Golf R FMIC?

[junker]

Haha yeah for sure bro. :thumbsup:

From the pics it looks like there is more core and less end tank, and the endtank is more aero.

A totally stealth bolt-on OEM K04 IC for under $200 is crazy talk. Works for me!!! :thumbup:

 

[ChouDawg]

Now, I know it's been discussed before but anyone going to run the Golf R / S3 IC with a twintake setup for additional volume/surface area?

 

[MKV727]

Are there any comparisons between the S3 and Golf R IC?

Comparisons in dimension, core type and weight?

Remember an air to air intercooler is a heat sink, therefore more weight = better. Aluminum > Plastic endtanks given all else is equal. Aluminum should have better capability of dissipating heat. Measuring the dimensions will give you a rough idea of the amount of surface area and the core type is self explanatory.

With VW/Audi newer does not always equal better. From the MKV to the MKVI there was a decent amount of price cutting.

Examples: HIDs no longer standard, Ronal taking over as the wheel manufacturer instead of BBS, Borg Warner getting replaced with IHI for the OEM turbos and more.

I'm not saying the Golf R IC isn't superior I would just like some comparison data. If the S3 weighs more, has larger dimensions, aluminum end tanks and is of the same core type I'm not sure how it's the lesser part. On the Vortex forum there are people with Golf R's swapping out their OEM IC's for the S3 IC (Not conclusive data on its own though). Just because it's better than the stock IC doesn't mean it's automatically greater than the S3 IC, AWE's 1/4 mile record and the stock turbo Golf R record I believe are both done with the S3 IC.

 

[MKV727]

Junker - I completely agree about the worst part of the install being the electrical clips to the headlights and other various connections. I had a hell of a time removing them myself and I've yet to develop a technique to make it easier. I didn't have the appropriate tools to remove the bumper support either and it took a lot of screaming to remove that.

 

[junker]

Are there any comparisons between the S3 and Golf R IC? Comparisons in dimension, core type and weight?

This is why we have this thread. :thumbup: I had pics up of both side by side last night but the photos were not the exact same view. In any event, it would be nice to have photos of the internals to compare as well. From what I can tell the core is a bit longer, with less end tank, and the end tank is more sculpted. On the metal version the end tanks pinch back which to me looks like it would inhibit laminar air flow to the far side of the IC. Also, the top and bottom on the end tanks are less squared off with the plastic version.

Remember an air to air intercooler is a heat sink, therefore more weight = better. Aluminum > Plastic endtanks given all else is equal. Aluminum should have better capability of dissipating heat. Measuring the dimensions will give you a rough idea of the amount of surface area and the core type is self explanatory.

If the S3 weighs more, has larger dimensions, aluminum end tanks and is of the same core type I'm not sure how it's the lesser part.

While I agree that the surface area of the core is a large part of the equation, in addition to internal structure, end tank design, and construction material I don't agree that the purpose of an intercooler is to be a heat sink but rather heat exchanger. In fact you would want a material with a low specific heat (the energy required to raise a given mass of material by 1˚C). Then there is less stored energy to remove from the material. Aluminum is higher than steel, which is higher than say copper.

It's the same thing with frying pans. You pay more for copper, than you do for cast iron, than you do for cheap-o aluminum. The copper heats up the quickest and cools back down the quickest. This is primarily an issue with the core. The massive aluminum end tanks will warm up not want to readily want to give up their stored thermal energy. Imaging if that was a big aluminum frying pan. Also, the end tanks do not have a high surface area, and are primarily out of the flow of air. So, I would suggest that they are there for mounting, for the connecting of hoses, and for the routing of air. Not for cooling. That is the purpose of the core.

I have no idea of the thermal characteristics of fiberglass-reinforced plastic or whatever they use to compare to Al, but I guarantee that it has a lower heat capacity than aluminum and will store much less thermal energy. It also probably has a lower thermal conductance than aluminum but then again if it not there for cooling then I'm not concerned about it.

For me the biggest questions would be detailed internal core comparisons and dimensions as you were asking about, and airflow through the end links and core. Cooling from the end tanks are not a concern for me at all. The metal version is certainly going to be stronger, nicer looking, and heavier. A weight comparison would be interesting as well as that is pretty far forward on a front heavy car.

