TMIC what is the best??
19 June 2002, 09:48 AM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Emerald Isle
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the sti V intercooler significantly better than a standrad UK TMIC MY00? I personally dont want to go FMIC, 1) i wont be uprating boost that much and 2) my car spends d alot of time in the city so dody geezers parking with towbars could do alot of damage!!! (already have a wounded radiator)
Cheers
Cheers
Trending Topics
19 June 2002, 01:11 PM
#11
I'm wating for my new TMIC, a MRT one wich used to belong to
Trout
It will be fun to see the difference, but what I know about the MRT one is that it should be abele to flow ~375bhp.
I should be receiving it some time next week, so I let you now what I think of it
/Kvarnis
[Edited by Mr J, because bad spelling
[Edited by Mr J - 6/28/2002 4:35:38 PM]
Trout
It will be fun to see the difference, but what I know about the MRT one is that it should be abele to flow ~375bhp.
I should be receiving it some time next week, so I let you now what I think of it
/Kvarnis
[Edited by Mr J, because bad spelling
[Edited by Mr J - 6/28/2002 4:35:38 PM]
19 June 2002, 01:45 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 1,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
19 June 2002, 02:00 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 1,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
19 June 2002, 02:44 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Greece, previously Syd Australia
Posts: 2,833
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adam,
I too always thought the STI 5/6/MY00 were the same intercooler except for colour, but someone on here quite a while ago and I can't remember who, said that they were different internally. Can anyone else provide the correct info?
Cheers,
Wrexy.
I too always thought the STI 5/6/MY00 were the same intercooler except for colour, but someone on here quite a while ago and I can't remember who, said that they were different internally. Can anyone else provide the correct info?
Cheers,
Wrexy.
19 June 2002, 03:31 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 7,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
its possible the internals of the core have fewer turbulators I suppose.
Either way you can drastically improve on the version 5 sti top mount with an mrt top mounts, ask trotu as he did just that.
The fmic is a better idea still.
Either way you can drastically improve on the version 5 sti top mount with an mrt top mounts, ask trotu as he did just that.
The fmic is a better idea still.
19 June 2002, 03:58 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STiV TMIC Vs UK 99MY-00MY WRX TMIC
All I know is that the STiV TMIC come with cast ali y-piece and end port, STi hose connections and feels lighter in general.
I have been lead to believe that there is a reduced pressure loss across inlet to outlet (which is good!) and improved efficiency do to internal changes and material used. surface area remains the same due to packaging reasons, hence the reason why they look the same in size. However, I also believe that there are more fins populated within the STiV but that is probably just my dodgy eye sight
. Truth is, I am not sure if anyone really knows if there is any internal differences between them, but I know the STiV will enable better performance gains in both pressure loss and efficiency.
UK/WRX & STiV TMIC Vs MRT, BPM
From the look of these bigger MRT, BPM TMIC you would assume that bigger means better when holding side by side!
Tube and Fin designs (All Impreza TMIC, UK/WRX & STi!) are not as efficient as Bar & Plate designs (MRT, BPM), but
Bar & Plate design usually induce a greater pressure loss. To get round that, they improve the flow of the remaining intercooler, i.e. bigger end tank design but therefore increasing volume. Additionally, if improperly designed, this greater volume can induce more Turbo lag, i.e. more volume to fill up to obtain the same boost levels.
This does not really apply to the MRT design, even though it is greater in internal volume, it is designed in such a way as to give less pressure loss Vs STiV. MRT efficiencies are only slightly better VS STiV and that is only due to their greater surface area they have to further utilise. This can only be utilised however, if there is an improved air flow via top scoop.
All IMHO and is probably complete and utter B@ll@x!
Jacko.
Edited as I can't spell and didn't read it through properly
[Edited by DJNormski - 6/19/2002 4:06:49 PM]
All I know is that the STiV TMIC come with cast ali y-piece and end port, STi hose connections and feels lighter in general.
