Well here are a pair of videos to show the differences that I FOUND between a used INtercooler that was dirty before and after I chemically cleaned it. I will wash it again with acetone or lacquer thinner to be sure I am happy with it. The wash water was way dirty, and I used soap and hot water, then chemically did it again including carburator cleaner. Lots of dirt came out. Wish I had saved it to show you. Anyway....

These two videos use a sensitive pressure gauge and a shop vac which I estimate at about 250 cfm on a three hose. At this low flow, you can ONLY get a feel for the effect that cleaning the core has made. Enjoy the information and reflect on the RELATIVE suction or pressure loss in the before and after tests. It showed me exactly what I was thinking, and fits my estimate of what we are all going down the road with.

Maybe we can get Rob to test flow one of his new ones with the thermal coating versus some of his shop leakers. Hint Hint. . . old buddy.

Here are the links, Wdy

Dirty dirth:

Dirty IC flow test - YouTube

Clean as a bean

washed IC flow testing - YouTube

Is that what is buggin you bunkey??? video . . old school humor

The Old Philosopher Eddie Lawrence - YouTube

 

Just a strange idea.
I know for a fact that some companies would put a stop leak solution in their coolant systems during assembly. This would supposedly help lube the system and cut down on warranty leaks.
I have no idea if MB did this. However if they did all srt owners would benefit from cleaning that stuff out is the IC and HE

 

Oh yeah. Gotz to love me some Eddie! Thanks Walz!

 

Yea, right. So you are saying to remove the stuff that has possibly been preventing leaks ( if it was put in OEM, that is ), then sit back and see how many leaks it WAS stopping ?
Sounds like a plan to me.
( you are more than welcome to ignore this comment, as I don't have a dog in this fight )

 

ok, bud. i have a leaky one here, a brand new thermal coated one here, a new v8 IC here, and a promising non OEM core we have been playing with. i'm callin ya...

 

I saw no material that looked like a leak stop, sadly leak stop would add to the insulation of the fins and retard heat transfer, a bad thing. The leaks are caused by the poor design of the heat exchanger, initial assembly problems, and the thermal stresses caused by operation, heat cycling.

Woody

 

These are some interesting results.
My first post above was obviously about the water core section.
Poor flow there would obviously hinder its cooling capacity.

I wonder if spraying water/meth threw the HE would help keep it clean.

 

If there is a leak this stuff will go through the hole with the liquid and if the leak is small enough the particles gets wedged in the hole and other particles pile into the smaller hole until there is no more flow through the leak. When that happens all the other particles keep flowing around with the antifreeze and settle nowhere. The blockages inside would be minimal unless there were other problems.

Woody was just testing airflow through the fins which were blocked by dried AF in the airways.

 

Everyone keeps concentrating on what is leaking into the intake track but I'm telling you that while making boost the direction is the other direction. Air is pushed into the I/C circuit really hurting flow and heat transfer. What does everyone always say? "Did you bleed all the air out? Are you sure?" Well, if you have an intercooler leak you always have air in the system.

Les

 

That's good that you found no evience of any anti leak agent in there.
Like I said I had no idea if MB used any. I do know is it has caused me grief in the past on other makes.

 

Lots of good info so far, thanks Woody! Thanks for donating parts for more research Rob!

 

Wood - did you clean the wet side as well?....would be a good exercise - but I'm sure you did.....
Great result - these 2 numbers are very important...even though they may only be "indicative".

To put it relatively.....9 minus 5 = 4" WG - lets say its 250cfm.....
pressure drop quadruples for every doubling of velocity (cfm in this case across a constant cross sectional area) so at 500cfm the drop would be 16"WG and at 750cfm...(for a 6000rpm 20psi) setup = 32" of WG or about 1.2psi (8kPa).
Putting this into some other perspectives.....

At 750cfm, the needswings intakes are reported to yield an improvement of 20"WG...over stock. You can recalculate that from the data presented by Needswings here.
https://www.crossfireforum.org/forum...tml#post374823
that change is worth about an 8rwhp gain.

So gains are diffinitely there - we gotta find a way of cleaning these without a remove/install.

In ref to "push/suck" comment - they are not different actions...they relate back simply to pressure differential - they are the same thing - simply pressure equalisation.

 

when I first replied...I worked on 750cfm = 1.2psi.....that's not correct.
750cfm 20"WG gain is atmospheric intake/snorkle conditions, in this CAC situation we are talking boosted conditions at 20psi (62mm SC pulley).
Hence the volume through the cooler is significantly less.

