AA Stage 2+ & VT1 535

Roman@ESS wrote

Taza

Making a general statement about design A over design B like you have without all of the variables being factored does not make much sense. If you would like to discuss a particular example of air/air VS air/water on the E9X M3 with data you have collected I would be open to that. There are many things you are not considering including installation complexity, tuning, boost levels etc... but lets cover just the basics.

First is that the cooling efficiency of any kit can vary. For example just because two cars run an air/air cooling system one can have significantly better cooling based on the design and quality of the kit. There is never any guarantee one design is better than another without testing on the kit being discussed and on the vehicle being discussed. Second you have to factor in the discharge air temps of the blower used when comparing any kits charge cooling to another. For example blowers that are less efficient and are spun faster will generate more heat which will have a negative effect on your total intake air temps after cooling. Third you have to consider placement of your air to air cooler in relation to the vehicle it is installed on and you have to know "with testing" that it will not block or add heated air to the factory radiator. Because of these many variables you have to consider the efficiency of cooling based on the design of the overall kit, the blower you use, how efficient the blower you’re using is and the vehicle you are installing the kit on.

We have used and still use air/air systems on some of our cars and could have used air/air on the E9X M3 but with our testing we found air/water to be more efficient with this application. Our current VT2 cooling system was designed for 1000 HP and up to 14 psi of boost. It is over engineered for the level of power it is currently being used for. I think the feedback from our customers who regularly track their E9X M3's will prove that our cooling system works extremely well in the real world "without water/meth" and you will also see that when our cars are run on the dyno back to back to back without cool downs the power stays very consistent.

tazam3 wrote

Im guessing you guys dont read other threads then, its an ongoing issue. But lets just get back to what really matters...

What are the relative merits of an air or water-cooled intercooler and which would suit my purposes best?
This depends on the circumstances. These circumstances are; street use, drag racing, or endurance racing (more than two minutes).

Street use: The air-to-air intercooler will prove superior in efficiency when sized properly.

Drag racing: The short spurt of power allows the iced water to cool the charge air to below ambient temperature.

Endurance racing: The air-to-air intercooler is clearly superior due to the shorter route of getting the heat out of the air charge and into the atmosphere. Endurance racing would preclude the use of ice water, thus negating the singular advantage of the water intercooler. Further, the air-to-air intercooler is (virtually, see comments below) maintenance free. "

Roman@ESS wrote

Taza

Making a general statement about design A over design B like you have without all of the variables being factored does not make much sense. If you would like to discuss a particular example of air/air VS air/water on the E9X M3 with data you have collected I would be open to that. There are many things you are not considering including installation complexity, tuning, boost levels etc... but lets cover just the basics.

First is that the cooling efficiency of any kit can vary. For example just because two cars run an air/air cooling system one can have significantly better cooling based on the design and quality of the kit. There is never any guarantee one design is better than another without testing on the kit being discussed and on the vehicle being discussed. Second you have to factor in the discharge air temps of the blower used when comparing any kits charge cooling to another. For example blowers that are less efficient and are spun faster will generate more heat which will have a negative effect on your total intake air temps after cooling. Third you have to consider placement of your air to air cooler in relation to the vehicle it is installed on and you have to know "with testing" that it will not block or add heated air to the factory radiator. Because of these many variables you have to consider the efficiency of cooling based on the design of the overall kit, the blower you use, how efficient the blower you’re using is and the vehicle you are installing the kit on.

We have used and still use air/air systems on some of our cars and could have used air/air on the E9X M3 but with our testing we found air/water to be more efficient with this application. Our current VT2 cooling system was designed for 1000 HP and up to 14 psi of boost. It is over engineered for the level of power it is currently being used for. I think the feedback from our customers who regularly track their E9X M3's will prove that our cooling system works extremely well in the real world "without water/meth" and you will also see that when our cars are run on the dyno back to back to back without cool downs the power stays very consistent.

Jean@ActiveAutowerke wrote

Hey Guys,

In regards to making fair comparisons, this thread does lack the necessary info to accurately generate quite a few conclusions.

However it does seem there are a few assumptions going on such as charger efficiency and how the chargers RPM relates to power, etc... In other words it seems there is a 'stuck inside the box' mentality especially when it comes to chargers, efficiency and like data.

It seems the understanding of being different is not coming across very well as if there is a standard on what works and what doesn't and if this so called standard is not achieved then it is not efficient, etc... However, certain important variables such as adiabatic efficiency, charger gearing, wheel size or design (gears vs friction) are being thrown out...

For example:
A recent model (5.0 Engine) Mustang will make ~412 and redlines at ~6500. An E9X M3 (4.0 Engine) will make ~414 and redlines at ~8400.

With the current mind set, the Mustang would be more efficient and the M3 would be less efficient while generating more heat to compare...

However, since we are on a BMW enthusiast forum that that is not the case, the two engines are different. It would also seem that the smaller 4.0 engine has won many of your hearts as many of us drive BMW E9X M3's but many recent posts would conflict with your choice of car since the Mustang is more efficient (based on the mind set touched on above) and less expensive. So what are we doing with M3's...?

It would also seem the physical size of said chargers have become the deciding factor on power... However as mentioned above a different design and gearing will allow a proper sized wheel to fit in a smaller package while providing more Torque with the option to intercool a system (air/air). While the choice to use a larger charger is a viable choice, it does provide an issue since space is of concern and forces the use of water/air cooling as that becomes your only option not a choice...

img wrote

Hey Jean or Omar, if the air to air cooling system that you use is better than air to water,why do you require owners to run water/meth kit?
you stated in the past that your kit doesnt need water/meth and its only for cooling/addintional cooling so why do you need water/meth cooling if your cooling system is fine?

img wrote

Hey Jean or Omar, if the air to air cooling system that you use is better than air to water,why do you require owners to run water/meth kit?
you stated in the past that your kit doesnt need water/meth and its only for cooling/addintional cooling so why do you need water/meth cooling if your cooling system is fine?

akh23456 wrote

i think each kit is awesome, there is not a certain way to make a kit. Each company will defend their product because they spent countless hours working hard to try to please us enthusiasts who want more power. I don't think anyone can say "one" kit is better than other or more "efficient". Each kit is making power and proving itself worthy to be on a E9X M3.

Omar@ActiveAutowerke wrote

Spoken like a true gentleman.

Just enjoy your cars everyone

AJ@ESS wrote

Omar/Jean,

Quick question for you guys: What kind of intercooling system is utilized in the following OEM, high-boost, forced induction cars?

BMW F01 750i
BMW F10 550i
BMW X5 50i
BMW X6 50i
BMW X5M
BMW X6M
BMW F10 M5
MB SLR
MB AMG 65 Twin Turbo V12
MB AMG 63 Twin Turbo V8
MB AMG 55 V8 kompressor
Jaguar XKR V8 kompressor
Ford GT
Ford Mustang GT500
Corvette C6 ZR1

I think you need to call the heads of R&D at BMW, BMW M, MB AMG, Jaguar, GM and Ford and teach them a little forced induction engineering because it seems they do not know what they are doing..

What they do seem to know is not to block off virtually all air supply to the engine radiator and use a pathetically underdimensioned kompressor, spinning it way over max rated RPM while developing large amounts of heat and hoping it will last at least until the warranty period is over. None of their cars seem to lose all power in the last 500RPM of the power band from a completely saturated blower either? I think they need some engineering input guys as this does not seem right following your logic or lack thereof..

Studntloan wrote

oh my.......

Jaypod wrote

Spoken like a true Gentleman...