You could always try using the ASP pipe: http://www.rx7store.net/product_p/asppipe.htm

much better quality than the one included with the SSAC kit.

yeah Jayk I agree with you on the x-over pipe. That is why I ditched it, I didn't want to relocate my blow off valve and I though the pipe was a little too long and bend weird at the inlet. Like I said it shouldn't cost more than $100 for custom piping. Its still worth it by far.

I had a brief conversation with the engineer at Spearco today when I ordered cores and mentioned all of these different Chinese cores. He was actually very familiar with them as they were trying to sell cores to Spearco or have Spearco show them how and make them with the cheap labor over there. After going back and forth to China a number of times they finally gave up on the idea because of ongoing quality problems. The issues he said they were having was lots of little brazing leaks, 20+, lower than spec grade aluminum (I guess they kept changing it back from what they told him they would use hoping not to be noticed). They also were not able to make the plates or fins correctly and they didn't want to teach them how since they'd likely just rip it off and violate any contract. This was the place making OBX intercoolers so I can't say for certain it relates to these cores but I thought someone mentioned it was all the same place. If provided with an example Spearco offered to provide data on the efficiency and pressure drop if I give them a sample product, so I just might. I'll post if I do. Lots of other things going on right now.

oh...I forgot about that. :) its been sooo long since I have had it.

thanx Kevin. are you giving them a copy of the ASP for testing or are you saying if we give them a SS autochrome? I would do it. I don't know if I will, but I would love to know the true performance of each core - good or bad!

They make my core, the numbers have been known for that for years and years and are all over the internet, including this forum. I'd simply purchase an SS core under a different name and send it in to Spearco. After the testing is done I'd sell it, maybe before I provide the test results :)

not a bad idea Kevin. Yeah I thought that was what you were saying, and I know ASP is been proven. I am just tired as was trying to clarify what you were saying. I think that if you decide to do that, it would be in your best interest. Then you could show us all that you were right all along. I would be the first person to say you were right. It would also prove to us one way or another what that core is.

Testing
 

Umm, I for one would have a hard time believing numbers one vendor provides about another vendor's product. The conflict of interest is obvious.

The test would also have to be done with a duct, since I have to believe the duct factors (probably significantly) into the performance. The duct might reduce the performance differences one might see in a test done without a duct, because of the diffused airflow.

Oh well, in that case I better not bother since David doesn't trust me. Spearco would do the testing and if you don't trust them enough then I guess that's just too bad for you.

The standard tests use ambient airflow speeds of between 5 to 20mph, duct won't matter for this type of test. Also put on your thinking cap because reduced air speeds through the core will actually amplify the differences most likely, exactly the opposite of what you appear to be suggesting above. Bad troll! get a new name.
:bottom:

Putting on that cap... I think you are saying that at full flow (without a duct) the difference in heat transfer efficiency between the ICs will be at a minimum. If we reduce flow a bit, we will see a greate difference, and reducing flow further a still greater difference between the ICs. Until finally, at zero flow we will see the maximum difference!

Guess my cap says otherwise, because at zero flow I would expect them both to just sit there heat-soaked, and there will be no discernable difference in heat transfer between them, because there won't be any convective flow to take the heat away. So, yes, I think we will see the maximum difference between the ICs if they are tested without a duct. And this difference will not be a realistic test of the IC performance in the car. And to re-iterate, I would not trust you or Spearco to run an objective test to begin with, because you each have some financial stake in the outcome.

Also, do you agree Kevin that either IC would perform better without the duct (if it could be mounted in the full airflow instead of the diffused airflow produced by the duct)? This is a loaded question, so answer carefully!

And I will keep my name, thanks, and refrain from using vulgar yellow smilies. Thats just the previously-banned, returned-under-different-cover kind of guy I am.

David,
Your thinking cap is not working correctly. I never mentioned zero airflow and in fact specifically stated tests are done between 5 to 20mph and later mentioned reduced airflow, not No Airflow. The existing test data for my large and medium IC's is a good demonstration of it. Better luck next time.

reductio ad absurdum
 

= Disproof of a proposition by showing that it leads to absurd or untenable conclusions



But you did state "reduced air speeds through the core will actually amplify the differences most likely". The behavior I described at zero velocity is the untenable conclusion disproving your proposition.

But then, you knew that, didn't you?

And hey, you didn't answer the challenge question either!

Sadly for you I stated a range of 5 to 20, of which 0 is not a part of the domain. This qualifier was made in the sentence immediately preceding your quote within the same paragraph. Your statement has no application in this case. It sounded really impressive and maybe next time you'll use it in an appropriate context. Then it will be even more impressive.



In answer to your challenge question, yes additional tubing and bends will cause more pressure drop and lag.

That's not the challenge question
 

You stated you didn't need to test with the duct, and then stated that testing with the duct would only maximize the differences between the intercoolers. This is false.

