# Twintercooler vs. Intercooler



## 2.0Tgti (Dec 20, 2006)

Ok, so I'm thinking either eurojet or forge. I'm crossing VF and APR off the list right away due to price. I wanna do this sooner rather than later. So here s the question....
is there an advantage to 2 intercoolers or did forge do it just for ease of install??? does it offer more cooling than running a fmic alone?


_Modified by 2.0Tgti at 8:01 PM 11-21-2007_


----------



## 2.0Tgti (Dec 20, 2006)

*Re: Twintercooler vs. Intercooler (2.0Tgti)*

Its basically down to Forge and Eurojet. I love both companies. Good people with good products. I'm just kinda debating the twin setup vs. Eurojet stage 3 that includes throttle and discharge pipes.....


----------



## Dan GSR (Dec 10, 2004)

*Re: Twintercooler vs. Intercooler (2.0Tgti)*

i think the twintercooler is a poor design
first, the air is going to go thru the path of least resistance
second, with the added volume it can add lag as there is much more volume to fill


----------



## winsbluejetta (Feb 7, 2005)

*Re: Twintercooler vs. Intercooler (Dan GSR)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Dan GSR* »_i think the twintercooler is a poor design
first, the air is going to go thru the path of least resistance
second, with the added volume it can add lag as there is much more volume to fill

I agree...when I do an intercooler its eurojet all the way!


----------



## 02GTI-VR6-same1 (Nov 18, 2004)

*Re: Twintercooler vs. Intercooler (winsbluejetta)*

I think forged already addressed theoretically its not suppose to work but in practice/testing it did hence why they went with it. there was nothing stopping them from doing a conventional FMIC like they've been doing all along. I'm sure eurojet works great no knock on them but with the Forge its a matter of you thinking its a bad design vs them testing it and determining its not a bad design afterall. I cant offer any advice though it be tough for me to choose as well.


----------



## Seanathan (May 1, 2002)

*Re: Twintercooler vs. Intercooler (02GTI-VR6-same1)*

I'm not knocking Forge at all, as if its proven to work, then thats awesome. But one reason why I'd go with a single core over a dual is the fact that there are other components that need cooling. Adding a fourth core doesn't help the radiator or the A/C unit too much. And being in Arizona they need as much cooling as they can get. If anyone's looked inside the engine bay and underneath the car there isn't much airflow going into the engine compartment.


----------



## Dan GSR (Dec 10, 2004)

*Re: Twintercooler vs. Intercooler (Seanathan)*

another excellent point


----------



## D.Passat00 (Feb 29, 2004)

*Re: Twintercooler vs. Intercooler (Dan GSR)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Dan GSR* »_i think the twintercooler is a poor design
first, the air is going to go thru the path of least resistance
second, with the added volume it can add lag as there is much more volume to fill

i have the twincooler and i didn't feel any more lag compared to just using the stock fmic.


----------



## D.Passat00 (Feb 29, 2004)

*Re: Twintercooler vs. Intercooler (Seanathan)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Seanathan* »_I'm not knocking Forge at all, as if its proven to work, then thats awesome. But one reason why I'd go with a single core over a dual is the fact that there are other components that need cooling. Adding a fourth core doesn't help the radiator or the A/C unit too much. And being in Arizona they need as much cooling as they can get. If anyone's looked inside the engine bay and underneath the car there isn't much airflow going into the engine compartment.









i haven't heard of any overheating problems on the 2.0t. i'm sure it's overdesigned in this regard considering the s3 2.0t uses the same radiator as the gti. though if you're concerned with airflow to the radiator, then get the apr fmic.


----------



## Forge Motorsport (May 3, 2001)

Tried and tested in the heat of the Saudi Desert , Australia, Florida , it will be fine in all temps


----------



## bsosa69 (Nov 21, 2005)

*Re: Twintercooler vs. Intercooler (2.0Tgti)*


_Quote, originally posted by *2.0Tgti* »_Its basically down to Forge and Eurojet. I love both companies. Good people with good products. I'm just kinda debating the twin setup vs. Eurojet stage 3 that includes throttle and discharge pipes.....

How much does the Eurojet cost with all the pipes?


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: Twintercooler vs. Intercooler (Dan GSR)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Dan GSR* »_i think the twintercooler is a poor design
first, the air is going to go thru the path of least resistance
second, with the added volume it can add lag as there is much more volume to fill

+1, it's slightly amazing that people claim that there is no difference in boost ramp-up since it is clearly evident in every single twintercooler log i've seen.
Dave


----------



## FSIGTI (Oct 9, 2006)

*Re: Twintercooler vs. Intercooler (Seanathan)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Seanathan* »_I'm not knocking Forge at all, as if its proven to work
Adding a fourth core doesn't help the radiator or the A/C unit too much. And being in Arizona they need as much cooling as they can get. If anyone's looked inside the engine bay and underneath the car there isn't much airflow going into the engine compartment.









Are you serious with this comment?


----------



## 2.0Tgti (Dec 20, 2006)

*Re: Twintercooler vs. Intercooler (bsosa69)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bsosa69* »_
How much does the Eurojet cost with all the pipes?

I believe its 899 regular price. you can find em for less on sale though. I was going that route originally without considering the forge unit but from what ive read the throttle pipe and discharge arent really something thatll add noticeable power. 


