{"id":2370,"date":"2019-03-22T22:04:15","date_gmt":"2019-03-23T02:04:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/maxtorqueperformance.com\/?p=2370"},"modified":"2019-03-22T22:09:07","modified_gmt":"2019-03-23T02:09:07","slug":"the-differences-between-air-to-air-and-air-to-water-intercoolers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maxtorqueperformance.com\/staging\/index.php\/2019\/03\/22\/the-differences-between-air-to-air-and-air-to-water-intercoolers\/","title":{"rendered":"The Differences Between Air-To-Air And Air-To-Water Intercoolers"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
\"\" <\/a> <\/div>\n

By Greg Acosta<\/a> <\/span> <\/span> September 21, 2018<\/span><\/div>\n<\/header>\n

\n

It\u2019s the age old debate of which is better, air or water? Both are required for our biological survival as human beings, and both are used as a cooling medium for compressed intake charges in automotive applications. While there are benefits and drawbacks to both air-to-air and air-to-water charge cooling, what is \u201cbest\u201d will vary greatly by application and the debate will rage on for a very, very long time.<\/p>\n

However, before you can get in on the debate, you really need to understand how each type of charge cooling system works. For that, we turn to Jason Fenske of Engineering Explained<\/a>. In his latest video, he goes over the basics of each type of system, and their pros and cons in a production application.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a> <\/p>\n

It wouldn\u2019t be a Jason Fenske video without a whiteboard. This shows a simplified view of the two types of systems. On the left, the system shows an air-to-water system plumbed into the intake manifold, as often seen on positive-displacement supercharged engines, but are now being used by manufacturers on factory turbocharged applications. On the right is a turbocharged (or centrifugally supercharged) application using a more traditional (in a production application) air-to-air intercooler.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

Air-To-Air<\/strong><\/p>\n

The air-to-air intercooler system is relatively simple. It uses airflow through the intercooler to remove heat from the compressed charge air. Heat is transferred from the charge (air) to the atmosphere (air) \u2013 hence the name \u201cair-to-air\u201d. \u201cYou have air coming in through the air intake, through the compressor, then to the front of the vehicle through the heat exchanger and then into the intake manifold,\u201d Fenske explains of the air-to-air system.<\/p>\n

Air-To-Water<\/strong><\/p>\n

In an air-to-water system, the heat from the intake charge isn\u2019t removed by external airflow (at least not directly), but rather by a liquid coolant. \u201cThe air to water system is a little more complicated. The air again comes in through the intake and through the compressor,\u201d Fenske says. \u201cThe compressed air then feeds into the intake manifold with its integrated intercooler.\u201d<\/p>\n

While in the production example Fenske is using \u2013 a BMW X3 M40i with the B58 engine, which uses a manifold-mounted air-to-water intercooler, much like the venerable lineup of supercharged Ford Four-Valve Modular engines, and aftermarket Kenne Bell and Whipple supercharget kits \u2013 the science and design of all air-to-water intercoolers are similar across the board, regardless of charge cooler mounting location.<\/p>\n

In addition to the actual charge cooler, air-to-water systems have a secondary cooling system, much like a standard engine cooling system, but dedicated specifically to the intercooler. \u201cYou have a coolant which passes through the intercooler core and is then pumped through the system to a radiator in the front of the car to have the heat removed,\u201d Fenske says.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a> <\/p>\n

Front-mounted air-to-air intercoolers like this one from Full Race (with the OEM intercooler in the rear) act much the same way a radiator does, except instead of cooling down your engine coolant, it cools down your intake charge, once it has been compressed. By mounting the intercooler in the front of the car, it is ensured a clear, cool supply of air.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

Pros and Cons<\/strong><\/p>\n

Trying to ask which method of charge cooling is better is like asking what the best power-adder is. The answer is simply, \u201cIt depends.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe air-to-air system is a much simpler system. You don\u2019t have to worry about fluid leaks; you don\u2019t have the additional heat exchanger and the [associated] fluid plumbing. You have less weight with an air to air system as well,\u201d explains Fenske<\/p>\n

In an air-to-water system, once the coolant has pulled the heat out of the charge air, the heat must then be pulled out of the coolant itself. \u201cAnother big advantage to the air-to-air system is that you are only relying on heat being exchanged once. With the air-to-water, you\u2019re relying on ambient air to get the temperature of the coolant as low as possible.\u201d<\/p>\n

Fenske does point out that air-to-air coolers do have drawbacks, saying, \u201cHowever, you must mount an air-to-air where there is airflow, and ideally that would be in front of the engine, although you can mount it on top of the engine as well. You won\u2019t get as much airflow, and potentially be susceptible to heat soak from the engine.\u201d<\/p>\n

Moving to the air-to-water system, Fenske continues, \u201cAir to water intercoolers [in production applications] reduce the volume of space between the compressor and the intake valves, because the air-to-water charge cooler can be mounted anywhere under the hood, and not have to be routed up front into the airstream This reduces the distance the compressed charge has to travel.\u201d<\/p>\n

In theory, that reduction in volume and distance traveled by the compressed intake charge will not only increase engine responsiveness (reducing lag) but also reduce the potential of further heat soak by reducing the amount of time the charge is exposed to underhood heat.<\/p>\n

\n