Originally Posted by
xman03
Very good point, I wasn't even thinking about this but in fact this is quite a drastic drop in temps that the IC would not experience in any other conditions and possibly might not be designed to withstand such (especially the sharp drops in temperature versus the sharp increase which it should be designed for) I was actually thinking that this was partially the reason that the ICs do fail while reading the 'broken IC' thread. I don't get on it whatsoever when I drive for at least 10 minutes after the car has fully warmed up per temp gauge.
Great questions.
I had to have a look.
Below are the same three runs, but rescaled and with all graphs removed except IAT.
The first one is back when I just had the one OEM heat exchanger, plus a Johnson pump and separated cooling systems.
The IAT increased at a rate of +1.90 deg/sec during the run, and decreased at a rate of -1.29 deg/sec while decelerating (1/4 mile racing, and 1/4 mile braking).
5-9-12TT1notank1HXjpg.jpg
The second graph below is with two OEM heat exchangers in series and the tank, but no ice.
The IAT increased at a rate of +2.48 deg/sec during the run, and decreased at a rate of -1.97 deg/sec while decelerating.
Those cooling rates alone indicate a 53% increase in cooling by adding the 2nd stock heat exchanger. The cooling rate would probably be even higher with a large supercooler HX.
10-21-12TT2tankwateronly2HX.jpg
The third graph is with ice in the tank and the heat exchangers bypassed.
The IAT decreased at a rate of -2.73 deg/sec while cooling down the initial heatsoak.
The IAT increased at a rate of +2.45 deg/sec during the run, which is nearly identical to the rate with no ice.
The IAT decreased at a rate of -1.58 deg/sec while decelerating, which is actually slower than the previous run with no ice, but very close.
10-21-12TT4icetank.jpg
So the rate of temperature change doesn't change much with the ice tank. But the temperature can be cooled MUCH lower.