_Modified by 2.0Tgti at 6:13 AM 11-22-2007_


----------



## asylum (Jan 11, 2000)

*Re: Twintercooler vs. Intercooler (2.0Tgti)*

has anyone tried the ATP setup?


----------



## 2.0Tgti (Dec 20, 2006)

*Re: Twintercooler vs. Intercooler (asylum)*


_Quote, originally posted by *asylum* »_has anyone tried the ATP setup?

I think a couple of people have it. I've heard good things. not the best fitment but it does fit and uses one of the best cores around. I'm considering that one as well.


----------



## 2.0Tgti (Dec 20, 2006)

*Re: Twintercooler vs. Intercooler (asylum)*


_Quote, originally posted by *asylum* »_has anyone tried the ATP setup?

pm idle10. he has it.


----------



## plastic_starfish (Jul 6, 2007)

*Re: (Forge Motorsport)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Forge Motorsport* »_Tried and tested in the heat of the Saudi Desert , Australia, Florida , it will be fine in all temps 

i'm gonna get one before christmas http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## rysskii3 (Apr 19, 2006)

eurojet stage 3


----------



## Forge US (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re:*

As usual, there's a lot of speculation about our setup and supposed negative effects from its use but no hard evidence as such.








While a small amount of pressure drop certainly exists; we've never denied it, the kit has been evidenced time and time again to make more power throughout the entire RPM range with no ill effects at all. 
Our own dyno's, independent dyno's and magazine articles are all in agreement on it.
No change to spool (requested vs. actual boost) as the charge piping system is already pressurized at idle, and certainly no change to the thermal efficency of anything else on the car.
Coolant temps remain unaffected as do oil temps.
You guys talk about adding an additional core into the system as though it's a brick wall and air is completely prevented from acting on the OEM intercooler and the radiator and A/C condenser behind our core altogether. 
This arguement, of ambient airflow being reduced or limited to the OEM heat exchangers, is only made concerning our kit for some reason, and not for any other kit that places a core behind the front grill.
It's glaringly obvious that ambient airflow will still flow through the core behind the grill to everything behind it, on top of the fact that there is still the ENTIRE upper grill left completely open to allow ample ambient flow as well. 
Not to mention the fans that will draw air through the grills over the OEM heat exchanger sandwich.
The rather large OEM intercooler is quite effective for it's given usage. 
No one seems to argues that. 
Everyone is quick to eliminate it, however, and go with a smaller unit because it includes replacement piping. Don't get me wrong, it's all nice quality stuff, but there is no evidence of any kind that the OEM piping is a "restriction" by any measure, and needs to be replaced because more "flow" is required. 
(boost pressure being a measured restriction of flow and all)
Everyone seems to argue the unique design of our kit as being its weakest attribute. That it can't possibly work. It's too inefficient. Blah blah blah blah blah.
You guys seem quick to forget that many cars in the VAG lineup use dual core systems, MK1 TT's and A4's most notably, and they work reasonable well given their poor placement in the fender wells. Everyone with a single sidemount wants to upgrade to duals and no one tells them not to, except for the fact that they're not readily available and fitment isn't easy. 
This setup is no different. Instead of a huge 3 feet long crossover pipe to connect 2 sidemounts, however, there are 2 appropriately sized hoses with as minimal internal volume as possible connecting 2 efficient cores.
With the 2 cores incorporated for the dissipation of heat, both cores are working at far less than their individual maximum capacity resulting in the most reduced potential for heat soak. As one core may begin to reach the upper limits of its own thermal efficiency, the second core will begin to work more efficiently at sharing the work load. The units will work together to maintain an equilibrium. A single core system doesn't have the ability to share it's work load with a second core.
Though I freely admit to being apprehensive about the design myself when it was first presented, we couldn't have sold 30 units here in the US alone in the last 2 months, and over 300 since their release, if it was such a crappy design and didn't work.
The kit's obvious effectiveness and the word of mouth of happy customers are doing our sales work for us. We can't make them fast enough for the order's we're receiving, and have never had to honor a single warranty claim for a unit being returned because it "didn't work" nor for a customer not being satisfied. 
With an unlimited lifetime warranty and full money back guarantee, yet no one returning a kit for a refund, it's hard to make the arguement that the kit doesn't work as advertised.
Try it.
You have nothing to lose.
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


_Modified by [email protected] at 1:26 PM 11-22-2007_


----------



## 2.0Tgti (Dec 20, 2006)

*Re: Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_As usual, there's a lot of speculation about our setup and supposed negative effects from its use but no hard evidence as such.








