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: