I am a little overdue in testing results.
That being said, Mother nature is not cooperating with us at all in the Great White North.
Snow in June. Rain. Hail.
Ahh springtime in the Rockies. I believe the expression is "If you don't like the weather, wait 15 minutes"

Initial impressions are positive. The fitment of the intercooler shouldn't take more than 1 hour of your time with some basic hand tools. The piping itself is well designed, with full 3/16" Bead rolled lips (to prevent intercooler boots from blowing off under boost) and said boots are also high quality units that should be able to withstand both the elements and pressure. The surface of the inlet and outlet of the CAC are same quality, but on a side note, when you look at them they are powder coated, And though aluminum does not oxidize like metal, strictly as a precautionary measure, I sanded the finish off to raw aluminum where the boots mount.

I am hoping to see some 30c weather in the next week or so (C'mon mother nature) So that my garden can grow a bit and do some further testing with the higher ambient temperatures in a towing and light load situation.

So far, the most notable difference is a 'percieved' drop of boost pressure in all levels of fuelling. Interesting, but not unexpected. The loss of pressure from my current information is to suggest that we ARE seeing more efficient 'throughput' that is to say less restriction from the inlet to outlet of the core over the stock unit (which itself is a very good piece GM's Bean counters missed a spot i guess :eek: )

EGT's have changed as well. I need more warm weather to document the conditions of test and the delta of temperature differential between ambient air, charge air temp pre CAC and post CAC. The preliminary data indicates a direct relationship to charge temps and EGT's ( ya i know i am stating the obvious here but tarry on a bit longer)

The preliminary data is raising almost as many questions as there are answers.

1. Is the EGT reduction due to better thermal rejection qualities of the CAC itself?
2. Is this related to the physical mass of the Banks CAC? Or is it in better airflow management internally?
3. Is the EGT reduction due to less 'loading' restriction of the compressor sections discharge airflow?
4. All of the above?

These represent the last Datum needed to hand over the full results to BANKS.

One very important thing to note, for guys who will run the BANKS big head gate on a stock chargered LB7 (and plan to bolt on the Technicooler). SET YOUR GATE CONSERVATIVELY!

The addition of the cooler has 'dropped' peak pressure numbers (better throughput, bigger internal volumes) and in light of that, I believe that if one was to purchase the whole package and intall it one might conclude by observing their boost gauge only that they have lost pressure and proceed to crank the wastegate into a situation that could be dangerous to the turbocharger as it relates to the surge speed to regain the observed pressure drop. I think BANKS might want to address that in their information package because the DIY'er might nuke a turbo and then lay the blame on BANKS because it was not spelled out in absolute terms in the information I have on both the Big Head Wastegate(TM) or their Technicooler(TM) Instructions.

I am adding this to a short 'quibble scribble' to BANKS on the product.

I do apologize for the weather affecting the testing, and hope that in the next two weeks I can provide BANKS with the hard numbers to crunch and the membership a more thorough conclusion once the picture is complete.

Thanks for EVERYONE's patience.:ro)

Have/Are you monitoring boost before and after the cooler?

Have/Are you monitoring boost before and after the cooler?

Yes.

Juice, what you're saying doesn't make much sense. (it never does ):h j/k)

The pressure right before the intake manifold should be higher if the CAC is flowing better (unless you have mucho mucho negative "delta T"). The pressure there should be limited by what the intake system/engine displacement can accommodate.

I would have expected a lower "delta p" across the CAC with MORE pressure at the intake manifold. All this thing can do is lose pressure (i.e., create pressure drop). Or lose temperature.

If you have a pipe with a restriction in it, you have the pressure drop through the restriction with the concomitant loss in flow through the system. If you remove the restriction, then you're simply back to the original flow.

Why would volume of the CAC be meaningful?

Something ain't quite right here, maybe it's my physics.

Juice, what you're saying doesn't make much sense. (it never does ):h j/k)

The pressure right before the intake manifold should be higher if the CAC is flowing better (unless you have mucho mucho negative "delta T"). The pressure there should be limited by what the intake system/engine displacement can accommodate.

I would have expected a lower "delta p" across the CAC with MORE pressure at the intake manifold. All this thing can do is lose pressure (i.e., create pressure drop). Or lose temperature.

If you have a pipe with a restriction in it, you have the pressure drop through the restriction with the concomitant loss in flow through the system. If you remove the restriction, then you're simply back to the original flow.