While a small amount of pressure drop certainly exists; we've never denied it, the kit has been evidenced time and time again to make more power throughout the entire RPM range with no ill effects at all. 
Our own dyno's, independent dyno's and magazine articles are all in agreement on it.
No change to spool (requested vs. actual boost) as the charge piping system is already pressurized at idle, and certainly no change to the thermal efficency of anything else on the car.
Coolant temps remain unaffected as do oil temps.
You guys talk about adding an additional core into the system as though it's a brick wall and air is completely prevented from acting on the OEM intercooler and the radiator and A/C condenser behind our core altogether. 
This arguement, of ambient airflow being reduced or limited to the OEM heat exchangers, is only made concerning our kit for some reason, and not for any other kit that places a core behind the front grill.
It's glaringly obvious that ambient airflow will still flow through the core behind the grill to everything behind it, on top of the fact that there is still the ENTIRE upper grill left completely open to allow ample ambient flow as well. 
Not to mention the fans that will draw air through the grills over the OEM heat exchanger sandwich.
The rather large OEM intercooler is quite effective for it's given usage. 
No one seems to argues that. 
Everyone is quick to eliminate it, however, and go with a smaller unit because it includes replacement piping. Don't get me wrong, it's all nice quality stuff, but there is no evidence of any kind that the OEM piping is a "restriction" by any measure, and needs to be replaced because more "flow" is required. 
(boost pressure being a measured restriction of flow and all)
Everyone seems to argue the unique design of our kit as being its weakest attribute. That it can't possibly work. It's too inefficient. Blah blah blah blah blah.
You guys seem quick to forget that many cars in the VAG lineup use dual core systems, MK1 TT's and A4's most notably, and they work reasonable well given their poor placement in the fender wells. Everyone with a single sidemount wants to upgrade to duals and no one tells them not to, except for the fact that they're not readily available and fitment isn't easy. 
This setup is no different. Instead of a huge 3 feet long crossover pipe to connect 2 sidemounts, however, there are 2 appropriately sized hoses with as minimal internal volume as possible connecting 2 efficient cores.
With the 2 cores incorporated for the dissipation of heat, both cores are working at far less than their individual maximum capacity resulting in the most reduced potential for heat soak. As one core may begin to reach the upper limits of its own thermal efficiency, the second core will begin to work more efficiently at sharing the work load. The units will work together to maintain an equilibrium. A single core system doesn't have the ability to share it's work load with a second core.
Though I freely admit to being apprehensive about the design myself when it was first presented, we couldn't have sold 30 units here in the US alone in the last 2 months, and over 300 since their release, if it was such a crappy design and didn't work.
The kit's obvious effectiveness and the word of mouth of happy customers are doing our sales work for us. We can't make them fast enough for the order's we're receiving, and have never had to honor a single warranty claim for a unit being returned because it "didn't work" nor for a customer not being satisfied. 
With an unlimited lifetime warranty and full money back guarantee, yet no one returning a kit for a refund, it's hard to make the arguement that the kit doesn't work as advertised.
Try it.
You have nothing to lose.
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif

_Modified by [email protected] at 1:26 PM 11-22-2007_

Good info, thanks mike. I wasnt trying to start a lets gang up on forge battle, I just wanted some more info on twin vs. single. Your post cleared up alot of my doubts for sure. The sales #s also say quite a bit for the product.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Re: (2.0Tgti)*

There's also data on Forge's website:
http://www.forgemotorsport.com...NTMK5
And some great logs of a revo stg2 with forge's twintercooler were just recently posted here by user piraat http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3554154


----------



## rbradleymedmd (Feb 24, 2007)

*Re: Re: (syntrix)*

you could always add the EJ IC pipes to the Forge FMIC and have the best of both worlds if you liked certain aspects of both


----------



## Seanathan (May 1, 2002)

*Re: Twintercooler vs. Intercooler (FSIGTI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *FSIGTI* »_
Are you serious with this comment?

Any reason why I wouldn't be? 
If you've never been in 110 degree summer heat then you wouldn't have much of idea how your car acts.








Trust me, I've done tons of data logging on my old Jetta out here. When I first ran a larger turbo I had my front bumper cut a bit to allow more air flow. Once I bought a new front bumper with the GLI front valence the temps were completely different. Air temps went up a bit (as the intercooler was not exposed as much as before) and the radiator fan turned on at about every red light compared to before when it barely ever turned on. 
I think I need to say that I'm NOT knocking on the Forge twincooler. I was just stating my reason why I wanted to go a single core intercooler core over a dual. Thats my personal reason. I wasn't knocking on Forge. Infact, since they said it was tested in Saudi then I will look at it more than I was concidering before.












_Modified by Seanathan at 4:57 PM 11-22-2007_


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

Sorry Mike but the data posted on your website is dubious at best since it is clearly evident that the data was compiled in cool weather. If IATs were at 28C, then most likely the external temps were somewhere close to 70F. How about doing some testing in 100 degree weather like Eurojet & APR? 
An IC functions as a heat exchanger. Since you are limiting airflow to the cores behind it, how could you not affect the performance of those as well? Not to mention the ambient air reaching those cores warmer. While airflow to the upper cores is unhindered, where is the pickup for the radiatior & AC condensor? (hint: not the top)
As for your claims that the huge increase in IC volume doesn't have an impact on boost buildup, I'd like to see some of your data proving it. These are not from my car, but were sent to me to compile awhile ago.








You can clearly see that the forge takes longer to spool to max boost due to all the extra volume in the system. 
Looking at Pirrat's REVO SII logs with your twintercooler, you can see the same effect despite the REVO program utilizing more N75% on boost ramp (100% vs 95% on APR).
When I was researching ICs awhile ago, I did some rough calculations on internal volume of different cores. Yours had the greatest internal volume.
Stock: 16.25”x24”x1.25”
27 charge rows (.25 charge, .25” fin)
2.1” inlet, 2.1” outlet
Est volume: 202.5 cubic inches
Forge: 19.5” x 7” x 3”
7 Charge Rows (.25” charge & .5" fin) + Stock
Est Volume: 304.9 cubic inches 
Keep in mind, the calculations do not include endtank volume, as well as the significant increase in volume created by the extra tubing that is required for your kit. Since the extra tubing and endtanks have no real heat-exchanging properties, the volume they add is entirely detrimental to the system. 
Dave


----------



## Piraat (Aug 3, 2007)

vs








Maybe someone needs to learn how to read a graph. I could be going out on a limb but it looks to me as if my Actual Boost is exceeding the Requested.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (Piraat)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Piraat* »_
Maybe someone needs to learn how to read a graph. I could be going out on a limb but it looks to me as if my Actual Boost is exceeding the Requested. 

