^^^^ i agree, but with E i would run i light mix. like 10-15%. save your rotors.

 

Sure does. I was thinking of trying to drill/tap and put fittings in but I'm a little worried that they woudl restrict some flow. Also there may not be enough room. I like the idea of molding in the two outlet pipes into the existing tanks. It looks like a way smoother way for the water to flow out of the LIM.

 

with my mods my blower doesnt even get warm. not sure further cooling mods are going to show any gain. ill probably do the griffin in addition to the zzp stg 3 at some point but ive clearly gotten past the m62s ability to generate heat.

 

Why two exits? Do it like ZZP/Euthanasia.

 

the only thing going to help out some is a ported blower but even then a water meth setup can only make it even better

 

My reasoning for two exits is that I think I'll have more even flow through the cores. My plan is to use the stock endplate without modifications and have two inlets and two exits. Total flow is not increased, but I think it will be more evenly distributed across all 4 cores.

 

Do you think that or have you heard someone else say that? How do you know that both the inlet and outlet on the stock end plate are designed to flow the same? You could go into all the extra work of designing two inlets but then find that one of the outlets on the stock end plate causes much more restriction then the other. So two of your cores might flow more then the other two.

You would also have to be very precise in the way you feed the two inlets. You will need to have one supply line that will split into two and ensure that both feeds hoses are getting the same flow before it even reaches the IM. That will cause an extra plastic "Y" fitting in your system. Same thing when you merge the two outlets together.

There is not a lot of room to mess around on the passenger side of the engine bay by the IM. Save yourself the hassle of going through all that work with all the unknowns and do it in a proven/simpler way. There is a reason why ZZP did theirs the way they did. There is a reason why Euthanasia did his the way he did. There is a reason why Flatgod made is first one with two inlets/outlets and made he next one with one in/out.

 

OK. I understand that there is some extra plumbing involved here so I'll try to address your questions/concerns/reasoning against they way I am thinking of doing this.

1. For your question on how do I know that the end plate inlets flow the same, I think that we can be reasonably sure that they are designed to flow the same amount. It doesn't seem to be much sense for the GM engineers to design something that either would cause a restrictive exit flow (smaller designed outlet flow vs larger designed inlet flow or a restrictive inlet flow (smaller design inlet flow vs larger design outlet flow). I know this isn't exact but I am comfortable with this assumption.

2. Precision of the design of the coolant lines. I think that I can make them pretty much equal with respect to the amount of coolant flowing to each side of the end plate. I also think that this can be done with the oultlet lines as well. You just need to make sure that the length and height of the lines balance out with respect the head developed by the pump. Not simple but doable.

3. Why am I doing this when x number of people have done it one way. I like to try new things, see if they work. Thats the simle answer. The long answer is that while not better by leaps and bounds, I think that this design is superior. I believe flatgod (correct me if I'm wrong on this) ran a single exit on his redesign becasue of the amount of ductwork he had going on with his air to air setup and felt that the single exit was more than adequate because the stock intercooling system was secondary to the air to air system.

Its a novel, but I think I explained why I want to go this direction pretty well. I'm open to new information and theories though. That's how we learn.

 

How are you planning on getting more flow with 2 inlets rather than 1. You must still have the coolant flow though 1 hose for some of the way and unless you run larger hose for the single hose your mass flow rate will be no different between 1 inlet or 2, because the 1st law of thermodynamics exists.

 

I see what you are going for. But you are not doing anything new. John Powell has been designing them with two in/two out since 2004.

I don't want to put words in his mouth but that is basically it. It was simpler and easier.

If you want to do something that no one has done before, how about a 4 in, 4 out?

 

I'm not trying to get more flow. I realize that the volumetric flow rate will the same as the setup with one inlet and one outlet. By using two inlets and two outlets, I am trying to ensure that the flow is distributed equally across all 4 cores.

I am well aware of the conservation of energy (1st law of thermodynamics). I realize that I cannot increase the mass flow rate by splitting flow. I believe that I can create a more balanced flow using two inlets and two exits.

 

Its possible for sure. Could be intresting. Because you could reduce the size of the hose, it coudl be a little more compact than one would think. You should be able to ensure almost exactly the same flow across the cores this way. It wouldn't be too crazy to do either. You would just have to partition the end plate and the cast ends the exit side.

 

The bitch with that would be actually adapting from 3/4id tube to 4 3/8 id tubes which is what size you would need to maintain the same cross sectional area .

 

That's true. Probably two sets of spilts (1 to 2 then 2 to 4). I am probably over thinking this whole thing. I think I'll see what happens when I get cutting into the thing and decide then. First the porting and then the single pass setup.

 

subd for later

 

While I am no expert on the efficiency of 2in/2out vs 1in/1out, I would think ultimately at the end of the day the difference would be negligible because both styles are fed and exit though the same 3/4 line and flows though the same 4 core regardless. When you consider the cooling system in it's entirety, to say there is a measurable gain to be had by such a "minor" change would be a stretch.

Also, wouldn't the same principal apply as the fueling system? Hydraulic pressure is equal at all points in the system. There is one fuel line on the end of the rail supplying 4 injectors, the pressure is equal in any given point whether it is the first or last injector, adding another in line wouldn't change a thing.

One thing I can say for sure is from the standpoint of building and installing, to build the 2in/2out is much easier but requires more work to install due to extra plumbing whereas the 1in/1out is a lot more work to build but much easier and simpler to install.

 

Well you cant say the same for fuel because of transients, injectors open and close, fuel has inertia, ect.