# Fuel cooler goes in today...



## JrJetta99 (Apr 22, 2008)

Well I actually have a day off and plan on doing the fuel cooler install. Was planning on doing a seafoam treatment but just realized that I should wait a week before doing one and not do both at the same time. Since I can do the SF treatment anywhere, it'll wait until next week sometime.
Some here say it does nothing, having done it on 4 cars now I disagree. For under $100 bux it's worth it in my experience.
I will let you know how it goes... and will take pics for anyone who's interested.


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

*Re: Fuel cooler goes in today... (JrJetta99)*

Pics please


----------



## stjacket (Apr 26, 2007)

*Re: Fuel cooler goes in today... (l88m22vette)*

ya, when my fuel is -20 deg F I notice a huge gain in performance,
http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif gotta love the northeast.
return it while you can.


----------



## steve05ram360 (Aug 14, 2006)

*Re: Fuel cooler goes in today... (stjacket)*

whoops... my bad. did not notice the log in was Jr's... 
Also, dont knockit if you have no experience with it...


----------



## stjacket (Apr 26, 2007)

*Re: Fuel cooler goes in today... (steve05ram360)*

i live where it gets to -45 degrees, fuel tank and fuel are -45 , 1 1/2 in the engine bay of fuel line might raise it, 1/4 degree, but even at 0 deg F, no massive increase. debate all you want, if you live in a cold climate like i do, you know what im talking about, get your money back







http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## stjacket (Apr 26, 2007)

*Re: Fuel cooler goes in today... (stjacket)*

oh, ps
that looks like a fire hazord beyond something that I would consider, not to mention the extra fuel line and three foot drop, a small fender bender would be a real bad day for you. not to mention if its 80 deg F, and you run through a foot and 1/2 hose in the engine bay, to out side at 80 deg's, mabee 75 with the wind, but run back into the engine bay a few more feet past the radiator, you wuld probly end up hotter. just, please think, think, think








worthless,


----------



## Murderface (Nov 13, 2006)

*Re: Fuel cooler goes in today... (stjacket)*

If you do the math behind it...you'd need a 50 degree F drop in fuel temperature to have the same cooling effect on your fuel air mixture as a 6 degree F drop in your intake air temperature.
6 degrees F = 3.3 degrees C
Going by Forge's numbers (published with their intercooler kits for the TT)








A 20 degree C difference in charge temp=7 hp. So 3.3 degree C difference = 1.15 hp.
So assuming you can cool your fuel down by 50 degrees F you have made a 1.15hp gain.


----------



## steve05ram360 (Aug 14, 2006)

*Re: Fuel cooler goes in today... (JrJetta99)*

yeah have always considered the potential hazard up front... the main reason I put it as low as I can. 
4 out of 5 cars now... feels better on the low end & mid range. got out & grabbed the fuel wrapped fuel rail and it was nice & cold. 
Have you ever tried this mod?


----------



## steve05ram360 (Aug 14, 2006)

*Re: Fuel cooler goes in today... (Murderface)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Murderface* »_If you do the math behind it...you'd need a 50 degree F drop in fuel temperature to have the same cooling effect on your fuel air mixture as a 6 degree F drop in your intake air temperature.
6 degrees F = 3.3 degrees C
Going by Forge's numbers (published with their intercooler kits for the TT)








A 20 degree C difference in charge temp=7 hp. So 3.3 degree C difference = 1.15 hp.
So assuming you can cool your fuel down by 50 degrees F you have made a 1.15hp gain. 


those are intake temps... debate all you want, 4 out of 5 rides have shown the butt dyno an improvement. 1 car I dyno'd and it showed 8~13% bump (posted already for those who missed it) 

Murder, why dont you give it a shot... its a $100 mod, surely you can experiment with $100 mod... everyone who has tried it liked it had kept the install in place.


----------



## Murderface (Nov 13, 2006)

*Re: Fuel cooler goes in today... (steve05ram360)*


_Quote »_Have you ever tried this mod?

