Best fast road TURBO & FMIC package (STiV)
16 July 2002, 02:38 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 7,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hmmm, I wouldnt go that far.
my knowledge is famously borrowed, mostly from mark.
if you want advice, go to the source, but i think plantie is right in that you should choose your turbo based on your application. There is so much variety that you can tailoer it exactly to your needs and have one offs made with those in mind.
just ask Chrsitian R!
my knowledge is famously borrowed, mostly from mark.
if you want advice, go to the source, but i think plantie is right in that you should choose your turbo based on your application. There is so much variety that you can tailoer it exactly to your needs and have one offs made with those in mind.
just ask Chrsitian R!
16 July 2002, 02:41 PM
#33
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,602
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the cost implication of 'made to order' units? I presume it's a case of taking a housing, then hand-picking the best turbine & compressor for the job? Already talking quite a bit of money, I suppose, so a bit on the top isn't too much. But how much is the 'bit' (vaguely!)?
16 July 2002, 02:57 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 7,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
depends on what you start with.
You can use pretty much any ihi core.
the bits need not be more expensive than the standard compressor wheels.
As many have said before.
write to mark (R19KET) and ask him specifics. he wont mind.
if you dont have his email, then mail me. Cost is normally much better than you would think.
You can use pretty much any ihi core.
the bits need not be more expensive than the standard compressor wheels.
As many have said before.
write to mark (R19KET) and ask him specifics. he wont mind.
if you dont have his email, then mail me. Cost is normally much better than you would think.
16 July 2002, 03:18 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Lord, such a heated debate about something as trivial as turbos and intercolers...
Jamie, please don't take this personally.
APS are making some interesting claims, and also appear to be disemminating incorrect information, not to mention getting themselves confused...
Most of the comments are based on information on the APS website, http://www.airpowersystems.com.au/wr...ntercooler.htm so I'll begin...
"APS shoehorned the largest intercooler core possible into the WRX (whilst still retaining the driving lights!)" ; interesting and incorrect claim. There is much more space available, as you will see later.
"More efficient than any top mount intercooler, the APS R Series FMIC has a huge cooling volume of 9,072 cm3. Compare this to a surface area of 3,900 cm3 on the standard intercooler." ; all of which tells you very little about how the itnercooler will actually perform. Also, they have got the units mixed up... or they are not comparing like for like. Volume is in cubic centimeters, but area is in square centimeters... why are they quoting an area of 3900 cubic cm on the standard core? Is that actually volume or are they comparing a volume (which will certainly be bigger) with an area?
It's also not clear just how they are arriving at the figures. Are they taking the raw volume of the core? Are they including end tanks? Are they taking the "box section" volume of the core? To see how this would affect the figures, let's take my front mount as an example. I have a raw surface area of 2394 sqaure cm exposed to ambient air flow, of this 1575 is core and the rest is end take, and of the core area only about 45% is available for ambient air to flow through, ie 708 square cm. In terms of charge air, I have a raw charge air surface area of 630 square cm, but because a tube and fin intercooler only makes about 45% of the raw area available for charge air flow, that makes it 283 square cm. Volume wise the raw space the intercooler occupies is 23940 cubic cm, of this a whopping 8190 cubic cm is end can, the rest is raw core volume, but because only 45% is actually used for charge air flow, that makes my charge air volume within the core 7087 cubic cm, or 15277 including end cans.... so if the APS figures include end cans it is significantly smaller than my intercooler, if it does not then it is slightly larger.
Regardless of how APS are presenting the figures, their core has, at best, half of the flow capacity of my core. This is because their core has a much smaller charge air surface area (a figure they do not quote), so for a given amount of flow their core will have a larger pressure drop. Typically, and it does depend a lot on the turbo, in order to raise intake pressure by one PSI, you have to raise exhaust manifold pressure by two. Now given that the APS core is more restrictive (so it probably cools quite well) it may require one or two PSI more out of the turbo than is present at the intake manifold. That could raise the exhaust pressure by 4 PSI, and thus reduce extraction capability... it would have to be measured to be sure.
Furthermore, if I had designed my core "the other way" I could have achieved about twice the APS core area, the same cooling efficiency and half the pressure loss, but I wanted to be adventurous. If you don't believe me on this, please look at the bare front picture and you will see that it is not a full height core, so there really is more space available.