The duct reduces airflow to the intercooler. If reducing airflow acted to maximize the performance difference between the two ducts, then reducing the flow as much as it can be reduced (to zero) would create the maximum performance difference between the ducts. Which is ridiculous. So you are wrong - actually reducing the flow to the ducts minimizes any performance difference. I can't state it any clearer than this, yet I am sure you will continue to pretend you are right. Oh well.

The challenge question had nothing to do with tubing and bends (where did that come from?). Quoting from below "Also, do you agree Kevin that either IC would perform better without the duct (if it could be mounted in the full airflow instead of the diffused airflow produced by the duct)? This is a loaded question, so answer carefully!" It is a loaded question, because it cuts right to the heart of the SMIC vs. FMIC vs. Vmount debate, showing why SMIC sucks.

I will answer the question for you, since I doubt you will be answering it any time soon. Yes, both intercoolers would work ALOT better if they could be exposed to the whole flow. The whole problem with the SMIC (and especially large SMICs like the ASP) is that the all use the SAME intake area as the original stock intercooler, and thus must work with the same mass flow rate as the stock intercooler. Putting a throttle (the duct) in series with the IC is ok if the IC is the greatest flow restrictor, and I am sure Mazda engineers designed the stock IC and duct with this in mind. But significantly enlarging the IC behind the duct causes this to no longer be true - the duct becomes the greatest flow restrictor.

Basically, the duct will reduce the air velocity through the IC, so the IC will perform as if the car is going slower, by the ratio of duct intake area to IC core area. For example, if the intake of the duct is 1/5 the size of the IC core, then the IC in the car traveling at 100 MPH will be performing as it would in a car traveling at 20 MPH if it could be exposed to the full flow.

So taking Spearco performance numbers and ignoring the affect of duct in front of the IC is just wrong. Period. I hope the ASP performance numbers you continually tout were determined with the IC actually in the car (geez, do you even own an RX7 anymore?).

And the design of the custom duct being made here (in particular, the area of the duct intake) will have a much greater impact on the performance of the IC than any minor differences in the efficiency of the IC itself.

I look forward to breaking out the math to prove this, Kevin. I doubt that will stop you from posting dis-information, but it will give others a view of the actual heat transfer and fluid mechanics involved.

Nope, I didn't say that. Maybe I explained this poorly or was too technical (cough). The duct is not important in this case because the tests are conducted at relatively low air speeds, 5 to 20mph as I mentioned. I'm not aware of anyone contesting that at any kind of track speed that people will not see at least 5 to 20mph of airflow through the duct, are you? Does that make sense to you? I must be doing a bad job of writing because what you're claiming I've said isn't even close. (edit: I forgot to mention, since you can't seem to read and I apparently have to spell everything out explicitly, that both IC's being tested are SMIC's with ducts, this is not an SMIC vs. FMIC etc. issue)

The best way for you to think of this is as a limit function in calculus that is continuous everywhere but zero, even at negative numbers. As airflow approaches zero thermal transfer (whatever the actual function may be engineer types :) ) moves upward dramatically. The total volume of air is dropping so your total transfer is obviously going down but your transfer per unit volume of air is increasing.

I have to confess I didn't bother to read the rest of your post since you couldn't get the first two sentences right.

Why discourage Kevin from doing the tests? I don't really see why he would be biased, if it turns out the core is better than the ASP (nobody believes that it will be) I imagine it would be in his best interest to switch to the better core for a higher profit margin, or to lower his own price.

And since there is no standard ducting that fits the SSAC ic and piping testing with the duct seems like a moot point.

SSAC and ASP medium cores are nearly the same dimensions (length and height), so the ASP duct would fit fine.

Let him do the test and post the results. Who cares if it's biased? ALL testing is biased.

Only if the piping places the ic in the exactly correct spot. Considering the hacked attempt at piping that is sold with the ssac I doubt they spent much time considering where the ic ends up in the engine bay. I'm having this same problem with an early copy of the group-buy ic. If you used asp piping and the asp duct then you may as well just test the ic because everything else is the same.

Well, I plan to use custom piping and a GReddy elbow, so the location should be nearly the same.

can someone take an actual GOOD picture of it installed with the duct.... I've only seen some crappy pictures so far. but my ss auto chrome intercooler is on the way :)

Sorry I just have a crappy camera phone. :(

I do have a couple log files showing the performance of the IC/duct if anyone wants to see them. :)

ya i wanna see some picSS!! any1 here doing the FMIC from them i like to hear about that cuz i am thinking about getting FMIC from ssautochrome

Has anybody used this piece yet? I bought the kit, and am not going to be using the flange on the SS Autochrome piece. I'm probably just going to buy a different piece, and will probably go with this one. Just wanted to see if anybody has used it, and if it makes for an easy install.

Bump this one because of closure.
 

Most of the info you need to know about the XS SMIC is here...