Why are FMIC kits so big?
21 January 2009, 09:49 AM
#31
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Going sideways is a way of life
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't see why not after fitting mine i noticed a big difference! The rear end now steps out on lauch, didn't do before!! PLUS look so much better than a big number plate!!
I'd say the size issue is due to, it would look silly in the grill cutout if smaller!
21 January 2009, 03:53 PM
#32
Maybe they are just Sierra intercoolers modified to fit Imprezas? 
I've seen some ICs that have the same core sizes. So I guess with some manufacturers its a case of getting what they already have to fit (seeing aftermarket sierra ICs were around long before any Imprezas existed).
Of course the manufacturers would say otherwise, and the size is unique to the Impreza, well, the fitting kits and headers will be - of course!
.
I have to admit, I've not been a fan of many Impreza FMIC conversions. The good ones I like are ones that use reverse manifolds and custom coolant radiators to allow for more effective pipework routing.
I've seen some ICs that have the same core sizes. So I guess with some manufacturers its a case of getting what they already have to fit (seeing aftermarket sierra ICs were around long before any Imprezas existed). Of course the manufacturers would say otherwise, and the size is unique to the Impreza, well, the fitting kits and headers will be - of course!
.I have to admit, I've not been a fan of many Impreza FMIC conversions. The good ones I like are ones that use reverse manifolds and custom coolant radiators to allow for more effective pipework routing.
Last edited by ALi-B; 21 January 2009 at 03:54 PM.
21 January 2009, 04:20 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 8,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lateral kit really is very good, but as with all things in life you have to pay a fair whack for it.
The pipework on the Hybrid brings tears to my eyes, apologies to the vendors that sell them but when you open the box and lay it all out it really hits home how long it is, not necessarily a problem but could be much better imo.
The people who run top mounts at all costs because they claim to be scared of the lag want their collective heads banging together, sorry, but look into what lag is and then calculate how long it would take to fill the pipe at 1.5 bar?
rotating the manifold and customising the pipework is the way forward and its surprising how much can be removed when you don't go through the wings and round the houses etc.
The pipework on the Hybrid brings tears to my eyes, apologies to the vendors that sell them but when you open the box and lay it all out it really hits home how long it is, not necessarily a problem but could be much better imo.
The people who run top mounts at all costs because they claim to be scared of the lag want their collective heads banging together, sorry, but look into what lag is and then calculate how long it would take to fill the pipe at 1.5 bar?
rotating the manifold and customising the pipework is the way forward and its surprising how much can be removed when you don't go through the wings and round the houses etc.
21 January 2009, 08:00 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that the whole point is that the pipework isn't pressurised at 1.5 bar all the time. If there is more pipework to pressurise, it takes longer. Core design also factors in and anything else that effects airflow or air volume.
Before you flame me, I am not someone who really cares if I have a fmic or tmic. I just wanted the best thing for my car and it's future build. Which as it happens is a tmic.
I agree with you re the reverse plenem. If you get a good one you can get some real good gains and it really reduces the pipe distance.
Happy with my tmic though so that's what counts. I guess the proof will be in my TA times this year against all the fmic boys (I signed up this morning).
Before you flame me, I am not someone who really cares if I have a fmic or tmic. I just wanted the best thing for my car and it's future build. Which as it happens is a tmic.
I agree with you re the reverse plenem. If you get a good one you can get some real good gains and it really reduces the pipe distance.
Happy with my tmic though so that's what counts. I guess the proof will be in my TA times this year against all the fmic boys (I signed up this morning)
.
21 January 2009, 11:43 PM
#42
As I said, on his behalf, the FMIC wasn't the only mod if you like, but there were very few others, as I listed between power runs.
As I also stated, the first run hit fuel cut, so we don't have an accurate first figure. What I can say, is at the time of the first run, the car was pretty much standard and made 236bhp. I am not very knowlegable in this field, so don't know if that would be about right, or not. At the next rolling road it made 330, and other than the FMIC, as I have said it had very few other changes made performance wise.
As I also stated, the first run hit fuel cut, so we don't have an accurate first figure. What I can say, is at the time of the first run, the car was pretty much standard and made 236bhp. I am not very knowlegable in this field, so don't know if that would be about right, or not. At the next rolling road it made 330, and other than the FMIC, as I have said it had very few other changes made performance wise.
22 January 2009, 12:23 AM
#43
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said, on his behalf, the FMIC wasn't the only mod if you like, but there were very few others, as I listed between power runs.