Please do not take these comments the wrong way. I am not having a go at the product per se. One of the cars I am mapping has the APS intercooler, and I do actually think that it is, overall, a very good intercooler.... the pipework needs some work to make it more durable, but performance with it seems fine. Some of the marketing blurp is a little too "bold" though. The only slight concern with regard to performance is that the test graph showed intake temps going up to 50 degrees which really is too hot, but I am going to assume that this was at 25 PSI which is more than most people would run anyway.
With regard to turbos, I have yet to come across a practical turbo that can spool like a TD04L and still flow 450BHP. It may be possible with some clever application of the IHI RHE series twin scroll turbos, but it isn't possible with a standard exhaust housing, pure and simple. To get it to spool quick, the exhaust would have to be small, which means restricted extraction capability at the top end. The only way to flow more gas is to increase boost, which raises exhaust back pressure which reduces the gains and it's a road of diminishing returns, until the impeller tips go supersonic and the turbo gives up the ghost. The only alternative is to use a larger exhaust housing and there goes the early spool up... everything is a compromise and anyone that tells you differently either a) doesn't know what they are talking about, b) is mistaken, c) is blatantly lying or d) is talking about variable geometry turbos that will not fit on the standard pipework.
Again, this is not a specific dig at a product per se, just a little reminder that you don't get something for nothing and that any such claims should be treated with caution and not taken blindly without trying to figure out if a) they really are true and b) if they are, how was it achieved...
Cheers,
Pat.
Jamie, please don't take this personally.
APS are making some interesting claims, and also appear to be disemminating incorrect information, not to mention getting themselves confused...
Most of the comments are based on information on the APS website, http://www.airpowersystems.com.au/wr...ntercooler.htm so I'll begin...
"APS shoehorned the largest intercooler core possible into the WRX (whilst still retaining the driving lights!)" ; interesting and incorrect claim. There is much more space available, as you will see later.
"More efficient than any top mount intercooler, the APS R Series FMIC has a huge cooling volume of 9,072 cm3. Compare this to a surface area of 3,900 cm3 on the standard intercooler." ; all of which tells you very little about how the itnercooler will actually perform. Also, they have got the units mixed up... or they are not comparing like for like. Volume is in cubic centimeters, but area is in square centimeters... why are they quoting an area of 3900 cubic cm on the standard core? Is that actually volume or are they comparing a volume (which will certainly be bigger) with an area?
It's also not clear just how they are arriving at the figures. Are they taking the raw volume of the core? Are they including end tanks? Are they taking the "box section" volume of the core? To see how this would affect the figures, let's take my front mount as an example. I have a raw surface area of 2394 sqaure cm exposed to ambient air flow, of this 1575 is core and the rest is end take, and of the core area only about 45% is available for ambient air to flow through, ie 708 square cm. In terms of charge air, I have a raw charge air surface area of 630 square cm, but because a tube and fin intercooler only makes about 45% of the raw area available for charge air flow, that makes it 283 square cm. Volume wise the raw space the intercooler occupies is 23940 cubic cm, of this a whopping 8190 cubic cm is end can, the rest is raw core volume, but because only 45% is actually used for charge air flow, that makes my charge air volume within the core 7087 cubic cm, or 15277 including end cans.... so if the APS figures include end cans it is significantly smaller than my intercooler, if it does not then it is slightly larger.
Regardless of how APS are presenting the figures, their core has, at best, half of the flow capacity of my core. This is because their core has a much smaller charge air surface area (a figure they do not quote), so for a given amount of flow their core will have a larger pressure drop. Typically, and it does depend a lot on the turbo, in order to raise intake pressure by one PSI, you have to raise exhaust manifold pressure by two. Now given that the APS core is more restrictive (so it probably cools quite well) it may require one or two PSI more out of the turbo than is present at the intake manifold. That could raise the exhaust pressure by 4 PSI, and thus reduce extraction capability... it would have to be measured to be sure.
Furthermore, if I had designed my core "the other way" I could have achieved about twice the APS core area, the same cooling efficiency and half the pressure loss, but I wanted to be adventurous. If you don't believe me on this, please look at the bare front picture and you will see that it is not a full height core, so there really is more space available.
