RESEARCH
& DEVELOPMENT

ARE Cooling dedicate substantial time
and resources into developing, testing and refining our products in
order to offer you the customer, a better product. Our products
not only have a professional, good looking appearance but also perform
to a high quality. We ensure this by utilising many R&D
techniques, two of which are flow bench testing and flow meter testing.
To see
how the results of these tests have helped us refine our products please
read Intercoolers
- Must Read!
|
|
Charge Air
Flow Bench Testing |
WRX upgrade top mount on
the bench during development

This picture had to be taken
from the side.
Development of our venturie plate option
|
BRYANT ENGINEERING (07-3277 6099)
help me with most of our flow bench development work & are interested in
the results. It is a Super Flow 600E
test unit which has 8 motors allowing the high volume flow that I need
for accuracy.
This is the manometer that gives us the reading to convert the air flow
to cfm. The reading of 68.2 is the actual percentage of air passing
through core & then the bench orifice compared to the un - restricted
100% that could be passing @ this setting. The reading then has to be
converted using supplied calculus according to the number of the 8
motors in use, which of the 6 orifice sizes is selected, & the current
barometric conditions. The result is a very accurate cubic feet per
minute air flow figure - as long as the bench is Calibrated.
10/98 Testing a section of a tube/fin
Intercooler core (Subaru WRX). Showing our "Venturie Plate" option we offer
our customers. As plate position is critical this is as close as your going
to see! (My time, my money). We even lost flow on the first day of testing.
On this size core airflow increased from 762.2 cfm. to 798.4 cfm (@ 12"
water). 4.5% may not sound much, but I would rather have it under my bonnet
, than the guy's in the lane beside me! Remember that as boost increases,&
so charge volume, the gain is exponential, making this option more
worthwhile the more kw.. you are seeking. It is also more beneficial the
smaller inlet window area / core area ratio you may have to use due to area
constraints.
02/02 The results from this
prototype air/water intercooler (after cooler in the industrial industry
talk) are impressive & exceeded my expectations - like 97.8%
effeciency !!! It is a combination of all my years of testing. |

Please note that in nearly all our fan tests we use a 4x4 as our
power source as it has dual heavy duty batteries for a consistent test
voltage. HOWEVER some tests are conducted with the engine running
(approx 13.7v) & some with it off (12.4v), so do not COMPARE these
differently sourced figures .
|
|
|
During the year 2000 we spent considerable
time testing air flow (actually speed) through a variety of cores, both
radiator, intercooler & oil cooler. The results were similar to what I
expected from experience, although some of the differences were much
larger than I imagined. This is not Rocket Science stuff & the
instrument is not that expensive (in fact for it's price the
repeatability of results is amazing, + or - 0.01%) but I'm not giving
out the tables of results gained (even though some shop owners may not
know what to do with them), the idea is for my shop to be able to supply
the best product for YOUR application & to let you know that we take the
most scientific & methodical approach possible to achieve this goal, -
Not dazzle you with unsubstantiated verbal diarrhoea, Yeh,- plain old
bullshit.
Our first aim was the core thickness / fpi.
ratio compared to air speed through the core. Each core was tested with
12" , 14" ' & 16" Davies Craig fans supplying the test air flow. The
area of actual maximum flow off the fan blades was also surprising,
being in more than I thought. Testing backed up that fin pitch is allot
more restrictive to flow than core tickness.
Since 2001, we have extended our testing to include oe. &
also after market fans for a comparison of 'real world' performance.
In mid 2002 & early '03 we spent allot of time
comprehensively testing a range of after market fans, once again for
what I consider 'real world' results. I have decided to upload
some of our results as I believe they are too important too keep to
ourselves as I'm positive it will help you better understand some of the
problems you may be having, or make a better purchasing decision so you
don't have these problems. If some of this information is used by
another reseller, I'd like to think they'd give us some recognition,
but, with all the testing we do, it gives us a more complete
understanding of the results & overall cooling performance picture for
our customers.
|

Reason for some of our testing
Similar fin pitch but different shape gives different results.

01/00.
Testing air speed through an intercooler core.