As I also stated, the first run hit fuel cut, so we don't have an accurate first figure. What I can say, is at the time of the first run, the car was pretty much standard and made 236bhp. I am not very knowlegable in this field, so don't know if that would be about right, or not. At the next rolling road it made 330, and other than the FMIC, as I have said it had very few other changes made performance wise.
As I also stated, the first run hit fuel cut, so we don't have an accurate first figure. What I can say, is at the time of the first run, the car was pretty much standard and made 236bhp. I am not very knowlegable in this field, so don't know if that would be about right, or not. At the next rolling road it made 330, and other than the FMIC, as I have said it had very few other changes made performance wise.
So unless the fuel cut was way early on the TMIC run I cannot see the figures quoted being anywhere near right.
Look I am not trying to pick a fight, just don't want people to read this and think if they change from a TMIC to a FMIC they are going to see nearly 100 extra horsepower as it isn't going to happen!!
22 January 2009, 12:37 AM
#44
I am not an expert in this field, but have enough engineering knowledge to know that for the car to make 330 with a FMIC then if there were no other changes at all I just can't see a drop of more than aorund 40hp tops for the same car with a TMIC and I think I am being generous there.
So unless the fuel cut was way early on the TMIC run I cannot see the figures quoted being anywhere near right.
Look I am not trying to pick a fight, just don't want people to read this and think if they change from a TMIC to a FMIC they are going to see nearly 100 extra horsepower as it isn't going to happen!!
So unless the fuel cut was way early on the TMIC run I cannot see the figures quoted being anywhere near right.
Look I am not trying to pick a fight, just don't want people to read this and think if they change from a TMIC to a FMIC they are going to see nearly 100 extra horsepower as it isn't going to happen!!
And I am in no way saying they would make that much difference. As I said, we only had a different exhaust and induction kit. There could have been other little things, but I don't recall, and considering I mainly control the purse strings, I am pretty sure that is it power wise.
I don't want people to get funny ideas either, and I think me and Micky accept out car seems to be a freak of nature so to speak, but I'm just giving the information I can.
I know you are not trying to pick a fight.
22 January 2009, 12:48 AM
#45
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I am in no way saying they would make that much difference. As I said, we only had a different exhaust and induction kit. There could have been other little things, but I don't recall, and considering I mainly control the purse strings, I am pretty sure that is it power wise.
Also the runs being done on different days may have given a difference in the figures (colder day etc.)
22 January 2009, 08:35 AM
#46
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 8,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
exhaust and filter swap?
Blimey theres only injectors and turbo left for a full house, they are 2 of the most vital components in tuning and you're trying to play them down as insignificant LOL
Also you dont say whether or not any mapping was involved?
Blimey theres only injectors and turbo left for a full house, they are 2 of the most vital components in tuning and you're trying to play them down as insignificant LOL
Also you dont say whether or not any mapping was involved?
22 January 2009, 12:25 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
lag is a setup not a fornt mount issue, but lets agree to disagree on that cos its always becomes a screaming match.
an intercooler is simply a heat exchanger, the larger the surface area of exchange the more effective it is when comparing like for like material and codition
an intercooler is simply a heat exchanger, the larger the surface area of exchange the more effective it is when comparing like for like material and codition
22 January 2009, 01:36 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lag is a setup not a fornt mount issue, but lets agree to disagree on that cos its always becomes a screaming match.
an intercooler is simply a heat exchanger, the larger the surface area of exchange the more effective it is when comparing like for like material and codition
an intercooler is simply a heat exchanger, the larger the surface area of exchange the more effective it is when comparing like for like material and codition
But, The overall physical dimensions don't give an idea of the total contact surface area. Different core designs give different surface areas.
So a 600x300x150 cooler might not have as much contact surface area as a 300x300x150 cooler due to the core design.
My point being, more efficient core design is better, not overall size. There are also factors for the internals of a cooler regarding airflow, eddy and calm air spots etc (I think thats what they are called). Better designed means better performance. But that usualy comes with a price.
22 January 2009, 04:10 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone who thinks that moving from a TMIC to a FMIC will somehow produce more power really are deluding themselves, or worse, being deluded by others with vested interests.
It's like shaving 0.5 seconds off your 0-60 time ....... no-one is going to notice, in real world driving it makes no difference at all. But costs loads of ££££££££'s .... if it's a hobby then fair enough and good luck - but it makes no economic or engineering sense.