Please do not take these comments the wrong way. I am not having a go at the product per se. One of the cars I am mapping has the APS intercooler, and I do actually think that it is, overall, a very good intercooler.... the pipework needs some work to make it more durable, but performance with it seems fine. Some of the marketing blurp is a little too "bold" though. The only slight concern with regard to performance is that the test graph showed intake temps going up to 50 degrees which really is too hot, but I am going to assume that this was at 25 PSI which is more than most people would run anyway.
With regard to turbos, I have yet to come across a practical turbo that can spool like a TD04L and still flow 450BHP. It may be possible with some clever application of the IHI RHE series twin scroll turbos, but it isn't possible with a standard exhaust housing, pure and simple. To get it to spool quick, the exhaust would have to be small, which means restricted extraction capability at the top end. The only way to flow more gas is to increase boost, which raises exhaust back pressure which reduces the gains and it's a road of diminishing returns, until the impeller tips go supersonic and the turbo gives up the ghost. The only alternative is to use a larger exhaust housing and there goes the early spool up... everything is a compromise and anyone that tells you differently either a) doesn't know what they are talking about, b) is mistaken, c) is blatantly lying or d) is talking about variable geometry turbos that will not fit on the standard pipework.
Again, this is not a specific dig at a product per se, just a little reminder that you don't get something for nothing and that any such claims should be treated with caution and not taken blindly without trying to figure out if a) they really are true and b) if they are, how was it achieved...
Cheers,
Pat.
16 July 2002, 04:27 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Location: SSO2003 2nd, SSO2005 1st, SSO2006 2nd, TACC Rd4 5th 4wd: In my car ;-)
Posts: 2,637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd just like to clear up a few things.
Firstly, I'm not certain if John banks was referring to me, when he commented on "declared/undeclared interests", but I have NEVER made any posts soliciting business.
Any products I supply, is purely by recommendation.
I will offer advice on products I have either personally used, or used on cars I have tuned for friends. This will ALWAYS be as unbiased as I can make it.
ANYONE offering advice, should only do so, based on FACTS, or make it VERY CLEAR, that they have NO PERSONAL experience, and the "advice", is OPINION ONLY.
If someone with a commercial interest is offering advice, or recommending products, they have an even bigger RESPONSIBILITY, to make sure the information, is FACTUAL, and can be QUALIFIED.
Anyone who thinks my questions to Jamie are "Witch hunting", must be very naive.
I'm am NOT questioning the quality of the APS products, nor am I questioning how well they will work, in the correct application.
I am questioning some of Jamie's statements, because I believe them to be misleading, and unrealistic. Pat has also posted his views, and qualified them.
Debating opinion is one thing, debating FACT, quite another. Questioning information SUPPLIERS post, IS for the BENEFIT of anyone who cares to read the tread.
Mark.
Firstly, I'm not certain if John banks was referring to me, when he commented on "declared/undeclared interests", but I have NEVER made any posts soliciting business.
Any products I supply, is purely by recommendation.
I will offer advice on products I have either personally used, or used on cars I have tuned for friends. This will ALWAYS be as unbiased as I can make it.
ANYONE offering advice, should only do so, based on FACTS, or make it VERY CLEAR, that they have NO PERSONAL experience, and the "advice", is OPINION ONLY.
If someone with a commercial interest is offering advice, or recommending products, they have an even bigger RESPONSIBILITY, to make sure the information, is FACTUAL, and can be QUALIFIED.
Anyone who thinks my questions to Jamie are "Witch hunting", must be very naive.
I'm am NOT questioning the quality of the APS products, nor am I questioning how well they will work, in the correct application.
I am questioning some of Jamie's statements, because I believe them to be misleading, and unrealistic. Pat has also posted his views, and qualified them.
Debating opinion is one thing, debating FACT, quite another. Questioning information SUPPLIERS post, IS for the BENEFIT of anyone who cares to read the tread.
Mark.
16 July 2002, 05:26 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Mark, certainly not a jab at you FFS 
you have given me so much help it is unreal. It is not a jab at anyone, it was more an attempt to cool things down a bit in this thread.
However, I suspect you probably shift at least as much volume in Scooby tuning parts/services as I do. That is arguably not necessarily saying very much as I in fact do very little and probably a lot less than people might think despite having a fairly high profile on the board and a high post count. That is probably because I am sad rather than anything else. Might also be due to being in Scotland and also doing exams/working as a GP.
