Again, just becaues VW uses that terminology does not mean it is correct. Most technical or physics related terminology is widely used incorrectly, doesnt matter who uses it that way it is still incorrect.

There is not necessarrily a difference structurely between and intercooler or aftercooler. The name describes how it is set up in the system, not how it is built in and of itself. It has nothing to do with what type of system it is in (aircraft vs automobile) it has to do with HOW it is used. When using the true technical definitions you are able to tell more about a system simply by how it is designated.

And the designation of "I would rather consider an automobile engine from a thermodynamic point of view than an aircraft powerplant one" makes littles sense at all. They are both thermodynamic machines. There is no "thermodynamic vs aircraft powerplant" comparison. You are comparing a physics term with an application.. that doesnt make any sense at all. Both systems burn fuel to turn a shaft, simple as that. A turbo is used in the same sense for both. Again, you fail to see the simplicity of this. They used the terms to allow people to understand what they system is doing without having the specifics regardless of the specific application.

Again, it is all just semantics, but I have worked in areas from automotive to avionics engineering to electronics engineering and can tell you for a fact that the true terms of physics, science and technology are grossly mis-stated a majority of the time. For most, that is fine, but when you really want to know what a system is doing, it is nice to have the proper definitions used.

 

why in the world would anyone combine a turbocharger with centrifigul blower???? Thats just retarded....

 

As I said, VW is not a tuner rag or a young tuner, so now you have example. I have only seen people using the term and no one but you saying that it can only mean something else. We only have your apparently unverifiable word that this is so.


Your seem to be contradicting yourself here. You first said that there are differences in design, and then that it does not refer to structure at but placement in the system. If it only refers to placement in the system and was used to differentiate between two coolers in the intake tract, then we automotive people don't need both words, so we can drop one. I think it is pretty clear which one has been dropped.


I would rather use the correct current physics term than some archaic narrowly defined application term made up to differentiate multiple similar parts in a long obsolete system. I am not saying that no one can correctly use the term aftercooler, but you can also be correct in using the term intercooler(more correct in my opinion). What doesn't make sense is everyone being stuck with this aircraft term when we no longer need to differentiate where it is in the system, we can just use the correct physics term , and guess what, we are! You can go on thinking the rest of us are incorrect if you like, but as far as I am concerned I have proven my point whether you like to admit it or not.

I have to say I enjoyed the argument though, and learned a bit even though if don't agree with you.

 

Point being of these last few posts ??????? However engifineer said in the quote that you used that

"there is not necessarily a difference structurely between an intercooler and aftercooler"

so this contradiction you state does not exist. Because the component is placed somewhere else does not change its structure, simply its surrounding components.... Not picking sides just maybe rewording what you may have misread/misinterpreted...

 

It's an etymology battle in a car forum. I'd almost forgotten what it's like to be among the read and the literate (even if it's in engineering history.) And though it is just semantics, I wish everyone would the original terminology and phrasing as that'd cut down on any confusion and cut down on unnecessary new words. But since that won't happen it's probably just more important to know both words, original and "new."

 

Maybe I included too much in the quotes to make it easy to pick out what I meant. Here they are again with pared down with only the seemingly contradictory passages.

First he says the names signify differences in design in the second quote which is from a previous post, and then when I press him on that, he says it does not have anything to with the design of the part, only placement. If he meant something else than I apologise for saying he contradicted himself, but it seems to me he is saying two contradictory things in two consecutive posts.

 

hmmm well i guess maybe he meant where it was designed to be used... maybe thats it lol... i'd hate to think he was wrong because I don't think he's ever been wrong on here that i've read... that would just mean that engifineer is not the all knowing man that i had hoped

we'lll just have to see... either case i think we all can agree twin charging would be insanely expensive and not promote much as car as a power gain goes

 

Where in the second quote did I specify anything about structural design? The difference is in SYSTEM design, not component design.

And none of this tied back to aircraft only applications or anything archaic. I simply mentioned that this terminology had been around a very long time, back to older, turbocharged prop driven aircraft.

And sorry, there is no "current physics term" of thermodynamic vs aircraft system. They are not even speaking in the same terms. Again, both systems rely on thermodynamics and most of the same principles.

I too enjoy the discussion, although I feel you are not thoroughly reading my posts before commenting. This terminology has a very easy to determine meaning (inter, after, sequential and twin). The words themselved describe the placement of the part in question, not the internal design of the part. But, we have drug this completely off topic and hijacked the thread, so it should stop and we should agree to disagree

 

Heh.. I wish I was never wrong And all knowing :D Maybe not though.. that would be a lot of pressure :rolf:

There are a lot of people with different areas of expertise on here and certainly many with more knowledge than me... we just peice it all together to get a few good thoughts here and there

But yes.. it would be insanely expensive.. maybe not overly effective.. but certainly a cool project if someone wants to dump the cash into it. Someone should just volunteer so the rest of us can just watch

 

What?????? You're not all knowing???? I'm not talking to you anymore

 

It has been done... now everyone can move along in life.

 

For Pg 3 bump.

 

zer0... always on top of things

 

Yea from the ATI website: http://www.autotechinteriors.com/home.php

 

what mag is that from?

 

This months superstreet pg130

 

thanks just got it in the mail

 

ok i just dont get it.......why would u get a 17 grand tc and end up adding about 20 grand in "twinchargers", cams and all this other BS.....when in reality if u want a fast car and have the kind of money to mod a tc to that point why not just get an evolution, an sti or even go as far as finding an old skyline inported from japan if possible.....i mean if going VROOOOM is wat u want then i think u made a mistake when u bought a TC....keep it simple add a few things and maybe add the supercharger......but why get carried away and want to even think of "twincharging" a poor TC......

 

Why do people learn kendo when swords aren't even legal to carry around now-a-days.

Why get carried away? For the sport of it all.

 

because it's what us cool kids do sir. not to mention some people don't like awd cars. maybe they want a front wheel drive car. since the TC has a 2.4 ltr engine it's a relativly big 4 poper so it's got alot of potential. and if you have any more questions refer to kung's post.