# Following the Claims

```In a message dated 97-11-17 12:14:01 EST, you write:

<< REAL CONCLUSION:

> Scott knows not of what he is talking......  I've had the Audi
> intercooler flow tested. In two pass mode the intercooler is 55%
>efficient and has a 6psi pressure drop at 15psi of boost. In single pass
> mode  (Scott's current fav) it's only 50% efficient with a 4psi pressure
>drop at 15psi of boost.
Unlike the bypass valve, here we don't have enough in the equation, sir.
Here, we need Flow and Pressure and Temp.  Got Pressure.  Without Flow and
Temp, how did you get the "50% efficient"?  Care to share the test method for
that?  How does one come to that efficiency number, professor?  So you flowed
what CFM at what Pressure and what Temp?  How was that extrapolated to an
efficiency rating?  Before and after temps at the IC IN the car, actual vs
calculated?  Which turbo did you use to get the actual numbers?  Which car
did you measure the numbers from. What numbers did you get to give you the
55% efficiency.  Given the baseline understanding of turbocharger theory
proposed by you, with all do respect professor, some here would like to see
HOW you got the numbers you did.  Assuming the numbers correct (giving the
benefit of the doubt), a few of us in Lab 101, could do the same test with
the same methods and get the same numbers.  Don't mind results, happy to
accept them, some method might be nice to make sure we are all looking at the
same experiment.  Thanks for sharing your answers, how bout the homework to
get them?

> A proper intercooler installed in the car <1>can be up to 96% Efficient
with
>a pressure drop of only .4psi at 20psi of boost.  Do the math which one
> is better?  I know which is better, that's why <2> I'm running a custom
built
> single pass, high efficency low pressure drop intercooler in the car.
"Can be"....  Well an IC "CAN BE" over 100% efficient, so I have no problem
with that statement.  That I interpret as your CLAIM TO your car.  How bout
being specific to WHAT you have?  I make the assumption that <1> and <2> to
be the CLAIM, though NOT the statement, please do clarify.  No one should
disagree to the "Can Be".  Question: IS this the claim of WHAT you have, or a
recitation.  Are we talking the "can be" applied to Air to Air OR Water to
Air?  We could apply some basics to each of those theories too.  IF A2A, just
how big is this super IC?  .4 at 20psi, what is it AT 26psi (YOUR CLAIM) or
even 22psi (2.5bar PT)?  Care to share Efficiency "ratings and evaluations"
with the rest of the class?

>Thoses pressure drop numbers BTW totally invalidate Scott's PR numbers.
>This is where Scott has been getting into trouble....  All of Scott's
>MATH is based on an Ideal Zero Loss Intake system, one in which there is
>no pressure drop in the system at all.  Because of that all his Temp's,
>Pressure's and CFM's are unrealistic.

>Like Scott likes to say......  It's Mat >>
I don't assume a zero loss intake system...  In fact, if you look at the
HPGains program it does, my math or Dave's don't.  Let's put this statement
here in perspective to the CLAIMS made.  If the above is true, you saying
that the ACTUAL PR of your 2.8 (measured at intake) is HIGHER before the IC
(hey that's MY claim)?  From your own post here it seems that it is AT LEAST
26.4 before the IC. What is it?

More questions to the claims made.  We DON'T have a baseline here.  Given the
history, maybe a better idea than looking for an "A" in putting numbers up.

With all due respect to the pitch of the prop.

Scott Justusson
'87 5ktqwRS2
'87 5ktq2GO
'86 5ktqw
'84 Urq

```