To me and many others technical credibility is all, and a lot of it is about knowing where your knowledge ends and admitting limitations. Arguably others such as Jamie are more customer service focussed and he will direct people to his suppliers for technical input. That is not suggesting he is not well informed or a swipe. However, it can mean that sometimes he is a bit targetted for putting opinions down as though they are fact or hyping a product, for the reason that he doesn't tend to back up what he says with detailed technical explanations that can then be debated. Tricky one to get the balance right I suppose?
However, suppliers' statements (in particular
) or anything said on here should be questioned. Some will almost enjoy this and others will get upset. If it is kept to debating the technical pros/cons of a product then hopefully the balance will be kept right? I honestly think that that is all the posters on this thread are trying to do, but a position can become entrenched and then it too easily gets personal and then the point of the post and most of the technical content it had gets lost.
So back to the topic, can you share with us Jamie your actual experiences of the APS SR turbo on your car and how it compares with the original, as this will be relevant to the post?
[Edited by john banks - 7/16/2002 5:32:01 PM]
you have given me so much help it is unreal. It is not a jab at anyone, it was more an attempt to cool things down a bit in this thread.However, I suspect you probably shift at least as much volume in Scooby tuning parts/services as I do. That is arguably not necessarily saying very much as I in fact do very little and probably a lot less than people might think despite having a fairly high profile on the board and a high post count. That is probably because I am sad rather than anything else. Might also be due to being in Scotland and also doing exams/working as a GP.
To me and many others technical credibility is all, and a lot of it is about knowing where your knowledge ends and admitting limitations. Arguably others such as Jamie are more customer service focussed and he will direct people to his suppliers for technical input. That is not suggesting he is not well informed or a swipe. However, it can mean that sometimes he is a bit targetted for putting opinions down as though they are fact or hyping a product, for the reason that he doesn't tend to back up what he says with detailed technical explanations that can then be debated. Tricky one to get the balance right I suppose?
However, suppliers' statements (in particular
) or anything said on here should be questioned. Some will almost enjoy this and others will get upset. If it is kept to debating the technical pros/cons of a product then hopefully the balance will be kept right? I honestly think that that is all the posters on this thread are trying to do, but a position can become entrenched and then it too easily gets personal and then the point of the post and most of the technical content it had gets lost.So back to the topic, can you share with us Jamie your actual experiences of the APS SR turbo on your car and how it compares with the original, as this will be relevant to the post?
[Edited by john banks - 7/16/2002 5:32:01 PM]
16 July 2002, 05:36 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Location: SSO2003 2nd, SSO2005 1st, SSO2006 2nd, TACC Rd4 5th 4wd: In my car ;-)
Posts: 2,637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jamie,
I'm not questioning your honesty, or integrity. People speak highly of both.
However, it's not unreasonable for information you post, to be questioned, and to ask for it to be qualified. This applies to anyone posting.
I'm just asking for you to do that, and show us the "test" results", and let us know under what conditions they were run.
If they are as good as you say, then it will be in the interst of both you, and those looking to buy the relevant products.
Mark.
I'm not questioning your honesty, or integrity. People speak highly of both.
However, it's not unreasonable for information you post, to be questioned, and to ask for it to be qualified. This applies to anyone posting.
I'm just asking for you to do that, and show us the "test" results", and let us know under what conditions they were run.
If they are as good as you say, then it will be in the interst of both you, and those looking to buy the relevant products.
Mark.
16 July 2002, 05:41 PM
#42
My what an interesting read And good to see that Pat's on form with the full on techno babble!
Just my four peneath on the APS FMIC, I'll admit that I'm a fan of the HKS unit because I've got, one, it works well and I've recomended it to several others Adam (I think) included. I have also helped people to get them for a good price. Now although I have not tried the APS unit personally of the three people I know that have all of them have experienced problems with the pipe work, either through damage caused by others, incorrect fitment or just poor build quality.
Now I'll admit that although the HKS is no easier to fit than the APS, because it uses steel pipes with silicon connecting pipes it certain seems to withstand the riggers of daily use better, and you would have to be incredably ham fisted (even worse than me...mr. cut his hand with a stanley knife while fitting it) to actually damage it. The APS IIRC uses a complete silcon hose pipe set up which IMHO is very easy to damage, and also seams in some instances to colapse or blister after prolonged use.