I have been lead to believe that there is a reduced pressure loss across inlet to outlet (which is good!) and improved efficiency do to internal changes and material used. surface area remains the same due to packaging reasons, hence the reason why they look the same in size. However, I also believe that there are more fins populated within the STiV but that is probably just my dodgy eye sight
. Truth is, I am not sure if anyone really knows if there is any internal differences between them, but I know the STiV will enable better performance gains in both pressure loss and efficiency.UK/WRX & STiV TMIC Vs MRT, BPM
From the look of these bigger MRT, BPM TMIC you would assume that bigger means better when holding side by side!
Tube and Fin designs (All Impreza TMIC, UK/WRX & STi!) are not as efficient as Bar & Plate designs (MRT, BPM), but
Bar & Plate design usually induce a greater pressure loss. To get round that, they improve the flow of the remaining intercooler, i.e. bigger end tank design but therefore increasing volume. Additionally, if improperly designed, this greater volume can induce more Turbo lag, i.e. more volume to fill up to obtain the same boost levels.
This does not really apply to the MRT design, even though it is greater in internal volume, it is designed in such a way as to give less pressure loss Vs STiV. MRT efficiencies are only slightly better VS STiV and that is only due to their greater surface area they have to further utilise. This can only be utilised however, if there is an improved air flow via top scoop.
All IMHO and is probably complete and utter B@ll@x!
Jacko.
Edited as I can't spell and didn't read it through properly
[Edited by DJNormski - 6/19/2002 4:06:49 PM]
20 June 2002, 01:10 AM
#19
Scooby Newbie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
I would not normally have come back here, as our bias is obvious.
Any seriously interested purchaser should be talking to Jamie at JW Racing, anyway.
However, the technical inaccuracies cannot just be ignored.
1. We use both bar/plate and tube/fin designs, depending upon application. Pressure drop is not a function of either manufacturing approach. It is a function of fin configuration. Correctly designed end tanks are irrelevant, in this calculation (please note: correctly designed)
2. The volume of the intercooler/ducting has no practical impact on “turbo lag”. This is a huge myth. Anyone who doubts me, just work out the volume of air consumed per second, by a WRX cruising at 30 mph. Then work out the volumes involved in the intercooler/ducting. (Remember it’s not an empty box). We are talking time frames no normal driver could ever appreciate.
Dave
APS
[Edited by APS - 6/21/2002 3:23:20 AM]
I would not normally have come back here, as our bias is obvious.
Any seriously interested purchaser should be talking to Jamie at JW Racing, anyway.
However, the technical inaccuracies cannot just be ignored.
1. We use both bar/plate and tube/fin designs, depending upon application. Pressure drop is not a function of either manufacturing approach. It is a function of fin configuration. Correctly designed end tanks are irrelevant, in this calculation (please note: correctly designed)
2. The volume of the intercooler/ducting has no practical impact on “turbo lag”. This is a huge myth. Anyone who doubts me, just work out the volume of air consumed per second, by a WRX cruising at 30 mph. Then work out the volumes involved in the intercooler/ducting. (Remember it’s not an empty box). We are talking time frames no normal driver could ever appreciate.
Dave
APS
[Edited by APS - 6/21/2002 3:23:20 AM]
20 June 2002, 12:19 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave, it is always good to hear references from companies that not only actually make, but additionally test their products!
So correct me if I wrong (which you obviously believe I am!) that there is not pressure difference when either using a Bar & Plate design Vs a Tube & Fin design??? I have read/seen evidence to suggest otherwise. I have also info that leads me to believe that TMIC fabricators do have a different end tank design Vs STi to compensate for this. If you don't think so, why are the APS/MRT/BPM end tanks MUCH larger than the STi items?
Additionally, I agree that the volume differences between TMIC has little if at all effect on spool up/lag. FMIC may impair depending upon pipe routing/design etc. My real comment here, was that the STi TMIC has ali y-peice ilo of a plastic convulted hose to enable more boost to be run (more robust!) and less turbulent flow into the TMIC. This must be a good thing, NO?