Either way, IMO if the models are even close in performance which I believe is the case as VAG qualified if for K04 duty on the R and S3 than for me it is simply a value proposition. $175 for a significant air charge cooling upgrade is good enough for me. Didn't need hoses or even screws. Just two hose clamps and good to go. I love that, I love the price, and I love how anyone including the dealer probably wouldn't notice unless you pointed it out. All about the OEM+. There is no way I would ever go above a K04, and if I did I definitely wouldn't pay $1200 for an intercooler.

I would be very happy with either version. Both are certain to be a massive upgrade over what we had in there stock. :thumbup:

It's like comparing a Glock to a Sig Sauer! :lol:

 

[MKV727]

This is why we have this thread. :thumbup: I had pics up of both side by side last night but the photos were not the exact same view. In any event, it would be nice to have photos of the internals to compare as well. From what I can tell the core is a bit longer, with less end tank, and the end tank is more sculpted. On the metal version the end tanks pinch back which to me looks like it would inhibit laminar air flow to the far side of the IC. Also, the top and bottom on the end tanks are less squared off with the plastic version.





While I agree that the surface area of the core is a large part of the equation, in addition to internal structure, end tank design, and construction material I don't agree that the purpose of an intercooler is to be a heatsink. In fact you would want a material with a low specific heat (the energy required to raise a given mass of material by 1˚C). Then there is less stored energy to remove from the material. Aluminum is higher than steel, which is higher than say copper.

It's the same thing with frying pans. You pay more for copper, than you do for cast iron, than you do for cheap-o aluminum. The copper heats up the quickest and cools back down the quickest. This is primarily an issue with the core. The massive aluminum end tanks will warm up not want to readily want to give up their stored thermal energy. Imaging if that was a big aluminum frying pan. Also, the end tanks do not have a high surface area, and are primarily out of the flow of air. So, I would suggest that they are there for mounting, for the connecting of hoses, and for the routing of air. Not for cooling. That is the purpose of the core.

I have no idea of the thermal characteristics of fiberglass-reinforced plastic or whatever they use to compare to Al, but I guarantee that it has a lower heat capacity than aluminum and will store much less thermal energy. It also probably has a lower thermal conductance than aluminum but then again if it not there for cooling then I'm not concerned about it.

For me the biggest questions would be detailed internal core comparisons and dimensions as you were asking about, and airflow through the end links and core. Cooling from the end tanks are not a concern for me at all. The metal version is certainly going to be stronger, nicer looking, and heavier. A weight comparison would be interesting as well as that is pretty far forward on a front heavy car.

Either way, IMO if the models are even close in performance which I believe is the case as VAG qualified if for K04 duty on the R and S3 than for me it is simply a value proposition. $175 for a significant air charge cooling upgrade is good enough for me. Didn't need hoses or even screws. Just two hose clamps and good to go. I love that, I love the price, and I love how anyone including the dealer probably wouldn't notice unless you pointed it out. All about the OEM+. There is no way I would ever go above a K04, and if I did I definitely wouldn't pay $1200 for an intercooler.

I would be very happy with either version. Both are certain to be a massive upgrade over what we had in there stock. :thumbup:

It's like comparing a Glock to a Sig Sauer! :lol:

The air goes through the intercooler, the intercooler core removes the heat from the charged air and then the charged air exits the intercooler, cool air then hits the intercooler and removes the heat from the core. In the simplest terms the intercooler removes/absorbs the heat from the air and is "rechargeable" by the atmosphere to cool down through air hitting the exterior of the intercooler. Because it removes heat from the air, that is why it is considered a heat sink. The term "heat exchanger" came from the heat exchanging from the air to the intercooler/heat sink.

You would want the intercooler to have mass. I'm sorry, you're incorrect and I'm 100% positive on all of these statements. I spent a decent amount of time in school studying gas laws, physics and chemistry as a ChemE.

The science of this is very different than the thermal wrap used to wrap an air intake/engine cover. The wrap is their to cover the engine cover/air intake and preserve the cool air inside the vessel and deflect heat/energy by the wrap having a very high heat/energy resistance. This is where I think you were going with your statements earlier and what you said was correct but it wasn't in line with how an intercooler works.

