Starting again.... with a Hawkeye
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
So...
So... a sensible question to the experts... 
What else can you do to optimise the Sti tmi ? Caveats ? ? ?
I've ordered a PTP turbo blanket, wrapped up-pipe, got some DEI shiny gold tape (heat reflecting) to wrap the intercooler with ....
And....
A
What else can you do to optimise the Sti tmi ? Caveats ? ? ?
I've ordered a PTP turbo blanket, wrapped up-pipe, got some DEI shiny gold tape (heat reflecting) to wrap the intercooler with ....
And....
A
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,377
Likes: 3
From: @Junc 12, M40 Warwicksh; 01926 614522 CV33 9PL -Use 9GX for Satnav. South Mids Alcatek ECu dealer
GC8's don't have this, there are people out there who make GC8 type splitters and it is very worth while doing [ Well we believe so - until JF shoots us down ] It makes sense that the air rushing into the hole will always concentrate at the rear of the TMIC as pressure dictates that it will. By splitting the air and making it go where you want, you get a more even flow across the rad fins.
Also tilt the TMIC, with spacers between the intercooler and the bracket, rather more so that the air can flow through easier rather than having to turn through 90 degrees to get into the rad. Also make sure that the fins on the rad are open, as people have a habit of jet washing through the intercooler scoop and flattening the ends of the fins over so no air can get through anyway..............A toothpick will open out the flattened ones.
David APi
Thanks
Silverstone was pretty bad in terms of engine bay heat soak, i think having the queue behind the pit buildings one side and an earth mound the other meant that you had no airflow to the car, so you were building heat under the bonnet more than usual.
There was a drop off in performance there, but that was down to how hot the MAF sensor got, FMIC or TMIC on the stock ECU it would make no difference, because the ECU is just taking it's reading from the MAF and backs off the engine performance based on that reading. My own MAF sensor temp was up above 60 degrees C, the ECU mapping will be backing off performance once you see above 20 degrees C based on my experience. (This is MAF temp, not IC temp!)
There was and is no problem driving your car flat out in that situation if the engine mapper has done their job properly, there are settings in the ECU that take acount of MAF intake temp, you also have a very active knock control strategy on the OEM ECU that will also take care of things.
You could push the engine more if you were running the GroupN map in the OEM ECU, this would allow you to use the charge temp sensor fitted in the Inlet Plenum as standard to the later JDM cars (homologated for the PWRC), but in doing that you lose the active knock control functionality of the ECU, because the PWRC cars run on a control fuel so dont require that function. Not a good idea on a road car which can pick up varying fuel qualities.
There was a drop off in performance there, but that was down to how hot the MAF sensor got, FMIC or TMIC on the stock ECU it would make no difference, because the ECU is just taking it's reading from the MAF and backs off the engine performance based on that reading. My own MAF sensor temp was up above 60 degrees C, the ECU mapping will be backing off performance once you see above 20 degrees C based on my experience. (This is MAF temp, not IC temp!)
There was and is no problem driving your car flat out in that situation if the engine mapper has done their job properly, there are settings in the ECU that take acount of MAF intake temp, you also have a very active knock control strategy on the OEM ECU that will also take care of things.
You could push the engine more if you were running the GroupN map in the OEM ECU, this would allow you to use the charge temp sensor fitted in the Inlet Plenum as standard to the later JDM cars (homologated for the PWRC), but in doing that you lose the active knock control functionality of the ECU, because the PWRC cars run on a control fuel so dont require that function. Not a good idea on a road car which can pick up varying fuel qualities.
(I have seen it reaching 68C in start stop traffic with ambient 30C!)
So although the ECU will reduce ingnition advance at MAF IAT temperatures of 50C or above (IIRC last time I looked at a USDM map), with colder air post I/C there are less chances of detonation.
Of course as you said though if the engine is calibrated properly there should be no worry with the TMIC but a FMIC would give a little extra safety margin IMHO.
If anyone has fitted a thermocouple in the exit of the I/C and has done some measurements when sitting in traffic and when starting moving, I would like to see the data to understand more and solve our queries
Last edited by fpan; Aug 25, 2011 at 02:01 PM.
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,619
Likes: 24
From: 5 beats 4 - RS3 Rulez!!!
Billet LM450 Fitment
I arrived at Litchfield Imports this morning for the next portion, of this next round of modifications.
Nothing exciting. Just a change of turbo.
The original plan was to take my Billet LM400 off and send it to Turbo Dynamics for modification. Due to the extra time this would take, Litchfield's instead managed to sort a deal with Turbo Dynamics where I exchanged my 400 for the 450 outright. Saving time and stress for us all. Thanks to Litchfield's and Turbo Dynamics for sorting this.
The plan for the day was straight forward enough. Swap the turbos and off I would trot, in preparation for the mapping tomorrow with Tracktive Solutions.
Let's take a look at the new bit of "bling". The Litchfield Billet LM450.
