[Sp@cE418]

Hi !

I am about to upgrade the intercooler.
For personal reason, i don't want to cut anything.
My choices are :

ETS
Volume increase 17%
Frontal area increase 11.4%
Weight 13 lbs

Forge FMIC
Volume increase 30%
Frontal area increase 40%
Weight 16 lbs

Am I missing something ?
The forge FMIC seems to be quite more efficient ?!
Why is the ETS more popular ? Only the price ?
Which one is better and why ?

Thanks !

[rader1]

I thought the forge involved a little trimming?

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Efficiency is usually related to the core itself, however ETS is popular because it uses one of the more efficient cores on the market not to mention its price point and no trimiming required design.

Forge is a great unit too but dont confuse size with efficiency. Some of the biggest cores are the most inefficient in design.

[Sp@cE418]

Originally Posted by Jeff@topgearsolutions

Efficiency is usually related to the core itself, however ETS is popular because it uses one of the more efficient cores on the market not to mention its price point and no trimiming required design.

Forge is a great unit too but dont confuse size with efficiency. Some of the biggest cores are the most inefficient in design.

They aren't the same size ? 20 X 5.5 X 5 ?
I thought that efficiency was related to the volume increase and frontal area increase.
So you're saying that even if the volume increase is better with the Forge, the ETS is better because of the core ?

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Originally Posted by Sp@cE418

They aren't the same size ? 20 X 5.5 X 5 ?
I thought that efficiency was related to the volume increase and frontal area increase.
So you're saying that even if the volume increase is better with the Forge, the ETS is better because of the core ?

All I tried to explain is because an intercooler is BIGGER doesnt mean its more efficient. Core design is what constitutes efficiency. They are both using excellent cores so they are both efficient for their size.

Here is a good link on understanding efficiency: http://www.gnttype.org/techarea/turbo/intercooler.html

Here is a hint there is a lot of math and size isnt everything

Any company can make a big intercooler the size of the front of a vehicle, but if the CORE is inefficient, it wont cool the air intake charge. OR if it is too restrictive you will have a large pressure loss and force the turbos to spin harder which will induce more heat negating the whole purpose.

For your question, the answer is go with the intercooler you like. We offer both if its any consolation. As I mentioned previously the ETS is popular cause of its efficient design, price point, and no trimming required.

[HermanL]

Originally Posted by Sp@cE418

They aren't the same size ? 20 X 5.5 X 5 ?
I thought that efficiency was related to the volume increase and frontal area increase.
So you're saying that even if the volume increase is better with the Forge, the ETS is better because of the core ?

If i recall my heat transfer class correctly, the efficiency of a heat sink/heat exchanger is defined by (total heat transfer rate of the fin array)/(max. possible heat transfer rate of total surface), theoretically, for a highly forced convected environment(exactly what we have when car is going at speed), you can achieve a high efficiency with a relatively short fin; that being said, a bigger IC will transfer more heat, but at the same time you are wasting a lot of material to increase something like 0.5% of efficiency(higher efficiency goes, harder to increase it more), plus you will have bigger pressure drop across with bigger IC, pressure drop=loss of boost=loss of power, so bigger IC isn't necessarily means higher power gain, a well designed core should factor in all major parameters and achieve optimal power gain. just my 2 cents

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Originally Posted by HermanL

If i recall my heat transfer class correctly, the efficiency of a heat sink/heat exchanger is defined by (total heat transfer rate of the fin array)/(max. possible heat transfer rate of total surface), theoretically, for a highly forced convected environment(exactly what we have when car is going at speed), you can achieve a high efficiency with a relatively short fin; that being said, a bigger IC will transfer more heat, but at the same time you are wasting a lot of material to increase something like 0.5% of efficiency(higher efficiency goes, harder to increase it more), plus you will have bigger pressure drop across with bigger IC, pressure drop=loss of boost=loss of power, so bigger IC isn't necessarily means higher power gain, a well designed core should factor in all major parameters and achieve optimal power gain. just my 2 cents

[Sp@cE418]

Originally Posted by Jeff@topgearsolutions

Thanks to both of you for the physic course !