EDIT: When using heat capacity to get any type of data or theoretical results it is always expressed as J/K or KJ/K (Joules/Kelvin). Celsius is practically never used when measuring any type of data like this. If it were to take a large amount of Kinetic Energy to heat up an object it would be less effective at removing the heat from the charged air. If you're going to use elementary examples or put it in "Dummy Form" make sure it's correct.

 

[junker]

The size of a ˚C is the same as Kelvin just shifted by 273.15.

Heat capacity can be equivalently expressed as J/g˚C or J/g K

Something with a high specific heat will not want to cool down or heat up very much. Take water for example with 1 cal / g ˚C. This is the reason the temperature swings at the coast varies less day to night than say an inland desert where the days are hot and the nights are cool.

Anyway I'll say this again. IMO a big heavy aluminum end tanks that heat up, store a lot of energy, do not like to let it go, have a small surface area, and are out of the air stream are not a significant method of heat removal versus the core element. I'm comfortable with that and stated my rationale for it.

It doesn't really matter to me much whether one design is slightly better than the other. I'm happy with what I purchased for a great price. :thumbsup:

The air goes through the intercooler, the intercooler core removes the heat from the charged air and then the charged air exits the intercooler, cool air then hits the intercooler and removes the heat from the core. In the simplest terms the intercooler removes/absorbs the heat from the air and is "rechargeable" by the atmosphere to cool down through air hitting the exterior of the intercooler. Because it removes heat from the air, that is why it is considered a heat sink. The term "heat exchanger" came from the heat exchanging from the air to the intercooler/heat sink.

You would want the intercooler to have mass. I'm sorry, you're incorrect and I'm 100% positive on all of these statements. I spent a decent amount of time in school studying gas laws, physics and chemistry as a ChemE.

The science of this is very different than the thermal wrap used to wrap an air intake/engine cover. The wrap is their to cover the engine cover/air intake and preserve the cool air inside the vessel and deflect heat/energy by the wrap having a very high heat/energy resistance. This is where I think you were going with your statements earlier and what you said was correct but it wasn't in line with how an intercooler works.

EDIT: When using heat capacity to get any type of data or theoretical results it is always expressed as J/K or KJ/K (Joules/Kelvin). Celsius is practically never used when measuring any type of data like this. If it were to take a large amount of Kinetic Energy to heat up an object it would be less effective at removing the heat from the charged air. If you're going to use elementary examples or put it in "Dummy Form" to help me understand what you're trying to present make sure it's correct.

 

[MKV727]

The size of a ˚C is the same as Kelvin just shifted by 273.15.

Heat capacity can be equivalently expressed as J/g˚C or J/g K

Something with a high specific heat will not want to cool down or heat up very much. Take water for example with 1 cal / g ˚C. This is the reason the temperature swings at the coast varies less day to night than say an inland desert where the days are hot and the nights are cool.

Anyway I'll say this again. IMO a big heavy aluminum end tanks that heat up, store a lot of energy, do not like to let it go, have a small surface area, and are out of the air stream are not a significant method of heat removal versus the core element. I'm comfortable with that and stated my rationale for it.

It doesn't really matter to me much whether one design is slightly better than the other. I'm happy with what I purchased for a great price. :thumbsup:

Dude, I know that Kelvin = C + 273.15 :lol:

I go through all of the trouble of reexplaining everything and correcting how you described specific heat and you feel the need to explain to me what Kelvin is? What would make you think I didn't know how Kelvin was measured when I mentioned it to you?

Celsius isn't used because it can get strange with smaller numbers and around 0 degrees Celsius. The measurement Kelvin was designed to push all of the numbers up to lessen confusion.

The point of everything I wrote was to display the theory of how the intercooler works and as soon as you mentioned low heat capacities and that it is not a heat sink I had to respond to it. I'm not sure if it's your intent or not but when you say things like above or in your previous post it seems condescending. When somebody appears to be condescending by dumbing it down to "pots and pans" and their information is wrong it irks me and I feel compelled to respond to it.

 

[Voices Off Camera]

I personally think folks are making too much of the plastic vs. aluminum end tank performance issue. The bigger advantage might be the reduced risk of cracking with the aluminum, although tabs have broken off these S3 cores in shipping requiring a weld job.

