# Intercooler height vs length



## derekb727 (Dec 22, 2007)

I am looking at two different intercoolers. both flow close to the same and are rater for close to the same HP. But which one is going to cool better?

Here they are:

Both Treadstone

TR1045 1000cfm 880hp
10.5 (height) x 22 (width) x 4.5 (depth)

TR12 1142cfm 760 hp
12.5 (height) x 22 (width) x 3.5 (depth)


As you can see the differences there no need for me to type them out. (but i will anyway)

One flows more but is rated for less hp

One is rated for more hp but flows less.

I will be running a BorgWarner EFR 7670 on a 20v 1.8t and have a goal of 600+awhp on race gas. 

I would like to know which one is going to produce the coolest air. The taller but thinner or the shorter but thicker>>?

TIA Guys

db


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

taller is better than longer. But of course, only if the endtanks are designed so that the extra surface area is made use of.


----------



## Harry Sax (Apr 21, 2011)

12.5" tall has a cross section of 43.75 sq inch

10.5" tall has a cross section of 47.25 sq inch

the 10.5" tall one has 8% more area of cross section...... that said;

12.5" has 275 sq inch of surface area.

10.5" has 231 sq inch of surface area.

12.5" has 19% more surface area.

my uneducated mind says all things being equal that; more surface area will cool more, while more cross sectional area will flow more.

what are the inlet/outlet sizings like? the same?

what are the rated pressure drops for each?

go 12.5" tall for more cooling ability.

good luck. i saw some cool intercooler flow calcs and tables somewheres a long while ago. search that stuff out.


(go taller for more power and cooler charge)


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

Harry Sax said:


> my uneducated mind says all things being equal that; more surface area will cool more, while more cross sectional area will flow more.


not really. 

i believe that after the first 4inches a coolers ability drops by 50%, and then a another 50% on the next 4 inches (someone who has the exact numbers, correct me if i'm off on this). So adding extra length starts getting useless, while adding width is beneficial. I believe there is also a similar factor for the thickness, where the second two inches of depth, only cools 50% of the first 2 inches, etc, etc. This is way coolers like the APR Z flow series, are so effective.

the other reality though is that we typically arent building race cars that see 30+ minutes of WOT. So the difference between a 'good' setup, and a 'really good' setup may be trivial at best.

:beer:


----------



## derekb727 (Dec 22, 2007)

TR1045

TR12

There are the 2 intercoolers there.

I guess i should have put depth not length.

They both have 3" inlet/outlets

Also about the flow of the bottom part of the intercooler treadstone has this ****These intercoolers feature a divided inlet to help route air to the top of the intercooler, eliminating heat soak the bottom of the intercooler, and dispersing the air more efficiently. **** on both of them


----------



## vergessen wir es (May 12, 2010)

Depth doesn't proportionally add cooling because the second half of the core only does 25% of the work. Increases in frontal area will add cooling more proportionally. Deeper cores also offer more resistance to flow through their frontal area.

Since the two coolers are from the same company it is probably safe to say that the HP rating is proportional to how much heat can be removed, so the 4" core will cool more.

Even so, if your HP goal is covered by the 3" unit I would go for that one if for no other reason than ease of installation.


----------



## TIGninja (Mar 21, 2010)

vergessen wir es said:


> Depth doesn't proportionally add cooling because the second half of the core only does 25% of the work. Increases in frontal area will add cooling more proportionally. Deeper cores also offer more resistance to flow through their frontal area.
> 
> Since the two coolers are from the same company it is probably safe to say that the HP rating is proportional to how much heat can be removed, so the 4" core will cool more.
> 
> Even so, if your HP goal is covered by the 3" unit I would go for that one if for no other reason than ease of installation.


False. Intercoolers work be absorbing the heat out of the charge air and storing it in the mass of the core. A good intercooler core is heavy and has alot of internal surface area. Unless you are driving around in boost in reverse the amount of frontal area is only a small factor in cooling.

The flow is more or less determined by the bar and plate ratio to ambient flow to charge area and the amount of fins in the charge air side of the core. Cheap ebay cores flow alot because they dont have enough cooling fins inside.They just dont cool the charge air very well.