Now this tends to suggest that after you have bought an APS kit you will probably at some point off in the future need to replace the silicon hoses with steel or alloy, which are a standard feature of the Pace, HKS, Blitz, Cusco (to name a few) FMIC kits.
In the end this is why I went HKS, the Pace was to experimental at that time, the APS had the hoses that I didn't like and at the end of the day I paid the same for an HKS FMIC as I would have done for the APS, oh and the HKS was delivered next day...
Edit to add 344 brake Adam not 342
[Edited by Tim W - 7/16/2002 5:46:26 PM]
And good to see that Pat's on form with the full on techno babble!Just my four peneath on the APS FMIC, I'll admit that I'm a fan of the HKS unit because I've got, one, it works well and I've recomended it to several others Adam (I think) included. I have also helped people to get them for a good price. Now although I have not tried the APS unit personally of the three people I know that have all of them have experienced problems with the pipe work, either through damage caused by others, incorrect fitment or just poor build quality.
Now I'll admit that although the HKS is no easier to fit than the APS, because it uses steel pipes with silicon connecting pipes it certain seems to withstand the riggers of daily use better, and you would have to be incredably ham fisted (even worse than me...mr. cut his hand with a stanley knife while fitting it) to actually damage it. The APS IIRC uses a complete silcon hose pipe set up which IMHO is very easy to damage, and also seams in some instances to colapse or blister after prolonged use.
Now this tends to suggest that after you have bought an APS kit you will probably at some point off in the future need to replace the silicon hoses with steel or alloy, which are a standard feature of the Pace, HKS, Blitz, Cusco (to name a few) FMIC kits.
In the end this is why I went HKS, the Pace was to experimental at that time, the APS had the hoses that I didn't like and at the end of the day I paid the same for an HKS FMIC as I would have done for the APS, oh and the HKS was delivered next day...
Edit to add 344 brake Adam not 342
[Edited by Tim W - 7/16/2002 5:46:26 PM]
16 July 2002, 06:05 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Location: SSO2003 2nd, SSO2005 1st, SSO2006 2nd, TACC Rd4 5th 4wd: In my car ;-)
Posts: 2,637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jamie,
"also the fact that there is no denying the fact that the APS FMICs are the highest quality items available"
Have you heard of Docking Engineering, or seen any of their work ?
Mark.
"also the fact that there is no denying the fact that the APS FMICs are the highest quality items available"
Have you heard of Docking Engineering, or seen any of their work ?
Mark.
16 July 2002, 08:14 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jaime...
Please state how you can quantify that it is best quality product around... if that is your belief then put IMHO. Not state it as if it is a fact...
IMHO the HKS kit is better than the APS - larger core and more durable piping.
Pat, fantastic post mate
You never cease to amaze!
Hows the float going?!
[Edited by Plantie - 7/16/2002 9:30:26 PM]
Please state how you can quantify that it is best quality product around... if that is your belief then put IMHO. Not state it as if it is a fact...
IMHO the HKS kit is better than the APS - larger core and more durable piping.
Pat, fantastic post mate
You never cease to amaze!Hows the float going?!
[Edited by Plantie - 7/16/2002 9:30:26 PM]
16 July 2002, 11:21 PM
#47
As a matter of comment, having worked with several different manufacturers intercooler's I would say that there are three of those that have stood out those being HKS, Hyperfow and APS, using APS myself I am able to comment in most detail on that item but ... the other two have shown themselves just as capable. The unfortunate fact is that the most variable in function is the Pace which can suffer from increased coolant temps and higher temp rise in the charge.
Turbos that make bigish power always take longer to spool, as has been already mentioned its just not possible to gain one without trading off response, larger capacity engines minimise this effect but the 2 litre will notice the difference. It requires a change of driving style and expectation, once adusted and mastered then the car will fly. As Adam says to spool a larger turbo as fast as a small one you have to push it harder which means higher exhaust gas velocities.
Theres danger in believing all the hype that surrounds products, that's why we mostly tend to try for ourselves and comment on what we know not what we may have been told. There is no substitute for practical experience of variety. Then comparisons can be drawn.
Adam, Christian's turbo has yet to deliver due to a couple of unfortunate restraints so we will see if it lives up to its "reputation". Once sorted it ought to work well.