Why would volume of the CAC be meaningful?

Something ain't quite right here, maybe it's my physics.

Volume is meaningful. There is only so much volume our engines can ingest at a given pressure. Atmospheric engines are a fixed amount from when the intake valve opens until it closes.
Turbocharged engines ram as much air past the valve when it opens until it closes. It does depend on pressure, But air density plays a part as well /mols per unit volume/.

As stated, these are strictly observations until the rest of the testing can be done in warmer weather. No definate conclusions can be drawn from these observations.

The best example I can make on this is filling a lake with a 2" pipe at 35 psi of pressure with a fixed volume constant (that constant is our turbo's ability to move the air mass, who's mass is relative to the ambient INTAKE temps and the adiabatic efficiency of the charger itself <it's ability to efficiently compress the air without incurring high temp penalties from the act of compression>.)

Filling the same lake using the 3" pipe at the same flow volume rate/constant (of the turbo) will show a DECREASE in pressure with the larger interior volume of the piping (and intercooler taken as a system)

Taken as a whole the 4 questions still stand. The BEST Part is, when all is said and done, BANKS gets the unenviable task of disseminating all the information to everyone in a format we can all (me included) understand.

One thing is for sure. It is a nice piece of kit. Very few quibbles (boost set for Big Head, WHY ISN'T MINE SHINY LIKE THEIR SITE DEPICTS etc) but these are minor. Performance is good so far in cooler 50-75F temps, I want to see what happens when the temperature climbs above 100F.

Performance HP and EGT fall and rise with respect to air temperature increases. This is not news to anyone here on the site (I Hope)
Has anyone seen a BANKS Data sheet on the performance gains claimed?

The end goal for me is to provide accurate repeatable results, real world for everyone to look at. Wether the performance per $$$ Ratio is worth it to you will depend on how you view the gains.

If you actually measure your (stock) intercooler physical temps as well as inlet outlet and turbo discharge temps you will see some interesting patterns emerge.

For example: In pulling trailers, maximum physical CAC temps are when you are pulling at a peak and hold boost # under load and level off to cruising speed where they then start to drop off due to less pressure when cruising obviously, but also airflow across the core. But is one was to stop (truck pulls) the CAC temp will actually spike to actual turbo discharge temps and become about 25% efficient because of limited airflow the CAC acts as a thermal heatsink on the aluminum mass itself.

That will have to do for now.:o:

Juice, what you're saying doesn't make much sense. (it never does ):h j/k)

.

Oh, thanks for the compliment:D

Phun with Fizziks (I only made my 3rd year because I SUUUUCKED at calculus -:t )

Juice, I'll have to think more about it.

I think it has a LOT to do with what you consider to be the largest restriction. I see that as the engine itself. If that's the case, feeding it with a hose that's slightly kinked (Banks) vs. halfway kinked (stock) would only show minor changes in the delta p's across the smaller of the restrictions.

I can't argue with the data you've collected, however, so we'll have to keep chewing on it so we's kin unnerstan ):h

Well, how about this, are you seeing a larger delta T with the Banks? That would explain some things regarding pressure (a la PV=nRT). You should have this data....

You might need dyno numbers to make sense of it.

I look at it like the turbo is a much larger pump than needed with the CAC being a minor minor restriction and the engine being the dominant restriction. Maybe I need to rethink that.

Thank you Juice! I will never be in your league, but I do love to read about your (mis) adventures.

O my!

Juice, I'll have to think more about it.



I think it has a LOT to do with what you consider to be the largest restriction. I see that as the engine itself. If that's the case, feeding it with a hose that's slightly kinked (Banks) vs. halfway kinked (stock) would only show minor changes in the delta p's across the smaller of the restrictions.



No argument there, as we are working against the ability to force the air into a small area, and as RPM's climb, our window of time decreases to fill the cylinder.



I can't argue with the data you've collected, however, so we'll have to keep chewing on it so we's kin unnerstan



I'm posting it to get some creative Juice's flowing. A good debate in an absolute vacuumn is pointless. But with questions like yours, it gives us a chance to rethink the results and look for the reasons why it behaves the way it does.



[/QUOTE] Well, how about this, are you seeing a larger delta T with the Banks? That would explain some things regarding pressure (a la PV=nRT). You should have this data.... [/QUOTE]



There is a significant temp drop across the core. Keep in mind, that at the low temps here lately, that helps a larger aluminum mass to reject the heat regardless of laminar flow through the core itself!



