RLS 3 chamber shroud request/group buy

[robains]

I did a quick search and didn't see a request/group buy thread like this, so I'm starting one.

The goal, increase air flow over Exige S (and/or variants) Intercooler. I believe a 3 chamber (isolated) shroud with inlet for roof air and left/right inlet for side scoop air will provide higher CFM numbers to the IC.

The kit would include the 3 chamber shroud, ducting hose, clamps and side scoop inlet ducts.

Thomasio has indicated that if he can get enough interested he'll produce the parts to make this a reality.

So those interested, please vote Yes.

Rob.

[Thomasio]

Yes, I will make one if we get enough interest. Six confimed orders should do it.

Price will depend on a few things, let's see if the interest is there.

[spf4000]

I'm definitely interested.

[EliseAtLeast]

Rob, thanks for putting this poll together and Thomasio for entertaining this idea. Would the decrease of air to the engine compartment be a concern if some of that air will be used to route to the IC?

[Bender Unit]

interested. price in both Fiber Glass & CF and "Prototype"

[robains]

Only routing 50% of air from either side scoop. For those of us with no rear bumpers (and no cat) it shouldn't cause any issues, but I have no data to back that up -- just my hunch.

[spf4000]

Plus if you have larger side scoops or have removed the restrictive grills off of your stock scoops, it's already feeding plenty more air to the engine than stock.

[shay2nak]

3 chamber? is this like how Andy set his up? (with the two 3" hoses coming in from either side scoop?

[EricH]

I'm interested. Thinking you would need the larger side scoops to get air to both intercooler and engine.

[apk919]

Originally Posted by shay2nak

3 chamber? is this like how Andy set his up? (with the two 3" hoses coming in from either side scoop?

Almost... my roof duct is not separated into chambers:

[shay2nak]

Originally Posted by EricH

I'm interested. Thinking you would need the larger side scoops to get air to both intercooler and engine.

it would help for sure, you might still be able to get away with not having to use them.

[robains]

Sorta like Andy's -- just isolate each chamber (ala header style) to minimize flow collision and pressure differences.

[apk919]

Originally Posted by robains

Sorta like Andy's -- just isolate each chamber (ala header style) to minimize flow collision and pressure differences.

You guys do realize that when you get to the interface between the roof duct and the rubber snorkel, the "isolation" will end... and there's still 5-6" to go until you get to the actual face of the intercooler...

Oh, and if you do make one up Thomasio... chambered or not, watch the clearances between the side duct fittings and the path of the hatch hinges when moving between open and closed... there's not a lot of room there.

[spf4000]

I was hoping it would be more practical to attach additional ducts to the intercooler shroud instead of attaching it to the plastic piece before it meets the rubber connector. I know there isn't a lot of room for it, but for a side duct option, this seems to be a better way to go.

[EliseAtLeast]

Originally Posted by spf4000

I was hoping it would be more practical to attach additional ducts to the intercooler shroud instead of attaching it to the plastic piece before it meets the rubber connector. I know there isn't a lot of room for it, but for a side duct option, this seems to be a better way to go.

Definitely. I thought that was what we meant. The intercooler shroud and not the piece before the rubber connector. If not, the intercooler shroud that you pictured should definitely be the one to replace. The air flow from the side scoops will also be a lot more direct if its connected to the intercooler shroud rather than that plastic piece before the rubber connector.

[apk919]

Originally Posted by spf4000

I was hoping it would be more practical to attach additional ducts to the intercooler shroud instead of attaching it to the plastic piece before it meets the rubber connector. I know there isn't a lot of room for it, but for a side duct option, this seems to be a better way to go.

That was my original plan, but there were two reasons why I didn't attempt to attach the ducts to the shroud:

1) There's very little room available... I was concerned that I would not be able to get an opening equivalent to a 3" round duct (~7 sq. in.)

2) If you switch to a larger intercooler (i.e a Cup Car intercooler), you'd have to redo the entire procedure... and there's even less room to fit the ductwork (because the intercooler is deeper, fore/aft).

[apk919]

Originally Posted by EliseAtLeast

Definitely. I thought that was what we meant. The intercooler shroud and not the piece before the rubber connector. If not, the intercooler shroud that you pictured should definitely be the one to replace. The air flow from the side scoops will also be a lot more direct if its connected to the intercooler shroud rather than that plastic piece before the rubber connector.

The length of the path is mostly immaterial for cooling purposes... yes, there's a bit more skin friction drag, but distance that cooling air travels is not nearly as critical as the distance that the charged air takes...

[EliseAtLeast]

Originally Posted by apk919

1) There's very little room available... I was concerned that I would not be able to get an opening equivalent to a 3" round duct (~7 sq. in.)

Yes you are right. There is very little room to modify the existing intercooler shroud but if we design a new one from scratch it shouldn't be an issue I think.

Originally Posted by apk919

The length of the path is mostly immaterial for cooling purposes... yes, there's a bit more skin friction drag, but distance that cooling air travels is not nearly as critical as the distance that the charged air takes...

Actually when I said "The air flow from the side scoops will also be a lot more direct if its connected to the intercooler shroud rather than that plastic piece before the rubber connector", I meant there is less kink in the cooling duct and not referring to the length of it.

[robains]

Originally Posted by EliseAtLeast

Yes you are right. There is very little room to modify the existing intercooler shroud but if we design a new one from scratch it shouldn't be an issue I think.



Actually when I said "The air flow from the side scoops will also be a lot more direct if its connected to the intercooler shroud rather than that plastic piece before the rubber connector", I meant there is less kink in the cooling duct and not referring to the length of it.

Designing shroud from scratch and without 3" duct limitations, I don't see room as being a problem as you are not restricted by the same locations/angles that Andy used on the stock shroud.

And to take it one step further the entire shroud to roof slot could be made into one piece with flexible center where the only attackment point is at the IC itself -- harder yet flexible plastic would be better than the rubber sleeve with two giant worm clamps (which never really do a good job at a snug sealed fit). One piece would be more of a challenge given the way the stock roof slot is attached (major major pain detaching it -- they use some type of super duper pooper scooper glue to attach it).

I would guess with a well designed shroud and additional air we would see minimum 3X improvement and probably more like 5X to 6X increased air flow. Based on the data presented this should be enough to utilize the efficiency of the RLS ICs (version pending).

Rob

[spf4000]

So we have 12 people interested so far. Who's willing to put their name down?

1. robains
2. spf4000
3. EliseAtLeast?
4. EricH?
5.
6.