Which Spearco would you choose?

[1BADVAN]

1

2

or
3
my powerstroke IC

[BIG PSI]

I would use number one. Easy to mount, you do not have to cut the front of the Mini to make it work like on the powerstroke (which I am running). It is more effective. But it is your choice in the end. Keep us posted.

Chuck

[1BADVAN]

I would use number one. Easy to mount, you do not have to cut the front of the Mini to make it work like on the powerstroke (which I am running). It is more effective. But it is your choice in the end. Keep us posted.

Chuck

what is more effective?
I am already running the powerstroke so fitment is not a problem i am looking to upgrade, i have heard it isn't very good and want to know if these are any better

[Keito]

# 2
I have this in my GLHT, easiest to mount and stupid simple to run IC pipes.
My car converted to T2 specs and an auto goes 13 flat on slicks.

[csxtra]

Not having done any ICs in vans, I can't attest to the ease of mounting, but the #1 or powerstroke be better at cooling the charge at the cost of restricting flow, and #2 will flow the best but not cool as well.

Personally, I'd go with #2 if fitment isn't an issue.

[1BADVAN]

Why are spearcos better than something else?

[BadAssPerformance]

Why are spearcos better than something else?

Spearco makes good intercooler cores, so does Precision and a coupel other companies... the important part of the IC is teh core as teh tanks are merely aluminum ducting. yes, the tank shape matters for flow, but if the core is crappy, then well designed tanks help much.

There are two type sof cores, bar and plate and tube and fin... T&F is like a radiator corer... not good for airflow. Spearco, Precision, etc use B&P design... much better for flow/efficiency, etc.

ICs are rated on 3 things... flow, efficiency, and pressure drop. A high CFM (flow) IC will not have a big pressure drop but will have a low efficiency (cooling effect) on the air.

#2 is high flow, low efficiency. #1 and 3 probably have better efficiency but less flow (more pressure drop) so there is a tradeoff.... Like csxtra said, #2 is the best for packaging which matters as well.

Here is my favorite $pearco IC

[bakes]

Go with #2 XSpower IC it works good.

[Bubba]

#2, that's my vote. On the dyno, charge temps were ambient at 22psi on the outlet with that Spearco intercooler.

[Ondonti]

If you can only choose those, use #2, and sell your powerstroke to a sucker :P
+ just because an intercooler has short runners doesn't make it low efficiency.

The intercooler can only move so much air at one time. If you double flowpath but half the length, you don't actually lose efficiency. Air can only move so fast through the charge pipes so it will slow down in the tubes if your have double the flowpath compared to another intercooler. Otherwise we are talking about air magically getting less dense in a wider core............but in reality it slows down more then it does in a long core. And Long cores are usually wasteful because most of the cooling is done in the first half of the core. Would you rather use 100% of your core and have slow moving air, or fast moving air that loses most of its heat in the first half of the intercooler and the 2nd half just acts as a restriction (unless you are heatsoaking the intercooler then longer length will help during short runs but...you could also fix the heatsoak problem).

Now if the tubes have different fin counts etc etc then you change efficiency, and there are differences between tube and fin and bar and plate...etc etc etc.

[Ondonti]

Intercooler #1 also has horrible end tanks. Treadstone sells some that actually have diverters to split the airflow to help move air to the farther tubes without relying on a high pressure (restriction) area to let the entire core be used.

[t3rse]

^ yes, and what Brent is trying to say is that once max delta T is reached, no more cooling can be done, so best design for you really depends on turbo outlet temps and CFM flow, but #2 style has been used by many to make plenty of power, and I ran one with a hybrid turbo at 29# and IATs were barely above ambient on a hot day.

[BadAssPerformance]

I'll agree that #2 is the best out of those 3, but it still has crappy efficiency. A larger cross section doesnt help if the air doesnt get to all the tubes (like #1) ...

Also check the core on #2, spearco sells those endtanks seperately and treadstond an dother companies use them with their own (less efficient) cores.

[johnl]

You know that I love ya JT. In a respectful, not gay sort of way

"crappy efficiency" hmmm must be a technical Chicago term?

Seriously, suppose you extended #2 by the length of another Spearco core? Would that move it's efficiency into the non-crappy zone?

[johnl]

Uh oh, Now I did it. With that kind of comment, I'll never win the Miss America contest. . . . . .

[BadAssPerformance]

You know that I love ya JT. In a respectful, not gay sort of way

"crappy efficiency" hmmm must be a technical Chicago term?

Seriously, suppose you extended #2 by the length of another Spearco core? Would that move it's efficiency into the non-crappy zone?

LOL... crappy is a universal term

Yes, if you doubled the length it would be better

[contraption22]

I'll agree that #2 is the best out of those 3, but it still has crappy efficiency. A larger cross section doesnt help if the air doesnt get to all the tubes (like #1) ...

Also check the core on #2, spearco sells those endtanks seperately and treadstond an dother companies use them with their own (less efficient) cores.

What would make you say that air wouldn't get to all the tubes in #2. but it would in #1?

[BadAssPerformance]

What would make you say that air wouldn't get to all the tubes in #2. but it would in #1?

I said it didnt in #1

air doesnt get to all the tubes (like #1)