Just my opinion
It's like shaving 0.5 seconds off your 0-60 time ....... no-one is going to notice, in real world driving it makes no difference at all. But costs loads of ££££££££'s .... if it's a hobby then fair enough and good luck - but it makes no economic or engineering sense.
Just my opinion
22 January 2009, 06:44 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
Agreed, heat exchanger etc.
But, The overall physical dimensions don't give an idea of the total contact surface area. Different core designs give different surface areas.
So a 600x300x150 cooler might not have as much contact surface area as a 300x300x150 cooler due to the core design.
My point being, more efficient core design is better, not overall size. There are also factors for the internals of a cooler regarding airflow, eddy and calm air spots etc (I think thats what they are called). Better designed means better performance. But that usualy comes with a price.
But, The overall physical dimensions don't give an idea of the total contact surface area. Different core designs give different surface areas.
So a 600x300x150 cooler might not have as much contact surface area as a 300x300x150 cooler due to the core design.
My point being, more efficient core design is better, not overall size. There are also factors for the internals of a cooler regarding airflow, eddy and calm air spots etc (I think thats what they are called). Better designed means better performance. But that usualy comes with a price.
yep, very true, size also don't take into account the quality of of the internal material either, reason i said area of 'exchange' not area of the 'exchanger'
hehe
22 January 2009, 07:37 PM
#53
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yep agree! I'm at oulton this Saturday testing so I'll have a look around and see what amount of top and front mounts there are an see how they are performing on track
23 January 2009, 01:09 AM
#54
If you are fitting a front mount, my advice is that you must remap.
If you do not notice an improvement in power after a remap then either :
1) Your Air Charge Temps were not high enough to warrant an FMIC or
2) You have fitted a kit with poor core or pipework design.
If you do not notice an improvement in power after a remap then either :
1) Your Air Charge Temps were not high enough to warrant an FMIC or
2) You have fitted a kit with poor core or pipework design.
23 January 2009, 12:40 PM
#55
Scooby Regular
very sound reasoning
23 January 2009, 12:48 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was just thinking the same, especially point number 1).
Basically, if your Air Charge Temps were not high enough to warrant an FMIC then you will receive no benefits.
So, if you like the 'look' then fine .... go ahead. But you are not going to see any increase in power, with a FMIC alone.
Basically, if your Air Charge Temps were not high enough to warrant an FMIC then you will receive no benefits.
So, if you like the 'look' then fine .... go ahead. But you are not going to see any increase in power, with a FMIC alone.
24 January 2009, 07:02 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just wondering what temperature is the air that comes out of the turbo before it reaches the intercooler core? Does anybody know this for say 1.0 bar and 1.5 bar?
26 January 2009, 12:41 AM
#59
Air temp from the turbo compressor outlet will vary from turbo to turbo depending on how hard the turbo is working. I have not measured the temperature at the compressor output but it will exceed 100 deg C regularly on full boost on many installations.
Air charge temperatures on an STi 3 Wagon, O/E VF23 turbo and TMIC could regularly exceed70C, the scale of the guage and with an STi 8 TMIC on the same car with bigger turbo the ACTs were 42-38C on WOT on a cold day during similar runs.
Air charge temperatures on an STi 3 Wagon, O/E VF23 turbo and TMIC could regularly exceed70C, the scale of the guage and with an STi 8 TMIC on the same car with bigger turbo the ACTs were 42-38C on WOT on a cold day during similar runs.
26 January 2009, 01:38 AM
#60
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i have read half this thread, tbh i dont see why any 1 with a scoob fits a FMIC as there is a scoop in the bonnet for a reason. (unless there very tuned)
I fitted a FMIC to my Audi a4 1.8T and there was a massive difference...but.... the OEM intercoolers were side mount and very pony! and on the Audis there is miles of boost pipeage so adding a FMIC didnt really make much difference to lag!
i personally think, fitting a FMIC to a scoob is gonna do nothing but restrict the air to it place of origin!
I fitted a FMIC to my Audi a4 1.8T and there was a massive difference...but.... the OEM intercoolers were side mount and very pony! and on the Audis there is miles of boost pipeage so adding a FMIC didnt really make much difference to lag!
i personally think, fitting a FMIC to a scoob is gonna do nothing but restrict the air to it place of origin!
Last edited by scoobi-G; 26 January 2009 at 01:42 AM.