No, since I think it's impossible to evaluate the real world effects of such subtle mods. I'd probably just conclude that I wasted time/money.
Cars behave so differently depending on so many conditions that trying to actually measure/butt dyno things that make a single digit horsepower difference is usually pointless.
Did you ever consider how much fuel there is in contrast to air in the system? Ideal air fuel ratio is 14.7:1...that means there is 14.7 times more air than fuel. How much do you think the wee bit of fuel in there is going to cool down the mixture?
Also in essence colder fuel atomizes worse than warmer fuel because it bears less kinetic energy to allow it to do so.
But if you think it's worth it, go for it http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Murderface (Nov 13, 2006)

_Quote »_
those are intake temps... debate all you want, 4 out of 5 rides have shown the butt dyno an improvement. 1 car I dyno'd and it showed 8~13% bump (posted already for those who missed it)

Read my post...the point of cooler fuel is to cool the mixture down. And since there is an overwhelming ratio of air as opposed to fuel, even significantly cooler fuel won't cool the whole mixture down as much as slightly cooler air. 
As I said, a 50 degree F drop in fuel temperature will only affect the mixture temp as much as a 6 degree drop in air temperature. And you can see from that chart what a 6 degree F drop in air temperature does.


_Quote »_Murder, why dont you give it a shot... its a $100 mod, surely you can experiment with $100 mod... everyone who has tried it liked it had kept the install in place.

Maybe I will, I just have to come up with a way to measure its benefits. Dynos are such fickle things, they're not exactly ideal for measuring single digit HP/torque gains. Not to mention the conditions of the car and ambient conditions change between dyno runs making it even more hard to gauge changes accurately.
Perhaps I'll go hardcore and make a dry-ice fuel cooler and get the fuel sub ambient










_Modified by Murderface at 6:07 PM 10-11-2008_


----------



## turbott920 (Nov 13, 2007)

*Re: Fuel cooler goes in today... (steve05ram360)*


_Quote, originally posted by *steve05ram360* »_

those are intake temps... debate all you want, 4 out of 5 rides have shown the butt dyno an improvement. 1 car I dyno'd and it showed 8~13% bump (posted already for those who missed it)

Dude I was gonna leave this thread alone cause you already know my opinion of it...something was off on that dyno. The two dynos were done w/ different amounts of boost. You CANNOT claim the increase in power was due to the cooler when the dyno plots are at two different boost levels.


----------



## steve05ram360 (Aug 14, 2006)

*Re: Fuel cooler goes in today... (turbott920)*

Well, this topic has been beat enough. I personally dont think the dyno numbers do it justice... especially since there is boost involved. maybe the thing to do is bring jr's 2.0 down there & dyno it before & after.
one last comment... no-one ever came up with an answer as to why there was more boost on the cooler back to back runs... if anything it should have been less since the ambient temps were on their way up and not down. (80~85 deg).
what happens to boost as IAT's go up?
anyways...


----------



## steve05ram360 (Aug 14, 2006)

*Re: (Murderface)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Murderface* »_
Read my post...the point of cooler fuel is to cool the mixture down. And since there is an overwhelming ratio of air as opposed to fuel, even significantly cooler fuel won't cool the whole mixture down as much as slightly cooler air. 
As I said, a 50 degree F drop in fuel temperature will only affect the mixture temp as much as a 6 degree drop in air temperature. And you can see from that chart what a 6 degree F drop in air temperature does.

Maybe I will, I just have to come up with a way to measure its benefits. Dynos are such fickle things, they're not exactly ideal for measuring single digit HP/torque gains. Not to mention the conditions of the car and ambient conditions change between dyno runs making it even more hard to gauge changes accurately.
Perhaps I'll go hardcore and make a dry-ice fuel cooler and get the fuel sub ambient









_Modified by Murderface at 6:07 PM 10-11-2008_


the best way to measure any benifit would be to put the dyno at a static rpm, start logging hp & tq then drop the fuel temp. tie the fuel temp log to the dyno log and you'd have an answer. I tried to do this but the drop in fuel temp was too slow with the amount of airflow it had.


----------



## Murderface (Nov 13, 2006)

*Re: (steve05ram360)*


_Quote, originally posted by *steve05ram360* »_

the best way to measure any benifit would be to put the dyno at a static rpm, start logging hp & tq then drop the fuel temp. tie the fuel temp log to the dyno log and you'd have an answer. I tried to do this but the drop in fuel temp was too slow with the amount of airflow it had.


That seems like a good way to do it.

_Quote »_one last comment... no-one ever came up with an answer as to why there was more boost on the cooler back to back runs... if anything it should have been less since the ambient temps were on their way up and not down. (80~85 deg).
what happens to boost as IAT's go up?

Your ECU will run more boost (to a degree) with warmer IATs to try and prevent the perception of power loss via heat soak. This is why stock 180s sometimes spike 9 psi yet other times spike 11 psi. 
The new Cobalt SS turbo can spike between 13 and 20 psi to acheive the same effect.
Timing is what gets cut with higher IATs to prevent knock.