Billet LM450 Inlet
Billet LM450 "top down" View
Billet LM450 Exhaust Side
Billet LM450 "Twin Entry"
Apart from this stating the part number:
The untrained eye would not be able to distinguish the Billet LM450 from the Billet LM400 (which is what I'm removing).
450-S60: The 450 is the BHP rating.
450-S60: The "S" stands for Small Exhaust Housing, which for me is better suited to my smaller capacity engine (i.e. the 2ltr). If I had a 2.35 or 2.5ltr, I would of asked for the Large Exhaust Housing.
450-S60: The "60" relates to the Compressor Cover size. Again as mine is a smaller capacity engine (2ltr), this size is better suited. If I had a 2.35 or 2.5ltr, I would of asked for the "70", which is a larger Compressor Cover.
In essence the spec I have is to help to maximise response and spool on a 2ltr.
However... there is another difference, but perhaps not what you're thinking.
One would assume that because the turbo is of a different power rating than the LM400, then the physical external dimensions of the turbo would be bigger. Actually this is not the case.
Side by side both the LM400 and LM450 are identical, external dimensions wise.
This is because all the "clever" bits are to do with the internal parts (in most - see below).
To enable the LM450 to flow more air than the LM400, the compressor wheel (you can see on the inlet image above) and the exhaust wheel (you can see on the exhaust side image above) are physically bigger. To enable this the internal "space" is increased to house these new, larger wheels. However, from what you see there is no difference as most of this is hidden within the housings.
I used the term "in most" above, so what do I mean by that? This is where it gets a bit more interesting......
I have already explained about the benefits of a Billet wheel on a previous update, with regard to the Billet LM400 and how changes in the wheel specification help with weight saving. I had also alluded to the fact that Litchfield and Turbo Dynamics have been continually evolving the wheels. To this end the Billet wheel I have is actually their 2nd generation of Billet wheels for their LM range.
If we take the original non Billet LM450 (the same specification as the one I test drove and discussed earlier in this project thread - Mel's). The 1st generation Billet wheel upgrade from the original non Billet LM450, was in fact just over 30% lighter. The specification I have has evolved even further and is 13% lighter than the 1st generation Billet wheel. This adds up to quite a significant weight saving.
How?
It's difficult to tell from comparing photo's because of the scaling, but if you look at the centre core of the compressor wheel (the bit with the nut in the end that the blades come out from), this central core is actually smaller in diameter than my Billet LM400. Because Billet is stronger, it enables you to create a core that is smaller in diameter. This enables you to save weight, which should ultimately help with response.
But the 2nd generation changes don't stop there....
One of the factors for how much air a turbo can flow, ultimately providing the BHP, is the length of the blades themselves. All things being equal (and being very simplistic), the longer the blades the more airflow. Longer blades can mean more lag though.
We already know that the original LM450 could flow enough air to make 460+bhp. This was 10+bhp above its target. What Litchfield and Turbo Dynamics have now done is actually decrease the actual length of the blades to bring the peak BHP down a tad (to the original 450bhp target).
Why?
The upside to this is that it means less weight and also (in theory) better response and better spool. On a smaller capacity engine this has to be a major benefit.
Of course you could go the other way. Keep the reduced core and keep the same diameter of wheel. This would mean longer blades and more airflow, but this would sacrifice response (weight) and spool.
It's horses for courses and the choice is yours.
So that's a little bit of background to this specific 2nd generation Billet wheel.
Everything was going well until I had my first bit of negative news:
The above is a picture of the OEM Turbo Inlet pipe (turbo end). As you can see it has split. Since these OEM pipes are hard plastic, they don't take very kindly to being taken on and off too much. Especially if you get a bit over excited with the tightening process.
This was a great shame as I really wanted to keep everything OEM on the inlet side, but this meant I needed to change this turbo inlet for an aftermarket one.
I would never of bothered if I'm being honest, as an aftermarket one is in reality, no bigger than a standard item. From MY05 onwards (on the 2ltr, not sure about the 2.5) they increased the size of the STI inlet pipe, so any size differences vs aftermarket is much less.
Here is a comparison of the OEM one and the aftermarket one:
As you can see there is no great size difference in the main trunk.
This also required a change of the OEM hose between the inlet pipe and the airbox.
This is how the entire inlet pipe looked with the changes:
Whilst the TMIC was off I had a bright idea....
To help with the efficiencies of the intercooling process (also remembering what Bob Rawle had documented many years ago and Richard Bulmer telling me he always does), I thought about removing the water feed that goes through the throttle body.
This is primarily used to prevent "icing" of the throttle body in winter (not that it ever gets that cold in the UK). Water from the system is routed around the throttle body to heat it up quickly, however, this can't help temps at the part of the inlet that you really don't want any additional temps do you!!?? Don't forget, the hot water from the coolant system will be running around this continuously. It's a very quick / easy mod to by-pass and as they say, every little helps!!
