T/A KID

iTrader: (12)

Kurt you may just have to go with Bell or another aftermarket company.

I actually have mine on a LTx engine since Whipple doesn't offer anything for these engines, I had to build it.

ayousef

It seems like having the inlet and outlet on one side makes the intercooler a "dual pass" which is much more efficient? Im guessing intercoolers function the same as heatexchangers in this matter? Why do you think having the outlet on the opposite side of the inlet be any better, just curious what the guys at Bell told you.

Also Kurt did you deliberately run that high of water pressure to speed up the water through the system?

Im asking because everyone I ever spoke to says that a dual pass - which essentially cuts the flow by half - is much more efficient than a single pass.

T/A KID

iTrader: (12)

Ayousef I didn't get into "Why" to much with Gerhard, but when I first done my mock up of my customer intercooler I had the fitting on the same side, side by side and he said that was very efficient. I asked him what would be better and we are where we are now.

IMO heat exchangers would follow the same theory. My HX I have now the inlet and outlet are on opposite sides as well.

ayousef

okay let me make sure I understood you, he said that having them on the same side was very efficient, but having them on opposite sides is even more efficient?

I was in the same boat deciding whether I wanted a dual-pass or single pass heat exchanger because my sense of logic tells me the single pass idea is better however Bill @ rondavisradiators told me the dual pass is much more efficient and also offered to explain it to me but I never called him. If you have a look at most of the aftermarket intercooler heatexchangers they are all dual pass intercoolers not having anything to do with packaging constraints.

i guess time for me to do some research

427

iTrader: (3)

I believe a dual pass intercooler is not good, and my numbers were showing this. The high water pressure was trying to control the temp rise in the inlet air temp by running the water faster, but the dual pass would not let the flow increase.

Kurt

ayousef

my sense of logic tells me a single pass is better also because you cool the most when the temperature differential across the intercooler is the largest. With a dual pass, temp differential would be the greatest on the first pass and the second pass would (based on my common sense) not cool as efficiently as the first.

A dual pass still produced the lower outlet temp BUT at the expense of flowing HALF the amount of water. A single pass might cool less on that one pass but be able to cool twice the volume of water.

Then again all the big names and everyone uses a dual pass with so many scientific reasoning behind this choice.

T/A KID

iTrader: (12)

Sorry I had a typo, should have stated
"I had the fitting on the same side, side by side and he said that was not very efficient."

427

iTrader: (3)

The dual pass would not be good under the supercharger for reducing temps of inlet air. It might be helpful in the grill for reducing the water temp as the delta is so low in the water versus ambient air. That might be what gets confusing.

Kurt

El_Diablo

iTrader: (9)

Good stuff in here. I was just snooping again over the past few days and happened to see this bumped. Last I heard the bigger front breathing blowers got pushed back again.

chuntington101

I gues the problem with the LS platforms is you dont cant run a thick intercooler core. The GT500 guess have about a 4 inch thick core i think and they can run a dual pass pretty well, but thats one pass on top of the other. I think they run cold water in the bottom and hot out the top. This should be VERY effective as you are maintaining the delta T over the whole core.

However on the LS setuops you have to run a shallower core and thus single pass seems the best idea.

kurt, have you considered a middle out feed like you did on some of the TT stuff you have built? that should give more even cooling across the whole core should it not?

427

iTrader: (3)

The main thing I did not like was the water out temp kept climbing during the run, I needed more flow volume. The core location dictates the fittings both on one side, so this core is flowing in on the drivers side, then crosses over in the front of the core and flows back down the passenger side of the core.
Chuntington, what twin turbo did you see with center out?

Kurt

ayousef

sounds right but if you look at the shelby whipple 4.0 blowers they're tiny compared to what I have. If im not mistaken they use the whipple 2.9's intercooler on the GT500 stuff, and Whipple also confirmed that if they ever do a bolt on front feed 4.5l blower that they will use the 2.9s intercooler core because its like 1/4 the size of the intercooler that comes on something like the sandrail kit 4.0's which is what I have on my ZL1.

T/A KID

iTrader: (12)

Ayou how big is the intercooler on the sandrail kit? Fed by 2 -10an ports at the front side by side?

chuntington101

i think the GT500 cores are about (W) 4.5 x (H) 4.5 x (L) 11 so pretty big. they are also rated at over 1000bhp by honeywell who make the core. also they are similar in size to the Garrett 1000bhp core.

I guess the reason for using the 2.9's intercooler core is they already have a lower manifold built for it that works with the front drive and drive shaft.

The same rail core is BIG but not perticularly thick if i remeber. Whipple say its 14”L x 7” W x 3.0” H. So its core great core volume than the GT500 and a larger surface area. So it should cool pretty bloody well! lol

Be nice to see what two of these cores stacked would do!

Chris.

chuntington101

It was something on on another forum (sorry cant remeber). Someone (might not have been you kurt) was commenting on the holley intake with a 2.25 inch thick core better the runners and the lid (with a spacer). It was then commented by, i thought you, about a LS setup using 4 450bhp cores. These where suing center fed with an exit at each end for the water. Was a very nice design.

Chris.

427

iTrader: (3)

That is one I have used before, and currently working on it back burner style. It is center in feed with out on both ends, it has worked well in the past.
I may try and modify the Whipple core as they do not respond to email much. They did say the same core/flow style is used on the 4.0, so the problems will be amplified on that set up.

Kurt