intercoolers--all info!!!

[Ed Lijewski]

John, you harp on and repeat the same old refrains, again and again and again, somehow assuming that no one does anything more than install a TCIC, no matter what else has been offered about enhancing the set up.

WE GET YOUR MESSAGE! You love/LOVE FMICs over anything else. Well, if I had lived ~20 years in Phoenix I might also. Many of us live in other climates with 6-8 months of cold or cool weather; for us having enough heat is a higher value. TMICs don't get Phoenix-hot in our areas, ever. And for 2/3rds of the year they do just absolutely fine. But you wouldn't know; you haven't installed and run with one.

Continuing to attack the TMIC and make the argument that FMICs are better because, they're better, is not only repetitious but unnecessary. IT'S BEEN MADE GAZILLIONS OF TIMES BEFORE, many of them by you.

The aspects of TMICs I posted above have not ever, to my knowledge, been posted or acknowledged here or on TurboFord. And if they were there given short shrift, I'd bet, by FMIC zealots.

I've said often myself that adding air is easy, and told how I've done it. It's not rocket science. I've also got a heat shield under mine. Again, not rocket science.

Yours--the "FMIC"--is "bigger." But who cares? Some do; some don't. My persistence on this is because it works absolutely 100% to my expectations, for me. Your persistence seems to be that everyone else should adopt your paradigm. It's too much, and old stuff long ago.

YMMV

[MerkXRTurbo]

The TMIC on an XR is a crappy idea, IMO. Especially when people spend money on performance elsewhere.

[John Brennan]

I think some assumptions are being made here that I'm attacking the TMIC/TCIC; I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that any application will have its advantages and disadvantages. The TCIC is a good IC-- it's an effective and proven core. I do believe, however, that the preponderance of evidence will show that not only will a properly executed FMIC outperform it, but that the decision to use one by Ford had more to do with packaging and crashworthiness than outright efficacy.

In the article Exposure Merkur, from the book, "High-Performance Sierras and Merkurs," this is described by some of the Ford people (and specifically, Jack Roush) as the primary reason why the FMIC was (well, almost, for the XR4Ti) chosen for the domestic lineup. It is more of a reflection of the priorities of the domestic market and its emphasis on insurance claims (like the U.S.-spec bumpers, etc.), vs. the pure performance design seen in Europe (and their corresponding bumpers and such). I'm in an Apple Store right now, and not at home, so later on, I will properly reference and quote this source.

I have also been seen on these pages as being an advocate of low-volume setups, 'cause I hate lag like the Devil hates Holy Water. I don't like to see lots of piping, and certainly the TCIC will be superior to virtually all others in this respect. If a TCIC is utilized correctly, and the care is taken to overcome some of the problems hithertofore discussed, it will yield a satisfactory outcome on an engine that is primarily street-used and from which huge power gains are not anticipated. But care must be taken to deal with some of the weaknesses involved, or its function will be perhaps severely compromised. Roush found that by force-feeding the core, he achieved a side benefit of a "bubble" (as he described it) of cool air emanating from under the core which kept the core cooled quite nicely, even in high-heat-soak situations. There are other advantages to its use: no changes need be made to the rad, any other accessories can be left in situ, and parts are plentiful and cheap. All the steps which should be taken to make this work must be considered, and when you add it all up, it's no surprise to me that most will just opt for the FMIC.

Edit: punctuation

[jasonty]

ed,
seriously, do you really think because ford put it there that its a good idea? do you really think its a better location? do you think a ford tarus NASCAR is front wheel drive? Johns quotes from roush are right on. they make sense and its logical. you may like the TCIC set up or mazadaspeed, whatever, but dont keep pushing it to guys that dont have a clue. they may actually believe its a good idea. you keep calling john out, but you are really doing the same thing, except his "side" is the right side :lol:

John, you harp on and repeat the same old refrains, again and again and again, somehow assuming that no one does anything more than install a TCIC, no matter what else has been offered about enhancing the set up.

WE GET YOUR MESSAGE! You love/LOVE FMICs over anything else. Well, if I had lived ~20 years in Phoenix I might also. Many of us live in other climates with 6-8 months of cold or cool weather; for us having enough heat is a higher value. TMICs don't get Phoenix-hot in our areas, ever. And for 2/3rds of the year they do just absolutely fine. But you wouldn't know; you haven't installed and run with one.

Continuing to attack the TMIC and make the argument that FMICs are better because, they're better, is not only repetitious but unnecessary. IT'S BEEN MADE GAZILLIONS OF TIMES BEFORE, many of them by you.

