FMIC; worth it?

[ChaunceyM]

Yeah, sorry about that, bud. I know better than that. Besides the illogical (MS6 isn't an MS3, period) conclusions being reported absent any personal, direct evidence from mango, I let some aggravating stuff spill over into your thread. I know better than that, and I apologize.

No worries. We all do it. And all the fighting helped my decision. If it was a simple answer there wouldn't be any fighting!
Right now I'm not looking to do anything major. The car is running great with the parts and tune I have. A local guy was stocking out and it came up. This year I'm really just focused on improving my driving. Once I finally decide if I'm keeping this as a track car for 5+ years, then I'll start dumping money into making more power.

 

[Enki]

OP: my best advice to you - talk to people who've known, wrenched on, especially have tuned, and done dozens of mods on these cars for years. Not only have we read the threads and studied the theory for years, but we've actually done it. You'll see that many others are saying the same thing: FMIC over TMIC. But if your goal is as cool BATs as possible with a TMIC, go methanol, not FMIC. It will completely address your application and driving habits and give you better results than even FMIC, at the cost of an additional tank and monitoring flow closely, especially if you're using it for knock protection. And for the record, with a Pu and my custom setup/TR8, I have ZERO increased coolant temps.

Who's this we you're talking about, or is this in the royal sense? How many cars have you tuned? Where's your data?

Enki is completely wrong, at least regarding my Genpu.

K. Post information in a new thread that backs this up and tag me in it.

 

[VoodooJef]

FWIW, my current goal is to come as close to 450hp as possible with a top mount. I`ve got the CPe, and a turbo that will certainly do it. (1) I just want to see if it`ll do it rather than speculate with digits on the computer screen. (2) at that point (which I am also intending to pass, at least by a little) I will be moving to front mount. **NOT** because it`s inherently better (it`s not), but because I`ll need the flow to support that number, and there`s not a top mount that does. If someone were to put to task making a 4" top mount core with adequate inlet and outlet flow for our car I`d bet it would probably do it. Front mount may, at the very end of the potentials, drop BATs a bit more, but do those BATs alone add up to more HP? Not really.

The Tl;Dr version: If under 400whp, save the $$ and stay with a good top mount. So far in my experience that holds true. I`m creeping up on the 400 mark (Tune isn`t even done. I guarantee I`ll hit it) and showing no signs that the top mount is in any way the bottleneck.

 

[Enki]

. **NOT** because it`s inherently better (it`s not), but because I`ll need the flow to support that number, and there`s not a top mount that does. If someone were to put to task making a 4" top mount core with adequate inlet and outlet flow for our car I`d bet it would probably do it.

It's on my list, unless the 6th port proves to have enough cooling to run chem only.

 

[Redline]

FWIW, my current goal is to come as close to 450hp as possible with a top mount. I`ve got the CPe, and a turbo that will certainly do it. (1) I just want to see if it`ll do it rather than speculate with digits on the computer screen. (2) at that point (which I am also intending to pass, at least by a little) I will be moving to front mount. **NOT** because it`s inherently better (it`s not), but because I`ll need the flow to support that number, and there`s not a top mount that does. If someone were to put to task making a 4" top mount core with adequate inlet and outlet flow for our car I`d bet it would probably do it. Front mount may, at the very end of the potentials, drop BATs a bit more, but do those BATs alone add up to more HP? Not really.

The Tl;Dr version: If under 400whp, save the $$ and stay with a good top mount. So far in my experience that holds true. I`m creeping up on the 400 mark (Tune isn`t even done. I guarantee I`ll hit it) and showing no signs that the top mount is in any way the bottleneck.

I've actually measured a statistically significant whp difference between the 30-35 BAT over IAT on my ETS TMIC and the 15-20 BAT over IAT of my FMIC. It wasn't huge, but it was nearly ~6-7whp, IIRC. I do agree that TMIC <400whp w/ methanol is the best option if you have to choose TMIC w/ methanol or just a FMIC. But over 450 or so, it's a no brainer--FMICs all the way for superior performance and flow ability.