Right-hand side of throttle body (remove pipe off the highlighted area)
Left-hand side of the throttle body (remove pipe off the highlighted area)
Take both bits of pipe and just join them together..... job done!
Everything all done and back together:
So with all fluids checked and the oil change done, I was on my way home.
Obviously because the car is not mapped for this turbo, I was unable to give it a fistful on the way home...... which was slightly annoying! lol
But.....
I did give it a "bit" of boost (up to 6psi lowdown). Don't want to speak too soon, but it was making positive boost from 1800rpm in 6th (it might of made it lower, but I couldn't get the revs down far enough with load in 6th - traffic etc). However the response felt really good and spool (with little heat in reality in the headers) to 6psi was extremely linear and smooth. It felt very Billet LM400 "like", with great initial response followed by spool. Again, I don't want to count my chickens with this limited experience, but it did feel really good.
I was looking to have this mapped tomorrow, but unfortunately I took a call from Tracktive to say that they are really up against it with some race cars needed out by Saturday. Richard gave his utmost apologies and offered me Bank Holiday Monday instead. I'm sure there are not many people that would do that and in reality it could actually suit me better. It means I get him all to myself for the whole day!
So.... let's see what the mapping equates to on Monday and I will obviously update you all with the gory details.
Many thanks again to Litchfield Imports for the time and effort put in today.
I arrived at Litchfield Imports this morning for the next portion, of this next round of modifications.
Nothing exciting. Just a change of turbo.
The original plan was to take my Billet LM400 off and send it to Turbo Dynamics for modification. Due to the extra time this would take, Litchfield's instead managed to sort a deal with Turbo Dynamics where I exchanged my 400 for the 450 outright. Saving time and stress for us all. Thanks to Litchfield's and Turbo Dynamics for sorting this.
The plan for the day was straight forward enough. Swap the turbos and off I would trot, in preparation for the mapping tomorrow with Tracktive Solutions.
Let's take a look at the new bit of "bling". The Litchfield Billet LM450.
Billet LM450 Inlet
Billet LM450 "top down" View
Billet LM450 Exhaust Side
Billet LM450 "Twin Entry"
Apart from this stating the part number:
The untrained eye would not be able to distinguish the Billet LM450 from the Billet LM400 (which is what I'm removing).
450-S60: The 450 is the BHP rating.
450-S60: The "S" stands for Small Exhaust Housing, which for me is better suited to my smaller capacity engine (i.e. the 2ltr). If I had a 2.35 or 2.5ltr, I would of asked for the Large Exhaust Housing.
450-S60: The "60" relates to the Compressor Cover size. Again as mine is a smaller capacity engine (2ltr), this size is better suited. If I had a 2.35 or 2.5ltr, I would of asked for the "70", which is a larger Compressor Cover.
In essence the spec I have is to help to maximise response and spool on a 2ltr.
However... there is another difference, but perhaps not what you're thinking.
One would assume that because the turbo is of a different power rating than the LM400, then the physical external dimensions of the turbo would be bigger. Actually this is not the case.
Side by side both the LM400 and LM450 are identical, external dimensions wise.
This is because all the "clever" bits are to do with the internal parts (in most - see below).
To enable the LM450 to flow more air than the LM400, the compressor wheel (you can see on the inlet image above) and the exhaust wheel (you can see on the exhaust side image above) are physically bigger. To enable this the internal "space" is increased to house these new, larger wheels. However, from what you see there is no difference as most of this is hidden within the housings.
I used the term "in most" above, so what do I mean by that? This is where it gets a bit more interesting......
I have already explained about the benefits of a Billet wheel on a previous update, with regard to the Billet LM400 and how changes in the wheel specification help with weight saving. I had also alluded to the fact that Litchfield and Turbo Dynamics have been continually evolving the wheels. To this end the Billet wheel I have is actually their 2nd generation of Billet wheels for their LM range.
If we take the original non Billet LM450 (the same specification as the one I test drove and discussed earlier in this project thread - Mel's). The 1st generation Billet wheel upgrade from the original non Billet LM450, was in fact just over 30% lighter. The specification I have has evolved even further and is 13% lighter than the 1st generation Billet wheel. This adds up to quite a significant weight saving.
How?
It's difficult to tell from comparing photo's because of the scaling, but if you look at the centre core of the compressor wheel (the bit with the nut in the end that the blades come out from), this central core is actually smaller in diameter than my Billet LM400. Because Billet is stronger, it enables you to create a core that is smaller in diameter. This enables you to save weight, which should ultimately help with response.
But the 2nd generation changes don't stop there....
One of the factors for how much air a turbo can flow, ultimately providing the BHP, is the length of the blades themselves. All things being equal (and being very simplistic), the longer the blades the more airflow. Longer blades can mean more lag though.
We already know that the original LM450 could flow enough air to make 460+bhp. This was 10+bhp above its target. What Litchfield and Turbo Dynamics have now done is actually decrease the actual length of the blades to bring the peak BHP down a tad (to the original 450bhp target).