Any datalogs to compare both ?

[Will335i]

Here is my set up.

Stett CAI
Forge DVs
Forge FMIC
Procede running Map2 (most recent maps released)
Magnaflow catback
BSH OCC

That being said, I had no issues installing the FMIC and I did not need to cut anything. I was doing a lot of long trips (read 600+ miles at a time) and it was staying about 10-20 degs cooler for most of the trip. So I would highly recommend the Forge and if you are worried about cost ask around with the vendors on this site because I was able to pick mine up for 700 shipped.

Side note: Both FMICs use quality cores as I would assume of all the big names. So I would consider the performance difference between the two negligible for your purposes. If you are really worried about the efficiency of your FMIC get an OCC. The oil blow-by will kill the efficiency of the FMIC.

[ETS Michael]

We have lots of data on our webiste.

http://www.extremeturbosystems.com/E...tercooler.html

The biggest difference like Jeff said is the intercooler design. The average intercooler that is 5.5" tall only has 6-7 charge rows. This gives you a total of 10-12 heat transfer plates. we designed a core that has 10 charge rows giving you 20 heat transfer plates, well 18 since you don't count the very top one and the bottom one. By having the extra heat transfer plates we are able to lower the density of our internal fin pack giving us more air flow, less pressure drop and overall more heat transfer area. The external density of fins is also greater on our core. Another key note is most manufacturers use a /\ style fin on the external side and heat transfer can only take place at the very tip of the fin. We use a TT style fin pack which give us 4x the surface area with the heat transfer plates.

Lots off little things is why our intercooler performs so well in a smaller package.

I run all our bolt on's with 92 pump gas and put down 400/430 on the old 12-17 procede maps.

thanks!

Michael

[Joshboody]

Originally Posted by ETS Michael

We have lots of data on our webiste.

http://www.extremeturbosystems.com/E...tercooler.html

The biggest difference like Jeff said is the intercooler design. The average intercooler that is 5.5" tall only has 6-7 charge rows. This gives you a total of 10-12 heat transfer plates. we designed a core that has 10 charge rows giving you 20 heat transfer plates, well 18 since you don't count the very top one and the bottom one. By having the extra heat transfer plates we are able to lower the density of our internal fin pack giving us more air flow, less pressure drop and overall more heat transfer area. The external density of fins is also greater on our core. Another key note is most manufacturers use a /\ style fin on the external side and heat transfer can only take place at the very tip of the fin. We use a TT style fin pack which give us 4x the surface area with the heat transfer plates.

Lots off little things is why our intercooler performs so well in a smaller package.

I run all our bolt on's with 92 pump gas and put down 400/430 on the old 12-17 procede maps.

thanks!

Michael

Hey Michael... I am curious about some of your testing info. The first graph which shows the temp increase difference between stock and ETS. Is the boost set point the same on both runs... same day and ambient temps? When is the run started... I assume after boost has been established due to the inlet temps. Can you explain the details?

[ETS Michael]

Originally Posted by Joshboody

Hey Michael... I am curious about some of your testing info. The first graph which shows the temp increase difference between stock and ETS. Is the boost set point the same on both runs... same day and ambient temps? When is the run started... I assume after boost has been established due to the inlet temps. Can you explain the details?

These were back to back tests on the same day.



The graph has 3 lines

Line 1) Inlet Temp Start and Inlet Temp End (yellow and dark blue - these were the 2 pulls, you can see they are almost identical) You may have to look close to see the dark blue line.

Line 2) Stock Outlet Temp Start and Outlet Temp End

Line 3) ETS Outlet Temp Start and Outlet Temp End

This test was done using an AEM enginemanagement system setup with an AIT bung on the inlet and an AIT bung on the outlet and logged both channels.