Not talking about actual max boost #s, but how fast the boost climbs. 
Dave


----------



## Hkysk8r07 (Jul 9, 2005)

mike with all this speculation you might need to send me one to go test out in death valler and run some logs for you


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 5, 2005)

*Re: (Hkysk8r07)*

To add to the mix, I'd like to add Eurojet's Logs and Dynos. All logs were performed and supplied by Eurojet at their location is Tempe, Arizona. Dynos were done at a nearby facility also located in Tempe, Arizona. All runs done with their MKV GTI. All of the logs and dynos below have been posted before.
Stock FMIC vs. Eurojet FMIC - Dyno #1








4 Back to back Dyno Runs w/ Eurojet FMIC Installed - Dyno #2








Ambient vs IAT Log
Logged during 1 Dyno run above










_Modified by [email protected] at 7:29 PM 11-23-2007_


----------



## dubsker (Jan 8, 2006)

john, those are great numbers from eurojet.
do you happen to have the same testsas pictures #2 and #3, but with the stocker?


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 5, 2005)

*Re: (vrsix kevin)*

Unfortunately I don't have those dynos/logs. Sorry.


----------



## dubsker (Jan 8, 2006)

all good.
i assume the IAT is taken right after the intercooler?
where is the engine output temp taken?


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (vrsix kevin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *vrsix kevin* »_all good.
i assume the IAT is taken right after the intercooler?
where is the engine output temp taken?

IAT is measured at the throttle body. 
Dave


----------



## Spongebobnopants (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: (crew219)*

Crew,
Who's logs are these? This car looks to have boost issues. Peak boost isn't reached until close to 4k with either. Care to share the raw data? You have engine load for both logs right? Environmentals, etc...


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (Spongebobnopants)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Spongebobnopants* »_Crew,
Who's logs are these? This car looks to have boost issues. Peak boost isn't reached until close to 4k with either. Care to share the raw data? You have engine load for both logs right? Environmentals, etc...










SBNP, I agree, clearly looks like crew either had a bad a boost leak or poor software in his graph. I'd throw out the sample, as it's not even close to current, and it doesn't even look like ANY twintercooler logs that I have seen. Good eye SBNP http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (Spongebobnopants)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Spongebobnopants* »_Crew,
Who's logs are these? This car looks to have boost issues. Peak boost isn't reached until close to 4k with either. Care to share the raw data? You have engine load for both logs right? Environmentals, etc...









These were taken from a CA member a few months ago who sent me data to put together. The logs were taken 2 days apart. Engine load is irrelevant since boost request is load based. I'd tell you specifics but you'd probably find some way to flame APR out of it all.








Dave


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_

SBNP, I agree, clearly looks like crew either had a bad a boost leak or poor software in his graph. I'd throw out the sample, as it's not even close to current, and it doesn't even look like ANY twintercooler logs that I have seen. Good eye SBNP http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif

Lol hardly. Look at any twintercooler graph and compare it to a stock IC. You'll see that there's a slower boost climb. I'd post up another member's logs, but he has tweaked his wastegate so his data isn't really comparable anymore. Regardless, it still shows delayed boost buildup.
Dave


----------



## x9t (Sep 19, 2005)

I dont have any logs or any Data to back up my claims, buy my dyno butt felt it and i was finally able to chirp 2nd to 3rd shifts. Car still feels great during the cali sun.The FORGE looked great too.. wish it wasnt so hidden sometimes.

JT


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

Inter cooler size and piping size is something you calc for a specific setup.
1:Wanna go 300hp+ ?
Calc air speed vs inner diam in your pipes.
Wery easy

2:What does the charge air have problems with?
AREA DIFFERENCES!
You do not wanna have 4 intercooler charge tanks to get pressure drop in.
You dont wanna have sevral different piping sizes .
And you want to have correct piping size.

I just love how forge protect their product when the entire cooling lab att work laught their ass of just by looking at their design.

For anyone intrested in Intercooler design and design on charge piping , cooler fin design etc i got some info i can email you.
Email me at the lab and ill give you design and calc spreed shets 
[email protected]


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Inter cooler size and piping size is something you calc for a specific setup.
1:Wanna go 300hp+ ?
Calc air speed vs inner diam in your pipes.
Wery easy

2:What does the charge air have problems with?
AREA DIFFERENCES!
You do not wanna have 4 intercooler charge tanks to get pressure drop in.
You dont wanna have sevral different piping sizes .
And you want to have correct piping size.

I just love how forge protect their product when the entire cooling lab att work laught their ass of just by looking at their design.

For anyone intrested in Intercooler design and design on charge piping , cooler fin design etc i got some info i can email you.
Email me at the lab and ill give you design and calc spreed shets 
[email protected]


Which lab is that ?
You work for Scania ? (they make buses i think..)


----------



## Arin (Jun 27, 2002)

*Re: (crew219)*

For what it's worth I did not feel this 'gain' with the twintercooler as most people claim. Does forge even claim any HP gains?