----------



## steve05ram360 (Aug 14, 2006)

Murder... if the IAT's go up and the ecu bumps the boost, wouldnt that lead towards a sinario for detination? and have the ecu pull timing? all being counter productive to building HP/TQ?


_Modified by steve05ram360 at 6:38 PM 10/11/2008_


----------



## edgy (May 16, 2006)

Seriously, that has to be the most irresponsible "mod" I have ever seen.
You are sending fuel through what is essentially an oil or trans cooler... First off, those fluids can be cooled because they carry with them a lot of heat from the trans or engine, and therefore the heat exchanger effect works. Unless your fuel line wraps around your exhaust pipe a few times, the effect will be REVERSED on fuel... yes, you will be adding heat to the fuel. The already cool fuel will be absorbing heat in that heat exchanger from the radiator, condenser, asphalt.
Not to mention the safety factor... what a huge risk! If one of those hose clamps lets go or a length of that aftermarket line ruptures or splits, you are effed. And we have all seen pinhole leaks in radiators, oil coolers, etc. A tiny pinhole leak in that thing means ATOMIZED fuel - big fire hazard. 
You are also taxing your fuel pump and probably causing a pressure drop.


----------



## Murderface (Nov 13, 2006)

*Re: (steve05ram360)*


_Quote, originally posted by *steve05ram360* »_Murder... if the IAT's go up and the ecu bumps the boost, wouldnt that lead towards a sinario for detination? and have the ecu pull timing? all being counter productive to building HP/TQ?

Well, if you think about a chipped car...it runs about 8 more PSI than normal. With the dinky stock intercooler that will make for higher IATs and for some timing pull...but it still makes significantly more power. Therefore I'd say the increase in boost makes up for the timing pull.


----------



## 1.8Tabamoura (Jul 29, 2005)

it looks dangerous in an accident. Plus I always thought that a warmer fuel could be atomized by the injectors better.np?


----------



## Murderface (Nov 13, 2006)

*Re: (1.8Tabamoura)*


_Quote, originally posted by *1.8Tabamoura* »_it looks dangerous in an accident. Plus I always thought that a warmer fuel could be atomized by the injectors better.np? 


_Quote, originally posted by *Murderface* »_Also in essence colder fuel atomizes worse than warmer fuel because it bears less kinetic energy to allow it to do so.


----------



## 1.8Tabamoura (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: (steve05ram360)*


_Quote, originally posted by *steve05ram360* »_Murder... if the IAT's go up and the ecu bumps the boost, wouldnt that lead towards a sinario for detination? and have the ecu pull timing? all being counter productive to building HP/TQ?

_Modified by steve05ram360 at 6:38 PM 10/11/2008_

Thats not the ECU demanding more pressure , its just that warmer air is less dense " less molecules" so the engine needs more air to have the same amount of oxigen molecules .


----------



## steve05ram360 (Aug 14, 2006)

heat exchangers take heat out of liquids not put into it. The fuel is cold when it enters the fuel rail period. On yesterday's test run I ran it hard down the freeway for 2~3 mi before getting off, then popped the hood for an inspection to ensure there were no leaks. there were none. Felt the wrapped fuel rail and it was cold as expected. Immedeately felt a bump in the low/mid power and anything under 3k benefits a noticeable amount. so much so that previously at any rpm below 2500~2800 would cause a downshift. now there is enough low end to leave it in the gear it's in.
for you who are reading about this for the 1st time, this is the 5th ride I've done this mod to and 4/5 times I felt the bump in low/mid power. the one time I didnt was in the 5000 lb truck I installed it in. The only benefit there was a bump in hiway mileage.
Unless you personally have experience with it your comments are speculation as to it's performance improvement. It is a potential hazzard having it up front, I've mentioned that from the start.
As for the fuel pump, it is not taxing the pump in any way as once the fuel line is primed, it's not going to care as the regulator will do it's thing to keep the pressure where it needs to be. The other benefit for the pump is the returned fuel will drop the fuel temps eventually (long drives) and should increase its life.
Murder... wouldnt it be safe to assume that the injection of the colder fuel would decrease the chance for detonation? That was the point of trying this mod the 1st time I did it. Remember I had the bmw 325 that had the chip that required 93 octane and only had 91 available... doing this mod stopped all pinging, even in sever conditions (105* ambient temps).


