Conventionally, the W2A IC used a separate coolant, separate pump, separate LTR (low temp radiator), an all new and, (and expensive), add-on. And typically it did not serve well the extended work cycle vehicle, like towing, but was a great idea for vehicles that only needed to serve a 30 second dose of cool charge, especially those that could be loaded with ice. Most of the short duration thermal load was absorbed by thermal mass, water/ice in most cases. That mass was slowly cooled during off-peak periods by a small LTR. So, by and large, this is not a good idea for tow vehicles, who have requirements up to 15 minutes of constant peak power at times. They fail miserably compared to the A2A.
So I set out to try to determine how this could be implimented, for an all conditions user. The thermal capacity that air charge cooling requires for these users, is a constant 300,000 BTU/h on a warm day. All of it must be delivered to the atmosphere, and hence all of these systems are limited by the meager LTR's employed in these typical applications.
Then I thought, how could I get the radiator to share the thermal load? "how much more capacity will the radiator inherit by removing the Behr CAC?" I did the numbers, and airflow increased 40%, and rejection capacity by the radiator increased 35%, or 250,000 BTU/h. The TD-EOC, with water, is capable of 150,000 BTU/h, using 220 degree coolant. That is a combined expansion of system capacity of 150,000 BTU/hr (400-250). The air-dam option attachment on the LTR adds another 50-100K BTU/h.
Anyway, that is the starting point: a paper verification that the project may be feasible. But assumes that the Behr is removed, and nothing is added back in the stack. The LTR is mounted below (present TD-EOC location). A thermostat is implimented, so that when the vehicle is cold, coolant is bypassing the LTR. Otherwise the truck would never warm up in the winter. When warm, the thermostat regulates water to the LTR, above 180 degrees. This would actually decrease vehicle warmup time, since the new CAC will be discharging all heat to the coolant, which is all wasted in existing stock design.
By design, the LTR flow must be kept low, but not too high.
The LTR must lower the coolant to near ambient condition, if the flow is too high, this will not happen. If the flow rate is too slow, we will induce boiling in the CAC (Ford EGR phenom) and this could cause pump cavitation. That would cause a very quick and destructive overheat. Evan's would eliminate this potential, however.
I have determined that 5 gpm is a good starting point, that is only 6-8% of pump capacity. The heater-out coolant line seems to be perfectly plumbed for this flow rate. Changes can be made if it is too high, via use of simple washer type restriction.
Some of the constraints
1. LTR must reduce our alloted 5 gpm (31 lb/min) from 200 to 120 (130K BTU/h). hmmm, This is close to what it has been demonstrated to reject
2. IC will have to transfer 250,000 BTU/h to be effective at high loads. That results in 5 gpm coolant going from 120 to 270. hmmm. Doable...maybe
and the radiator will pick up some of the load, as intended. No issue with it's newborn airflow. My main concern is the rise in the new IC. 50/50 coolant will boil readily at 270 degrees with 15 psi cap pressure. Again, alternate coolants, or higher concentration EG, can negate that concern.
If we raise the flow to 7 gpm (45 lb/min), we get a higher coolant temperature out of the LTR, a similar charge temp (130 degrees), but well contained coolant temp in the IC.
These assumptions can be fine tuned, the math is easy.
Q=Mdot x Cp x deltaT x 60min/hr
Mdot=mass flow rate of coolant, (6.2 x gpm)
Cp=coolant specific heat=.9 BTU/lb-F
DeltaT=coolant temp rise (IC) or drop (LTR)
You can do the same energy balance for turbocharged air. It has a Cp of .25, and flows around 50 lb/minute at high rpm and boost. It comes out of the turbo at 500 degrees nominal, at 26 psi of boost. Do the math, and you will see that 300,000 BTU/hr is needed to cool it to 100 degrees, 250K is more relevant to the reality that you will never see 100 degrees.
It becomes clear, charge temp is very well moderated, for extended tow ops. But for track use, the lower charge temps that can be found in the "separate" W2A systems (if only momentarily) does not exist.