2020 IKE raw and unedited

4x4ord wrote:


Maybe, but if that was the only reason and if it would not also provide superior cooling capability, I think they would have gone to an air to air and addressed fitment with the new body design of 2017. The 2017 platform was designed for future demands. Surely in 2017 they weren't thinking a 350 hp engine is all the cooling we will need to design for going forward.

Or maybe they thought that removing other parts off the secondary system like they did with the EGR cooler and then the trans cooler with the last few updates would fix the heat soak issue.

ShinerBock wrote:

4x4ord wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:


There is a reason why water-to-air intercooler are mainly popular in drag racing applications and air-to-air are more popular in longer duration track applications.

There is also a reason why Ford chose to put a more expensive and complicated charge air cooling system on the Super Duty. I don't know much about it, so anything I could come up with would just be a guess, it obviously wasn't to cut costs or because they didn't care about cooling.

My personal guess is that they went with the more complicated design because of the reverse flow head set up would not allow for additional piping needed to fit an air to air system in the engine bay. You can fit a water to air intercooler anywhere you want and have smaller water piping to and from the heat exchanger. With an air to air, it has to go in the front and requires larger diameter piping to move the air. Fitment is one of the main reasons why most car makers go to a water to air cooler.

Maybe, but if that was the only reason and if it would not also provide superior cooling capability, I think they would have gone to an air to air and addressed fitment with the new body design of 2017. The 2017 platform was designed for future demands. Surely in 2017 they weren't thinking a 350 hp engine is all the cooling we will need to design for going forward.

4x4ord wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:


There is a reason why water-to-air intercooler are mainly popular in drag racing applications and air-to-air are more popular in longer duration track applications.

There is also a reason why Ford chose to put a more expensive and complicated charge air cooling system on the Super Duty. I don't know much about it, so anything I could come up with would just be a guess, it obviously wasn't to cut costs or because they didn't care about cooling.

My personal guess is that they went with the more complicated design because of the reverse flow head set up would not allow for additional piping needed to fit an air to air system in the engine bay. You can fit a water to air intercooler anywhere you want and have smaller water piping to and from the heat exchanger. With an air to air, it has to go in the front and requires larger diameter piping to move the air. Fitment is one of the main reasons why most car makers go to a water to air cooler.

ShinerBock wrote:


There is a reason why water-to-air intercooler are mainly popular in drag racing applications and air-to-air are more popular in longer duration track applications.

There is also a reason why Ford chose to put a more expensive and complicated charge air cooling system on the Super Duty. I don't know much about it, so anything I could come up with would just be a guess, it obviously wasn't to cut costs or because they didn't care about cooling.

Wonder if the Ford is using a type of interchiller to help supplement cooling for the IAC? Would be very helpful on the long pulls when the system is getting heat soaked...

You can still get heat soaked without it being tied to the main system if it cannot dispel heat from the compressed air from the turbo quick enough. I bet this is the reason why Ford changed this system over the years and start moving things like the EGR cooler and trans oil cooler from this secondary system to the main cooling system. I wonder if they also put in front of everything now or still have the A/C condenser in front of it.

There is a reason why water-to-air intercooler are mainly popular in drag racing applications and air-to-air are more popular in longer duration track applications.

ShinerBock wrote:

4x4ord wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

2001400ex wrote:

That's why on my old 08, for example, I had a 120 HP tune. But on hot days pulling heavy, I had to back off myself part way up the hill. I would have blown it up if I didn't. But early in the hill and unloaded for a burst, I had every bit of that 120 HP.

Exactly, there is a huge difference between short burst power and sustained power. There is no way I can sustain my 500+rwhp tune while towing with my stock turbo. Heck, I can't even sustain that power level with my current S364.5/80/.91 turbo which outflows the stock by quite a bit.

An intercooler uses water to cool the charge air. That part of the system is far more efficient so can be small. However the intercooler requires its water to be cooled by a heat exchanger (radiater) This part of the Ford intercooler system is not small and it sits in front of the very large engine radiator. (At least that is where it was mounted on my previous Super Dutys.

While efficient in short burst scenarios, they are not efficient at long periods of load. Once a water cooled intercooler gets heat soaked, it takes a long time for it to cool back down. The opposite is true for an air cooled intercooler.

Also, if you account both stages of heat exchange (not just the intercooler), it is not that efficient. As with most things, every time there is exchange of energy(heat), there is a loss in efficiency.

When you're trying to loose heat that loss in efficiency is working in you're favour.

Edit: When the intercooler system has its own radiator, getting "heat soaked" is not going to be the same as in the case where the intercooler ties into the main engine cooling system.

It seems we are all discussing something here that none of us really have much of a clue about. One thing for sure is that these diesel trucks are highly engineered and it makes zero sense to put all this development and technology into a truck and then say "forget the cooling system" "as long as we can put out power in the middle of winter that's all that matters..... the rest of the year we can just defuel."

4x4ord wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

2001400ex wrote:

That's why on my old 08, for example, I had a 120 HP tune. But on hot days pulling heavy, I had to back off myself part way up the hill. I would have blown it up if I didn't. But early in the hill and unloaded for a burst, I had every bit of that 120 HP.

Exactly, there is a huge difference between short burst power and sustained power. There is no way I can sustain my 500+rwhp tune while towing with my stock turbo. Heck, I can't even sustain that power level with my current S364.5/80/.91 turbo which outflows the stock by quite a bit.

An intercooler uses water to cool the charge air. That part of the system is far more efficient so can be small. However the intercooler requires its water to be cooled by a heat exchanger (radiater) This part of the Ford intercooler system is not small and it sits in front of the very large engine radiator. (At least that is where it was mounted on my previous Super Dutys.

While efficient in short burst scenarios, they are not efficient at long periods of load. Once a water cooled intercooler gets heat soaked, it takes a long time for it to cool back down. The opposite is true for an air cooled intercooler.

Also, if you account both stages of heat exchange (not just the intercooler), it is not that efficient. As with most things, every time there is exchange of energy(heat), there is a loss in efficiency.

ShinerBock wrote:

2001400ex wrote:

That's why on my old 08, for example, I had a 120 HP tune. But on hot days pulling heavy, I had to back off myself part way up the hill. I would have blown it up if I didn't. But early in the hill and unloaded for a burst, I had every bit of that 120 HP.

Exactly, there is a huge difference between short burst power and sustained power. There is no way I can sustain my 500+rwhp tune while towing with my stock turbo. Heck, I can't even sustain that power level with my current S364.5/80/.91 turbo which outflows the stock by quite a bit.

An intercooler uses water to cool the charge air. That part of the system is far more efficient so can be small. However the intercooler requires its water to be cooled by a heat exchanger (radiater) This part of the Ford intercooler system is not small and it sits in front of the very large engine radiator. (At least that is where it was mounted on my previous Super Dutys.

Huntindog wrote:


I understand precisely what you are saying.

One question: Does Ford do SAE testing procedures with a SAE witness or not?

If not, then you can dis the SAE standards all you want. The Fact would be that Ford tests without any "benchmark" standards. IOW, They can make up their own test standards.

Using a witness does not matter in what I am talking about since none(zero,zip, zilch, nada) of the SAE tests is sustained power. It is only short burst power. So having a witness has nothing to do with it.

Also, the tests standards(witness or not) have the same correction factors. Ford or any manufacturer could use the best correction factors today without a witness and then use the very same best correction factors next year with a witness and it would still be legit. A witness does not mean squat in this because it is legal to do witness or not, and a witness would still sign off on using the best correction factors because it is within the test parameters. I don't think you understand how the process works because you would not be saying what you are saying if you did.