----------



## steve05ram360 (Aug 14, 2006)

*Re: (edgy)*


_Quote, originally posted by *edgy* »_
Not to mention the safety factor... what a huge risk! If one of those hose clamps lets go or a length of that aftermarket line ruptures or splits, you are effed. And we have all seen pinhole leaks in radiators, oil coolers, etc. A tiny pinhole leak in that thing means ATOMIZED fuel - big fire hazard. 

Your assuming I dont know what I'm doing... been around long enough to know what does what and I wouldnt be stupid enough to use regular fuel line on this since it's only rated for 50psi... fuel injection line (which is what I used and always recommended) has a burst rate of 300 psi.


----------



## edgy (May 16, 2006)

I'm assuming it's just stupid, period. Correction, I am asserting it is stupid. Waste of time and money.
Why don't you save yourself the hassel and just buy factory fuel cooler from a supercar, you know, the no-expense-spared machines that are built for all-out performance, like a Veyron or a Koenigsegg or a Porsche GT... Oh, wait, they don't come with one.


----------



## steve05ram360 (Aug 14, 2006)

*Re: (edgy)*


_Quote, originally posted by *edgy* »_I'm assuming it's just stupid, period. Correction, I am asserting it is stupid. Waste of time and money.
Why don't you save yourself the hassel and just buy factory fuel cooler from a supercar, you know, the no-expense-spared machines that are built for all-out performance, like a Veyron or a Koenigsegg or a Porsche GT... Oh, wait, they don't come with one. 


from my understanding porsche fuel coolers are complicated and only work when the ac is on. my setup is simple, cheep and easy to install & remove. Some Porsches have coolers and they are pretty expensive...
http://www.pelicanparts.com/Pa...3.htm

and it looks like MBZ is also using one...
http://www.caranddriver.com/re...shows
look, here's a c230 fuel cooler... this one is cheep...
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors...71996
and a 900 hp skyline...
http://www.superstreetonline.c....html

should I continue?

_Modified by steve05ram360 at 5:48 PM 10/12/2008_


_Modified by steve05ram360 at 6:18 PM 10/12/2008_


----------



## bauch1425 (Jun 29, 2006)

*Re: (steve05ram360)*

Good luck in a frontal collision.


----------



## edgy (May 16, 2006)

*Re: (bauch1425)*

Well, I can see a glaring difference in those fuel coolers as opposed to your setup - they use a refrigerant. If you route your fuel through a heat exchanger like yours, and the near ambient temperature fuel is exposed to ambient temperature air, the overall effect is null. Unless, of course, your fuel is lower than ambient temperatures near the radiator, etc., then the heat is exchanged into that cooler fuel.
The only application I can see your fuel cooler actually doing anything would be on the return line, after the fuel in the rail has absorbed engine heat. Then the fuel might be warm enough to be affected by a heat exchanger in ambient temp air flow.


_Modified by edgy at 7:49 PM 10-12-2008_


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

*Re: (bauch1425)*

I just don't trust it


_Modified by l88m22vette at 9:53 PM 10-12-2008_


----------



## Murderface (Nov 13, 2006)

*Re: (steve05ram360)*

Looking it over I might have done my math wrong. I'm going to rework it see if I get the same result.
I'd like to know just how much your cooler actually cools the fuel.


----------



## steve05ram360 (Aug 14, 2006)

*Re: (Murderface)*

Murder, use this formula on the chart to calc the ambient temp at a given speed... I see the fuel rail is the coldest after a freeway run... again cold enough to go thru the wrap & be cold to the touch. I briefly tried to calc the corrected ambient temp @ 70 mph but dont know excel well enough to get the formula right (and it time to hit the road back to San Jose)
http://www.weather.gov/om/windchill/
[QUOTE}Well, I can see a glaring difference in those fuel coolers as opposed to your setup - they use a refrigerant. If you route your fuel through a heat exchanger like yours, and the near ambient temperature fuel is exposed to ambient temperature, the overall effect is null. Unless, of course, your fuel is lower than ambient temperatures near the radiator, etc., then the heat is exchanged into that cooler fuel.
[/QUOTE]
ambient temp should be the wind chilled corrected temp. You argue that the affect is null without having ever tired it, try it then comeback & give feedback.

Also FWIW, there is at least one vortexer who pm'd me after doing the fuel rail wrap and his 1st comment was he's getting better mileage. He plans on trying the cooler in the near future. Everyone who's tried the setup had nothing but good things to say about it and they all acknowledge the potential risk of spilled fuel in an accident. installer beware.