Close up of the readings obtained
|
|
Test Results |
08 / 01. We had concerns
over the pulling power of an oe. Austin Healey Midgets engine fan, so
the following tests were conducted. At this time,
I did not have my weather station, so conditions are unknown. Test
voltage was 14.33v
| Radiator cores
12" Fan
14" Fan
6" Fan
|
29mm. 18fpi.
- 4.72m/s. (616cfm.)
- 6.17m/s. (1186cfm.)
- 8.21m/s. (2383cfm.)
|
37mm. 18fpi
- 4.37m/s. (570cfm.)
- 5.74m/s. (1104cfm.)
- 7.38m/s. (2141cfm.)
|
57mm.18fp.
- 3.60m/s. (470cfm.)
- 5.07m/s. (975cfm.)
- 6.28m/s. (1822cfm.)
|
The following test was
done with the blade left as supplied (PUSH) & the fan behind the core in
a PULL position. The shape of the fan blade slicing through the air is
convex instead of concave. As you can see, it is very important to check
this.
| 16" Fan
Loss of air flow |
- 5.28m/s (1532cfm)
- 2.1m/s (609cfm) - 38% |
- 4.81m/s(1396cfm)
- 1.47m/s (426cfm) - 32% |
| Intercooler cores
14" fan
16" fan
Blade reversed to above.
Loss of air flow |
57mm 12fpi
- 5.18m/s (996cfm)
- 6.86m/s (1990cfm)
- 5.02m/s. (1457cfm.)
- 1.84m/s. (533cfm.) -26% |
57mm 18fpi
- 3.64m/s (700cfm)
- 4.68m/s (1358cfm)
- 3.26m/s. (946cfm.)
- 1.42m/s. (412cfm.) - 30% |
73mm18fpi
- 3.51m/s (675cfm)
- 4.68m/s (1358cfm)
- 3.13m/s. (908cfm.)
- 1.42m/s. (412cfm.) - 30% |
|
|
11/01 A
customer brought his FJ20 powered Datsun 1600 in for some work, one of
the jobs being overheating.
He had fitted an oe. Nissan n12 Pulsar alloy/plastic assy. with an
unknown thermo fan. We conducted the following tests @12.1v.
| 10" fan fitted by owner
8" DC fan
9" DC fan
10" DC fan |
blade dia. - 246mm.
- 190mm.
n/a
- 257mm.. |
- 3.56m/s.
-
3.32m/s.
-
4.03m/s .
-
4.48m/s . |
- 372cfm.
- 223cfm.
n/a
- 515cfm. |
We fitted a DC 10" & 8" fans to give him 738cfm or an
increase of 98% air flow.
|
|
|
|
03 / 02 A customer had a 3 row
copper/brass radiator fitted to his VF Valiant to replace the oe.
2 row when he modified the engine. It now overheated at idle & slow
traffic.
We did the following tests.
| Oe. fan.
Behind blade
- 4.6m/s.
Jayair Air cond. upgrade fan
- 5.4m/s. |
Front of core
- 1.2m/s.
- 2.6m/s. |
Note that the upgrade fan only pulled
17.4% (4.6m/s to 5.4m/s)extra air at the back of the blades but 116%
(2.6m/s to 1.2m/s) extra through the core !
This is because the blade had a much more aggressive profile to 'bite'
into the air. Also check out the comparison with/without a fan shroud
with the Mustang
tests below, very important ! |
|
|
06 / 02 We tested Trevor Hydes
'66 Mustang. We fitted a 55mm @ 16fpi 2 row core & a shroud to suit his
flexalite metal blade engine fan as the car would just sit & idle away
just higher than the thermostat. I did not use the weather station
this day.
| The highest velocity at rear of
the fan (approx. half way along blade)
The highest velocity at outer edge of fan
The highest velocity at the front of the radiator core |
- 4.57 m/s.
- 3.82 m/s.
- 3.56 m/s. |
Note that the drop of flow
through the core with a fan shroud is 22.1 % (4.75 m/s. to
3.56m/s) compared the the Valiant tested above without a fan shroud
which is 73.9% (4.6m/s to 1.2m/s) with the oe. fan & 48% (5.4m/s to
2.6m/s) with the aftermarket fan. That's the advantage a fan shroud
offers ! It also highlights the importance of placing the fan up against
the core, or fully sealing a shroud properly as air is hard to pull
through the core& will easily suck in through a small gap.
|
|
|
|
03 / 03 Joe Mangano bought a 55mm @ 14fpi
2 row core off us for his '56 454 BB Chev. He was not happy, with two
problems. After idling for 5 mins the temperature would start rising
from 180c.& keep going up past 210c. Also when he switched the engine
off, water would pour out the overflow. He determined he had cavitation
& replaced the new cheaper aftermarket pump with an Eldbrock pump. This
fixed the water out the overflow & it would now idle for 10 mins. before
creeping up. This is not good enough for Joe, so we did some air flow
tests through his core. Test voltage was not recorded.
The results are:-
Readings taken from front outside of the core in to the
centre. Note that the shroud is not centred to the radiator.
|
Outer left to centre.
Outer right to centre
Top down to centre |
- 1.29m/s.
- 1.59m/s.
- 0.64m/s. |
- 2.35m/s.
- 2.91m/s.
- 1.96m/s. |
-2.48m/s.
- 2.65m/s.
-2.91m/s. |
- 2.26m/s.
- 2.62m/s.
- 2.48m/s. |
total = 8.38m/s.
= 9.38m/s.
= 7.99m/s. |
average = 2.10m/s.
= 2.35m/s.
= 1.99m/s. |
Note that 1.99m/s
(meters/second) = only 7.74 kilometers/hour (kph), so the engine fan he
has fitted is far too weak. He has two other fans to try & he will need
between 50% to 100% more air flow through the core to have a safe margin
for any conditions.
|