----------



## coolstrybrah (Feb 25, 2007)

*Re: (Arin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Arin* »_For what it's worth I did not feel this 'gain' with the twintercooler as most people claim. Does forge even claim any HP gains?

According to Forge 12hp and 7tq(I am guessing to the ground since it was on a dyno). Its right on there website...
http://forgemotorsport.com/con...NTMK5
Me personally I felt a bit top end gain. Love the summers now with the twintercool. Lag? What lag. Forge is proven and stands by there products...Not happy? Get your money back no questions asked.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (Arin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Arin* »_For what it's worth I did not feel this 'gain' with the twintercooler as most people claim. Does forge even claim any HP gains?

Yep they do. Basically all the HP gains are in the upper RPMs. Keep in mind their testing is done on a dyno, which really doesn't accurately simulate real-world driving since the airflow provided by the fans is localized and not powerful enough.
IIRC the only dyno setup that comes close to real-world scenarios is the MAHA @ AMS.
Dave


----------



## Spongebobnopants (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: (crew219)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew219* »_
These were taken from a CA member a few months ago who sent me data to put together. The logs were taken 2 days apart. Engine load is irrelevant since boost request is load based. I'd tell you specifics but you'd probably find some way to flame APR out of it all.








Dave

Show me 2 roads with slightly diff inclines and I'll show you two actual boost actual logs that differ. Even the same road starting at two slightly diff. spots. Rolling start AIT, Humidity etc. are all factors. Post or email me the raw data and we we decide your motives here.
As for APR, there is not much more to flame, we see the their problem with the stock IC already. You can't deny this boost actual for either run is abnormal.


----------



## Spongebobnopants (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: (Arin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Arin* »_For what it's worth I did not feel this 'gain' with the twintercooler as most people claim. Does forge even claim any HP gains?

FWIW, I didn't feel the APR gains. Also, Crew told me he used to chirp them in second and then couldn't as soon as the APR FMIC was on...


----------



## Arin (Jun 27, 2002)

*Re: (Spongebobnopants)*

bottom line I dont think any of the IC setups are going to magically give you noticeable power. My assumption upon purchase was that it would get rid of heat soak in the summer, which my forge IC did.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (Spongebobnopants)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Spongebobnopants* »_
FWIW, I didn't feel the APR gains. Also, Crew told me he used to chirp them in second and then couldn't as soon as the APR FMIC was on...

Lol, as usual Spongebob is leaving out all the facts. If you plan to dredge up IM conversations, perhaps you should mention that I had one of the early crimped hoses which I specifically mentioned was most likely the culprit for poor initial performance. The problem was remedied 3 days later when I pulled the hose and trimmed it by 3/8ths of an inch. 
Lets also not forget that when installing the IC, the battery was pulled since you had to disconnect the airbag crash sensors (in order to remove the lock carrier), therefore resetting all the adaptation values. Once the vehicle is reset, it takes several miles for more agressive timing and boost maps to be put into place. Does boost and timing influence wheel chirping? Absolutely!
Dave


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (Spongebobnopants)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Spongebobnopants* »_
Show me 2 roads with slightly diff inclines and I'll show you two actual boost actual logs that differ. Even the same road starting at two slightly diff. spots. Rolling start AIT, Humidity etc. are all factors. Post or email me the raw data and we we decide your motives here.
As for APR, there is not much more to flame, we see the their problem with the stock IC already. You can't deny this boost actual for either run is abnormal.

Same factors influenced both runs which were done two days apart. Logs that were sent to me were already cropped to show the individual runs. All I did was put them into graph format. I already let the owner of the vehicle know of this thread and we'll see if he feels like being the object of your flamefest.
Dave


----------



## Spongebobnopants (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: (crew219)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew219* »_
Same factors influenced both runs which were done two days apart. Logs that were sent to me were already cropped to show the individual runs. All I did was put them into graph format. I already let the owner of the vehicle know of this thread and we'll see if he feels like being the object of your flamefest.
Dave

no flamefest. Just looking 4 accurate info. Why not post your before and after and show how the APR differs? APR never comented on the fact that they uses two diff. SW for their logs.
lets just get everything out in the open.


----------



## Spongebobnopants (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: (Arin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Arin* »_bottom line I dont think any of the IC setups are going to magically give you noticeable power. My assumption upon purchase was that it would get rid of heat soak in the summer, which my forge IC did.









exactly. Why not just mention that in your earlier post? I almost bought the Forge IC and from what I have seen, I would probably been happy with it. Even if the Forge IC spools a few hundred rpm's slower, it does so when traction is our problem. I'm not saying it is slower either as nobody can argue the boost problem in crews logs. You didn't have that problem with yours IIRC. I can tell you for sure SW WILL AFFECT spool in a big way.
I hate to say it again, but these logs are a further example of the need to be able to tune your SW.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: (GolfRS)*


_Quote, originally posted by *GolfRS* »_
Which lab is that ?
You work for Scania ? (they make buses i think..) 