----------



## roadyTT (Mar 28, 2006)

*Re: (steve05ram360)*


_Quote, originally posted by *steve05ram360* »_they all acknowledge the potential risk of spilled fuel in an accident. installer beware.


In other words...see ya on Youtube...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQbzaqfWgEM


----------



## steve05ram360 (Aug 14, 2006)

*Re: (roadyTT)*

lmao... what the hell were they thinking?

well had a nice long drive in this morning and it performs as expected. I also came up with an idea for improving the saftey factor of it. and while we're on the subject of safety, your concerned about a small amount of fuel being dumped in the event of a front end collision... what about the installers of the aftermarket fuel pumps? you do realize that the intake pump has an auto shutoff feature to kill the pump in the event of a major incedent right? install an aftermarket pump and that feature goes away. so lets say you get into a front end collision with the aftermarket pump installed and power to the pump does not get killed in the collision but your fuel rail is now compromised and leaking... now you'll have your tank draining into the engine compartment all over a hot engine. gee that sounds safe huh http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif at least with the location of the cooler in my install it is low, lower than a bumper to bumper hit. if it does spill it'll be to the ground and not on the motor...


----------



## edgy (May 16, 2006)

*Re: (steve05ram360)*


_Quote, originally posted by *steve05ram360* »_
Also FWIW, there is at least one vortexer who pm'd me after doing the fuel rail wrap and his 1st comment was he's getting better mileage. He plans on trying the cooler in the near future. Everyone who's tried the setup had nothing but good things to say about it and they all acknowledge the potential risk of spilled fuel in an accident. installer beware.

Post their name so we can humiliate them as well








I didn't know you could increase fuel milage in these cars... my 225 TTR averaged 38 mpg last trip I took... Not worth the risks for another mpg or two.


----------



## steve05ram360 (Aug 14, 2006)

*Re: (edgy)*

lol, I'll leave it up to him to report his findings... I'm sure he'll be laughing about all this as well as I am. I think it's funny that there is so much negative feedback from people who have no experience with it. If it didnt do what I mentioned, I wouldnt have done the mod on 4 cars & 1 truck...


----------



## Murderface (Nov 13, 2006)

*Re: (edgy)*

Did the math over...came out about the same. Here's what I did...
Fuel's specific heat=2.22 kJ/kg * K
Air's specific heat=1.0 kJ/kg * K 
So assume a typical air fuel ratio of 15:1. You have 15x more air than fuel. Assume the fuel in one instance is at 30 degrees C (86F) and in another instance is at 20 degrees C (68F).
15:1 air fuel ratio means for 1kg of air you have .07kg of fuel.
.07 kg of fuel at 30 deg C has 4.6kJ
.07kg of fuel at 20 deg C has 3.1kJ 
So the 20 deg C fuel can absorb 1.5kJ more from the air than the 30 deg C fuel.
Removing 1.5kJ from 1kg of air will lower its temperature by 1.5 deg C = 2.7 deg F.
Going by Forge's chart this is a .25% increase in power.
Let's assume more extreme cooling...let's say we go from 30 deg C (86F) to 5 deg C (41F)...i.e. cooling the charge by 45 deg F.
Let's also assume a really rich A/F ratio. 11:1...this will make for .09kg of fuel for every 1kg of air.
30 degrees C fuel will have about 6 kJ
5 degrees C fuel will have about 1 kJ
So your 5 deg C fuel can remove about 5 kJ of heat...and therefore 5 degrees C from the air.
5 deg C = 9 deg F.
According to Forge's chart, that's 1.5% of your power. On a modded 225 running about 265 hp, that's almost 4 hp at the crank.
So running extreme cooling and a very rich ratio (which is not what you want for making power) you might cool your intake charge by 9 degrees and make 1.5% more hp. The horsepower gain could be negated by the hard to atomize fuel (which is near the freezing temp of water







) and also by the rich ratio.


----------



## steve05ram360 (Aug 14, 2006)

OK, thanks for crunching the numbers...
edit:
Ok so after re-reading your numbers they make sense and I buy it. So now lets look into what happens to the timing..? there has to be an explanation for the bump. will the ecu advance timing until it detects a ping then start to pull it back some? maybe reducing hot spots in the cylinder?


_Modified by steve05ram360 at 12:08 PM 10-13-2008_


----------