[Edited by Bob Rawle - 7/16/2002 11:27:13 PM]
Turbos that make bigish power always take longer to spool, as has been already mentioned its just not possible to gain one without trading off response, larger capacity engines minimise this effect but the 2 litre will notice the difference. It requires a change of driving style and expectation, once adusted and mastered then the car will fly. As Adam says to spool a larger turbo as fast as a small one you have to push it harder which means higher exhaust gas velocities.
Theres danger in believing all the hype that surrounds products, that's why we mostly tend to try for ourselves and comment on what we know not what we may have been told. There is no substitute for practical experience of variety. Then comparisons can be drawn.
Adam, Christian's turbo has yet to deliver due to a couple of unfortunate restraints so we will see if it lives up to its "reputation". Once sorted it ought to work well.
[Edited by Bob Rawle - 7/16/2002 11:27:13 PM]
17 July 2002, 12:40 AM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 7,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob,
my comment re christians was more an example of where one can choose a custom turbo for a specific application rather than just buying an off the shelf product.
As you say we have no idea of its performance, but I do have high expectations.
my comment re christians was more an example of where one can choose a custom turbo for a specific application rather than just buying an off the shelf product.
As you say we have no idea of its performance, but I do have high expectations.
17 July 2002, 06:05 AM
#49
Scooby Newbie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys
Jamie has brought this thread to my notice and requested that I respond; no hype, just engineering facts. Regarding H.P. numbers, all the U.K. AWD. chassis dynamometers seem to use the flywheel extrapolation mode of their machines, so I shall follow suit.
1, The SR Series Turbos
These are a range of three basic ball bearing units, each with a choice of three turbine housings. I.e. Nine variants. These range in maximum massflow capacity from 340H.P. to 550H.P. flywheel. They are all physically exact WRX replacement units. The most straightforward explanation possible follows:
1.1, SR30: Max. massflow 340H.P. flywheel, 1.0bar boost achievable between 2600 and 2800 rpm. - Responds like a TD05 (94/96 standard WRX fitment) at low rpm, however has the max. massflow equivalent of a VF22 (the largest of the IHI VF series of turbos for the WRX; standard fit on version 3 STI’s).
1.2, SR40: Max massflow 450H.P. flywheel, 1.0bar boost achievable between 3400 and 3600 rpm. – Responds like a VF22 at low rpm, however has the massflow necessary for 450H.P.
1.3, SR50: Max. massflow 550H.P. flywheel, 1.0bar boost achievable around 4000 rpm. We do NOT consider this a road application unit. However, I do admit, we have a couple of crazy guys here and in the U.S. using them on the street!!
2, Our APS R Series 97/00 FMIC
The basic performance data of our unit is as follows:
At a massflow equivalent to 320H.P. flywheel, the pressure drop is 0.02 bar. At 100kph the discharge temperature is 7-8 degrees C above ambient (incidentally, a number of U.K. customers have publically posted similar numbers). The reasons for the silicon hose ducting are as follows:
- Heat insulation
- Rattle elimination
- Minimum number of connection points
We have sets in Australia, under vastly worse conditions than ever experienced in the U.K., which have done literally 10’s of thousands of miles, without any problem at all. The only problem we have heard of in the U.K. was clearly and unarguably the result of poor installation, followed by foolish operation.
We trust the preceding has clearly addressed the various issues brought up by people here.
Dave
A.P.S.
Jamie has brought this thread to my notice and requested that I respond; no hype, just engineering facts. Regarding H.P. numbers, all the U.K. AWD. chassis dynamometers seem to use the flywheel extrapolation mode of their machines, so I shall follow suit.
1, The SR Series Turbos
These are a range of three basic ball bearing units, each with a choice of three turbine housings. I.e. Nine variants. These range in maximum massflow capacity from 340H.P. to 550H.P. flywheel. They are all physically exact WRX replacement units. The most straightforward explanation possible follows:
1.1, SR30: Max. massflow 340H.P. flywheel, 1.0bar boost achievable between 2600 and 2800 rpm. - Responds like a TD05 (94/96 standard WRX fitment) at low rpm, however has the max. massflow equivalent of a VF22 (the largest of the IHI VF series of turbos for the WRX; standard fit on version 3 STI’s).
1.2, SR40: Max massflow 450H.P. flywheel, 1.0bar boost achievable between 3400 and 3600 rpm. – Responds like a VF22 at low rpm, however has the massflow necessary for 450H.P.