Hi , trucks,buses, IM engines , boat turbo engines , wall to wall with another big turbo engine company








Propably the worlds largest lab for turbo and cooling http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: ([email protected])*

Ok
Here are first pics of new intercooler setup.
i re-did some thing from last system and tried to use very trick ive found in the test lab at work.
*Problem 1:*
With 50mm turbo outlet you dont want to go to 70mm that hot side piping size is on a short distance and you dont want to have a crappy 90* bend that way to short just like most aftermarket companies put on their kits.
Horrible Lshaper thing








*70mm piping is minimum on that side to keep correct gas speed at 600hp*
I found a cast pice at wotk that went from 50mm to 70mm in a 90* bend.
It was huge but i manged to get it and keep the 7* maximum "area change" angle http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

*Problem 2:*
You dont want alot of bends , sharp bends OR lots of crappy silicone hoses with bad edges that hurt flow.
Ive managed to go with a 70mm pipe over the engine in a 45* angle aming for passenger side head ligth http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Then going past he headligt with small bends and adding the intercooler pipe as far up as i could to get to things.
*One *for having shorter piping with inlet high up on IC.
*two* You dont want inlets to be at same height on both side due to air distrubution shall be over entire core.
Air always takes the easiest path.
Super flow vs less flow but better cooling









Problem 3
You dont want area differences.
And having the 7* rule not going to apply on end tanks you need to make em as good as possilbe without going to big.
Nice radius with good flow vs small area change








I went with cutting up pipes to keep BEST bends possible and to get almost no crappy area change with superb distrubution.

problem 4
Cold side of IC could have went with 70mm.
BUT TB is over bore 76mm so why go with another crappy area change when you basicly already have F!"¤# it up with first IC hot side end tank.
So go with ´the same area as you TB and you got a win win situatuion.
No area change and less resistance.
So i went with 76mm before tb

And of course all pipe are made as short as possible.
And my rotings are as short as they could get.
I acctually removed atleast 700mm so the new larger IC piping is basibly the same area but with better flow , less resistance http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

Problem 5
Most intercoolers are just mounted behind the front bumper without any type of air straighner or air scoop keeping the air from taking the easy path again......and easy path is not trough the cooling fins of interccoler.
So to get best possible cooling i reused last years front scoop for ic and its press fit on my Caractere making all air go throught the intercooler bumper http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

taste of what to come in a couple of weeks


----------



## Seanathan (May 1, 2002)

*Re: ([email protected])*

I like that! Endtanks are nice and the shield to direct flow is a nice touch. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
I read what you wrote back having your inlet and outlet staggered to eachother. This does optimize distribution, but you should really try out a Z configuration. That'd maximize total core usage imho. Keep your hot side the way it is, and put your cold side opposite (farther down) http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

Def interested to see the results tho! Should be good. 
Whats the volume on that guy? 


_Modified by Seanathan at 4:39 PM 11-24-2007_


----------



## D.Passat00 (Feb 29, 2004)

*Re: (crew219)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew219* »_








You can clearly see that the forge takes longer to spool to max boost due to all the extra volume in the system. 


do you have graphs like this for other fmic's? cuz really, it's unfair to judge the Forge against stock if other aftermarket fmic's show something similar.


----------



## D.Passat00 (Feb 29, 2004)

*Re: (D.Passat00)*

also let's not forget the core design. This is from the Forge:


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (D.Passat00)*


_Quote, originally posted by *D.Passat00* »_
do you have graphs like this for other fmic's? cuz really, it's unfair to judge the Forge against stock if other aftermarket fmic's show something similar.

Why would other aftermarket ICs show this? They don't have the same volume as forge. My APR IC certainly doesn't display this horrible boost lag. To answer your question, yes I do have logs of my APR, but the RPM start points are 40rpms apart and the APR IC actually builds boost faster than the stock comparison. Is it the actual case? Probably not, but the overall curve doesn't show any huge changes from stock that couldn't be attributed to "noise" 
Dave


----------



## Piraat (Aug 3, 2007)

*Re: (crew219)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew219* »_
My APR IC certainly doesn't display this horrible boost lag. To answer your question, yes I do have logs of my APR








Yes. I have HORRIBLE boost lag with my forge. You base all your argument over that one log (that looks like ****e) 
Lets see your logs, or are you going to make more excuses?


----------



## Spongebobnopants (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: (crew219)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew219* »_
Engine load is irrelevant since boost request is load based.
Dave

Show me the logs and I'll show you how wrong you are!


----------



## crazywayne311 (Jan 29, 2006)

*Re: (Arin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Arin* »_bottom line I dont think any of the IC setups are going to magically give you noticeable power. My assumption upon purchase was that it would get rid of heat soak in the summer, which my forge IC did.









couldnt have said it better. Forge stands by their product 100%. you cant lose! again why would they design something that doesnt work and then sell it! why is everyone after Forge for?! then came the DV...geez!


----------



## D.Passat00 (Feb 29, 2004)

*Re: (crew219)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew219* »_
Why would other aftermarket ICs show this? They don't have the same volume as forge. My APR IC certainly doesn't display this horrible boost lag. To answer your question, yes I do have logs of my APR, but the RPM start points are 40rpms apart and the APR IC actually builds boost faster than the stock comparison. Is it the actual case? Probably not, but the overall curve doesn't show any huge changes from stock that couldn't be attributed to "noise" 
Dave

well, you're saying the Forge has, in your words, "horrible boost lag", so i want to see logs of other fmics installed to compare the boost lag. also, this would be preferable if it where done on the same car under the same ambient conditions after the car has adjusted to the different fmic's, in order to give a fair assessment.


----------



## Forge Motorsport (May 3, 2001)

If you like it buy it your safe with the Forge warranty , if you dont like it ...no worries ...