The aspects of TMICs I posted above have not ever, to my knowledge, been posted or acknowledged here or on TurboFord. And if they were there given short shrift, I'd bet, by FMIC zealots.

I've said often myself that adding air is easy, and told how I've done it. It's not rocket science. I've also got a heat shield under mine. Again, not rocket science.

Yours--the "FMIC"--is "bigger." But who cares? Some do; some don't. My persistence on this is because it works absolutely 100% to my expectations, for me. Your persistence seems to be that everyone else should adopt your paradigm. It's too much, and old stuff long ago. :roll:

YMMV 8)

[John Brennan]

The reference, which I had already made in this thread,

http://www.merkurclub.com/forum/viewtop ... 9&start=15

is at the bottom of page 2. I'll copy and paste it:

From the article (by John Phillips III):

"Under the hood, which has been stripped of insulation and given two dozen gill-like vents, there is visible only one piece of obviously new harware. It's an intercooler from a Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, added to the right of the engine block above the exhaust manifold. Rief [Dick Rief, the manager of Ford Products at Jack Roush Performance Engineering--j.b.] would have preferred mounting it in front of the radiator, which, in this car, is enlarged by two inches. But coporate policy intervened: nose-mounted intercoolers are subject to destruction in even the mildest collisions. If you've been noticing our spy photos, the 1988 Merkur will have a hood-mounted NACA duct to feed an intercooler in an underhood location anyway [yeah, right--j.b.]-- even if it is the hottest spot imaginable."

Here's the next paragraph:

"To combat the heat, Rief installed a full-time electric fan, cannibalized from Roush's race cars. It draws cool air from the left front fender well and simply force-feeds the intercooler. This arrangement works much better than it should. After it was installed, Rief discovered that a kind of boundary layer of cool air was created below the intercooler, directing the white-hot heat of the turbo rearward, out of harm's way. It also has the advantage of of cooling the intercooler, even while the car is idling at the A&W root beer stand."

The article has a nice picture of the engine bay, showing a fairing over the core, and what looks like a 4-inch "dryer" hose (I'm sure it's not) connected to an inlet on the front end, coming forward to the rad core support, then making a 90* bend across the front to the driver's side fenderwell. The caption reads thusly:

"Electric fan from Roush's race car draws cool air from the fender well and force-feeds the intercooler which, unfortunately, resides above the turbo and the exhaust manifold."

[Ed Lijewski]

All well and good.

Jason: I've never said the location was the beter idea. Read my posts again. My point is this: TCIC/TMIC works for some. And even better with one or two very easy modifications just as mentioned in the book sections quoted by JTB. It works for me; it works for others. But if you demand/insist on more from an IC, go for it. Pay the price, in bucks and labor. Your choice. Don't expect EVERY other person to follow yours. People have different decision criteria, based on their personal set of expectations.


That's the issue that boils my bile, in any discussion. The responses to any/all mentions of the TCIC/TMIC don't respect the decision calculus of others. Nor do most, the absolute vast majority, of response post clearly state the poster's assumptions up front. Nearly always the assumptions are in favor of the best, most efficient, most elaborate, most this, that or something else. But they're not stated up front in a post, where they should be, but rather are used implicitly to dump on the TCIC/TMIC. That's just plain outrageous as well as unfair and silly.

As well, and actual data, evidence and/or experience that tends to support use of the TCIC/TMIC as an rational alternative is derided and scorned. But that's what one comes to expect from those who are locked into their own mindset, decision criteria, and decision calculus. "Mine is bigger; mine is better." NO ONE IS ARGUING OR DEBATING THAT!

This thread is tittled Intercoolers--All Info. Not "Intercoolers---Only Info in Support of FMICs and only the Biggest, Baddest FMICs." The objective in this thread, as well as in any others, should be to be objective instead of fixed on one and only one approach, and let the market and universe of people sort out the individual choices.

I never saw the Exposure Merkur article, and independently installed with my TCIC a 4" section dryer duct (yes) which a wide mouth scavenged from a JY heater duct connection at the front that scoops fresh air and routes it to the TCIC. Not as good as a direct feed hood vent; but helpful and cheap and easy to add. The idea of adding a fan to this tube, or placing on top of the TCIC itself, is a further positive step, and easy and inexpensive to add on.

But, the above aren't absolutely necessary, unless YOUR criteria are for maximum intercooler benefit for volumetric efficiency AT ALL TIMES [i.e., including at idle]. I don't demand that. For me it's clear that the dominant air flow through the XR engine bay especially at speed is a path from the center of the radiator along about 2/3rds of the TCIC at least to exit at the passenger side cowlet/hood corner. Don Haulsee demonstated that:

From: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 07:42:22 EDT
Subject: Re: [M] Re: Re: Battery tray removal
To: [email protected], [email protected]

Here is the definitive answer from actual measurements. This was copied from
an Email by Don Haulsee.