Why?
The upside to this is that it means less weight and also (in theory) better response and better spool. On a smaller capacity engine this has to be a major benefit.
Of course you could go the other way. Keep the reduced core and keep the same diameter of wheel. This would mean longer blades and more airflow, but this would sacrifice response (weight) and spool.
It's horses for courses and the choice is yours.
So that's a little bit of background to this specific 2nd generation Billet wheel.
Everything was going well until I had my first bit of negative news:
The above is a picture of the OEM Turbo Inlet pipe (turbo end). As you can see it has split. Since these OEM pipes are hard plastic, they don't take very kindly to being taken on and off too much. Especially if you get a bit over excited with the tightening process.
This was a great shame as I really wanted to keep everything OEM on the inlet side, but this meant I needed to change this turbo inlet for an aftermarket one.
I would never of bothered if I'm being honest, as an aftermarket one is in reality, no bigger than a standard item. From MY05 onwards (on the 2ltr, not sure about the 2.5) they increased the size of the STI inlet pipe, so any size differences vs aftermarket is much less.
Here is a comparison of the OEM one and the aftermarket one:
As you can see there is no great size difference in the main trunk.
This also required a change of the OEM hose between the inlet pipe and the airbox.
This is how the entire inlet pipe looked with the changes:
Whilst the TMIC was off I had a bright idea....
To help with the efficiencies of the intercooling process (also remembering what Bob Rawle had documented many years ago and Richard Bulmer telling me he always does), I thought about removing the water feed that goes through the throttle body.
This is primarily used to prevent "icing" of the throttle body in winter (not that it ever gets that cold in the UK). Water from the system is routed around the throttle body to heat it up quickly, however, this can't help temps at the part of the inlet that you really don't want any additional temps do you!!?? Don't forget, the hot water from the coolant system will be running around this continuously. It's a very quick / easy mod to by-pass and as they say, every little helps!!
Right-hand side of throttle body (remove pipe off the highlighted area)
Left-hand side of the throttle body (remove pipe off the highlighted area)
Take both bits of pipe and just join them together..... job done!
Everything all done and back together:
So with all fluids checked and the oil change done, I was on my way home.
Obviously because the car is not mapped for this turbo, I was unable to give it a fistful on the way home...... which was slightly annoying! lol
But.....
I did give it a "bit" of boost (up to 6psi lowdown). Don't want to speak too soon, but it was making positive boost from 1800rpm in 6th (it might of made it lower, but I couldn't get the revs down far enough with load in 6th - traffic etc). However the response felt really good and spool (with little heat in reality in the headers) to 6psi was extremely linear and smooth. It felt very Billet LM400 "like", with great initial response followed by spool. Again, I don't want to count my chickens with this limited experience, but it did feel really good.
I was looking to have this mapped tomorrow, but unfortunately I took a call from Tracktive to say that they are really up against it with some race cars needed out by Saturday. Richard gave his utmost apologies and offered me Bank Holiday Monday instead. I'm sure there are not many people that would do that and in reality it could actually suit me better. It means I get him all to myself for the whole day!
So.... let's see what the mapping equates to on Monday and I will obviously update you all with the gory details.
Many thanks again to Litchfield Imports for the time and effort put in today.
?!
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,619
Likes: 24
From: 5 beats 4 - RS3 Rulez!!!
I have a pair of ears, eyes and a mouth. When used in the right order and fashion, it's amazing what you "learn". However... it has took me 40yrs to learn how to do that in a way that makes me 100% more intelligent than I was before! 
Which doesn't mean a lot in the grand scheme of things.
However... it has took me 40yrs to learn how to do that in a way that makes me 100% more intelligent than I was before! Which doesn't mean a lot in the grand scheme of things.
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,377
Likes: 3
From: @Junc 12, M40 Warwicksh; 01926 614522 CV33 9PL -Use 9GX for Satnav. South Mids Alcatek ECu dealer
I have a pair of ears, eyes and a mouth. When used in the right order and fashion, it's amazing what you "learn". However... it has took me 40yrs to learn how to do that in a way that makes me 100% more intelligent than I was before! Which doesn't mean a lot in the grand scheme of things.
However... it has took me 40yrs to learn how to do that in a way that makes me 100% more intelligent than I was before! Which doesn't mean a lot in the grand scheme of things. YOU'VE decided that you are more intelligent ??
Why not ask us ?
PS Good post though. That original intake pipe is a mess.
David
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,619
Likes: 24
From: 5 beats 4 - RS3 Rulez!!!
David,
Yeah... but my 100% improvement is still only 1% of your total brain power! Although a few of your cells have probably hibernated, what with the "old age" factor. I'll pop a blanket over to keep your legs warm and bring a thermos of Chicken Soup with me.
Anyway.... get Nathan to clean his tools up. I don't want dirt on my engine bay nuts when API join the "party" again for the future "envisaged" modifications. 