I am not scared to admit, that it IS possible to learn something new everyday, so please do not take this note the wrong way. Just working from experience and the knowledge of other petrol heads.
Jacko.
So correct me if I wrong (which you obviously believe I am!) that there is not pressure difference when either using a Bar & Plate design Vs a Tube & Fin design??? I have read/seen evidence to suggest otherwise. I have also info that leads me to believe that TMIC fabricators do have a different end tank design Vs STi to compensate for this. If you don't think so, why are the APS/MRT/BPM end tanks MUCH larger than the STi items?
Additionally, I agree that the volume differences between TMIC has little if at all effect on spool up/lag. FMIC may impair depending upon pipe routing/design etc. My real comment here, was that the STi TMIC has ali y-peice ilo of a plastic convulted hose to enable more boost to be run (more robust!) and less turbulent flow into the TMIC. This must be a good thing, NO?
I am not scared to admit, that it IS possible to learn something new everyday, so please do not take this note the wrong way. Just working from experience and the knowledge of other petrol heads.
Jacko.
20 June 2002, 07:59 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scoobywhite
"A FMIC is very expensive vs TMIC."
I don't understand that - a good TMIC might be around 15% cheaper than a good FMIC - not very much cheaper. Or is it something specific to Portugal?
I went the MRT route as I didn't want to do the surgery and the TMIC I used was second hand and it was very good - better perhaps than MRT gave credit for (as DJ Norm kindly pointed out - any relation to Fat Boy Slim)
Trout
"A FMIC is very expensive vs TMIC."
I don't understand that - a good TMIC might be around 15% cheaper than a good FMIC - not very much cheaper. Or is it something specific to Portugal?
I went the MRT route as I didn't want to do the surgery and the TMIC I used was second hand and it was very good - better perhaps than MRT gave credit for (as DJ Norm kindly pointed out - any relation to Fat Boy Slim
)Trout
21 June 2002, 05:11 AM
#22
Scooby Newbie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko,
1. Bar/plate v tube/fin pressure drops.
I can only repeat the obvious. You have a tube. (The internal charge air passageway of any heat exchanger core, irrespective of construction) The pressure drop along the tube is a function of massflow versus obstruction. IE internal fin design.
Absolutely nothing to do with the construction methodology.
2. End tank design should be a function of efficient charge air distribution across the available surface area of the core. Ours is.
3. The cast aluminum compressor discharge duct on the STI, replaces the plastic WRX piece, in the interests of component durability at the higher boost pressures of the former.
Dave
APS
1. Bar/plate v tube/fin pressure drops.
I can only repeat the obvious. You have a tube. (The internal charge air passageway of any heat exchanger core, irrespective of construction) The pressure drop along the tube is a function of massflow versus obstruction. IE internal fin design.
Absolutely nothing to do with the construction methodology.
2. End tank design should be a function of efficient charge air distribution across the available surface area of the core. Ours is.
3. The cast aluminum compressor discharge duct on the STI, replaces the plastic WRX piece, in the interests of component durability at the higher boost pressures of the former.
Dave
APS
28 June 2002, 04:47 PM
#23
Ok the TMIC is on...
My boost went up by 2-3Psi(Dawes set @ 16.5 now +19Psi) through the entire range
It just works great...And weights about double vs. the stock IC. at least!! it's very heavy.
I think Trout got 20bhp more on the RR then before with a STI V5 IC, and 2-3Psi in boost would be about that I guess
/Kvarnis
My boost went up by 2-3Psi(Dawes set @ 16.5 now +19Psi) through the entire range
It just works great...And weights about double vs. the stock IC. at least!! it's very heavy.
I think Trout got 20bhp more on the RR then before with a STI V5 IC, and 2-3Psi in boost would be about that I guess
/Kvarnis
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
28
28 December 2015 11:07 PM
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
12
18 November 2015 07:03 AM
hedgecutter
General Technical
3
25 September 2015 02:35 PM