----------



## vergessen wir es (May 12, 2010)

Not false. For the same construction, fin density, open are percentage then my statements are correct.


----------



## TIGninja (Mar 21, 2010)

vergessen wir es said:


> Not false. For the same construction, fin density, open are percentage then my statements are correct.


Sure I will agree with that part. It was the frontal area part I wasnt in agreement with.


----------



## vergessen wir es (May 12, 2010)

It is difficult to single out A single dimension. A longer core (in flow direction) doesn't help as much as a taller one for example yet the frontal areas may be the same. When you can increase a dimension (and associated mass) in the most beneficial directions you maximize cooling.


----------



## Scooter98144 (Jul 15, 2002)

If you want better answers and less BS go get Corky Bells books on Turbo charging or Supercharging and read the sections on intercooler design.


----------



## Harry Sax (Apr 21, 2011)

Scooter98144 said:


> If you want better answers and less BS go get Corky Bells books on Turbo charging or Supercharging and read the sections on intercooler design.


----------



## GTijoejoe (Oct 6, 2001)

vergessen wir es said:


> Depth doesn't proportionally add cooling because the second half of the core only does 25% of the work. Increases in frontal area will add cooling more proportionally. Deeper cores also offer more resistance to flow through their frontal area.
> 
> Since the two coolers are from the same company it is probably safe to say that the HP rating is proportional to how much heat can be removed, so the 4" core will cool more.
> 
> Even so, if your HP goal is covered by the 3" unit I would go for that one if for no other reason than ease of installation.


I'm sure the thinner core will support your goals.

Anyways, the depth of the cores arn't geared towards the cooling ability so much. You are correct by stating its difficult to understand a,b,c dimension change and their effects.
The purpose of the core thickness is to properly allow the flow to disperse in the core and not slow down, its for pressure drops. Its easier from the inlet to make the flow travel the same distance will provide for the best pressure drop and keep the flow up... although making a square IC isn't so good for other things... IC's are alot of compromises in their dimensions... 
Height, Frontal area is good for cooling,
Lenth is good for heat dispersment/absorbtion of the IC mass, 
Thickness is good for minimal pressure drops, helps flow
... in perspective all these have negs. too dealing with friction, pressure drop and flow constrictions, and cooling efficiency.

Most likely, depending on the power goal, you should use the smaller IC.... bigger is not always better, too large of an IC can cause turbo lag. (extreme volume which the turbo as to pressurize)


----------



## Harry Sax (Apr 21, 2011)

i am not going to do this with all 26 pages of the intercooler chapter. what i base my "uneducated guess" on is research. lots of it. not saying i am right or wrong, as there are so many variables that its hard to define what is "BEST".


----------



## TIGninja (Mar 21, 2010)

Harry Sax said:


> i am not going to do this with all 26 pages of the intercooler chapter. what i base my "uneducated guess" on is research. lots of it. not saying i am right or wrong, as there are so many variables that its hard to define what is "BEST".


In theory it is true but in the real world its not so much.


----------



## slcturbo (Apr 19, 2010)

TIGninja said:


> Cheap ebay cores flow alot because they dont have enough cooling fins inside..


You can't have it both ways though.

Less fins= less cooling, but also less pressure drop which means less boost coming out of the turbo to see desired psi at the manifold. More fins=more cooling but more restriction so you have to run more boost to compensate and make more heat.

6 of one, half dozen of the other. Depends on setup and what it's used for. More fins isn't always better.

Corky Bell actually recommends a low turbulator count intercooler for limited space applications when intercooler size is on the smaller side.


----------



## slcturbo (Apr 19, 2010)

Now post the pages on fin/turbulator count. People talk about fin count on here to justify their intercooler that costs 5x what a cxracing unit does. High fin count isn't always better.

More fins=more restriction.


----------



## therealvrt (Jul 21, 2004)

The more end tank surface area the better. A smaller core with top/bottom endtanks will yeild better results than an intercooler with side end tanks. Cores being identical brands of course.


----------



## slcturbo (Apr 19, 2010)

10.5 will be less restrictive(more internal flow area)

12.5 might cool a little better(thinner,taller)


----------



## Harry Sax (Apr 21, 2011)

slcturbo said:


> Now post the pages on fin/turbulator count.


hit the LINK i put it above.