Yeah... but my 100% improvement is still only 1% of your total brain power!
Although a few of your cells have probably hibernated, what with the "old age" factor. I'll pop a blanket over to keep your legs warm and bring a thermos of Chicken Soup with me. Anyway.... get Nathan to clean his tools up. I don't want dirt on my engine bay nuts when API join the "party" again for the future "envisaged" modifications.
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,619
Likes: 24
From: 5 beats 4 - RS3 Rulez!!!
We had a bit of a game finding a pipe tbh. This was not planned (as you may realise by the pipe colour lol - it would of been black if it had been) and this was the only one Litchfields had in stock that would fit.
I had the same SFS kit fitted to the SPEC C. Never had one problem with it to be honest and that performance bracket was way beyond this car presently.
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,377
Likes: 3
From: @Junc 12, M40 Warwicksh; 01926 614522 CV33 9PL -Use 9GX for Satnav. South Mids Alcatek ECu dealer
David,
Yeah... but my 100% improvement is still only 1% of your total brain power! Although a few of your cells have probably hibernated, what with the "old age" factor. I'll pop a blanket over to keep your legs warm and bring a thermos of Chicken Soup with me.
Anyway.... get Nathan to clean his tools up. I don't want dirt on my engine bay nuts when API join the "party" again for the future "envisaged" modifications.
Yeah... but my 100% improvement is still only 1% of your total brain power!
Although a few of your cells have probably hibernated, what with the "old age" factor. I'll pop a blanket over to keep your legs warm and bring a thermos of Chicken Soup with me. Anyway.... get Nathan to clean his tools up. I don't want dirt on my engine bay nuts when API join the "party" again for the future "envisaged" modifications.
Old age brings Alzheimers...
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
Sorry just lost my thread, who are you? , why are we talking?
Ah yes!, A hot dog with onions and a double scoop 99 please.
Depends upon the model of car. Late cars [ STi 01 onwards ] have a splitter in the air intake for the TMIC that divides the air flow to @50% front of the cooler and 50% to the rear of the cooler.
GC8's don't have this, there are people out there who make GC8 type splitters and it is very worth while doing [ Well we believe so - until JF shoots us down ] It makes sense that the air rushing into the hole will always concentrate at the rear of the TMIC as pressure dictates that it will. By splitting the air and making it go where you want, you get a more even flow across the rad fins.
Also tilt the TMIC, with spacers between the intercooler and the bracket, rather more so that the air can flow through easier rather than having to turn through 90 degrees to get into the rad. Also make sure that the fins on the rad are open, as people have a habit of jet washing through the intercooler scoop and flattening the ends of the fins over so no air can get through anyway..............A toothpick will open out the flattened ones.
David APi
GC8's don't have this, there are people out there who make GC8 type splitters and it is very worth while doing [ Well we believe so - until JF shoots us down ] It makes sense that the air rushing into the hole will always concentrate at the rear of the TMIC as pressure dictates that it will. By splitting the air and making it go where you want, you get a more even flow across the rad fins.
Also tilt the TMIC, with spacers between the intercooler and the bracket, rather more so that the air can flow through easier rather than having to turn through 90 degrees to get into the rad. Also make sure that the fins on the rad are open, as people have a habit of jet washing through the intercooler scoop and flattening the ends of the fins over so no air can get through anyway..............A toothpick will open out the flattened ones.
David APi
Along with things like wrapped exhaust/turbo etc it keeps the intercooler much cooler.
When queuing at events, I have my bonnet open, and the fan on, and then when the bonnet gets closed, I use the intercooler spray.
Seems to do the trick, and as Shaun says, every little helps!
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,430
Likes: 1
From: Away from this place
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,377
Likes: 3
From: @Junc 12, M40 Warwicksh; 01926 614522 CV33 9PL -Use 9GX for Satnav. South Mids Alcatek ECu dealer
have you seen how big he is 
Scooby Regular
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 11,440
Likes: 54
I agree with this, i.e. the IAT compensation tables of the ECU are based on the IAT at the MAF which when sitting stationary in traffic for long can reach 60C.
(I have seen it reaching 68C in start stop traffic with ambient 30C!)
So although the ECU will reduce ingnition advance at MAF IAT temperatures of 50C or above (IIRC last time I looked at a USDM map), with colder air post I/C there are less chances of detonation.
Of course as you said though if the engine is calibrated properly there should be no worry with the TMIC but a FMIC would give a little extra safety margin IMHO.
If anyone has fitted a thermocouple in the exit of the I/C and has done some measurements when sitting in traffic and when starting moving, I would like to see the data to understand more and solve our queries
(I have seen it reaching 68C in start stop traffic with ambient 30C!)
So although the ECU will reduce ingnition advance at MAF IAT temperatures of 50C or above (IIRC last time I looked at a USDM map), with colder air post I/C there are less chances of detonation.
Of course as you said though if the engine is calibrated properly there should be no worry with the TMIC but a FMIC would give a little extra safety margin IMHO.