Don Haulsee wrote:
>
> On the way into work, I put the air velocity meter at several
> different places and took measurements. Remember, I have moved the
> battery to the back of the car and positioned the Saab Intercooler
> horizontally in the cavity left by the battery. The vacuum ball has
> also been relocated to give more room. The bulkhead divider between
> the engine compartment and the firwall was removed last summer.
>
> Measured Air Velocities at 60 Miles/Hour
> Pitot Tube Measurements
>
> Air flow at just inside windshield cowl molding = 4000 ft/min Air
> flow on top of Saab Intercooler (bulkhead removed) = 3000 ft/min Air
> flow 2" above battery tray through Saab Intercooler = 2600 ft/min
> Air Flow at the tubo downpipe connection = 1800 ft/min
> Air flow on top of the air cleaner = 500 ft/min
> Air flow at center back of the radiator (Cosworth Grill)= 3500-4500
> variable
>
> >From this, I am of the opinion that putting the IC at the base of the
> windshield like I have done is a very good place for it."

Even if Haulsee's data are dependent on a Cosworth Grill, assuming only the stock XR grill air flow might be at least half or more of his meeasurements. Add a duct to carry additional air right at the TCIC and you get closer to Haulsee's Cosworth Grill-dependent numbers, and maybe even at them, since air through the Cosworth Grill in his case probably meant through the a/c condenser and radiator, while the air duct to the TCIC is unrestricted.

NOTE THIS: I can think of no/NO reason why not removing the bulkhead would reduce the air flow from Haulsee's measurements--along the path from the center of the radiator to the passenger side cowlet/hood corner.
I can hypothesize that retaining the bulkhead and ensuring the rubber underhood rear lip seal as originally installed would direct air flow towards that passenger side cowlet/hood corner.

As for other points, why Ford used the TCIC and mounted it where it did, instead of an FMIC, isn't important 20 years later here. Jack Roush is racing oriented; of course he'd look to the FMIC for best results in all out racing. For the rest of us, the TCIC is available, it's an option, it's inexpensive, it's easy to install, it's efficiency can easily be improved, and improved very very substantially, with two or three themselves simple and easy modifications. Sum total in terms of money and time: very modest. Plus, YOU CAN CHOOSE TO RETAIN YOUR A/C AND IF IT WORKS FOR YOU YOUR CURRENT RADIATOR. I don't have cooling issues with the stock setup.

And, one can't simply ignore that several current generation performance oriented cars recently produced sport TMICs (Subaru; Mazda6; MiniCooper S, among others). Why do they have TMICs? Because the engineers and decision-makers examined closely the trade-offs among alternatives. Clearly, in these cases the argmuents for FMICs weren't slam-dunks, doncha think? Was Roush thing about Polar Moment when he wanted the FMIC for the XR? Doubt it; he's a straight line or oval guy. Does PM matter? Dunno. But Mazda seems to think it imght since it's mentioned as a positive attribute of the Mazda6 TMIC.

So, you've gone your own way, installed a TCIC, maybe even added the easy modifications bringing additional air to it, but is that all you can do? Are you stuck right there?

Not necessarily. If you want to go all out at a dyno or drag strip, it wouldn't be difficult to build a box to fit around the TCIC to hold ice water to cool it, with results documented here:

Reply-To: <[email protected]>
From: "wheelspin" <[email protected]>
To: "Merkurowners"
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 21:00:12 -0500
Subject: [M] RE: TC Intercooler
Just a bit of my input on a TC intercooler...
Almost a bolt in install...
TC intercoolers can be found dirt cheap $20.00 and up...
Limited space within an XR, even more so if you want your A/C(I just had to
mount my Aux tranny filter under the front bumper)..
Tons of options, (Hood vent, hood scoop, duct work, small fan on IC, A/W
conversion)that can all be done with ease and cheaply...
BTW, Jim McCool ran 11.50s @ 116mph (400+hp) with a stock location TC-IC
with ice water running thru it...
Some people can say "why waste time, effort & money on a TC-IC when you
could also do a front mount?". It could also be said, why run a FMIC when
you could rip out the passenger seat run the IC pipes thru the firewall into
a giant AWIC with a huge Ice water tank in the trunk.
They are all just options and a TC-IC has proven it has its place in the world of performance... "

As Wheelspin said perfectly well: "They are all just options and a TC-IC has proven it has its place in the world of performance..."

But here, so far, the TCIC has been in the eyes of most the Rodney Dangerfield of intercoolers--it don't get no respect.

