mlped at qwest.net
Mon Dec 3 18:04:32 EST 2001
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernie Benz [mailto:b.m.benz at prodigy.net]
> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 5:32 PM
> To: mlp
> Michael, Thanks for the very interesting info on the UrS4 IC.
You are most very welcome. A big thanks for taking a hard look at the
information vis-=E0-vis the existing systems
> Let's speculate on what Audi design has done
> Obviously, over this 3 generation evolution, they
> have been moving in the direction of drasticly
> increased IC flow capacity and reduced pressure loss
> across the IC. (Larger and more tubes of shorter length.)
> This evolution has sacrificed forced induction aftercooling, thus is
> the expense higher and higher charge temperatures, i.e. smaller and
> temperature drop across the IC.
Well all I can offer is the thought that just because a tube is
shorter doesn't necessarily mean it can't be as effective a heat
transfer sink as a longer tube SO LONG AS, or maybe a better term be
IF the charge air moving through it has, among other things (i.e. the
"turbulators" effects & functions) been slowed in its passage.
i.e. If you have two systems, one a single ten foot tube vs. the
other, ten one foot tubes, same volume or flow of air, isn't the air
in the ten one foot tubes going to be moving @ 1/10th the speed of the
single column of air in the one 10 foot tube? Therefore, volume for
volume, the air in both systems will be spending the same total amount
of "tube time" Yes? But the initial "highest" heat delta may be
better distributed over the first 2" or 3" of the 10 short tube
system, than the equivalent 36" of the single tube system?
> First, remember that our cars are not designed as race cars
> or Pikes Peak performers. IMO, They are designing cars for
> short burst performance,.... snips
> A quick pop is all you get!
Well Bernie, hopefully that's not going to be the case no more
More information about the 200q20v