[/QUOTE] You might need dyno numbers to make sense of it. [/QUOTE]



Less airflow on the dyno. So we would be relying strictly on the CAC's ability to load the temperature, and that is in line with some of my findings. More metal= more time to heat soak.



[/QUOTE] I look at it like the turbo is a much larger pump than needed with the CAC being a minor minor restriction and the engine being the dominant restriction. Maybe I need to rethink that.[/QUOTE]



I think you are 100% correct that the turbo is actually slightly too big for the engine, and the engine is a bigger restriction. I think what we are collectively missing is we are applying stock fuelling parameters when we label that as the source of condition.



In fact, Stock HP output is 239-245 to the ground on most LB7's . The nature of that only climbs 10-12 HP with an intake or exhaust. The reasoning is straight forward. We have decreased the restrictive elements and therefore the pumping losses of the motor by virtue of the turbo. Vis a Vis, we gain net power and have not changed the fuelling. 260 RWHP/403 cid yields an astounding .645 RWHP/cid.



Adding more fuel to say 500 plus RWHP Level would require an engine capacity of 775 cid using stock fuelling parameters smae fuelling to .645rwhp/cid



Working backwards then, the turbo becomes one of the largest single issues as far as the thermal losses. Adiabatic efficiency is a foregone conclusion feeding to the 500+ Level at roughly 36 PSIG as per the Map provided by Michale Tomac.

Up to that level though, if we could realize better than 150F reduction in temps across the core A stock turbo would be hanging on by fingertips instead of fingernails to feed that HP level. Look at the Diesel Chargers required to feed 770+ Cubic inches at our current CID/RWHP stock fuelling levels. Our IHI is good, but not magic.



Granted this is all full of holes because i am blatantly disegarding frictional losses, and assuming they stay constant as well as increased mass from the 775's bigger componentry. But it does give a slightly Different perspective on what the CAC can do for us.



Feel free to point out anything i might have missed. I do and have made some assumptions, and when we get some better temperatures up here, I have a feeling that we will all learn a bit and move forward!

how many cubes is our motor? the motor being the biggest air restriction, what exactly is it, heads or cam? both?

how many cubes is our motor? the motor being the biggest air restriction, what exactly is it, heads or cam? both?

our engine is 403 cubic inches.

Heads are not bad on a federal LB7. Cam timing might be an issue. I'm ignoring that for now.

i understand thats a whole new issue, does anyone know if someone has worked on a cam yet? or is that secret squirrel stuff?

i understand thats a whole new issue, does anyone know if someone has worked on a cam yet? or is that secret squirrel stuff?

To the best of my knowledge is has been looked into. Will we see a new one this year or next? Probably not. The gains from the cam alone does not justify the expense of a custom ground chilled billet cam.

More fuel and more air.... at least until someone wants 6000 RPMs from what i understand.

But heck it was just a happenstance conversation at best.

Been almost 3 months now, any hard facts and numbers on the intercooler?

Bump ):h

Bump ):h

LOL...OK OK.

Peter Gets the info first.

Anyone have a good program for 'overlay graphing' tables?:o:

I thought it was 404cubes?

What are the differances between the fed spec. heads vs. the other spec heads?

Hello I am new to the board. I have an 03 duramax I am going to start to modify. Does anyone else have an experience with the techni-cooler. Thanks.

If you are completely stock there are better more "cost-effective" ways to boost performance. If you're wanting to get pretty crazy, look into a trans. upgrade then buy a big program, TTS Xtreme is my choice. This will put you around 500 RWHP with a lift pump. Do a search in the trans. upgrades section, and the LB7 electronics section and do some reading. Just don't have anything planned for the rest of the week.):h

Wasn't someone supposed to post some info on this?

Oh Yeah Juice! :rolleyes:

Or is this one of those if you can't say anything nice things.

heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeers Jonnnnnnny!!!!!!!!):h ):h ):h

heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeers Jonnnnnnny!!!!!!!!):h ):h ):h

Or Juicey as the case may be.

Yes, I have failed. Failed to get Both the information to Peter and to the membership here.

I hope to get something up soon. Life has thrown me a few curves i am trying to straighten out first.

dont sweat it JUICE , just a little ribbing, we all know you will give us a honest report on the facts and would rather wait on the truth than be baffeled by BS, keep your head high and good luck

Yeah just teasin. 1 review from Juice is worth two from just about anybody else. Especially if he can't get it to blow up or something.