Please
note that in nearly all our fan tests we use a 4x4 as our power source as it has
dual heavy duty batteries for a consistent test voltage. HOWEVER some tests are
conducted with
the engine running (approx 13.7v) & some with it off (approx. 12.4v), so do not
COMPARE these differently sourced figures !
Also,
these figures are achieved in our workshop, with our equipment, by us, as
accurately as possible without favour to any manufacturer, for our own use.
|
|
Most of this testing gives us data that helps us
determine the best core specifications for each application -radiator,
intercooler & oil cooler . As usual, it is a case of trying to balance
all the factors that effect the cooling efficiency, because it's no good
having a super cool intake charge if the intercooler fin mesh is that
fine it's strangling the radiator for air, & the engine cannot be run at
full power. Sometimes we close up the radiator finning if we know the
customer is running a very efficient fan, as enough air can still flow
through at low speed. We do the opposite if the vehicle has a
'cluttered' (usually 4x4's) front end, or a small air opening. Sometimes
you have to loose to gain. A comprehensive knowledge of flow rates means
that losses can be kept to a minimum. The faster the air
travels through a core, the higher the heat transference from the
engine. Fans only help at very low vehicle speeds with an average of
approx. 3 meters/ second, or 10.8 kph being common. Don't think that
once this car has reached 11 kph, you can switch the fan off, as
there is a big difference in these readings with the air being pulled
from behind, to the air hitting the radiator at the front & being able
too "spill" away from the core. The amount of "spill" is determined by
the ease in which the air can detour around the radiator. Trouble is
that most cars can spend allot of time travelling slow. When stationary,
the only cooling is the performance of the fan. Driving a performance
car in city traffic or a Rod at a show, places a big strain on the
cooling system. Luckily, engines produce allot less heat at part
throttle, but some 4x4's & competition vehicles operate under full
throttle/ low speed conditions making air flow paramount, so it's
impossible for an off the shelf radiator/fan combination to be right for
every application.
|

6 fans tested in late '02

The air speed meter we use. Note the reference marks on the
core so all readings are consistent.

This stays in it's boxed packing & is treated very carefully
|
|
This is a PDF file 4.4 kb.

