Intercoolers only reduce power if they are a CFM restriction.

To test this you can dyno your car non-turbo with a regular air intake on it, and then again with the intercooler in the middle of that air intake. If you lose anything noticeable (>2%), then it is a restriction. If not, then it will not be a restriction in boost either (boost increases density, NOT CFM).

 

Alright hang on big guy, you know me by now those points are just bait. Everything I said is correct its just that some of it insignificant or irrelevant to some of our goals.

1. First, fuel pump or pump in general is an opinion. I think of it like this: I'd rather have a mech. water pump than an electric one. I'd rather have a mech fan than an electric one. Or maybe have both. So the same with pumps of any kind, if I can avoid the scavenging pump, then the solution goes > to the left. So gravity drain > scavenging pump. So hard parts which make the engine safer > pumps that make the engine safer is all I was saying and it is an opinion so you can disagree all you want and still be right.

So far so good? gonna break it up into pieces

 

So this is very interesting because we always associate air with power. Air mass with power is all anybody thinks anymore. Want to see how much power it can make? Look at the compressor map. I get it, and I don't think ur stupid for thinking this way because we all do it.

However, the lesson here is that in thermodynamics the opposite is true: The fuel contains the energy. You can directly correlate fuel quality/content with how far a vehicle can go, or how much power maximum it can produce, how many Joules/second or Watts or Horsepower.

If this is really true, then we must expect that the lower the octane, the better the economy an engine can achieve. Which means the higher octane fuels contain less energy/mass as well.

Which is all completely true.


Ready for moar
I know you know ur ****, I've learned from you. Not sure what but definetely nice having you post, we are thankful for your experiences and knowledge.
I was more fishing for the new guys trying to bash you with incredulous exclamation points.
Still hope you get something out of your time here so, glad if you do

 

Not sure how a pumps reliability is opinion. Or why your preference for a mechanical pump is relevant. Most EFI setups rely on electronic pumps. The methanol kit is no different. If installed/maintained correctly, it shouldn’t be any less reliable. With AFR safeties in place, pump failure isn’t an issue anyway.

We aren’t talking about exotic fuels, again not relevant.

Topic being debated is… Can typically used aux injection kit replace an IC. In terms of power production the basic answer is no. In terms of knock threshold…. I’d say it’s debatable and application specific.

 

All intercoolers are restrictions. Even a straight pipe is a restriction, there is friction, collisions with the inside surface, and it has a heat transfer rate, so straight pipe is technically also an intercooler.

Removing lengths of pipe can improve power, removing sharp corners can improve output, correcting to the right length and diameter int/exh pipes is a tuneable feature on intake and exhaust because there is kinetic and internal energy in the movement of air molecules, which counts for something, as it can work with, or against an engine which is really from the outside just a timed series of small windows. This is energy that is besides the raw mass/area or mass/time scale we see when using a compressor map or calculating VE, and must be accounted for in other ways.

 

moral is
three pumps > two pumps > 1 pump

I've always wondered how we would find out when one of the three pumps in the tank dies on a 1200rwhp dynojet car? Never did see what would happen...

----
second, fuel will make additional power, because of octane. 87 packs more energy than 93. You go farther on 87. We are not talking exotic fuels we are trying to put together a puzzle of why 93 is better. It isn't because it contains more energy, so I get why you would dismiss this issue as being moot. Its ok if you don't care that 87 has more energy inside it. Its also ok if you want to ignore the 0-octane fuel they used as the 0-starting point on the octane scale as a "ground zero" but since it does exist maybe other people wish to understand that zero octane is a definable point, available fuel and the fuel is called n-heptane. And that if we could run n-heptane, our cars would get better fuel economy. It is historic and scientific to consider why and how an "octane scale" came into being and how it is measured. The goal is to understand how it works all together, not to just accept blindly even good advice on the internet.

Let us examine this example you have provided. 400*F 25psi vs 130*F 25psi.
Okay, I see what you did here. The problem with this "example" is that it is impossible to achieve in the real world. The pre-intercooler pipe pressure would need to be initially higher than 25psi no matter what in order to provide no less than 25psi on the exit.

So you would have the engine at 25psi and 400*F,
You add the intercooler and the pressure before the intercooler is 25psi and the temp is 400*F just like before, so the compressor is still flowing the same amount of air as it was before the intercooler was installed and it may flow even less now that some kinetic energy is being lost through the intercooler as well which may change turbine behavior. On the other side of the a/w intercooler its denser maybe 22.4psi and 130*F. So now you need to raise the engine boost some 2.6psi to compensate for intercooler pressure drop, giving you a new final 25psi on the exit and ultimately raising compressor RPM and engine power.

 

You answered the topic! All responses are stellar, nobody could argue with any point you've made on this topic. Topic "closed" good outcome,


anybody can post you more questions I am sure forcefed would be happy to answer them as well

 

Quoted for 100% factual info,
which is few and far between in here......