It should.

YMMV

[turbofan]

the TC/IC is a decent core, and a decent choice. however, the core is on the small side. that's obvious.

ed, PLEASE don't bring up that whole polar inertia stuff... if Mazda brought it up, they oughta be smacked. maybe if your car weighed 1200 pounds and you put a 30x10x3 fmic on it, you'd notice the difference. on a 3400 lb sport sedan, you'll never tell. besides, the mazda6 cooler is pretty small and mounted pretty far forwards anyway. i can promise you, no normal person is going to notice a difference in handling between a TCIC and my FMIC. maybe anglin, but that's it.

[MerkXRTurbo]

maybe anglin, but that's it.

[John Brennan]

I'm familiar with Haulsee's writings; he's an excellent resource. However, I would like to address a couple of items, beginning with: do you understand the direction of airflow from the cowl through an IC located there is IN, not OUT? That's why it's desirable and even useful; it is cool, fresh air coming in through the cowl area. If it were exiting there, and that were the source of air for the core, it would be worthless, as it would be preheated by the rad, and secondly by the Hellhole ( I hereby coin a new term for the area above the turbo; henceforth, I shall refer to it as the Hellhole).

Secondly, and this is a matter of pride: Jack Roush a "straight line or oval guy?" Wow... you're kidding, right?

I think the whole Polar Moment of Inertia thing has been adequately addressed-- the idea that the variance of location by a couple of feet of a few pounds of aluminum as being something that will have some sort of noticeable effect on handling and would be key as to a decision in where to put it, is simply false.

I also recall a comment you made regarding the location of the battery in the XR as being a way to concentrate mass. To expand on the concept of weight distribution in a car like ours, concentration of mass as such is only fully realized in a mid-engined application. Looking at any mid-engined race or sports car will indeed reveal that it has been designed that way for the most maneuverability; concentrating the mass in a balanced fashion between the axles is indeed an ideal state of affairs for maneuverability, but not for stability. A race car, (or by analogy, a fighter plane) benefits from being slightly unstable so that it can change directions quickly. To push the analogy further, all modern fighter aircraft are inherently unstable in flight, and depend upon computer assistance to maintain control for the pilot, who would otherwise be humanly unable to do so. This is required in order to achieve the flight dynamics required for such aircraft to be even remotely competitive in the modern air combat arena. I digress, but it's a worthy digression.

In cars which have the engine at one end or the other (I'll leave the 911--"a bad idea, executed brilliantly"-- out of it, for now), obviously in our case the front end, you have an out-of-balance situation for handling (albeit a good one for poor drivers and safety)-- the front end weighs more than the back end. This is at its worst in front-drive cars, which are in general, really nose-heavy. The best-handling front-engined cars will be those who find a way to transfer some of that weight rearward, and re-balance the car.. This is why the the 924/944/968 and the 928 Porsches-- as well as the newer 'Vettes-- have the transaxle in back. This not only balances the car, it actually creates a DIPOLAR Moment of Inertia. You increase stability, which may seem at odds with a sporting car, but it's not-- otherwise Steve Millen would not have sought to improve his road-racing 300Z of a few years ago by doing just that; moving the transmission to the rear. But he did, and that's why.

For purposes of mass distribution, balance, and handling-- not to mention heat problems from the Hellhole-- the battery in the XR could not be in a worse location (well, unless it was mounted at the front of the engine bay) if it tried. It is too far forward, and up high. The ideal location for the battery would be behind the passenger's seat in the rear seat footwell (on that side also to offset the weight of the driver), which is precisely where it was put on the racing RS500's.

You have indeed mounted your TCIC in a way in which it will be most effective, and I do recognize and commend you for that.[/i]

[Ed Lijewski]

Turbofan: if you don't care a whit about what Mazda says, who's forcing you to swallow it. Read/understand how I crafted my words regarding that. they speak for themselves, not what you want to twist them to say.

John: You and I don't communicate on the cowl edge air flow. We are completely locked into our positions and cannot sway each other. I agree it's high pressure in the center and outward. It can't be high pressure at most outward edges.

So. Let's just agree to disagree on this.

And what was the purpose of throwing the weight distribution diversion in here? Other than to presume and pretend to pile on? I could, but won't, join in. It's "Intercoolers--All Info", remember? I do. wink:


YMMV

[John Brennan]

Dude, you brought up Polar Moment in your post! I'm not going to apologize for or refrain from commenting on it or addressing what I believe to be erroneous premises-- is it not, after all, a benefit you were citing in regards to the intercooler's location?

