3RZ Turbo Intercooler Location

I am getting close to finishing the install of my built turbo 3rz and I need to install an intercooler on this setup. I see most people end up putting it behind the stock bumper but I do not have a stock bumper. I have a winch/tube bumper. I figured I’d throw it out their and see if anyone else has an idea

 

I have the same problem. The only thing I have thought of is a top mount air to air with a hood scoop or a top mount water to air. The water to air can use a small radiator that might fit behind the grill. If you could mount an intercooler where most have, behind the stock bumper, that would be a terrible idea for off-roading. There is a very good chance the core or pipes would get damaged. Unless someone has a better idea I'm just going to try it without an intercooler and see what my intake temps. get to. I'm running forged 10:1 pistons so I probably won't go over 10psi which might help with the temps.

 

Oh boy...

 

If need be you could running the plumbing to the roof it is out of the way.

Installed trans coolers on the roof why not an Intercooler.

Make new brackets slide the bumper winch assembly forward to get your clearance that would be the most simple

 

In front of the front grill or ditch the bumper. What's more important? Bumper or turbo?

 

Built for turbo and you raised the compression? Anyway, water to air is more efficient for physical size packaging and it's what I'm doing cause I have the flat faced grille and a large winch bumper too.

 

Well I have an idea of water to air because a heat exchanger is so small I will be able to fit it between the radiator and motor. I found a video of these guys in Australia who attempted a water to air on a 3rz and I will attach that link here. I will keep everyone updated on info about installing the setup once it arrives in the mail

https://youtu.be/7oT0gKxhmC8

 

I think that's about how @Reh5108 did his

 

A proper water to air intercooler is a fairly complex system. You still need a large heat exchanger (the front radiator, which cools the coolant) to keep the system from heat soaking. Once the coolant in the intercooler gets more than 25-30 degrees above ambient air temp, you lose most of your cooling ability because it is unable to transfer enough of the intake air heat to make the system worthwhile. You also need a fairly large volume of coolant and a pump that can move it. A reservoir in the coolant loop is nice for that, and gives more surface are for the coolant to dump heat, but it takes up space. Stay with air-to-air, it's a much simpler system to set up, and much lighter weight. The only real advantage to a water/air intercooler is a shorter intake air run. You see water/air intercoolers on some bigger trucks as a factory setup because they can integrate the heat exchanger into the intake manifold, but it is still a more complex system to make it work well.

Even with an aftermarket bumper, isn't there room enough between the grille and a/c condenser for an intercooler heat exchanger?

I had a supercharged Miata a few years ago, I started out with a water/air intercooler. It was okay, I was running about 12 psi boost and on a warmish day and pushing the car, I'd have to back off because I was getting some pre-det behavior, even when running 93 octane and 9:1` compression. The system also added about 40 pounds to the front of the car, not counting the supercharger itself. Maybe not a big deal for a pickup truck, but it affected handling in the car. I changed to an air/air system, dropped about 23 pounds (the coolant, coolant pump, plumbing and one heat exchanger) and I could run more boost without fear of detonation. Mind you, this engine was making over twice the stock rear wheel horsepower at 15 psi.

 

Right, you basically need a 2nd radiator instead of an intercooler (+pump, lines, etc), and your temps will always be higher unless you're on a drag strip dropping ice cubes in. Something I looked at, but something I determined was foolhardy.

 

It's really quite ideal for a daily or something seeing constant high speed load. Most high performance boosted vehicles are using them standard now (M3, AngryPussy/Demon, LSA, even the 2nd gen taco intercooler... the list is quite long). It has a lower total potential for cooling than an air to air in short bursts since it stabilizes at a higher temp but also can just keep taking load without being overwhelmed in a much smaller package than a similar air to air, must be properly sized of course. I'd have to go without an intercooler without water to air because I don't have the space to waste on an air to air core that could take the load. The guys using frost boxes are for drag racing setups and they usually omit the radiator core portion and just use ice in the box from pull to pull, but for a daily it isn't necessary. Plus you don't have to go full caveman hacking massive holes though the body for your charge pipes. can just be small bulkhead fittings for the coolant.

 

I'm pretty sure those upsides only apply if you're comparing to a heat soaked intercooler which is easy to overcome if the one you pick has a large enough core. Air is gone once it goes through the fins, but you're still cycling that same heated medium after a spike with air to water.

You can even see this with CPU cooling actually. Some of the more massive heatsinks for use with fans outperform watercoolers.

 

And then it comes back to packaging, you're putting a small air to water system against a massive air to air intercooler. They both have their benefits but an air-to-air saves you absolutely no space if you want efficiency. It kind of sounds like you've never experienced a water to air intercooler system, they shed heat really fast. That said they are more susceptible to heat soak if your turbo system is already poorly sized for the boost range you're running at. If you're running way outside the efficiency of your compressor and you're just generating a ton of heat it's going to have trouble with that because you're at the far end of the duty all the time.