Results of 8 fans tested in a real world environment.
|
01/03
This is a copy of our spreadsheet of our own fan tests. Once again my
disclaimer is that they were tested to our parameters, with our
equipment for our knowledge & are totally independent. NOTE that the
cfm. figures are for air flow through the fan as we only measured
inside the fan shroud case at the front of the core. If you want to
compare them for actual cooling ability with the results from a car with
a fan built into a shroud that encloses the whole core, you have too
factor in the different surface areas.
They are 4 of the same Australian brand fan & 4 from an importer of
fans, which must be noted that 2 were Chinese, 1 American &
1 un- branded, although they all had the same proprietary brand - (buyer
beware). These cannot be directly compared with some of our other tests,
as the conditions differ. The most important aspect of consistency
is the position of the meter in relation to the fan blade, as you can
see in the charts, the distance in from the end of the blade gives very
different flow rates. We mark the core with a grid pattern of a set size
so the readings are repeatable. The next most important aspect to
consistent results is the supply voltage, crank up the alternator output
& the fan will pull noticeably more cfm. Atmospheric conditions
play a small part in the readings, so lately we have been recording them
with a very accurate weather station, so we are as consistent as
possible.
NOTE : the results of the test performed with the fan blade on the
correct way - 1362 cfm & then incorrect - 883 cfm - a loss of 65%
flow !! A thermo fan comes as either a 'pusher' (usually) or 'puller' &
if used in the opposite application, has to have the fan
blade reversed. During our tests we broke one of the import fans because
the blade was not removable, this was only on their 12" model.
These results can also be related too intercooler core thickness, or
lots of products for that matter, even grille mesh. The thicker the
core, the less air will pass through.
|

December 2003
Please
note that all these pump tests used our Skyline GTSt as the power source as it
has a new larger Delco battery for a consistent test voltage. HOWEVER some tests
are conducted with
the engine running (approx 14.2v) & some with it off (approx. 12.5v), so please
take note of the voltage source when comparing !
Also,
these figures are achieved in our workshop, with our equipment, by us, as
accurately as possible without favour to any manufacturer, for our own use.
|
PUMP |
Current |
Draw |
5
cm
head |
131cm
head |
241cm
head |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CSI no. 925 |
12.51volt |
|
58.45
litres/min. |
|
|
|
with 1 outlet |
14.25 volt |
7.85 amps |
68.84
litres/min. |
52.72
litres/min. |
28.96
litres/min. |
|
with 2 outlets |
14.27 volt |
|
80.39
litres/min. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mezeire-black |
12.52 volt |
|
59.86
litres/min. |
|
|
|
14.26 volt |
7.22 amps |
68.53
litres/min. |
45.83
litres/min. |
39.53
litres/min. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Davies Craig |
12.51 volt |
|
80.48
litres/min |
|
|
| EWP. |
14.24 volt |
5.38 amps |
88.69
litres/min. |
73.54
Litres/min. |
43.89
Litres/min. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hose- free flow |
negative 32 |
cm. head |
50.32
litres/sec |
Note this pump inlet |
hose is 38mm ID. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The csi pump
was initially tested with one outlet plugged as in a conventional setup, then
with both outlets open as in a V8 configuration. We did not bother to set up a
dual head height setup, as it was still less than the D.C. pump & is near twice
the price !
 |
 |
 |
| Testing the 'head' flow of the pumps. Gives a more useful
performance rating than open flow. 2.41 meters shown. |
The three pumps tested above. Note the enlarged inlet pipe
on Mezeire, largest fittings on CSI, std. DC. |
Bored out fittings used to test CSI pump |
|
Our 'Sizing' Spreadsheets |
|
These are PDF files

This is our spreadsheet for air/air calculus. 29
lines of data

This is our spreadsheet for air/water calculus. 61
lines of data. & 10 times harder to set up properly !!
|
Danny Irvine is a talented engineer who has (sometimes immeasurably)
helped me with 'starting in the ball park' with many of our projects. He
has given me the calculations & ideas that has sometimes short circuited
heaps of wasted experimentation effort. These spreadsheets were
developed by Danny for ARE & are proving an invaluable tool in providing
us with a spreadsheet to be able to properly size an intercooler &/or
radiator for any given application. We are still having to fine tune
some of the formula (not conversion rates) as we build our own Data
Base, but this is decreasing & becoming more accurate nearly everytime
we plug a new set of figures in. It would not be possible without the
expense of purchasing our test equipment, but to me it is well worth it
as I know the product we sell is the best possible. We are getting a
very clear picture of what to expect, & this is now visibly, accurately
& unquestionably backed up by the Data Log results we are accumulating
from street, track & dyno testing.
Please note that some lines have been left out of both spreadsheets. We
want to keep some of the data & calculus totally in house ! but we also
want to let you see that we try extremely hard to have the best
knowledge possible of what we sell.
|

