Cobb Intercooler for Bronco Raptor - Tested/Data - Amazing Performance

[23OBX2.7]

I just want to see the dyno. If its so great any mfg would be waiving hard.

I did a Garrett IC on my 2020 Mustang HPP convertible AT. Perfect match to the slightly larger HPP Garett turbo supplied to Ford.

Couldnt really tell the difference. Probably a total waste of money for my use bit always wanted ro do it. OE has fast heat sink and fast cool down while Garett was opposite.

End use case is everything. I am stop light to light, hard on gas 95% of time, so probably better off with the composite OE IC since last thong I want is long cool down cycle. I want it to cool down the 3 min Im at stop light.

Sponsored

 

[Epiphany]

Thanks for doing this. Now, are you going to get the Cobb Bronco Raptor Charge Pipes that are coming out?

Good to hear about this.

I'm currently running the Cobb IC, K&N charge pipe, FP tune, Borla exhaust, and am very happy with the power and overall performance. The Cobb IC was an easy install as well.

 

[swamp2]

I just want to see the dyno. If its so great any mfg would be waiving hard.

I did a Garrett IC on my 2020 Mustang HPP convertible AT. Perfect match to the slightly larger HPP Garett turbo supplied to Ford.

Couldnt really tell the difference. Probably a total waste of money for my use bit always wanted ro do it. OE has fast heat sink and fast cool down while Garett was opposite.

End use case is everything. I am stop light to light, hard on gas 95% of time, so probably better off with the composite OE IC since last thong I want is long cool down cycle. I want it to cool down the 3 min Im at stop light.

Why obsessed with a dyno? Dynos, despite occasional efforts to put massive fans in front of the vehicle, absolutely do not mimic real world operating conditions. There are also significant repeatability problems on dynos due to mechanical issues, largely how and how firmly the vehicle is anchored.

Clearly you accept the pure, basic physics facts that colder air is more dense and that delivers more fuel, causing an ICE to make more power? Heck even just doing some pulls on a very cold day, you can feel this, seat of the pants.

You can see some of this effect of this "cooling recovery" or heat sink of the IC in my data in the blue MCT traces. Again, the values and peaks under WOT are no competition between stock and Cobb (again as much as 170 vs. 110 °F, 60 °F cooler), but when coasting down or braking after 95 mph the factory IC indeed exhibits a much more rapid cool down of the MCT whereas the Cobb MCT effect stays quite constant (it is a much heavier unit). This is, of course, is not the temperature of the IC itself, but rather its dyanmic ability to cool the charge (which is based on both airflow speed around it and its temperature).

However, in this particular case this "benefit" is a false advantage. Sure, the factory IC cooled the charge fast, yes, but it had to do so from a very poor starting point and it only did so down to about 100 °F, whereas the Cobb simply held steady. Key point here - the Cobb didn't need to cool the charge any more to be just as effective as the stock IC as it was already also delivering a chage at a low, about 100 °F temperature. Make sense?

The point would likely be more clear if I had a much closer run with the Cobb as compared to the stock unit and also showed 2 WOTs instead of 1, more clearly showing what the Cobb did in between the WOT runs. I think its clear what would be shown. For the Cobb, the MCTs traces would be more steady and less wavy between the WOT runs, the peaks and valleys for the MCT with the factory IC would be greater and steeper, but again, who cares about the slopes and differences between the peaks and valleys or flats, if the entire Cobb MCT trace is so much lower in an absolute sense (or perhaps way lower under high load, and about the same under low load).

All this being said, as I stated in my OP, this is limited/initial testing. It shows some huge advantges, apples to apples for a hard WOT run to a high speed. I believe that this same demonstrated advantage (it can remove more heat, faster) will translate well in to many/most other use cases.

 

[Ducati1098]

I just want to see the dyno. If its so great any mfg would be waiving hard.

I did a Garrett IC on my 2020 Mustang HPP convertible AT. Perfect match to the slightly larger HPP Garett turbo supplied to Ford.

Couldnt really tell the difference. Probably a total waste of money for my use bit always wanted ro do it. OE has fast heat sink and fast cool down while Garett was opposite.

End use case is everything. I am stop light to light, hard on gas 95% of time, so probably better off with the composite OE IC since last thong I want is long cool down cycle. I want it to cool down the 3 min Im at stop light.

You’re comparing apples to oranges here.

An HPP ecoboost mustang barely makes any power over a base ecoboost mustang (20hp, and that’s not even to the wheels) certainly not enough to need a more efficient intercooler.

@swamp2 is making probably roughly ~190 RWHP over stock with his Braptor based on other similar setups I’ve seen, which is pushing it considerably more over stock to the point that the factory intercooler simply can’t keep up.

 

[23OBX2.7]

HPP was way underrated the same FPP tune on regular ecoboost are the real numbers with repeated back ro back on 85F day on AS tires 0-60 5.1 sec..... similar HP / lb as subject. Quicker 0-30 than 465 HP Coyote, same 0+60, after 80 no contest with Coyote. Still hit 155 fast enough.