I picked this up beacuse I was getting 8rwhp from the DCAI from needswings figures, but only getting 1.2psi but only a 6wrhp gain from the CAC clean.
I had a bit of a think and worked out that's because at redline (6000rpm for simplicity) the engine is consuming 370cfm - that is the number (slightl larger due to some dP) flowing through the CAC (charge air cooler to be precise) to the engine.
In that case the 4"WG converts into (370/250)^2 x 4" = 9"WG

But needless to say - if the needswings intake can give you 8rwhp and people's "seat of the pants dyno" senses a significant gain there....there is every reason to chase the 6rwhp gain to be had on the offing with a good CAC clean....lets get on it!

Wood - sorry to hyjack...all related.

 

I have not done the math but lets work it out. . . .

3.2 liters x 6000 RPM DIVIDE by 2 ( 4 stroke motor: i.e. 2 revs per displacement ) = 9600 liters per minute.

1 cubic foot = 28.3 liters.

9600 liters / min. /// 28.3 liters / cfm= 339 cfm.

Given an SRT-6 motor under full throttle boost at "JUST" 14.7 PSIG boost = 2x the engine cfm demanded = 678 cfm near-abouts or as engineers say thats a WAG.

************************************************** **************

The 4 - 5 inches of water pressure drop in the IC, due to crud ( restriction )

1 inAq ≈ .036 psi, or 27.7 inAq ≈ 1 psi.

therefore 4.5 ( the average pressure change ) x 0.036 = 0.162 psi drop.

Assuming ( beware of that term ) Atmosphere = 14.7 psig @ sea level

Therefore 0.162 psig / 14.7 psig = 0.011 normalized OR ABOUT 1.1% pressure loss : MEASURED at 1/3 on nominal engine flow ( see above 678 cfm ). My shop vac was about 250 cfm, which means that a dirty Innercooler costs you from 1.1% on the low side up to about 5% given the greater ( actual engine air flow of 678 cfm ) rate of air moving thru the innercooler.

1% is the change due to a cooler inlet temperature ( IAT ) of about 10 degrees 2+ to 4 H/P
5% is a difference that will kick your buttt 10 to 20 HP.

This gives you the range to anticipate 2 to 20 HP depending on the math, restriction of the intercooler, and test equipment.

I GOTTA GET A BIGGER SHOP VAC !!!!! ROB - please test the new IC and your dirty one to show us the difference ( again ) for comparison.

Woody ENJOY>

WAG = wild *** guess

BTW the water side was clean it seemed, I chemically cleaned the whole thing as I have to do some rework to and fix the leaks, video needs to be made up, next week.






Just wanted to figure cfm at 17PSIG boost;

14.7 + 17 / 14.7 = 31.7 / 14.7 =
= boost of 2.156 x times 339 CFM of unboosted motor or 731 cfm.

 

Very useful and interesting stuff, Woody. Thanks for your persistence!

 

It's 370cfm 'cause I've included the 11% null space at the top of the cylinder
(9.0:1 compression ratio) .....= 1.11x3.2L = 3.55L requirement.
I stand corrected - but I think 3.2L is "displacement" - but not the total volume intake requirement.
(that should raise a few eyebrows either way)

please dont hyjack woody's thread....its all been good so far.....apart from me of course....

And - the point I'd like to make - 370 is effectively the flow through the CAC as well, not the 750cfm
750 is going into the intakes.

 

UH the down under math has me. THe full air flow goes thru the CAC and THEN to the intake.

I still stand on 3.2 liter as the displacement's SWEPT VOLUME.

Either way I stand on 700++ cfm under boost and allow the forum sort out the detail (s).

Woody

 

370cfm at 2.41kg/m3 @ 19.1psig and 122F into valves...
421cfm at 2.12kg/m3 @ 19.1psig and 203F into CAC...
750cfm at 1.20kg/m3 @ 0psig and 68F into front intakes.

 

Iam wrong, the answer came to me, the inlet is about 750 cfm, but the engine is 339 cfm at a boosted - higher density of air-.

Duuugh! I missed that one, thanks for the info and correction.

yes the cfm at boost is about 339. However the denser air has more mass and thus friction as the air is THICKER.

In the end the dirt causes some measurable pressure loss. Woody

Happy hour does improve your mind. . . .

 

have one for me......