|
Data - Log Testing |
|
Over the years a few of our products have not performed
as they should ( mostly radiators) & many results of testing &
prototypes have not given the answers expected, with some of these
results being impossible to find a logical answer too. When dyno testing
& in particular road testing, it is impossible to write down all the
figures at a particular second of the test, so the results can be a
little distorted, or worse, be recorded wrong. To assure our testing is
as comprehensive, accurate, repeatable & easy to understand as possible,
we have purchased a twelve channel (eight, seven or six for temperature,
depending on whether none, one or two boost channels are used) FXL data
logger off Graham
ph. no. (07) who has been
manufacturing these drag racing based loggers for 5 years. It is a
matter of connecting the probes to the engine, running the leads out
under the bonnet, in through the passenger window, going for a run on
the dyno or road, recording the 15 seconds of information, downloading
it onto the laptop, & I'm ready for another test, or back to work to
analyse the results. I can leave them as line graph, or print them out
on a spreadsheet, & have them for future reference or comparison. Apart
from the obvious intercooler efficiencies, we will be testing the
relationship of engine output to radiator water temps at
different positions. The only radiators that have not performed up to
our standards have been three 57mm thick, large crossflow units,
so I'm going to put all eight probes into one of these & see if my
theory is right or not. It is also real graphic as too the operation of
the intercooler - monstrous differences between out of the turbo
compared to out of the intercooler. A real interesting area of testing
that will open allot of peoples eyes will be under bonnet temperature
testing & also the heat soak that can be picked up in pipework. I have
seen over 80 deg. c. on a street car. With all eight probes in use I
will be able to determine the "hot spots" in a cars engine bay.
Notes 1) This is a
part of our own log & it is the first of many I have seen so many
"claimed" figures for intercooler performances that not only are the
people/occasional company & especially the magazines that print them -
are plain dickheads. I have seen in car pictures of a hand held
thermometer reading 4 - 10 deg. c. held beside a speedo reading 80 -110
kph. Sorry, but that means Jackshit. What was the ambient temp., was it
under full throttle or coasting down? Intake temp. figures can make dyno
figures look split atom accurate. Off the soap box.Water temps at
different points in the cooling system are just as important to me, so
it makes our investment worthwhile.
Too read our graphs ( I apologise for the blurred PDF)
its easiest to note the position of the red curser line & the temp. no.1
to 8 figures underneath right are at that particular 1/50 th of a
second. I will try too keep the same configuration all the time. In this
file 146.8
| Line |
Deg.c. |
Probe position |
Line |
Deg.c. |
Probe position |
| Temp 1 |
60 |
plennum |
Temp 5 |
40 |
cabin - on floor |
| Temp 2 |
128 |
into intercooler |
Temp 6 |
37 |
ambient |
| Temp 3 |
41 |
cabin - on seat |
Temp 7 |
40 |
not used |
| Temp 4 |
61 |
under bonnet |
Temp 8 |
41 |
not used |
Note how both the charge air temps drop
with the gear change & especially how quick. The charge out of the
intercooler only varies just less than 50% than the pre 'cooler air.
This was an air water intercooler on our Skyline GTST running at 75%
water pump speed, so it's telling me it needs full pump speed & a
slightly larger intercooler.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Notes A) This is a prototype air/water intercooler we
fabricated for Atlas Engineering's Forest mulching machine. It is
powered by a Cummins
Straight 6 cyl. turbo diesel, rated @ kw. We had
never made anything like this application before, but with some guidance
from Danny Irvine, our spreadsheets, air flow bench testing, experience,
couple of guesses, fabricated a unit that we knew would meet the Cummins
criteria. I wasn't prepared for just how much we exceeded it. As you can
see by the results, our intercooler is extremely efficient, but the
final result is let down by pour performing radiators - which we had