If anyone has fitted a thermocouple in the exit of the I/C and has done some measurements when sitting in traffic and when starting moving, I would like to see the data to understand more and solve our queries
An old thread from back in 2003 gives some usefull info on the earlier cars, including some info on how even a FMIC will heat soak doing events like TOTB. https://www.scoobynet.com/drivetrain...knocklink.html
Subaru Tuning Specialist
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 6,654
Likes: 1
From: 7.74 @179 mph 1/4 mile - road legal
That's news to me... Andy told me specifically (and I quote) "I have ran my spec C up to approx 500bhp on the std intercooler." and the TMIC on my car (JDM STI) is the same size as the one on my previous SPEC C.... in fact my JDM Hawkeye version is actually supposed to be more efficient.
cheers
Andy.
ps Still loving my TMIC
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,619
Likes: 24
From: 5 beats 4 - RS3 Rulez!!!
lol @ Andy.... interesting about the TMIC change on the DBW cars. I never knew that. Another reason to owning a 2ltr JDM then.
Mapping Session of Billet LM450 at Tracktive Solutions
I'm going to start this "bit" by being 100% honest with you all.....
In all honesty I was expecting this specific part to leave me short changed (keeping the OEM airbox and TMIC).
My biggest concern was the OEM airbox and questions over the TMIC and turbo combination.
I really was expecting the worse..... to the point that I was starting to regret moving to this bigger turbo. Part of this was to do with others feedback and comments (if I'm being totally honest again).
Anyway..... just thought it prudent to make my gut feelings abundantly clear, however it was never going to change what I wanted to test and learn more about.
Apprehensively I arrived at Tracktive Solutions. Rich got the kettle on and started to prep the car for the road mapping session. Fitted all his "stuff" (det cans, laptop, wideband lambda sensor etc) and we set off.
I just want to clear about what has been changed on the car since the Billet LM400:
SFS turbo inlet pipe (still 56mm)
SFS turbo inlet pipe to OEM Airbox pipe
Billet (2nd generation) LM450
Fuel is STILL only VPower
Certainly by my expectations the mapping went nothing short of oustanding well.
The Billet LM450 required more fuelling over the previous Billet LM400 map, which is not surprising considering the fact that the Billet LM450 flows more air with its bigger compressor and exhaust wheels.
All things being equal this should equate to more power.
The ignition map was increased by +4degs of ignition throughout the rev range (that includes the top end!), apart from around 4800rpm (it was slightly less than +4degs).
All things being equal this should equate to more power.
The turbo easily allowed more boost at the top end, to the point that (even with the extra ignition) the engine was taking an extra .2 bar of boost at the top end. The Billet LM400 was achieving 1.32bar at peak power rpm to the redline. The Billet LM450 was acheiving 1.52bar at expected peak power rpm and to the redline. This was without "pushing" the turbo. Any more boost on the previous Billet LM400 was really starting to push the turbo and the engine would reduce ignition at the same point with more boost. The Billet LM450 just "sucked" it up!
All things being equal this should equate to more power.
When you consider that the Billet LM450 has a bigger core, this .2bar increase should be fairly substantial (all things considered), as .2bar on a larger wheel is more airflow than .2bar on a smaller wheel (in comparison) AND it took the extra ignition on top!
It takes a lot for Richard to be impressed, but based on his experience on how much ignition at certain load points a good 2ltr Impreza engine takes on similar sized turbos, he said my current set-up was 3degs over what he would expect. He was very surprised.
His conclusion was that the turbo seems very efficient and everything else is working very well.
The ECU was loving it and at no point did Richard have to retard ignition during this part of the mapping. Det cans were as clean as a whistle (to back that up). Based on his experience (and also things were getting a tad warm), he suggested we stopped there. I asked him if he could try another +1deg of ignition and he said he would be amazed if it would of taken it..... we called it a day! lol
Next was to set-up the low boost map and all the in-gear MegaROM stuff.
A mapper would be able to appreciate the information above and what it potentially means. I certainly had a smile on my face.
Based on how the mapping session went and the results gained, I wouldn't say we appeared to have much of a restriction with the standard airbox!
Whilst I haven't got a ACT sensor fitted, the TMIC appeared to cope really well (as we did a lot of back to back full throttle runs in 4th). We certainly didn't get any DET or ECU ignition retard "correction".
Considering the increases to turbo size, boost and ignition I think we should be pleased with that one!
Whilst I couldn't of asked for a better mapping session, I do need to log and compare data and road dyno runs. I plan to start this process off tonight.
Driving back home.....
The response of the Billet LM450 is nothing short of outstanding in my book. It really does work. It just feels really sharp and not much different (if any) to the Billet LM400. But this is response.... not spool.
On the way home I did try some acceleration pulls in 6th from 1800rpm to compare spool.
Let's put this into context first.....