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: (Seanathan)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Seanathan* »_I like that! Endtanks are nice and the shield to direct flow is a nice touch. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
I read what you wrote back having your inlet and outlet staggered to eachother. This does optimize distribution, but you should really try out a Z configuration. That'd maximize total core usage imho. Keep your hot side the way it is, and put your cold side opposite (farther down) http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

Def interested to see the results tho! Should be good. 
Whats the volume on that guy? 

_Modified by Seanathan at 4:39 PM 11-24-2007_

Hi
Z-config is great for cooling but hurts flow way to much








Its inbetween that fine line of distrubution vs flow .
(if you are talkin about APR old style.
U-bend style IC is worst case scenario like the old euro style forge and old APR style ic.
Those are just made to fit OEM style intake for some applications.
*BTW that core Forge use is great.*
Also inbetween flow vs cooling.
And thise core cool good flow less so you need to use larger IC vs those crappy china that flow good cool less


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*

[email protected],
Just to clarify your setup, as you didn't really say it.
It's not for a 2.0T FSI. IIRC VR5 on a MKIV chassis is the intended application?
If it is for a MKV 2.0T, then the plumbing is in the wrong spots for a stock config.
I'm sure you are discussing principles. I just wanted to clarify as people might assume that's for an otherwise stock 2.0T FSI http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_[email protected],
Just to clarify your setup, as you didn't really say it.
It's not for a 2.0T FSI. IIRC VR5 on a MKIV chassis is the intended application?
If it is for a MKV 2.0T, then the plumbing is in the wrong spots for a stock config.
I'm sure you are discussing principles. I just wanted to clarify as people might assume that's for an otherwise stock 2.0T FSI http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif

Hi
No it was just to show different type of solution so that people easy can spot what aftermarket solution that dont work
*This is worst case scenario*
*u bend style IC*








Its like a 150hp IC mounted inline = still 150hp is with 400hp core
















*This is worst case scenario*
*u bend style IC* 








*Area change vs slit air path*
















*Here are some horrible endtanks.*
How does the air like to do the 90* bend inside those huge endtanks without any radius?








*OR sudden area change and square quorners?*








The APR MKV design is much better.
Still horrible end tanks







and inlet and oulet far down pointing each other.








Horrible 90* bend








But still better then competition







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








_Modified by [email protected] at 6:49 AM 11-26-2007_


_Modified by [email protected] at 7:01 AM 11-26-2007_


----------



## Piraat (Aug 3, 2007)

LOLCATZMEOWZ


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (Piraat)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Piraat* »_LOLCATZMEOWZ 

Bingo! I did a search. He is showing pics and talking about his VR5 BT project on a MKIV.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
Bingo! I did a search. He is showing pics and talking about his VR5 BT project on a MKIV.

Are you Still not getting it.








*The pics are showing INTERCOOLER design facts *
I hope people see what good by judging design and stay away from those hack job intercoolers.
Some in the 2.0T forum actually want to learn how to do this and not get foled by company comercial




_Modified by [email protected] at 7:15 AM 11-26-2007_


----------



## Piraat (Aug 3, 2007)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
No its not my native language.
How many do you speak?
*Back to intercooler design because i think some people still want to learn here.*

Teach us oh wise master of the languages. We are open eyes if we can decipher sentences that looks like a cross between Micheal J Fox and Ray Charles would type.


----------



## Piraat (Aug 3, 2007)

*Re: (D.Passat00)*


_Quote, originally posted by *D.Passat00* »_
do you have graphs like this for other fmic's? cuz really, it's unfair to judge the Forge against stock if other aftermarket fmic's show something similar.

It's unfair because it's running APR software. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Arin (Jun 27, 2002)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
*Back to intercooler design because i think some people still want to learn here.*

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


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (Piraat)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Piraat* »_
It's unfair because it's running APR software. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

Actually that one [that crew posted] had a boost leak, it was very clear in the logs, as actual never hit requested boost. Or it was as described above by Piraat? I'd lean more towards boost leak, but you will never know.


----------



## Spongebobnopants (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Are you Still not getting it.








*The pics are showing INTERCOOLER design facts *
I hope people see what good by judging design and stay away from those hack job intercoolers.
Some in the 2.0T forum actually want to learn how to do this and not get foled by company comercial
_Modified by [email protected] at 7:15 AM 11-26-2007_

The thread somehow got derailed to crew's bogus logs. The OP wasn't looking for an education on IC's in general as the products readily available on the MKV market don't seem to exhibit some of the bad thing you are pointing out. The ones you do show problems with are physical limitations of placement on our cars. 
I agree, I don't like the commercials either, but unless someone has a flow simulator that mimicks the MKV loaded with all the necessary sensors etc. IE Proof, one is better than the other, than we are just going to go in circles. 
People should be concerned with this:
Pressure drop that tuning won't fix.
Reduction in AIT's.
Adverse effects of the FMIC, if it's placement effects other things.
Cost+install time = True cost.
In the end... I think one would be hard pressed to see one IC show substantial gains over another.


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

*Re: (Spongebobnopants)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Spongebobnopants* »_
In the end... I think one would be hard pressed to see one IC show substantial gains over another.


