CVF Titan Intercooler: Installation and Review

[smurfslayer]

Apple is eyeing India for new assembly and that is a part of a trend of investigatory efforts by several major manufacturers.

 

[dixonk]

Apple is eyeing India for new assembly and that is a part of a trend of investigatory efforts by several major manufacturers.

They would be very smart to.

 

[Parry Owens]

Anyone done any moderate to serious off roading with the CVF titan? I've heard stories of the fittings coming loose during rough off roading and wondering if anyone has found similar.

 

[RW17FX4]

Anyone done any moderate to serious off roading with the CVF titan? I've heard stories of the fittings coming loose during rough off roading and wondering if anyone has found similar.

not really sure what you mean by fittings? are you talking about the hot and cold side connections? if so these connections are of course the same with any stock intercooler location replacement. just meant that anything “coming loose” wouldn't be a CVF specific issue if that makes sense

 

[Parry Owens]

not really sure what you mean by fittings? are you talking about the hot and cold side connections? if so these connections are of course the same with any stock intercooler location replacement. just meant that anything “coming loose” wouldn't be a CVF specific issue if that makes sense

Yeah I wasn't exactly asking a clear question but thanks for answering.

 

[Wojciech Gierczynski]

As an example on a 90° day in small town, USA on who cares blvd the IAT goes from 66° to 107° on a WOT 2nd-5th gear pull starting at 22mph and ending at 84mph.

With the CVF in the same conditions, along the same road, same pull etc... the IAT goes from 66° to 68°
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

From what I was reading from one user CVF intercooler did good at WOT to keep temps down but the rest of the time had stock-like performance, sometimes hotter then stock. The reason I was skeptical about CVF numbers (supposedly 40°F difference between CVF and stock) is that Garrett Intercooler which is almost 30% larger then CVF (also stock location) has about 25°F difference to stock intercooler. Mishimoto which is around 10% larger then CVF and about 20% smaller then Garrett has about 15°F difference to stock. So in order for CVF Intercooler to have 40°F difference it would have to be 20% larger then Garrett one which would be twice the size of stock or it would have to have twice the density of Garrett Intercooler (which wouldn't be so great because it would definitely limit air flow)
P.S.
Those are the numbers he posted so it looks like CVF Intercooler was about 20°F less then stock at WOT which is nowhere near 40°F they are claiming. He also stated that when he tested Wagner it was 5°F warmer then when he tested the other two so that would put Wagner IAT2 even lower.
His post:
Ok, here is the initial datalog. These are AIT2 (charge air temps post IC) from 3 different Intercoolers. The top is the Wagner, middle is CV Fab, and the bottom is OEM. The Wagner drops from 125 degrees driving around then at a stop, to 105 at wide open throttle from 0-60, reaching 105 degrees just over 60mph. At 63mph, temps climbed and reached 115 degrees at 95mph. Comparatively, the CVF drops from 125 to about 110 and climbs to about 113 during a similar run. Stock - 122 degrees drops to about 109 at WOT from 9mph - 43 mph, then climbs up to 134 at 85mph! This...is why the stock IC is poor and causes heat soak.

 

[CVF-Jason]

From what I was reading from one user CVF intercooler did good at WOT to keep temps down but the rest of the time had stock-like performance, sometimes hotter then stock. The reason I was skeptical about CVF numbers (supposedly 40°F difference between CVF and stock) is that Garrett Intercooler which is almost 30% larger then CVF (also stock location) has about 25°F difference to stock intercooler. Mishimoto which is around 10% larger then CVF and about 20% smaller then Garrett has about 15°F difference to stock. So in order for CVF Intercooler to have 40°F difference it would have to be 20% larger then Garrett one which would be twice the size of stock or it would have to have twice the density of Garrett Intercooler (which wouldn't be so great because it would definitely limit air flow)
P.S.
Those are the numbers he posted so it looks like CVF Intercooler was about 20°F less then stock at WOT which is nowhere near 40°F they are claiming. He also stated that when he tested Wagner it was 5°F warmer then when he tested the other two so that would put Wagner IAT2 even lower.
His post:
Ok, here is the initial datalog. These are AIT2 (charge air temps post IC) from 3 different Intercoolers. The top is the Wagner, middle is CV Fab, and the bottom is OEM. The Wagner drops from 125 degrees driving around then at a stop, to 105 at wide open throttle from 0-60, reaching 105 degrees just over 60mph. At 63mph, temps climbed and reached 115 degrees at 95mph. Comparatively, the CVF drops from 125 to about 110 and climbs to about 113 during a similar run. Stock - 122 degrees drops to about 109 at WOT from 9mph - 43 mph, then climbs up to 134 at 85mph! This...is why the stock IC is poor and causes heat soak.

Our numbers/study are backed by the charts on our product page at CVFab.com for anyone to check out - the numbers are very much real.

Now, you can't compare three different studies across three different intercoolers in apples-to-apples fashion. To truly get the results you're after you'd have to do them all back-to-back and at the same ambient temperature.

It's also worth mentioning that size isn't the only factor in comparing intercoolers. There is also efficiency of the core and end tanks. Finally, testing on the road vs. a dyno is an important factor.

 

[Wojciech Gierczynski]

Our numbers/study are backed by the charts on our product page at CVFab.com for anyone to check out - the numbers are very much real.

Now, you can't compare three different studies across three different intercoolers in apples-to-apples fashion. To truly get the results you're after you'd have to do them all back-to-back and at the same ambient temperature.

It's also worth mentioning that size isn't the only factor in comparing intercoolers. There is also efficiency of the core and end tanks. Finally, testing on the road vs. a dyno is an important factor.

He tested your intercooler on the Raptor and it was nowhere near 40°F difference vs. stock as you claim (F150 Ecoboost got this number per your testing). He stated yours and Stock Intercooler were tested at same ambient temps and IAT2 with your intercooler was at around 20°F lower then stock at WOT (so half of claimed 40°F). Wagner Intercooler was the one tested in 5°F hotter ambient temp and as expected ran still best temps. Per his tests your intercooler actually ran hotter temps then stock in normal driving situations. From what I recall your testing as far as I know was done by one person (thats the only info I could find) and it was done on F150 Ecoboost correct ... not Raptor (F150 runs way less boost). You state on your website that tests were done same day while the person doing the test posted in his video that it was done in two different days with some difference in temps. I believe his testing was also done in real life driving not on the dyno.
This is the video of initial testing of your intercooler in the link below ... correct? Dont get me wrong but this doesnt look like much testing to me especially since its not tested on the Raptor. I dont wont to get on your case but posting 40°F temp right across the board its not quite right in my mind since your "testing" was not even done on the Raptor. Thats like me testing new shocks on F150 and posting they work great and I have number to proof across whole Ford 1/5 ton pickup lineup?

 

[19RaptorPB]

He tested your intercooler on the Raptor and it was nowhere near 40°F difference vs. stock as you claim (F150 Ecoboost got this number per your testing). He stated yours and Stock Intercooler were tested at same ambient temps and IAT2 with your intercooler was at 20°F lower then stock at WOT (so half of claimed 40°F). Wagner Intercooler was the one tested in 5°F hotter ambient temp and as expected ran still best temps. Also per his tests your intercooler actually ran hotter temps then stock in normal driving situations. From what I recall your testing as far as I know was done by one person (thats the only info I could find) and it was done on F150 Ecoboost correct ... not Raptor and F150 runs way less boost. Also you state on your website that tests were done same day while the person doing the test posted in his video that it was done in two different days with some difference in temps. Also I believe his testing was also done in real life driving not on the dyno.
I believe this is the video of initial testing of your intercooler in the link below. Dont get me wrong but this doesnt look like much testing to me especially since its not tested on the Raptor.

Okay so you have one post that shows a 20° difference as opposed to the claimed 40°

Good job! You’ve cracked the case! You were able to disprove everything they were trying to sell and save us all from the apocalypse. I’m not sure if you understand what you are even talking about here. You can’t expect ANY intercooler to have the same exact outcome every single time you data log. There will always be a variance. The original post on this thread got a difference of 39° I believe so now what?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Wojciech Gierczynski]

Okay so you have one post that shows a 20° difference as opposed to the claimed 40°

Good job! You’ve cracked the case! You were able to disprove everything they were trying to sell and save us all from the apocalypse. I’m not sure if you understand what you are even talking about here. You can’t expect ANY intercooler to have the same exact outcome every single time you data log. There will always be a variance. The original post on this thread got a difference of 39° I believe so now what?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I've seen that. He posted that stock intercooler did 111°F to 151°F at WOT and CVF did 122°F to 127°F at WOT. Yes CVF did raise 5°F vs 40°F on stock but it was still overall not 40°F difference since CVF ran hotter at the beginning (thats what the other user posted also that it does run hotter in regular driving). If CVF would start out at lets say 106 and ended at 111 then I can agree it was real 40°F difference between both