 

[Enki]

I've actually measured a statistically significant whp difference between the 30-35 BAT over IAT on my ETS TMIC and the 15-20 BAT over IAT of my FMIC. It wasn't huge, but it was nearly ~6-7whp, IIRC. I do agree that TMIC <400whp w/ methanol is the best option if you have to choose TMIC w/ methanol or just a FMIC. But over 450 or so, it's a no brainer--FMICs all the way for superior performance and flow ability.

Cool, where's this data? Post it up.

 

[VoodooJef]

In my yard, 6hp is absolutely negligible. If I dyno 494 with the new engine, I`ll have zero qualms in saying it`s a 500hp car LOL.

 

[Redline]

In my yard, 6hp is absolutely negligible. If I dyno 494 with the new engine, I`ll have zero qualms in saying it`s a 500hp car LOL.

Indeed. Really, when 6whp matters is when you're on a real dyno and stuck at 494, LOL. You know, to have a 500 graph

At our weight, 6whp = ~ 60lbs of ballast. Two guys driving the same Speed, one 150lbs, the other 300lbs, will have a much bigger difference, ~15whp.

 

[Enki]

Weight doesn't change engine output. Try again.

 

[VoodooJef]

my final statement on this will be this: the only time the 6hp stopping you from cracking 500hp matters is when your value as a modder revolves around the dyno sheets you post on the internet. I promise you no one has ever lost a race or botched a lap time over 6hp.

 

[udntknw]

I've actually measured a statistically significant whp difference between the 30-35 BAT over IAT on my ETS TMIC and the 15-20 BAT over IAT of my FMIC. It wasn't huge, but it was nearly ~6-7whp, IIRC. I do agree that TMIC <400whp w/ methanol is the best option if you have to choose TMIC w/ methanol or just a FMIC. But over 450 or so, it's a no brainer--FMICs all the way for superior performance and flow ability.

now.. when you conducted these tests, they were in a completely controlled environment where the ONLY thing that changed is the was the Intercooler? no other variables?

 

[Redline]

now.. when you conducted these tests, they were in a completely controlled environment where the ONLY thing that changed is the was the Intercooler? no other variables?

As best I could. It wasn't in a lab, or anything, but I compared logs with same ambients from a range of temperatures. I also paid attention to how quickly my BATs raised at red lights and the ceilings they reached (TMIC reached much higher temps, and much faster). Finally, I watched coolant temps: I have no appreciable coolant temperature gain with FMIC over TMIC. Finally, cruising BATs are lower with my FMIC on the highway.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to have a car-testing lab, but I had to do the best with what I have. The data were totally conclusive for my car/setup - FMIC = superior in every measure I could think to observe with my driving habits. Genwons and MS6 MMV.

 

[Enki]

BATs while not under load are not indicative of intercooler performance. You should know better.

 

[udntknw]

As best I could. It wasn't in a lab, or anything, but I compared logs with same ambients from a range of temperatures. I also paid attention to how quickly my BATs raised at red lights and the ceilings they reached (TMIC reached much higher temps, and much faster). Finally, I watched coolant temps: I have no appreciable coolant temperature gain with FMIC over TMIC. Finally, cruising BATs are lower with my FMIC on the highway.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to have a car-testing lab, but I had to do the best with what I have. The data were totally conclusive for my car/setup - FMIC = superior in every measure I could think to observe with my driving habits. Genwons and MS6 MMV.

So yesterday, practical testing on one tune being more efficient than the other wasn't good enough. Now for your arguments sake, practical testing is more than reasonable?

 

[Redline]

So yesterday, practical testing on one tune being more efficient than the other wasn't good enough. Now for your arguments sake, practical testing is more than reasonable?

Practical testing is sometimes the best you can get. I don't know what "practical testing on one tune being more efficient than [another]" means. How do you operationalize tune efficiency?

 

[ChaunceyM]

I mean, if people want to come out here and help with the wrenching, I'm happy to offer up my car as a track mule. Run some track days with CP-e TMIC, swap on a donor FMIC and run another event or 2 and compare. Once we get past July every event will likely be pretty warm so ambients would be comparable.
It's the only way to settle it