After researching it a bit further I have found more and more info convincing me that the aftercooler route is far superior. There are only a few minor drawbacks, heatsoak in heavy traffic (I don't have that here), the watertank supplied in the kit is a little small to be ideal, it takes up valuable space in the engine bay.

Benefits (greater IMO) include:

1. Less boost loss because there is less piping and the charger is pushing air through it rather than pulling air (much easier for the charger, this is why it makes such a big difference when you use a bigger air filter). This also means less heat and less work for the motor and blower to move the air.

2. Ability to ice it down is obvious.

3. No need to cut up the front of the car or remove the front end.

4. Tests show it consistently outperforms air to air setups in all comparisons.

5. It's not a hack job

Remember, I don't have any real experience. This is just what I'm able to learn from members in here and various searches on the net.

The air to air hackjobs probably work great when done right, but wouldn't you all agree the Aftercooler is really the better way to go and probably worth a few hundred more (used vs used)?

 

Both setups have their pros and cons but they do both get the job done. I wouldnt say that either was more superior to the other, its all just personal preference and what your willing to compromise with your setup.

These are the problems I have found with using both setups.

Front mount:
Complete custom setup, however its still easier than installing the twin ICs hehe. You have to remove the front bumper support. I have seen some new supports fabricated around the intercooler but Im still not sure how well they will hold up in a front end wreck.

Aftercooler:
Almost 2 times the cost of the front mount. Mounting is directly over the drivers side of the engine. Its a PITA to have to remove the aftercooler every time you work on your car(and that can be a lot with a blower). And from my experience under hood temps are higher with the aftercooler because of the place its mounted.


The whole deal about the front mount blocking air to the radiator is bogus because all the air going to the radiator passes underneath and enters behind the nose of the car. The front mount is mounted into the nose of the car and gets its air from the hole you cut in the front. And while 'some' of the air that passes through the intercooler may go through the radiator for the most part they have two complete separate air sources.

Like I said above about the aftercooler being mounted directly above the driverside header blocking in all the heat. I have notice that under the hood temps are actually higher. So if you want to get technical the aftercooler is probably more taxing on the cooling system than the front mount.

Sorry if I seemed to come over a little harsh on my previous post. I was drunk and just being stupid.

 

I have to disagree CJ.. I do not find that the aftercooler has any tax on the cooling system.. at least not in my case.. and hte hood temps are just about the same... Maybe is because I have the SS hood blowing cooler air in of some sort?

The other is... it can be a pita to work on the engine, but the aftercooler sits where i Do not have to work with anything unless its the headers, and that is not too often, i guess that if you had a solid roller or something similar it will be, but other than removing one of the tubes and working on the car, never had a complaint.

 

I agree with you. Although I have noticed hood temps being a little higher with the aftercooler I have not seen any adverse affects on the cooling system. I was just being a little nit picky because of all the talk about how a front mount is so terrible for the radiator.

 

If you want to do a terrific front mount it will be terrible for the pocket.