Air-water CAC/intercooler on an IDI?

Fision

Full Access Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Posts
109
Reaction score
67
Location
Alaska
Anybody know of an air-water CAC/intercooler being used on an IDI? Or even a 7.3 Powerstroke, since it would be a similar fit. If so, what model cooler and what style turbo setup?

Some of the air-water setups are quite compact and would afford a shorter route from turbo to intake. I would also love to avoid more large pipes crowding the engine bay.

If it’s possible I would love to route coolant from the radiator to a small auxiliary radiator and use that to cool the CAC. This would (hopefully) eliminate the need for a separate circulation motor.

Thoughts?
 

asmith

Full Access Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Posts
665
Reaction score
205
Location
Atascadero, Ca
I have one on my truck. It works great. the biggest benefit is not having to cut up your core support for the intake pipes. I run a completely separate system from my engine cooling system. It just uses a little electric pump.
I dont remember what the model is, I bought it used from a member on here. I can try and look tomorrow to see what I can find.
 

Fision

Full Access Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Posts
109
Reaction score
67
Location
Alaska
Thanks asmith.
Any supporting info will be helpful:
Turbo system used (IDIT, banks, etc)?
How does it attach to the intake?
Challenges with setup or sealing?
How much does it interfere with working on other stuff (glow plugs, etc)?
Pics would be awesome, if you have the time.
And thanks for your time and help!
 

nelstomlinson

Full Access Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Posts
1,077
Reaction score
690
Location
Delta Junction AK
Surely would be nice if there were some way to shoehorn an intercooler into an intake manifold without making the whole mess sit too high to fit under the hood.

I'm thinking of in-line industrial turbo diesels I've seen where the liquid cooled intercooler was in the intake, and since everything was on the side of the engine, there really wasn't a space issue.
 

Fision

Full Access Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Posts
109
Reaction score
67
Location
Alaska
That would be sweet.
For our engines it would take a lot of custom fabrication to be effective, I would think. To have enough cooling area the intake would need to be replaced with a custom plenum (all properly aerodynamic and whatnot) and that space would need filled with water cooled fins. I’m not a metal-fab guy but I would think a hood bump would be easier, if it came down to it.
I’m looking forward to asmith’s reply, and hopefully pics, to see an example of fitment.
But getting back to your idea, I have a dt466 for which I’ve kicked around the air-water CAC. But the more sensible side of me objects “it has a good air-air CAC. Stop being greedy:Banned.” “But the air has to travel 10 feet to go from the turbo to the intake, with extra turns. An air-water would reduce lag, and cool better:cool:.” etc. All day.
 

lotzagoodstuff

Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Joined
May 19, 2007
Posts
2,726
Reaction score
668
Location
Carmel, IN
If it’s possible I would love to route coolant from the radiator to a small auxiliary radiator and use that to cool the CAC. This would (hopefully) eliminate the need for a separate circulation motor.

Thoughts?

I don't know if it's possible to not have a standalone system as your engine coolant is going to be pretty warm, not to mention: it will get hotter when you need it most under load.

There are OEMs doing air to water systems in gassers: take a look at an E55 Mercedes system. They are very effective and they use an electric pump for circulation, the pumps are reportedly very dependable.

Check out frozenboost.com for some nice air to water intercoolers more appropriate for larger displacements such as IDIs.
 

asmith

Full Access Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Posts
665
Reaction score
205
Location
Atascadero, Ca
yup thats my truck with the kit installed on it. here is a link to the build from the guy I bought all the stuff from.

https://www.oilburners.net/threads/...-and-true-cai-feel-free-to-laugh-at-it.76552/

and a link to the kit he bought which I then bought from him LOL
http://www.frozenboost.com/liquid-air-intercooler/water-to-air-intercooler-p-1006.html

Three things I need to change about mine. the cdr valve lets way to much oil into the intake and it seeps out between the boots and builds up in the cooler. I need to get a catch can to keep that from happening. I also want to either get new pipes with a bead on them or somehow put a bead in these ones so that the boots seal a little better. I am forever chasing leaks in them. Lastly i want to change the angle on the intake pipe that the filter goes on. The way it is run right now I cant run a bigger filter and I would really like to run a bigger one like the 6637.

hope this helps
 

Booyah45828

Full Access Member
Joined
May 2, 2017
Posts
879
Reaction score
671
Location
Ohio
I stumbled upon another build thread with a water to air intercooler a few months ago. Ocnorb did it here and did some testing on it. https://www.oilburners.net/threads/intercooler-heavy-duty-testing-run.86304/

I'm considering it. The bus has a large radiator, much larger then what your pickups have. I'm thinking I can pull coolant from the bottom of the block, run it through a second radiator, run it through the intercooler, and then return it to a port at the water pump. That way I don't have to buy or deal with reliability issues with an electric pump.

The 6.7 psd has a dual cooling system. Both are independent of the other and they call them high and low temp cooling systems. The High temp system is for the engine cooling, oil cooling, and heater duties. Where the low temp is for the trans cooler, fuel cooler, egr cooler, and the charge air cooling. They've been pretty reliable so far.
 