1.3, SR50: Max. massflow 550H.P. flywheel, 1.0bar boost achievable around 4000 rpm. We do NOT consider this a road application unit. However, I do admit, we have a couple of crazy guys here and in the U.S. using them on the street!!
2, Our APS R Series 97/00 FMIC
The basic performance data of our unit is as follows:
At a massflow equivalent to 320H.P. flywheel, the pressure drop is 0.02 bar. At 100kph the discharge temperature is 7-8 degrees C above ambient (incidentally, a number of U.K. customers have publically posted similar numbers). The reasons for the silicon hose ducting are as follows:
- Heat insulation
- Rattle elimination
- Minimum number of connection points
We have sets in Australia, under vastly worse conditions than ever experienced in the U.K., which have done literally 10’s of thousands of miles, without any problem at all. The only problem we have heard of in the U.K. was clearly and unarguably the result of poor installation, followed by foolish operation.
We trust the preceding has clearly addressed the various issues brought up by people here.
Dave
A.P.S.
17 July 2002, 07:07 AM
#50
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Posts: 3,105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All interesting stuff
Jamie - IMHO, your statements could best be qualified with an 'IMHO'. But regardless, if you make bold statements expect them to be questioned - even a post from a non-commercial member stating something was 'best' will have pot-shots taken at it.
Richard
Jamie - IMHO, your statements could best be qualified with an 'IMHO'. But regardless, if you make bold statements expect them to be questioned - even a post from a non-commercial member stating something was 'best' will have pot-shots taken at it.
Richard
17 July 2002, 08:15 AM
#51
OK lads, lets take my car for an example.
UK spec MY00, DBM (obviously faster than any other colour ), HKS air filter, backbox, centre section, Scoobymaina twin dunp downpipe, link system, always run on optimax, running about 280bhp, 265lb/ft at 1.3bar. (soon to be getting new chipset for link and forge re-circ dumpvalve)
Now I want to get up to 340/350bhp with similar gains in torque without spending a fortune. Obviously I know that an uprated fuel pump will have to come before either FMIC or turbo but lets take that out and concentrate on the main bits.
Say I have 2K to spend. I have seen Pace FMIC for 1k leaving 1k for the turbo. Now with myself having very little knowledge of turbo pricing I would guess this would get me a nice IHI hybrid capable of hitting my 340 in time, but would it be worth spending a little less on the FMIC (I have heard HKS are cheaper than pace) and leaving a little more for the turbo. Which one should have more cash thrown at it??
With this debate about 'which intercooler is best', looking at it from a budget point of view I would not think that spending a huge amount (1.5k+) on an FMIC when an £800 one will do the same job, although the more expensive one may be slightly 'better' but the improvement in performance would be minimal compared to the amount that could be got from spending the extra cash on a really good turbo.
Is there any method in my maddness or am I just gibbering b*ll*x?
Also a point that I will be looking into when choosing an FMIC is how easy it is to fit. I didn't want to start chopping bit off left right and centre since I will be fitting it myself. So with these points taken into consideration please answer the original post question again.
Neil.
UK spec MY00, DBM (obviously faster than any other colour
), HKS air filter, backbox, centre section, Scoobymaina twin dunp downpipe, link system, always run on optimax, running about 280bhp, 265lb/ft at 1.3bar. (soon to be getting new chipset for link and forge re-circ dumpvalve)Now I want to get up to 340/350bhp with similar gains in torque without spending a fortune. Obviously I know that an uprated fuel pump will have to come before either FMIC or turbo but lets take that out and concentrate on the main bits.
Say I have 2K to spend. I have seen Pace FMIC for 1k leaving 1k for the turbo. Now with myself having very little knowledge of turbo pricing I would guess this would get me a nice IHI hybrid capable of hitting my 340 in time, but would it be worth spending a little less on the FMIC (I have heard HKS are cheaper than pace) and leaving a little more for the turbo. Which one should have more cash thrown at it??
With this debate about 'which intercooler is best', looking at it from a budget point of view I would not think that spending a huge amount (1.5k+) on an FMIC when an £800 one will do the same job, although the more expensive one may be slightly 'better' but the improvement in performance would be minimal compared to the amount that could be got from spending the extra cash on a really good turbo.
Is there any method in my maddness or am I just gibbering b*ll*x?
