whereisgibson
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2010
- Messages
- 321
Theoretical question time.
1) I've read if you add any type of intercooler to a 1hdft one gets a modest performance increase eg +15hp, even if you don't tune the pump in any way. Like when the truck is cold it goes a bit quicker and is a bit crisper, it stays like that instead of a bit sluggish when up to temp.
2) If you did tune the pump to make use of the intercooler, you'd be adding more fuel.
3) The debate around w2a vs a2a seems to come down to a2a being passive and unlikely to fail, but w2a being a better solution but relies on pumps and secondary cooling etc.
So my thought is if you don't tune the pump, and any fitted intercooler failed, the engine would just run fine anyway (1). So that makes the a2a simplicity argument (3) a bit redundant because failure isn't a problem.
If you did tune the pump (2) for more fuel by just rotating the pin (the boost wouldn't change so no need to mess with the spring tension etc), and then the intercooler failed, then you're just going to be running a bit sootier, which would take 5 mins to fix if you could be bothered to, but I would think the fuelling change to maximise a modest increase of only +15hp would not cause much variation in egts nor plumes of coal.
This leads me to conclude that one either has no intercooler, or w2a. And if w2a, a fiddle with the pump is optional.
Is my thought process valid? A failed intercooler basically causes no serious issue especially on a manual fuel pump system. So a2a is beat by w2a in all useful measures: space, consistent performance, less length of pipe.
Or is this the whisky playing tricks.
Thanks!
1) I've read if you add any type of intercooler to a 1hdft one gets a modest performance increase eg +15hp, even if you don't tune the pump in any way. Like when the truck is cold it goes a bit quicker and is a bit crisper, it stays like that instead of a bit sluggish when up to temp.
2) If you did tune the pump to make use of the intercooler, you'd be adding more fuel.
3) The debate around w2a vs a2a seems to come down to a2a being passive and unlikely to fail, but w2a being a better solution but relies on pumps and secondary cooling etc.
So my thought is if you don't tune the pump, and any fitted intercooler failed, the engine would just run fine anyway (1). So that makes the a2a simplicity argument (3) a bit redundant because failure isn't a problem.
If you did tune the pump (2) for more fuel by just rotating the pin (the boost wouldn't change so no need to mess with the spring tension etc), and then the intercooler failed, then you're just going to be running a bit sootier, which would take 5 mins to fix if you could be bothered to, but I would think the fuelling change to maximise a modest increase of only +15hp would not cause much variation in egts nor plumes of coal.
This leads me to conclude that one either has no intercooler, or w2a. And if w2a, a fiddle with the pump is optional.
Is my thought process valid? A failed intercooler basically causes no serious issue especially on a manual fuel pump system. So a2a is beat by w2a in all useful measures: space, consistent performance, less length of pipe.
Or is this the whisky playing tricks.
Thanks!