I don't think sitting here going back and forth like it is a homework problem solves much. Clearly VW doesn't just optimize performance when they are designing something, so the plastic endtanks could be entirely about cost savings. It could be the Aluminum endtanks offer little to no increase in effectiveness, so why bother. How much airflow do the endtanks see with the core installed? Basically without some solid data, the back and forth is a waste of time.

All of that said, I have a Golf R intercooler waiting to be installed.

 

[MKV727]

I personally think folks are making too much of the plastic vs. aluminum end tank performance issue. The bigger advantage might be the reduced risk of cracking with the aluminum, although tabs have broken off these S3 cores in shipping requiring a weld job.

I don't think sitting here going back and forth like it is a homework problem solves much. Clearly VW doesn't just optimize performance when they are designing something, so the plastic endtanks could be entirely about cost savings. It could be the Aluminum endtanks offer little to no increase in effectiveness, so why bother. How much airflow do the endtanks see with the core installed? Basically without some solid data, the back and forth is a waste of time.

All of that said, I have a Golf R intercooler waiting to be installed.

Endtanks do have a small impact on performance, I've said it before on this forum. I went through with that response because it was incorrect data.

I agree, it's probably a huge bang for the buck modification. VW will most likely hike up the price of this intercooler soon too.

I'm really anxious to see the comparison between the Golf R IC and S3 IC regardless though. I'm fairly confident it will be the exact same core type, very similar in size and close in weight. I think the S3 will end up weighing more, have larger dimensions and better endtanks but I can't prove that yet.

 

[junker]

I don't really care if you had classes, but this is what I teach at the college level - a college with a top 3 transfer rate in the state and this is what I explain to hundreds of students every year. It doesn't need to be overly complicated. And it's not entirely about you, it's also meant to be comprehensible to other forum members without being too abstracted or theoretical. Sorry.

With regards to the origin of Kelvin. It was not designed for "less confusion". It was derived from a Volume versus Temperature plot and extrapolated to the zero-volume intercept of -273 defining "absolute zero" providing an absolute temperature scale where 0 means zero. Celcius 0 is simply defined as the freezing point of water and as such is a relative scale.

I'm sure you'll come back to make sure you tell me about my specialization and get the last word in but I'm just helping to explain my thinking about the design caparison as I see it. Hope it helps forum members out.

I've got to take care of a lot of other work right now, so I'm moving on. Ciao!

 

[MKV727]

I don't really care if you had classes, but this is what I teach at the college level - a college with a top 3 transfer rate in the state and this is what I explain to hundreds of students every year. It doesn't need to be overly complicated. And it's not entirely about you, it's also meant to be comprehensible to other forum members without being too abstracted or theoretical. Sorry.

With regards to the origin of Kelvin. It was not designed for "less confusion". It was derived from a Volume versus Temperature plot and extrapolated to the zero-volume intercept of -273 defining "absolute zero" providing an absolute temperature scale where 0 means zero. Celcius 0 is simply defined as the freezing point of water and as such is a relative scale.

I'm sure you'll come back to make sure you tell me about my specialization and get the last word in but I'm just helping to explain my thinking about the design caparison as I see it. Hope it helps forum members out.

I've got to take care of a lot of other work right now, so I'm moving on. Ciao!

"Where 0 means zero" i.e. less confusion by eliminating using Celsius as a measurement and having an absolute temperature scale.

You were wrong, flat out. You did not understand how an intercooler worked and you were trying to give me examples as to better explain your incorrect logic. Excuse me for correcting the issue and stopping the spread of misinformation. Nothing to do with credentials, more with knowledge of the sciences and applying them to automobiles. It seems as though you have the former but can't execute the latter and you give the impression otherwise.

"Transfer rate"?

"College"?

It's all makes sense to me now.

 

[Spasticpitbull]

You guys are giving me a headache with all this fancy talk.

 

[Strikered]

Junker has my vote!

 

[junker]

Junker has my vote!

:wub:

Not to raise this thread from the undead :lol:

But here is an interesting FLIR (forward-looking infrared) image (using artifical color) of a Mini that shows heat being radiated from the intercooler. Not sure what the end tank material is, but obviously the core is cooking here. :thumbsup: