dcmonkey

I've seen a few setups with no intercooler or after cooler ran like this guy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYbTZh8BnkE
Besides the obvious that he's gonna be running less efficiently what are some pros- cons to this?

Weight reduction?
Or just being cheap?

Anyone care to chime in?

IMO its good for weight but bad for tuning and efficiency due to possible high intake air temps which means your not gonna get the good benefits of fi and nice cool dense air.

Moddiction

Don't do it. Will make much less power, probably get detonation and be limited to 5 lbs of boost or so.

I would never even consider running a sc without an aftercooler setup.

CD7SirAccord

What he said. The non aftercooled kits were only designed to run at 5-5.5 PSI max, so you could make a little more power and retain the factory warranty, as it was a dealer option and dealer installed. It is probably an early kit that was not offered with an aftercooler. In short there are absolutely no pros to the non aftercooled setup, only cons.

Batbite

Totally agree with the two previous posts......they are spot on.

But......

I ran my original Comptech setup for about 35k miles without intercooler or aftercooler because the original kit was simply not available with either.

Didn't have any issues or problems..... but only posted 310-HP at the wheels with that set up

It's not ideal.....but it worked "ok"

Given the additional cooong options available now....I can't see a good reason not to use them

CD7SirAccord

For sure, not to say that it isn't a reliable setup, just far from optimal.

Deception

you can run a cpu without a heatsink, but that doesn't mean you should

camuman

you can bang a random girl without a condom....but that doesnt mean you should.......

Deception

yes but Ive never had any repercussions from doing that ymmv

detonation on the other hand..

s2000Junky

I agree with all, especially the last two posters

If you value your engine and your peter, run the property safety equipment

donaldmejr

Lol