Mel's car (which I test drove a few months back - 2ltr Hawkeye JDM Spec C) has the original non-billet LM450 fitted, which FMIC, Induction Kit & SIMTEK. His set-up achieves 1bar at 3500rpm.
My car with the OE TMIC, OE Airbox, OE ECU and Billet LM450 hit's 1bar in 6th at 3100rpm!
That is some difference.
I sent a text to Iain Litchfield and he said "WOW".
Again... all this adds up to some pretty impressive results I would suggest.
How this all transposes to road dyno data, we will find out later..... but it certainly feels quick to me.
As soon as I get some comparison data I will share it with you all.
However... I'm fairly happy with what has been found thus far.
Huge thanks to Tracktive Solutions as always.
Another reason to owning a 2ltr JDM then. Mapping Session of Billet LM450 at Tracktive Solutions
I'm going to start this "bit" by being 100% honest with you all.....
In all honesty I was expecting this specific part to leave me short changed (keeping the OEM airbox and TMIC).
My biggest concern was the OEM airbox and questions over the TMIC and turbo combination.
I really was expecting the worse..... to the point that I was starting to regret moving to this bigger turbo. Part of this was to do with others feedback and comments (if I'm being totally honest again).
Anyway..... just thought it prudent to make my gut feelings abundantly clear, however it was never going to change what I wanted to test and learn more about.
Apprehensively I arrived at Tracktive Solutions. Rich got the kettle on and started to prep the car for the road mapping session. Fitted all his "stuff" (det cans, laptop, wideband lambda sensor etc) and we set off.
I just want to clear about what has been changed on the car since the Billet LM400:
SFS turbo inlet pipe (still 56mm)
SFS turbo inlet pipe to OEM Airbox pipe
Billet (2nd generation) LM450
Fuel is STILL only VPower
Certainly by my expectations the mapping went nothing short of oustanding well.
The Billet LM450 required more fuelling over the previous Billet LM400 map, which is not surprising considering the fact that the Billet LM450 flows more air with its bigger compressor and exhaust wheels.
All things being equal this should equate to more power.
The ignition map was increased by +4degs of ignition throughout the rev range (that includes the top end!), apart from around 4800rpm (it was slightly less than +4degs).
All things being equal this should equate to more power.
The turbo easily allowed more boost at the top end, to the point that (even with the extra ignition) the engine was taking an extra .2 bar of boost at the top end. The Billet LM400 was achieving 1.32bar at peak power rpm to the redline. The Billet LM450 was acheiving 1.52bar at expected peak power rpm and to the redline. This was without "pushing" the turbo. Any more boost on the previous Billet LM400 was really starting to push the turbo and the engine would reduce ignition at the same point with more boost. The Billet LM450 just "sucked" it up!
All things being equal this should equate to more power.
When you consider that the Billet LM450 has a bigger core, this .2bar increase should be fairly substantial (all things considered), as .2bar on a larger wheel is more airflow than .2bar on a smaller wheel (in comparison) AND it took the extra ignition on top!
It takes a lot for Richard to be impressed, but based on his experience on how much ignition at certain load points a good 2ltr Impreza engine takes on similar sized turbos, he said my current set-up was 3degs over what he would expect. He was very surprised.
His conclusion was that the turbo seems very efficient and everything else is working very well.
The ECU was loving it and at no point did Richard have to retard ignition during this part of the mapping. Det cans were as clean as a whistle (to back that up). Based on his experience (and also things were getting a tad warm), he suggested we stopped there. I asked him if he could try another +1deg of ignition and he said he would be amazed if it would of taken it..... we called it a day! lol
Next was to set-up the low boost map and all the in-gear MegaROM stuff.
A mapper would be able to appreciate the information above and what it potentially means. I certainly had a smile on my face.
Based on how the mapping session went and the results gained, I wouldn't say we appeared to have much of a restriction with the standard airbox!
Whilst I haven't got a ACT sensor fitted, the TMIC appeared to cope really well (as we did a lot of back to back full throttle runs in 4th). We certainly didn't get any DET or ECU ignition retard "correction".
Considering the increases to turbo size, boost and ignition I think we should be pleased with that one!
Whilst I couldn't of asked for a better mapping session, I do need to log and compare data and road dyno runs. I plan to start this process off tonight.
Driving back home.....
The response of the Billet LM450 is nothing short of outstanding in my book. It really does work. It just feels really sharp and not much different (if any) to the Billet LM400. But this is response.... not spool.
On the way home I did try some acceleration pulls in 6th from 1800rpm to compare spool.
Let's put this into context first.....
Mel's car (which I test drove a few months back - 2ltr Hawkeye JDM Spec C) has the original non-billet LM450 fitted, which FMIC, Induction Kit & SIMTEK. His set-up achieves 1bar at 3500rpm.
My car with the OE TMIC, OE Airbox, OE ECU and Billet LM450 hit's 1bar in 6th at 3100rpm!
That is some difference.
I sent a text to Iain Litchfield and he said "WOW".
