TMIC?
07 February 2008, 10:02 PM
#1
TMIC?
Evening all hoping to get a STI8 TMIC intercooler to fit my Classic Turbo 2000just after any opinions on if it can handle 400bhp ok and how easy it is to fit and any ideas on where I can source one from thanks in advance.
08 February 2008, 12:30 AM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMO you should fit a quality front mount at that hp goal but im sure someone else will be along to clarify whether you can go to 400 safely. I remember Andy F using a top mont at TOTB as they give less lag so i can see why you may want a top mount
08 February 2008, 09:01 AM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I couldn't tell you for sure how far you can go power wise but I know I've read allsorts from 400 to 450 bhp on an STI 8 TMIC.
As far as fitting etc it kind of depends on the age of your car....
I've just done the same and found this thread really useful! Thanks Carl Davey
It shows the job on a Phase 1.5 engine. If yours is phase 2 there is a link to someone elses thread which is equally helpful.
As far as fitting etc it kind of depends on the age of your car....
I've just done the same and found this thread really useful! Thanks Carl Davey
It shows the job on a Phase 1.5 engine. If yours is phase 2 there is a link to someone elses thread which is equally helpful.
08 February 2008, 10:01 AM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: N. Ireland
Posts: 874
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting my car mapped by Andy Forest next week and I actually asked him more or less the same question..... and this was his answer.... "he told me not to waste my money as he was running his own car at 450bhp on the standard TMIC. I took his advice but its up to you mate. Seems like unless your going for big power its simply a waste.... looks good.... but performance wise a waste !!!
Hope this helps !
Ricky !
Hope this helps !
Ricky !
08 February 2008, 10:05 AM
#7
Scooby Regular
well theres only ever been one true back to back test, and guess what it showed,,,,,,
yep front mout wins hands down, the top of the engine is a crap place for a intercooler
yep front mout wins hands down, the top of the engine is a crap place for a intercooler
Trending Topics
08 February 2008, 10:28 AM
#8
Secondly, it's a well known fact that compared to FMIC, RRs have great difficult simulating the airflow that a TMIC needs to work efficiently; the differences on the open road (where you drive) are likely to be less.
Thirdly, I had a TMIC in my 03 STI and fitted a FMIC. The driveability became crap - the in-gear lag made it a slower gear through the gears on the road. I've now reverted back to a TMIC and am running around 420bhp courtesy of an MD321H and methanol. There no issue with charge intake temperatures and the throttle response is lightening quick. Far, far better to drive
08 February 2008, 10:33 AM
#9
Scooby Regular
If it's that crappy Japanese Performance mag article test (or should that be advertorial) conducted at Scoobyclinic you're referring to, they compared a FMIC with the vastly inferior earlier TMIC, so hardly surprising results. The STI8 TMIC is far better proposition and had they used this, the results would have been different.
Secondly, it's a well known fact that compared to FMIC, RRs have great difficult simulating the airflow that a TMIC needs to work efficiently; the differences on the open road (where you drive) are likely to be less.
Thirdly, I had a TMIC in my 03 STI and fitted a FMIC. The driveability became crap - the in-gear lag made it a slower gear through the gears on the road. I've now reverted back to a TMIC and am running around 420bhp courtesy of an MD321H and methanol. There no issue with charge intake temperatures and the throttle response is lightening quick. Far, far better to drive
Secondly, it's a well known fact that compared to FMIC, RRs have great difficult simulating the airflow that a TMIC needs to work efficiently; the differences on the open road (where you drive) are likely to be less.
Thirdly, I had a TMIC in my 03 STI and fitted a FMIC. The driveability became crap - the in-gear lag made it a slower gear through the gears on the road. I've now reverted back to a TMIC and am running around 420bhp courtesy of an MD321H and methanol. There no issue with charge intake temperatures and the throttle response is lightening quick. Far, far better to drive
i've had the front mount on mine and not getting lag issues at all, and from what i understand it tends to be compatability issues rather than lag issues.
08 February 2008, 10:40 AM
#10
I thought it was the Classic TMIC - maybe someone else can clear that up? I have the Hyperflow TMIC now and it's certainly man enough for the job at 420bhp, although granted if the car were mainly used for trackdays, I might have stuck with a FMIC. The throttle response though with TMIC is lightening quick - I may have lost a few bhp compared to a good FMIC, but the driveability is so good on the open road
08 February 2008, 10:44 AM
#11
Scooby Regular
nope, they tested a new age (blob eye) wrx top mount, a cheap ebay one, a hyperflow uprated top mount and once of scoobyclinics front mounts.
was tested on a blobeye wrx, back to back all the mapping was done by pat herborn.