Here is another one.



This one shows after the pull how long it takes to cool down the intercooler, if you were to keep doing back to back runs you can tell by the graph that stock intercooler would heat soak quickly. The ETS intercooler would start the next pull 20 degree's higher where the stock intercooler would start the next pull 60 degree's higher.



Hope this is enough data, it might be data overload though.

Thanks!

Michael

[Joshboody]

Michael, any idea of the pressure drop across your IC? My immediate thought was that the restriction would be similar between the 2 intercoolers since inlet temps are practically the same... BUT due to the different outlet temps the calculation is more complicated factoring density. Of course efficiency is not the only concern when choosing an IC.
Above is considering boost pressures were equal in the pulls.

[Syndicategt]

To sum this up without being long winded:

- Any upgraded FMIC is better than stock
- Size is not everything
- Meth will actively lower IAT's more than any FMIC
- Core effiency, face size, and end-tank design are all factors in an effective FMIC
- Better end tanks distribute air coming in from the inlet efficiently throughout the intercooler core
- Learn about pressure loss

I would highly recommend ETS's 7" core or ER's FMICS (you have to cut a little with ER).

[ETS Michael]

Originally Posted by Joshboody

Michael, any idea of the pressure drop across your IC? My immediate thought was that the restriction would be similar between the 2 intercoolers since inlet temps are practically the same... BUT due to the different outlet temps the calculation is more complicated factoring density. Of course efficiency is not the only concern when choosing an IC.
Above is considering boost pressures were equal in the pulls.

Here you go.



This shows the pressure in and out on the log. You can see the delta is only .1 psi difference between the two. Pretty much the same pressure drop as stock. The numbers with the * next to them are stock, and the standard are ETS.

Another thing that makes it hard to measure drop is a very efficient core will have denser air coming out the back side which looks like pressure loss, but it's actually denser air. Hot air takes up a lot more room then Cold air.

Thanks!

Michael

[Joshboody]

very comprehensive data... Thanks!

[ETS Michael]

Originally Posted by Joshboody

very comprehensive data... Thanks!

I have a ton of data on the intercoolers, but posting too much data on our website can sometimes scare the customers.

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Originally Posted by Syndicategt

To sum this up without being long winded:

- Any upgraded FMIC is better than stock
- Size is not everything
- Meth will actively lower IAT's more than any FMIC
- Core effiency, face size, and end-tank design are all factors in an effective FMIC
- Better end tanks distribute air coming in from the inlet efficiently throughout the intercooler core
- Learn about pressure loss

I would highly recommend ETS's 7" core or ER's FMICS (you have to cut a little with ER).

+1 I like the ER too albeit a little pricey.

[bahn stormer]

If your goal is no cutting, I am surprised that you have not considered Helix. I am very happy with mine.

[///M3THOD]

Originally Posted by Syndicategt

To sum this up without being long winded:

- Any upgraded FMIC is better than stock
- Size is not everything
- Meth will actively lower IAT's more than any FMIC
- Core effiency, face size, and end-tank design are all factors in an effective FMIC
- Better end tanks distribute air coming in from the inlet efficiently throughout the intercooler core
- Learn about pressure loss

I would highly recommend ETS's 7" core or ER's FMICS (you have to cut a little with ER).

This is a good post.. pretty much sums it up. I would go with the 7" as well, just a little bit of cutting.

Originally Posted by bahn stormer

If your goal is no cutting, I am surprised that you have not considered Helix. I am very happy with mine.

+1

Helix mounts right in without cutting. I liked their design the best.. increase in frontal area as well as the core, nicely curved end tanks as well. Only issue thats even up for debate is whether the stepped design creates turbulence in the core.

I love the fact that it mounts in with no cutting but visually you wouldn't even know I had an upgraded FMIC.. it looks stock.

[nitehawk]

ETS FTW! Recently ordered mine from Mike@n54tuning.
Can't wait to have it on the car...The wait is killing me tho!