 

I don't see how an air-water saves any space. You need two heat exchangers instead of one, even if you're splitting them into smaller packages. I haven't had one, no, but the bottom line is you're cooling using ~200*F vs Ambient. Like you said, it comes down to packaging, and more accurately, conduction. You can either make the surface area larger, or increase media velocity through it. Air has a lower specific heat than water, so water can obviously absorb more heat before it increases in temp so you can use a physically smaller core before it saturates. The trade off is you can't increase cooling through velocity like you can with air (assuming a static maximum flowrate through your pump), which is otherwise naturally generated when you request more load from your engine by means of accelerating you to that greater velocity. You can still oversaturate the water core in the same way as you can with an air intercooler, so the only argument here is is it worth the +100* IATs and extra moving parts for a slightly smaller, and/or split, footprint.

I think you understand these things so I'm not saying you're wrong in any way, but I think you're overselling the concept.
Now if you want slightly better fuel efficiency, higher intake temps are the way to go, but I think most of us are after power with an FI conversion.

 

Where are you getting such high IAT numbers from, you know water to air systems use their own cooling loop independent of the engine right? I've never seen the water temp for my buddy's m3 get over 120* and that's heavy duty 15psi from twin turbos going through. I can tell you haven't had a water to air setup before because you'd know the cores are much smaller altogether. Much easier to package a core the size of a big box video game under the hood and a thin almost oil cooler sized core in the front behind the grille. I don't think I'm overselling it here, it has major benefits, maybe not when done cheaply by a home gamer, and I'm in no way saying it saves money, but the packaging and efficiency is remarkable. I suggest you go back and re-research this one for yourself.

 

I know you can do either, I was just giving the benefit of the doubt on sizing since OP didn't have room to mount anything in front so assumed we were reusing radiator coolant. So, fine, let's say you can also achieve ambient temps.

https://www.cxracing.com/liquid-to-air-intercooler-pump-water-to-air-intercooler
These heat exchangers are basically intercooler sizes, then you have to shove another box post-turbo in your engine bay.

So, pick your poison?

 

No you cannot, it wont work, no one does this, there is no OEM that even does this as a cost savings.


Those heat exchangers are cheap chinese shit, and mostly misused air-air cores, true water to air cores have smaller vanes for the liquid to flow through and are much improved size wise. I really think you're arguing in bad faith here and haven't explored the options of water-air. Those heat exchanger cores for in front of the radiator are mostly just radiators too, not at all what is typically used. This is why I said you can't necessarily do it on the cheap and that cost wasn't where this method wins. But I'll save you the effort of exploring it and just post some IATs when my system is done if you'd like. Can't fit any air to air cores on my build so I've only got the one option.

 

Ok

 

It is all about the packaging, and what you expect performance-wise, plus how you make your power. For a 4x4, I would assume low end boost and intermittent need. My car was intended for part-time track use, and on-demand power when driving on the street or back country roads. It was pretty easy to heat soak a water/air system; I could have up-sized the heat exchangers, but that also increased weight, all up front and the car would push (understeer) in the corners even with aggressive suspension tuning. Not usually an issue in an offroad truck. Available space dictates what you install, and there's no need to oversize an intercooler, there are flow formulas aplenty so you can get a heat exchanger big enough without being ridiculous. You'd think you really don't have a lot of heat to deal with compressing intake air, but on a hot day when you're already sucking 90 degree air, compressing it can easily double the intake temp, and here comes detonation. Water/air systems start out cool, but reach a point where the water temp may stabilize quite a bit higher than what the ambient intake air is, and it loses efficiency. Manufacturers who use factory water/air systems plan on the vehicle being used moderately and the boost levels used are not that great anyway. 5-10 psi as about what you can expect from a factory system, fairly easy for the intercooler to keep up with. Air/water is fairly easy to package; you need more pieces, but they're generally smaller and can fit in smaller nooks and crannies but the piping from one piece to another can be a spider web, with plenty of connections to leak, although it's a much lower pressure fluid system than the engine cooling system. It's one of the reasons I started out with air/water. Most aftermarket systems for sports cars, whether it's for a turbo or supercharger, are air/air systems and their engineering is usually pretty good and tailored to the vehicle's available space.

 

That's where I got the idea to do mine. If I did it again I'd go with the straight though type and not the 90. With the treadstone manifold I think it would fit better. The radiator I used fit pretty well behind the 04 grill. Just needed to trim the thickness of the grill a bit.

I don't have an IAT sensor post turbo so I can't really say what the temp difference is or if it heat soaks. My goal was for the shortest intake possible to reduce lag.