Also a point that I will be looking into when choosing an FMIC is how easy it is to fit. I didn't want to start chopping bit off left right and centre since I will be fitting it myself. So with these points taken into consideration please answer the original post question again.
Neil.
17 July 2002, 08:56 AM
#52
Scooby Newbie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NEZZ10,
I am not too sure what you are comparing. However, please find following our U.K. retail prices:
MY99/00
APS FMIC £1,087.00
APS HFA £206.00
APS SR30 £1,175.00
APS SR40 £1,292.50
So you may not obtain quality parts for 2K, however it will not be much more.
Dave
APS
[Edited by APS - 7/17/2002 9:06:04 AM]
[Edited by APS - 7/19/2002 8:40:55 AM]
I am not too sure what you are comparing. However, please find following our U.K. retail prices:
MY99/00
APS FMIC £1,087.00
APS HFA £206.00
APS SR30 £1,175.00
APS SR40 £1,292.50
So you may not obtain quality parts for 2K, however it will not be much more.
Dave
APS
[Edited by APS - 7/17/2002 9:06:04 AM]
[Edited by APS - 7/19/2002 8:40:55 AM]
17 July 2002, 09:11 AM
#54
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for giving us details APS....
The SR40 does sound like a good turbo! but as stated will not spool up like a TD04. A TD04 will obtain 1 bar at roughly 2700rpm but will obviousley run out of steam way before the SR40...
Glad to see that has all been cleared up!
The SR40 does sound like a good turbo! but as stated will not spool up like a TD04. A TD04 will obtain 1 bar at roughly 2700rpm but will obviousley run out of steam way before the SR40...
Glad to see that has all been cleared up!
17 July 2002, 10:24 AM
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 7,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
APS.
The same thing remains.
The if the SR30 can flow an absolute max of 40bhp more than a TD04, how can it spool up as fast? mdern compressor wheels can improve things as I said, but not that kind of percentage.
same goes for a VF22 flowing 450, it just wont happen.
Also I dont understand how you can quote that intercooler is 7 to 8 degrees above ambient at 60mph. If on cruise it is possible for it to be below ambient, if on max boost then this is a nice figure, but you dont include how much work the turbo is doing, so this statistic is worthless.
The same thing remains.
The if the SR30 can flow an absolute max of 40bhp more than a TD04, how can it spool up as fast? mdern compressor wheels can improve things as I said, but not that kind of percentage.
same goes for a VF22 flowing 450, it just wont happen.
Also I dont understand how you can quote that intercooler is 7 to 8 degrees above ambient at 60mph. If on cruise it is possible for it to be below ambient, if on max boost then this is a nice figure, but you dont include how much work the turbo is doing, so this statistic is worthless.
17 July 2002, 10:35 AM
#57
At those prices I paid a lot less for the HKS FMIC and the BT270 turbo with an uprated adjustable actuator but then again maybe I was lucky, it was nearly 9 months ago
APS do the SR series turbos include an actuator in the kit, or is that what an HFA is?
[Edited by Tim W - 7/17/2002 10:39:48 AM]
but then again maybe I was lucky, it was nearly 9 months ago APS do the SR series turbos include an actuator in the kit, or is that what an HFA is?
[Edited by Tim W - 7/17/2002 10:39:48 AM]
17 July 2002, 02:55 PM
#60
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 3,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
APS,
You wrote: "1.1, SR30: Max. massflow 340H.P. flywheel, 1.0bar boost achievable between 2600 and 2800 rpm. - Responds like a TD05 (94/96 standard WRX fitment) at low rpm, however has the max. massflow equivalent of a VF22 (the largest of the IHI VF series of turbos for the WRX; standard fit on version 3 STI’s)."
All the version 3 STI and 22b cars I know of (including my own version 3) came with VF23 (not VF22) turbos as standard. Just an observation.
Moray
bbs.22b.com
You wrote: "1.1, SR30: Max. massflow 340H.P. flywheel, 1.0bar boost achievable between 2600 and 2800 rpm. - Responds like a TD05 (94/96 standard WRX fitment) at low rpm, however has the max. massflow equivalent of a VF22 (the largest of the IHI VF series of turbos for the WRX; standard fit on version 3 STI’s)."
All the version 3 STI and 22b cars I know of (including my own version 3) came with VF23 (not VF22) turbos as standard. Just an observation.
Moray
bbs.22b.com