[jasonty]

or maybe young or old engineers w/ no real world experience. or maybe its more about the 'looks' rather than the function.or maybe as ford dictates-the sheep follow. how about FMS sold the FMIC, cause FMC couldnt? come on...just because an engineer said so, dont me $#!* in the real world. ill even offer to install my IC on your car and do back to back tests.whatcha think? :lol:

And, one can't simply ignore that several current generation performance oriented cars recently produced sport TMICs (Subaru; Mazda6; MiniCooper S, among others). Why do they have TMICs? Because the engineers and decision-makers examined closely the trade-offs among alternatives. Clearly, in these cases the argmuents for FMICs weren't slam-dunks, doncha think? YMMV 8)

[Ed Lijewski]

or maybe young or old engineers w/ no real world experience. or maybe its more about the 'looks' rather than the function.or maybe as ford dictates-the sheep follow. how about FMS sold the FMIC, cause FMC couldnt? come on...just because an engineer said so, dont me $#!* in the real world. ill even offer to install my IC on your car and do back to back tests.whatcha think?

And, one can't simply ignore that several current generation performance oriented cars recently produced sport TMICs (Subaru; Mazda6; MiniCooper S, among others). Why do they have TMICs? Because the engineers and decision-makers examined closely the trade-offs among alternatives. Clearly, in these cases the argmuents for FMICs weren't slam-dunks, doncha think? YMMV

Jason: You continue to misunderstand what my points in this discussion are about.

'Nuff said.

YMMV

[Ed Lijewski]

Dude, you brought up Polar Moment in your post! I'm not going to apologize for or refrain from commenting on it or addressing what I believe to be erroneous premises-- is it not, after all, a benefit you were citing in regards to the intercooler's location?

I wouldn't and couldn't argue with what you said in your prior post. All true, AFAIK and as I believe.

But, again, as with the IC discussion, you took a legitimate, empirically verifiable point made about a minor attribute, cited by Mazda for the Mazdaspeed6, and framed it in comparison with the best, the ultimate, the mid-engined layout with all high density components centered around the cockpit (engine, occupants, fuel tanks and batteries), giving a low polar moment of inertia and very quick reaction to directional changes. Who the hell was pointing there in this discussion? No one. Taking your point to its ultimate conclusion one should mount a RMIC, fed by air ducts from the front or sides, as well as the battery and other high density items. Oh, you're not saying that? Well, neither was I noting that to achieve ultimate balance and lowest polar moment one should use a TMIC. I owned a 1963 Pontiac Tempest 4 cylinder, 2 door coupe;--a great handling, and running, car. It had a transaxle in the rear contributing to a better weight balance than other cars, long before the Porsches you cited or the Vettes. I wish I still had it. My Corvairs are equally individualistic being rear-engined with a transxle as well; the lighter front made them easy to drive and park, if more subject to crosswinds and potential oversteer in some situations. Their enhanced traction when needed made up for that and then some. But all engineering is a calculus of trade-offs, unless one is designing for the purest expression possible, maybe like the Koeniggsegg CCR. Not very practical, however.

As for battery location, although not ideal, having it in the trunk compromises space utility there. Again, the trade-off; you don't think the engineers were aware of that? Please. Replacing the battery somewhat more frequently--what, 4 years instead of 5-6?, is hardly a big issue.

Re the "hellhole": aren't you familiar with and practiced in the Merkur XR salute? Any time an XR is driven in hot weather and parked it's hood is to be raised in deference and acknowledgement to Ford's engineers; it also serves to flag attention of any other possible Merkur drivers passing by.

Ah, but what would we do without these pissing contests?

YMMV

[John Brennan]

Ha! As Patton says in the movie, "God help me; I do love it so!"

But really, this isn't about a pissing contest-- I swear to God. All I am trying to do is air out all aspects of a problem I am able to perceive. If and when I am wrong, I will come away a winner, 'cause I'll have learned something. Of course, we all love to be right!

Mostly, I just love the subject and enjoy talking about it. Before making some of the last few posts, I was careful to go back to the very first page and read all the posts leading up to it. If you or anyone else will do the same, you will see numerous references I made to the advantages and good points about the TMIC, including the crashworthiness factor (although at this stage, it's pretty much if we wreck it, we wreck it-- we're all basically insurance lepers by now! I stopped carrying comp and collision a few years back, and only have liability). And of course, the placement of the battery in the trunk would indeed compromise all that wonderful storage space. Too bad it couldn't have gone under the rear seat, like some other German cars we all know and love.

For me, though, I would sum it up this way: ven I vant to bake ze pie, I put it in ze oven, und ven I vant to cool it off after, I put it in ze vindow...

Edit: Oh, and yes, my car sits in the garage right now-- with the hood propped open!