So much push bach on 20 back to back dyno to see the real life hest sink and power losses. Especially useful isma comp with stock IC that colls off 50-80% faster than cast ALU.

Everything else os just trash talk LOL....the challenge isnfimdimgna pro dyno that has suitable amd dynamic fresh air flow volume to simulate real world driving, stop go etc.

 

[vrtical]

This doesn't shock me, I have said all along Fords OEM intercoolers are not efficient and basically suck. I did the same types of testing in 2013 on the 2.3 Ecoboost stuff when it came out, its night / day when you look at the before/after readings especially monitoring IATs. Its way more prevalent in hotter climate conditions.

 

[Ducati1098]

HPP was way underrated the same FPP tune on regular ecoboost are the real numbers with repeated back ro back on 85F day on AS tires 0-60 5.1 sec..... similar HP / lb as subject. Quicker 0-30 than 465 HP Coyote, same 0+60, after 80 no contest with Coyote. Still hit 155 fast enough.

I doubt that. There's likely no benefit for Ford to underrate actual gains.
Just because it's slightly faster than a regular ecoboost doesn't necessarily mean it's making a lot more horsepower. Lots of other things in the tune that can help better the times including transmission tuning alone.
But regardless, still an apples to oranges argument here.

So much push bach on 20 back to back dyno to see the real life hest sink and power losses. Especially useful isma comp with stock IC that colls off 50-80% faster than cast ALU.

Everything else os just trash talk LOL....the challenge isnfimdimgna pro dyno that has suitable amd dynamic fresh air flow volume to simulate real world driving, stop go etc.

You lost me at "isnfimdimgna"

No idea why you're stuck on this "20 back to back dyno pulls" topic, but it's just simply irrelevant, which is why you wont find anyone doing it.
Dyno's have a ton of variability to begin with. Real world datalogging of temperatures is far more important in this instance, especially when you know the PCM will start pulling timing with MCT around 130 degrees.
No matter how you look at it, the information posted on this thread from the beginning shows that there is much better control of high temperatures when it matters the most.

 

[Ninjak]

I had my tune with the stock IC. When I replaced the IC, I could notice the difference in multiple pulls. Also, my build has a CAI, and charge pipes. All of it together does make a difference, and having a custom tune that goes beyond the stock numbers by quite a bit, I think the aftermarket IC is worth the investment.

 

[swamp2]

.@swamp2 is making probably roughly ~190 RWHP over stock with his Braptor based on other similar setups I’ve seen, which is pushing it considerably more over stock to the point that the factory intercooler simply can’t keep up.

This is absolutely true.

That said, changing/upgrading the IC still isn't something strongly nor immediately apparent by the seat of the pants.

Also, given the sheer magnitude of the improvements shown here, I still think an upgraded IC will have quantifiable benefits with a totally stock rig. Will it deliver gains or loss preventions as large as a good tune? Certainly not.

 

[Spooled]

nice data and great write-up!

 

[swamp2]

nice data and great write-up!

Thanks. As I mentioned, I was somewhat shocked. I expected to see improved charge cooling but nowhere near what the data show.

It was just a start for a typical drag race type of condition. I'd love to do more on the pavement but each and every pull is a significant risk of a very large ticket...

No matter what I'm not going to do 20 consecutive pulls with the Cobb and with the stock one .

 

[thegoatman]

Look what you did. I ordered a livernois unit. Should be here tomorrow. I’m running one on my f150 and it’s 25% cheaper. I can let you know how it is if anyone’s interested.

 

[thegoatman]

What are your thoughts on losing the rear intercooler cooling fins?

 

[swamp2]

What are your thoughts on losing the rear intercooler cooling fins?

There is no loss of fins, the rear, non-motorized shutters are lost. The sheer size of the Cobb (a significant increase actually, largely it's depth) is obtained in part by not using the rear shutters. Obviously, looking at the cooling data, I'm not concerned.

Some of us were discussing the purpose of the motorized shutter system as it certainly adds cost and can't help performance, thus it's likely an emissions thing. Faster warm up, means less time with less complete combustion.

 

[thegoatman]

Yeah the rear shutters. I just installed the livernois unit and it doesn’t reuse them either.

the rear shutters close when stationary idling. The radiator fans draws vacuum from above, negative pressure behind the intercooler, the rear shutters close, and draws air from the front across the intercooler. Likely the front shutters are commanded open. Ultimately to avoid extreme heat soak at low mph, idle, crawling. When moving forward the pressure is no longer negative, rear shutters open.

So it does what the intercooler efans on the f150 raptor does. It’s a pretty slick design. Part of me is sad to have given that up.

To your point, the sheer size of the unit and data you’re showing may help overcome the loss even in that single use case.

Sponsored