MX-3.com

on the DOHC, RS engine if i dont run a intercooler, how much PSI can i run safely?

I am just wondering why a lot of people try to go with the non intercooled approuch? A lot of people have mentioned it and im curious.

less pipes to deal with but when you lose the intercooler you lose a critical way to cool the air down and all your doing is blowing hot air into the motor, most of the time you dont really see much of a gain

Yeah thats the reason why I was wondering. The intercooler is a huge help and I dont understand the reason behind skipping it.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by papa roached:
less pipes to deal with but when you lose the intercooler you lose a critical way to cool the air down and all your doing is blowing hot air into the motor, most of the time you dont really see much of a gain<hr></blockquote><p>I hate to disagree but......I disagree. An intercooler is a really good thing to have because it DOES cool the intake charge making it denser(sp?) and thus providing more power. Just because you don't have an intercooler does not mean you don't get a gain from turbocharging. If you look, most turbo cars are not intercooled. And (correct me if I'm wrong) but turbocharged airplanes are not intercooled either. Intercoolers are very benneficial, more so when you get into high boost, but not required in any way or form. <p>I believe the reason people want to know about non-intercooled turbo apps. because of prices. I personally think it's worth the money, and I will intercool my system, but my truck is running 6 psi with no intercooler, no BOV, no turbo timer, etc. All that **** is recomended, but not required.

when your traveling as fast as airplanes do, and at the altitude, it's pretty cold up there already, really no need to be intercooled.<p>And most turbo cars are intercooled...

The point made about the amount of gain was basically saying that since its not cold air, its less dense, and you will not be getting as much boost as you can be from your 7psi or whatever you run at.

I broke the car in with out an intercooler. At night, when its cool, or around 10psi its ok. But during the day and at higher boost it just didnt want to go. When i put the intercooler on the difference was night and day. @ 10 psi it pulled harder than it ever had with out it and at 14 psi I had no traction until half way through 3rd.
This was using 2" pipe from turbo to a PWR 18.5x6x3 intercooler then 2.25" piping to the throttle body.
i can understand if money is an issue but you can find alot of side mounts in junk yards. It's well worth the money spent IMO...
just my 2 cents

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Bri94GS:
when your traveling as fast as airplanes do, and at the altitude, it's pretty cold up there already, really no need to be intercooled.<p>And most turbo cars are intercooled...<hr></blockquote><p>That is VERY true, but then again, there is VERY little oxygen up there (oxygen is what burns the fuel) and so the denser the air charge (intercooler) the better performance. Yet, they don't need or use one. <p>And most aftermarket turbo cars are intercooled. Most stock turbo cars are not. The turbo is not put on a stock car (with the exception of high performance cars such as the RX7, 300ZX, Supra, and 3000GT VR4 to name a few) to make insane power. They are put there so they can fit a smaller displacment engine in the car (fuel economy) and boost the tourque (accelleration). Those are the main things car buys are looking for, not being able to push 1.5 bar into their car and go 13 in the 1/4. And if I recall correctly, the Spura and 3000GT were not factory intercooled. I could be wrong tho. <p> <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by mx3TT:
The point made about the amount of gain was basically saying that since its not cold air, its less dense, and you will not be getting as much boost as you can be from your 7psi or whatever you run at.<hr></blockquote><p>Actually his exact words were "...most of the time you dont really see much of a gain." He may have meant that you don't get as much power as you would with an I/C but that's not how it sounded to me in the least. It sounded like you would barely get any power out of a non-intercooled turbo application, and that is not true at all. <p>I was not saying it's wise, or a good thing not to have one. In fact if you read I said the opposite. I was just correcting a little misinformation/misunderstanding, that's all.

I had a Chevy Vega non intercooled and ran about 5 pounds.

i dont hang around the f/i nor do i own or drive a turbo car but imo if money is a problem for an ic why not get one from ebay? in ic adds so many benefits besides more power why wouldnt u want one?
starion fmics are cheap and big enuf to get the job done as well as the viggen saab ic's. just get some custom tanks welded on in place of the plastic ones and you got yourself one decent, cost effective setup.
this one is also a cheap setup too and pretty big
http://www.geocities.com/jamesbanning/tech_info/ford_ic/#part_numbers
btw my friend has been running a b18a teg with the greddy fmic he has mounted but not hooked up since 98 at 15 psi no problem.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Steeb:

btw my friend has been running a b18a teg with the greddy fmic he has mounted but not hooked up since 98 at 15 psi no problem.<hr></blockquote><p>That suprises me. But it would be interesting to see that when he does hook up the intercooler, how much power he would gain. I bet you would see a nice jump. Tell him to test it out if he can.

thing is he had the ic when we installed the turbo. but he just never went to get it hooked up. id definately think it would be a lot quicker <p>bottom line i/c's are good for engine and good for more power usually more tq but i know only a tiny bit about turbo systems