ì(2) pf yout posts are shall we say " :acrimonious,*cantankerous,*carping,*caviling,*cav illous,*censorious,*contrary,*crabby,*cross,*deman ding,*deprecating,*disparaging,*exacting,*exceptiv e,*fault-finding,*finicky,*hypercritical,*irritable,*naggin g,*nit-picking,*overcritical,*peevish,*perverse,*petulant ,*sarcastic,*severe,*testy,*touchy

Then you reduce yoursel to "Siver-Back" Chest pumping in a feeble attempt @ impresing the lower intelligecne-misinformed or exremely gulliblle to except your personal finance clains as an excuse (more lofty dreams than reality" In an attempt to further derail this iinformative thread...

But what do I know? I'm posting on my stolen laptop in grocery kart in an alley behind resue mission J/K lighten uo!qs

 

Please tell me you're drunk..?

You have more mistakes in this post than a 1st grader.



EDIT: Just to highlight a few ... I'm not a grammar ****, but damn dude ... if you're trying to belittle someone, at least make your point clear and concise.

 

I never understand when people take things way too personal and in their attack look like children.

 

The SC sits much lower than OEM, that dosen't leave much room for a cooler.
How did they do it? Is there a cooler under the SC like our OEM cooler? if there is then it must be pretty small. what am I missing here

 

If you look to the left of the passenger side intake, you will see what looks like two 3/4 hoses. I am assuming that could be water/coolant lines being runned through to the back of that blower or something like that to cool it? Just guessing by the pic.

 

LoL, that is all I have to say to this..... And you know zero about me so you can think or assume whatever you want, I could care less about your thoughts. Funny thing is I have always given you the benefit of the doubt while some others didn't think to highly of you but I guess I was mistaken.

Oh and this thread was informative? I haven't seen anything in here telling me anything I want to know and I feel comfortable saying I can probably speak for the vast majority of others as well. You think you did some kind of service by making this thread after there was already a video posted of the car running and you told us absolutely nothing informative other than some misinformation about the Weistec with its smog stuff.

 

Well said!

 

Do you?...
Last time I checked you own a V-12.

 

Looking forward to the numbers!

 

Where's the video? Is it an actual WOT run in car? He did me a service. First I've heard of it.

 

Hence my interest... Tho 95% or,more of the original W211 owners yellped for decades (When's MB coming out w/V8 Twins?" "I'll be the 1st in line to buy when they come out" Less the 2-3 actual OG's bought/leased newE63tt/CLS63 etc the mojority here are just tire kickers... (Excluding you Tech-Tune, I don't recall you doining any of the above)

 

So? You really think if he wanted a built E55 instead he wouldn't have had one? I've known thericker for coming on ten years now and he's been one of few to follow through on plans around here and really contribute to the board. Oh, and I care about Cali smog being here and all...

Sean.. it'd be a small *** room LMFAO

 

SpeedDriven: I am curious about your twin-intake design, with the surge tanks in place, vs. the competitor's with a single inlet. Is there a specific reason/intent?
Thx

 

I think for this offering from SpeedDriven it's just a matter of using what's already there to save on initial costs, kind of like the reasoning for Weistecs open element filter. A better CAI system was probably not out of the picture but there's a price point for everything that needs to be met.

 

I'm not an engineer in flow dynamics, but would a greater volume of intake air (ie. two inlets vs one..the 63 uses two 74mm TB's vs. one larger one) cause less heat on the way in due to less air being compressed through the same inlet? I'd assume MB had some reason for doing it that way.

 

Not less heat, but it's easier to find space for a smaller tube on each side than one big tube on either side in an existing cramped space.

 

Makes sense. From what you've seen in taking the Weistec apart, does it evenly distribute to both sides?

 

I still think that the stock IC is more efficient than either one of the new units being introduced.
The charged air travels through the stock core which is approximately 8-9" in depth (someone please confirm). Both of the other unit's cores look thinner than 8" and would allow less time for cooling.
I just think that the thicker core would be more efficient than the thinner core for cooling the charged air.

Ideally, a larger blower utilizing the stock core would be the better design, IMO.

 

More efficient in cooling, perhaps. However, flow plays a HUGE part in being efficient and I'm sure the oem core doesn't flow nearly as well as one of the thinner ones. It's all about balancing flow with heat transfer. Though without test numbers it's really hard to find out.

I know MB didn't think it was such a great design since the SLR doesn't use it.

 

Absolutely. The direction of the air coming into the compressor is irrelevant because its then chopped up by rotors spinning at 10,000 rpm or so and then discharged downward. The lower manifold itself would then be responsible for distributing the air evenly.

I disagree with you on that one 100%

The stock core measures 3" tall by 5" wide as the hot air flows through it front to back. The depth is exactly 7.5 inches, and the same coolant flows through it multiple times back and forth side to side.

My opinion on the Weistec unit is still deliberating. The core measures 12" by 4.5 inches as the hot air flows through it, and only 3.25 inches deep is available due to the depth of the engine valley.

So how you determine efficiency would be subjective. Typically you flow a given CFM of hot air through a unit, and divide the temp in by the temp out, and that's your efficiency %. For a stock blower spinning stockish CFM (or Hp) it's probably more efficient to push the air front to back like the factory does it and it would probably rate a higher efficiency % at that point.

But now dramatically increase the CFM and the small 3x5 hole you're trying to push the air through backs the air up causing a pressure loss and the heat soaks the core. The efficiency % will fall off a cliff now. This is where a top to bottom flowing core with a high volume of coolant flowing through it will be of benefit. Well see shortly if it's enough or not on my car and others. Steve in PA just did a trunk tank with a huge front mount HE, and he has enough data logging equip to put an F35 to shame

I like the way PAcougar and his friend Dave spaced the blower up and fit a huge core in the same spot. Both those guys know their stuff and I think it's going to work great, and this one from SpeedDriven could be very similar in design although then haven't showed it yet.

 

I will tell you what you are missing, the blower and tanks are actually 3/4 inch higher due to the billet plate it is sitting on, and yes of course the IC is still there.

 

Pics from their other build thread

 

Like I said its only my opinion (I'd like to be wrong as I too am contemplating the upgrade).
Would love to see comparable IAT logs between stock vs. aftermarket blower pushing identical boost (with all other components being equal). That's the only way to prove the new ones are more efficient.

 

I ran it at WOT in the 1/2 mile and data logged one run, I think IAT was at 130 on stock boost, car is hitting dyno today so will have lots of info very shortly.

 

I'd like to see it compared too, but you're on your own with that because no one is going to go through the trouble of adapting the old intercooler to their new blower just to show the results. The closest you'll probably get to that is to see the results from PAcougar's IC core upgrade using the stock blower.