Again... all this adds up to some pretty impressive results I would suggest.
How this all transposes to road dyno data, we will find out later..... but it certainly feels quick to me.
As soon as I get some comparison data I will share it with you all.
However... I'm fairly happy with what has been found thus far.
Huge thanks to Tracktive Solutions as always.
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,619
Likes: 24
From: 5 beats 4 - RS3 Rulez!!!
Right.... just been out tonight and my gut feeling was right to a degree.
There has been an increase in power and airflow (grammes per second). BHP is up by 15bhp and airflow is up by 16gs. So this all makes sense between road dyno and the logs.
Nothing to gain from me bull****ting about this as it won't do anyone any good.
It's not all bad news, but further work will now need to be done.
I will have a chat with Tracktive and Litchfield, but I suspect this will now need inlet and intercooler changes.
2+2 doesn't always add up to 4.
I feel a run back on the rolling road is not worth it, as the g/s is not telling me anything different (as in descrepencies in the Road Dyno figure). Acceleration figures are also suggesting the current Road Dyno figures are realistic for the state of tune (minor increase at the faster speeds and minor decrease at lower speeds).
Without doubt the turbo shows real potential.... I just need to unleash it.
Immy,
Spool appears to be about 300rpm behind the LM400.... no great issues tbh and a lot better than the previous LM450, by a long shot. It appears my set-up is performing as the old LM420 did (BHP wise), but whilst retaining the OE airbox and TMIC to achieve the same kind of figures.
Further work needs to be done now.
There has been an increase in power and airflow (grammes per second). BHP is up by 15bhp and airflow is up by 16gs. So this all makes sense between road dyno and the logs.
Nothing to gain from me bull****ting about this as it won't do anyone any good.
It's not all bad news, but further work will now need to be done.
I will have a chat with Tracktive and Litchfield, but I suspect this will now need inlet and intercooler changes.
2+2 doesn't always add up to 4.
I feel a run back on the rolling road is not worth it, as the g/s is not telling me anything different (as in descrepencies in the Road Dyno figure). Acceleration figures are also suggesting the current Road Dyno figures are realistic for the state of tune (minor increase at the faster speeds and minor decrease at lower speeds).
Without doubt the turbo shows real potential.... I just need to unleash it.
Immy,
Spool appears to be about 300rpm behind the LM400.... no great issues tbh and a lot better than the previous LM450, by a long shot. It appears my set-up is performing as the old LM420 did (BHP wise), but whilst retaining the OE airbox and TMIC to achieve the same kind of figures.
Further work needs to be done now.
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,619
Likes: 24
From: 5 beats 4 - RS3 Rulez!!!
Fpan,
First off peak power has been shifted about 500rpm up the rev band over the LM400. Road Dyno shows the peak power now at 7k rpm. Peak torque has shifted about 100rpm up the rev band over the LM400 (peak torque at 4500 now, it was 4400). These figures are quite encouraging to be honest, as we do have increases in outright power and torque anyhow.
Acceleration figures against the Billet LM400 show the Billet LM450 is:
40-60mph = .1 slower
50-70mph = same
60-80mph = .1 faster
70-90mph = .1 faster
80-100mph = .1 faster
First off peak power has been shifted about 500rpm up the rev band over the LM400. Road Dyno shows the peak power now at 7k rpm. Peak torque has shifted about 100rpm up the rev band over the LM400 (peak torque at 4500 now, it was 4400). These figures are quite encouraging to be honest, as we do have increases in outright power and torque anyhow.
Acceleration figures against the Billet LM400 show the Billet LM450 is:
40-60mph = .1 slower
50-70mph = same
60-80mph = .1 faster
70-90mph = .1 faster
80-100mph = .1 faster
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,619
Likes: 24
From: 5 beats 4 - RS3 Rulez!!!
Just looking at the logs between last nights runs and previous runs earlier in the year...
Last nights runs were showing inlet air temps, some +9degs over other runs. I have found that increases in inlet temps cause torque to be decreased, so I can only assume it has a negative effect on BHP as well.
It's entirely probably that this is starting to point towards charge air temp increases effecting potential BHP.
Last nights runs were showing inlet air temps, some +9degs over other runs. I have found that increases in inlet temps cause torque to be decreased, so I can only assume it has a negative effect on BHP as well.
It's entirely probably that this is starting to point towards charge air temp increases effecting potential BHP.
OK, not really a noticeable difference (towards the worse) then.
The reason I asked (and have been sceptical) is that with all these huge turbos there is no point in sacrificing driveability and low end torque in order to have power at much higher rpm IMHO - for a road car/daily driver- but it seems this is not the case so far.
The reason I asked (and have been sceptical) is that with all these huge turbos there is no point in sacrificing driveability and low end torque in order to have power at much higher rpm IMHO - for a road car/daily driver- but it seems this is not the case so far.
Last edited by fpan; Aug 30, 2011 at 08:40 AM.
