Where's all the 5.9 air to water aftercoolers??

[bgilbert]

Anyone got any leads on an air to water aftercooler? Seems the 6B's that have one of these never fail . I say that as all the engines I see that come through my favorite junkyard are p-pumped 12 valves that were air to air intercooled. Then recently a mostly burnt to the chassis VE pumped RV but was non-intercooled:cry: . I came across one of these needle in the haystack gems along with matching injection lines, but sold the set .

[jogl]

What vehicles / machines were these air to water heat exchangers in? I'll certainly start watching!

JP.

[Begle1]

Everything I've ever heard is that air-to-water aftercoolers are much more inefficient than air-to-air aftercoolers.

The air going through a standard intercooler is, if you're driving through death valley, 150 degrees. Usually it's below a hundred. Where does the water flowing over the air-to-water aftercooler come from? It comes from a radiater, which limits the air-to-water aftercooler from cooling any faster than a normal intercooler. (Convection/ Conduction differences don't matter when the water itself needs to be cooled by convection anyways.) And, if that water is tied in with the engine, it is always going to be above 200 degrees; if it isn't tied in with the engine, you're looking at a very complex system to build for inefficiency's sake.

At least that's my understanding of why you never see anybody interested in performance running air-to-water aftercoolers.


Of course, why anybody runs those giant, heavy leaky things beats me. Water injection is the way of the future.

[Greenleaf]

The school buses use them along with gen sets. Even the P-Pumped gen sets use them. I have one here. I recently pitched one cuz I didn't know what to do with it.

[gman07]

Everything I've ever heard is that air-to-water aftercoolers are much more inefficient than air-to-air aftercoolers.

The air going through a standard intercooler is, if you're driving through death valley, 150 degrees. Usually it's below a hundred. Where does the water flowing over the air-to-water aftercooler come from? It comes from a radiater, which limits the air-to-water aftercooler from cooling any faster than a normal intercooler. (Convection/ Conduction differences don't matter when the water itself needs to be cooled by convection anyways.) And, if that water is tied in with the engine, it is always going to be above 200 degrees; if it isn't tied in with the engine, you're looking at a very complex system to build for inefficiency's sake.

At least that's my understanding of why you never see anybody interested in performance running air-to-water aftercoolers.


Of course, why anybody runs those giant, heavy leaky things beats me. Water injection is the way of the future.

You also have to remember that an air-to-air aftercooler isn't going to do as much good on an engine that doesn't move

I agree though, I'd rather have an air-to-air cooler in our application.

[Begle1]

You also have to remember that an air-to-air aftercooler isn't going to do as much good on an engine that doesn't move

I agree though, I'd rather have an air-to-air cooler in our application.

A stationary air-to-air intercooler would be just as effective as the stationary radiator attached to the stationary air-to-water intercooler.

Wouldn't it? I doubt I'm that right, as there has to be some benefit of air-to-waters or they wouldn't exist...

[gman07]

A stationary air-to-air intercooler would be just as effective as the stationary radiator attached to the stationary air-to-water intercooler.

Wouldn't it? I doubt I'm that right, as there has to be some benefit of air-to-waters or they wouldn't exist...

Wow, I must really be tired today....

[dpuckett]

I'd think the air-air aftercooler would be only slightly less efficient in a stationary application than in a automotive application. Reason being, the fan will pull air into the fins of the radiator and air to air cooler. I think the water to air coolers were run due to simplicity and cost- they cooled the air enough for a stock application, along with being less expensive than an air-to-air cooler. Another reason I could think of in a stationary application is space.

GL- after my mirror debacle, you should know not to throw anything away. (He had some towing mirrors on his pickup and THREW THEM AWAY because he wanted the smaller power mirrors type).

Daniel

[PToombs]

What all you guys are missing is you can run the water cooler to a bucket of ice water and get roughly 30* water in the cooler. Are you guys seeing the benefits here?

[2stroke]

where would u put something like this? got any pics?

[gman07]

What all you guys are missing is you can run the water cooler to a bucket of ice water and get roughly 30* water in the cooler. Are you guys seeing the benefits here?

I do see the benefits of an air-to-water the way you describe, but it would only work well for short periods of time (sled pulling or 1/4 mile). I'd still rather have air-to-air, especially since the air here is 25* at the moment.

[RumbleFish]

I'd rather have any intercooler.....

[Begle1]

I'd rather have any intercooler.....

Now now...

Just tell yourself that intercoolers are bulky, heavy, inefficient, non-aerodynamic, leaky and over-priced. Then spend your money on water injection instead.

[Greenleaf]

Some food for thought......

For water injection; carry a tank around in the bed like the farmers use to transport liquid fertilizer. About 500/1000 gallons.

The coolant typer coolers; mount a Thermo-King in the bed to chill the water and route that throught the cooler.

[TWorline]

Some food for thought......

For water injection; carry a tank around in the bed like the farmers use to transport liquid fertilizer. About 500/1000 gallons.

The coolant typer coolers; mount a Thermo-King in the bed to chill the water and route that throught the cooler.

Well hey, I never thought about that... we could even put C O2 assist on the after/intercooler!