no say in their selection.
Have a look at the results of test 5 @ 14:45:40 (recorded in actual
time) @ a flow rate of 126 l/m Radiator in - combined water from the
i/c. into radiator ...........................................68.1 deg.
c. Radiator out - water temperature out of radiator, so it could
only remove 3.1 deg!!...65. deg. c.
R H. water out - temp. of the water out of the right side of i/c.
.................................74. deg. c. Charge air
(post cooler) - air temperature out of intercooler
.....................................64.7 deg. c.
L H. water out - water temp. out of the left side of the i/c.
.......................................64.7 deg. c.
L H water in - water temp. going into i/c. note lost 0.6 deg in hose
from rad. ............64.5 deg. c. Charge air (pre cooler) -
air temp. out of turbo
.......................................................172.9 deg.
c. Heat transfer to aftercooler water (KW) - the actual kilowatts of
heat removed ........77.8 kw. The
intercooler to water efficiency is 99.8% !!! The intercooler to ambient
efficiency is 70.8%. The radiator efficiency is 6.9% (good eh!).
As you can see, our intercooler removed 108.7 degrees (167%) from
the charge air, but the radiator could only remove 3.1 deg. c.(5%).
It was approx 750 x 750 x 75mm & had a 650mm variable speed & pitch fan,
so don't underestimate the size & type of radiator needed. Our
innovative design allows for one water outlet temp. to be 74 deg., one
64.7 deg. & the charge air 64.7 deg. (at this particular second).
Imagine if this water was run through an 'ice box' ! Unfortunately
Cummins specifications are inlet air temp. must be no higher than 30
deg. above ambient. The company is flying a radiator out from Italy to
try & compliment our intercooler.
In test no.6 @ 15:04:40 @ a water flow rate of 55 l/m.
the results are a little different.
Radiator in - combined water from the i/c. into radiator
..............................................65.1 deg. c.
Radiator out - water temperature out of radiator, it removed
12.4 deg!!....................52.7 deg. c. R H.
water out - temp. of the water out of the right side of i/c.
.................................106.3 deg. c. Charge air (post
cooler) - air temperature out of intercooler
.......................................56.9 deg. c. L
H. water out - water temp. out of the left side of the i/c.
...........................................60.1 deg. c. L H
water in - water temp. going into i/c. note lost 0.6 deg in hose from
rad. ................53. deg. c. Charge air (pre
cooler) - air temp. out of turbo
...........................................................157.3
deg. c. Heat transfer to aftercooler water (KW) - the actual kilowatts
of heat removed .............72.2 kw. The intercooler
to water efficiency is 96.3% ! The intercooler to ambient efficiency is
73.1%. The radiator efficiency is 27.5%. The radiator could pull
12.4 deg. (23%) out of the water& the i/c. could pull 100.4 deg.c
(176%) with the water going in. Note the temp of the water out of the
RH. side - 106 deg., a rise of 32 deg with a lower charge air
temp. If our i/c. was undersize, it's efficiency would've really
suffered at this low flow rate.
Notes B) A whole bunch of figures are educational,
but to me they don't have the impact of a graph. I often convert the
data to graphs as it gives me a better understanding, quicker, & stays
with me longer. Our data logger gives both on the one page - best of
both worlds. For example, these snapshots are of a machine that operates
nearly all the time at a constant throttle setting, with the load
varying due to size of trees, but look how much the temp. out of the
turbo varies. Note that at 14:55:00, the throttle was backed off.
Also note that the above data is from a hired mega dollar unit, our data
logger has a couple more channels but only records for 15 secs., not 30
mins like this unit. |

The datalogger unit set up in the car ready for a test run.
Data logger leads connected to the engine components.
These are PDF files of Data
Logs tests.
Snapshot of our own data log. See notes
1)
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Field test spreadsheet of a large
Industrial air/ water intercooler.
7 kb file. See notes
A ) on left
Line graph taken from above. 11 kb.file.
See notes
B) on left
|
|