Fision

Full Access Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Posts
109
Reaction score
67
Location
Alaska
Thanks guys! It’ll be a day or two before I have time to really get into the threads, but this is just the kind of info I’ve been looking for.
Question on your kit asmith- the frozen boost web site says your kit is rated for 700cfm. Is that enough? I thought we would need 900-1000cfm.
 

lotzagoodstuff

Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Joined
May 19, 2007
Posts
2,726
Reaction score
668
Location
Carmel, IN
I also want to either get new pipes with a bead on them or somehow put a bead in these ones so that the boots seal a little better. I am forever chasing leaks in them.

Before you get new pipes, try this: get them super clean and dry, and then put some hairspray on the inside of the boots before you shove the pipes on and quickly position and clamp them. The hairspray will dry and provide some added leak prevention.
 

Fision

Full Access Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Posts
109
Reaction score
67
Location
Alaska
I got a chance to read ocnorb’s and Shawn MacAnnany’s thread. And if I understand things correctly, asmith now owns Shawn’s CAC system.
I did something similar to ocnorb and Shawn in testing the effectiveness of the CAC on the rig in my sig— a ‘95 IH 4900 with a dt466. I bought a bbq thermometer with 4 probes, a broad temp range and quick response. Installed a probe pre-filter, post turbo and post CAC (factory stock air-air, but quite large and well made to my untrained eye). The truck weighs ~23k as loaded, and we have couple decent grades on the 65-70 mph commute to Anchorage, but no epic hills to really push it. Running ~23# boost (for a couple minutes) the turbo added 250-270* to ambient and the CAC brought it down to perhaps 50* above ambient. Approx 80% efficiency.
The engine would have been at about 2000 rpm. And YES, rpm does matter. More rpm=more intake air volume. More intake air volume=more heat that the CAC has to try and remove.
Shawn’s thread also contained some debate as to which system is better at removing heat— air-air or air-water. According to sources that should know (I.e.- Borg Warner), assuming both systems are properly done, the air-water should win on every performance level but at the cost of greater complexity.
 
Last edited:

Booyah45828

Full Access Member
Joined
May 2, 2017
Posts
879
Reaction score
671
Location
Ohio
I got a chance to read ocnorb’s and Shawn MacAnnany’s thread. And if I understand things correctly, asmith now owns Shawn’s CAC system.
I did something similar to ocnorb and Shawn in testing the effectiveness of the CAC on the rig in my sig— a ‘95 IH 4900 with a dt466. I bought a bbq thermometer with 4 probes, a broad temp range and quick response. Installed a probe pre-filter, post turbo and post CAC (factory stock air-air, but quite large and well made to my untrained eye). The truck weighs ~23k as loaded, and we have couple decent grades on the 65-70 mph commute to Anchorage, but no epic hills to really push it. Running ~23# boost (for a couple minutes) the turbo added 250-270* to ambient and the CAC brought it down to perhaps 50* above ambient. Approx 80% efficiency.
The engine would have been at about 2000 rpm. And YES, rpm does matter. More rpm=more intake air volume. More intake air volume=more heat that the CAC has to try and remove.
Shawn’s thread also contained some debate as to which system is better at removing heat— air-air or air-water. According to sources that should know (I.e.- Borg Warner), assuming both systems are properly done, the air-water should win on every performance level but at the cost of greater complexity.

That's good data to see and ponder over. I wonder how close a reasonably sized air to water system could get to ambient?

Air to water wins on ever performance level because it's smaller and has a near zero pressure drop in the system. It also takes less time to spool up because there is less volume that you have to compress compared to an air to air system.
 

Fision

Full Access Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Posts
109
Reaction score
67
Location
Alaska
That's good data to see and ponder over. I wonder how close a reasonably sized air to water system could get to ambient?

Air to water wins on ever performance level because it's smaller and has a near zero pressure drop in the system. It also takes less time to spool up because there is less volume that you have to compress compared to an air to air system.

Below is a link to Borg Warner’s Matchbot page. VERY informative and interesting tool! Highly recommended. Along with Wes’s thread on choosing turbos and Corky Bell’s book “Maximum Boost”, I had a lot of my misunderstandings clarified.

Quoting from the MatchBot Intercooler efficiency estimator—

“Use 90-95% at low engine speeds with typical intercooler.

Use 85-90% at high engine speeds with typical intercooler (range depends on intercooler placement, size and quality.)

Use 100% if using air-to-water cooler (forces air outlet temp to be equal to ambient temp.)

Use over 100% if using ice water cooling for drag racing.

Set to 0% if not using an intercooler”

http://www.turbos.bwauto.com/aftermarket/matchbot

These estimates proved optimistic for the CAC on my ‘95 IH, as well as other posted readings I’ve seen. A consistent 100% for air-water especially seems unrealistic. Perhaps high 90’s for a well designed system??? Granted, the purpose of Matchbot is estimating, and they are going to have to generalize numbers...
What this DOES tell me is that an air-water system has more potential effectiveness.

MatchBot is an engine power estimator to help determine what turbo you need for your power goals. It gives a LOT of flexibility for user input parameters. For example- Volumetric Efficiency (VE). In his turbo thread Wes estimates our IDI’s at 85%VE iirc. This means the MatchBot default VE is also optimistic. Frankly I think everything MatchBot gives is optimistic. But if you know your yardstick is about 10% longer than a yard, you can still take reasonably accurate measurements.
 
Last edited:
Top