I agree also at the level most people are at a 100% optimized IC will make little difference over one that is 80% of what a theoretical perfect design would be..
The information is helpful but a bit over the top for this application and discussion.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: (Spongebobnopants)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Spongebobnopants* »_
The thread somehow got derailed to crew's bogus logs. The OP wasn't looking for an education on IC's in general as the products readily available on the MKV market don't seem to exhibit some of the bad thing you are pointing out. The ones you do show problems with are physical limitations of placement on our cars. 
I agree, I don't like the commercials either, but unless someone has a flow simulator that mimicks the MKV loaded with all the necessary sensors etc. IE Proof, one is better than the other, than we are just going to go in circles. 
People should be concerned with this:
Pressure drop that tuning won't fix.
Reduction in AIT's.
Adverse effects of the FMIC, if it's placement effects other things.
Cost+install time = True cost.
In the end... I think one would be hard pressed to see one IC show substantial gains over another.



I saw a test on Passat 2.0T and it had 2 strange side affact of the new Intercooler system they tested.
1:It managed to get a boost spike over requested due to some problem with the pressure sensor vs the new system.
So most gain down low is basicly just tuning error.
2:On a bone stock car tha gain was basicly non existing.
On a chip tuned car they got 7-10hp up top.
But with track simulation thats possible on the http://www.rri.se dynos they did get alot more on a chip tuned car.
as soon as they did a 0-125mph 30-40second wot track simulation they propably had *40hp *







instead over OEM intercooler system. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 



_Modified by [email protected] at 8:20 AM 11-26-2007_


----------



## Spongebobnopants (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
But with track simulation thats possible on the http://www.rri.se dynos they did get alot more on a chip tuned car.
as soon as they did a 0-125mph 30-40second wot track simulation they propably had *40hp *







instead over OEM intercooler system. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
_Modified by [email protected] at 8:20 AM 11-26-2007_

I am assuming this was still not comparing the MKV aftermarket systems to each other. Just one compared to the stock IC?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: (Spongebobnopants)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Spongebobnopants* »_
I am assuming this was still not comparing the MKV aftermarket systems to each other. Just one compared to the stock IC?

It was OEM Passat 2.0T system VS a custom core 12x32x3inch with better type of internal cooling fins.
Racecooling like core and with APR style end caps.
But its nice to see that OEM pice is not that bad before you try to go at WOT like racing on the free way or on a track day.
Then its a good upgrade to prevent detonation http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
But here in europe it seem to be more common to go custom for each setup due to the fact that each setup got different needs and both piping and core needs to be balanced with that in mind.


----------



## D.Passat00 (Feb 29, 2004)

*Re: (Spongebobnopants)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Spongebobnopants* »_
The thread somehow got derailed to crew's bogus logs. The OP wasn't looking for an education on IC's in general as the products readily available on the MKV market don't seem to exhibit some of the bad thing you are pointing out. The ones you do show problems with are physical limitations of placement on our cars. 
I agree, I don't like the commercials either, but unless someone has a flow simulator that mimicks the MKV loaded with all the necessary sensors etc. IE Proof, one is better than the other, than we are just going to go in circles. 
People should be concerned with this:
Pressure drop that tuning won't fix.
Reduction in AIT's.
Adverse effects of the FMIC, if it's placement effects other things.
Cost+install time = True cost.
In the end... I think one would be hard pressed to see one IC show substantial gains over another.


very true. and i think most fmic's aren't really engineered to the fullest extent using Computational flud dynamics (CFD) using computer software that utilize the Navier Stokes equations simply because it's not really a critical system and also, the cost benefits really isn't there and doing such tests is going to marginally increase their sales, at best.
The bottom line is, sure most of the fmic's on the market aren't 100% optimized, but they're close enough that you really won't see much difference between them. And you have to remember that FMIC's are also there to look good as well, which plays a big factor in design. Also, i'm sure that most are way overengineered in terms of size and cooling so that they can meet the needs of most users. If a FMIC was engineered just right to meet the needs of a chipped car+fmic, it might be a little insufficient once you get a downpipe and fuel pump.


----------



## Arin (Jun 27, 2002)

*Re: (D.Passat00)*

How did this discussion flip flop from determining the best setup, including why or why not, to saying 'they are all pretty good and need to look neat'.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: (Arin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Arin* »_How did this discussion flip flop from determining the best setup, including why or why not, to saying 'they are all pretty good and need to look neat'.










Design wise on a full prep bolt on OEM turbo car OR 300hp+ car the APR big FMIC is much better design wise then both VF and Forge.
I do not think that any of those other companies dare to have a IC battle dyno race track/fast street simulation on such full bolt on car vs APR IC equiped car .
Big core large surface with lots of air tubes is what you want for maximum flow and cooling capacity. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Better design the other on endtanks http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
I dont fancy any of those companies but of those ive seen the large fram APR cooler is the way to go.










_Modified by [email protected] at 9:18 AM 11-26-2007_


----------



## ForgeMotorsport (Nov 16, 2000)

*Re: (Piraat)*

I can assureyou that our company bull**** is 100% accurate, and is tried tested and works..... Jesus this place is hard work ....


----------



## Piraat (Aug 3, 2007)

*Re: (ForgeMotorsport)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ForgeMotorsport* »_I can assureyou that our company bull**** is 100% accurate, and is tried tested and works..... Jesus this place is hard work ....

Why do you even bother with these 'tards?


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

*Re: (ForgeMotorsport)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ForgeMotorsport* »_Jesus this place is hard work ....

No kidding. I think this one has run it's course.


----------