----------



## slcturbo (Apr 19, 2010)

Harry Sax said:


> hit the LINK i put it above.


Cool. I don't speak Spanish unfortunately, but I have my own copy on pdf. Helps me sift through the agenda based/product pushing BS on this forum.


----------



## TIGninja (Mar 21, 2010)

That book was written so long ago most of it isnt even relevant. Thats why it has so much info on tuning your carbs for boost.


----------



## slcturbo (Apr 19, 2010)

TIGninja said:


> That book was written so long ago most of it isnt even relevant. Thats why it has so much info on tuning your carbs for boost.


Most of it isn't relevant? Really? Turbo theory has changed that much? :bs:


----------



## Harry Sax (Apr 21, 2011)

slcturbo said:


> Cool. I don't speak Spanish unfortunately, but I have my own copy on pdf. Helps me sift through the agenda based/product pushing BS on this forum.



it says, "right click *HERE*. save as".....


----------



## TIGninja (Mar 21, 2010)

slcturbo said:


> Most of it isn't relevant? Really? Turbo theory has changed that much? :bs:


Yes actually it has. Things like fuel injection for one.


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

TIGninja said:


> That book was written so long ago most of it isnt even relevant. Thats why it has so much info on tuning your carbs for boost.


*2

so much of it is inaccurate, or completely biased towards the products he sells.

much better book....
http://www.amazon.com/Turbocharging...56/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1303540511&sr=8-12


----------



## slcturbo (Apr 19, 2010)

TIGninja said:


> Yes actually it has. Things like fuel injection for one.


Ok. That's one. However the vast majority of the book is still relevant IMO.


----------



## Harry Sax (Apr 21, 2011)

TBT-Syncro said:


> http://www.amazon.com/Turbocharging...56/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1303540511&sr=8-12


i have that one, and this one as well plus a few more with stuff more geared towards nitrous, supercharging, etc.


http://www.amazon.com/Street-Turboc...nce-Turbocharger/dp/1557884889/ref=pd_sim_b_6


----------



## TIGninja (Mar 21, 2010)

slcturbo said:


> Ok. That's one. However the vast majority of the book is still relevant IMO.


And its all going to come down to this. Have you ever built and intercooler (or anything for that matter)? I have built hundreds of intercoolers and complete turbo systems. This is what I do. Your just some troll on the internet :laugh:


----------



## leebro61 (Nov 7, 2001)

The 4.5" core will perform negligibly better in terms of cooling the charge air, however your radiator cooling may or may not be sensitive to the extra blockage. I'd suggest running whatever one fits the car better.


----------



## slcturbo (Apr 19, 2010)

TIGninja said:


> And its all going to come down to this. Have you ever built and intercooler (or anything for that matter)? I have built hundreds of intercoolers and complete turbo systems. This is what I do. Your just some troll on the internet :laugh:


Congrats. That's probably all you do though. I'm a little more well rounded

Your a much bigger troll than me sir. You don't leave this site for more than 10 min. It's sad.

Lastly. I built a car that's faster than yours:laugh:


----------



## Dave926 (Mar 30, 2005)

slcturbo said:


> Congrats. That's probably all you do though. I'm a little more well rounded
> 
> Your a much bigger troll than me sir. You don't leave this site for more than 10 min. It's sad.
> 
> Lastly. I built a car that's faster than yours:laugh:



Pretty sure that after some of the pics Ive seen of chuck's work he build cars faster than yours. You still doing that manifold for the H22?


----------



## slcturbo (Apr 19, 2010)

Dave926 said:


> Pretty sure that after some of the pics Ive seen of chuck's work he build cars faster than yours. You still doing that manifold for the H22?


:laugh:I'm sure he does man. He should build himself one though. Then maybe he wont be so offended by someone running 11.4's with a different viewpoint.


----------



## Northfox (Jul 6, 2010)

wow, forced induction forum = broken record.


----------



## TIGninja (Mar 21, 2010)

Northfox said:


> wow, forced induction forum = broken record.


Yea I hear that. Every time I try to add some actual information to the threads this clown shows up.


----------