a friend of mine is running 450/480ftlb on his 22b, and even he admits that on hot days it suffers, he only stayed with the top mount ot keep from cutting up his origional 22b front bumper
was tested on a blobeye wrx, back to back all the mapping was done by pat herborn.
a friend of mine is running 450/480ftlb on his 22b, and even he admits that on hot days it suffers, he only stayed with the top mount ot keep from cutting up his origional 22b front bumper
08 February 2008, 10:58 AM
#13
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
actually i think you'll find they tested it against an uprated hyperflow top mount, which is suposed to be better than the sti8 one, although by no means as cheap.
i've had the front mount on mine and not getting lag issues at all, and from what i understand it tends to be compatability issues rather than lag issues.
i've had the front mount on mine and not getting lag issues at all, and from what i understand it tends to be compatability issues rather than lag issues.
An FMIC looks cool, but does require bumper butchery!
Is the best at keeping temps down
Solves heatsoak and stationary temp rise issues etc...
The lag issue is hotly deabted on here, some say it's an SN myth, others have said it was intolerable for them. I think the differences in opinion can be accounted for by discrepancies in how the FMIC works as a package with the user's other mods; well integrated and mapped, I'm betting there will be very little difference in lag. At least, that's what I've been told and am hoping for!
Ns04
Last edited by New_scooby_04; 08 February 2008 at 02:10 PM.
08 February 2008, 11:03 AM
#14
Scooby Regular
sorry, dont get me wrong, the conditions on the rr wont be exactly the same as on the road, that bit i do agree with, however the main difference will be airflow quantity, so although the differences will highlighted and magnified, but it doe show them.
08 February 2008, 11:04 AM
#15
Scooby Regular
I'
The lag issue is hotly deabted on here, some say it's an SN myth, others have said it was intolerable for them. I think the differences in opinion can be accounted for by how discrepancies in how the FMIC works as a package with the user's other mods; well integrated and mapped, I'm betting there will be very little difference in lag. At least, that's what I've been told and am hoping for!
Ns04
The lag issue is hotly deabted on here, some say it's an SN myth, others have said it was intolerable for them. I think the differences in opinion can be accounted for by how discrepancies in how the FMIC works as a package with the user's other mods; well integrated and mapped, I'm betting there will be very little difference in lag. At least, that's what I've been told and am hoping for!
Ns04
08 February 2008, 11:09 AM
#16
Agree that the argument for a FMIC is more compelling on a Classic. But on a Newage, it's a very expensive way to gain very little (if anything) unless you're going for really big power. I had my FMIC mapped by both AndyF and Bob Rawle, two of the very best mappers in the country and neither could do anything to map out the in-gear lag the the FMIC introduced (that was a Hybrid FMIC BTW).
Last edited by lunar tick; 08 February 2008 at 11:11 AM.
08 February 2008, 11:13 AM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: 392/361 MY04 STi
Posts: 7,638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree that the argument for a FMIC is more compelling on a Classic. But on a Newage, it's a very expensive way to gain very little (if anything) unless you're going for really big power. I had my FMIC mapped by both AndyF and Bob Rawle, two of the very best mappers in the country and neither could do anything to map out the in-gear lag the the FMIC introduced (that was a Hybrid FMIC BTW).
08 February 2008, 11:49 AM
#18
Some good balanced response. As already mentioned, STi8 TMIC are not a direct fit and need a bit of work/bits to make it fit/work.
Mine running 340/340 on a 2000 UK was ok on a STi8 TMIC.
If going for 400bhp and starting again I would fit a FMIC.
Bob
Mine running 340/340 on a 2000 UK was ok on a STi8 TMIC.
If going for 400bhp and starting again I would fit a FMIC.
Bob
08 February 2008, 01:11 PM
#19
Thanks for the replys all seems we are split was thinking about the TMIC STI8due to throttle response and cost but the heatsoak factor does worry me a bit also when cutting the bumper to make a FMIC fit does it not interfere with the integrity of the car? in regards to the throttle response you get when having a FMIC fitted am I right in saying that this isn't a issue as long as she is mapped right.
08 February 2008, 01:19 PM
#20
No matter how good the mapping, you will lose some throttle response with a FMIC - it's the simple laws of physics (although good mapping can help ameliorate these losses). How important this is to you seems to be quite a personal thing as the mixed views on here demonstrate.
I had to cut my front bumper bar to get the FMIC. When I then replaced the FMIC with a TMIC, the first thing I did was to find another bumper bar and bolt it straight back on (Subaru put them on for a reason). Having said that, I think there are one or two FMIC kits that don't require bumper butchery
I had to cut my front bumper bar to get the FMIC. When I then replaced the FMIC with a TMIC, the first thing I did was to find another bumper bar and bolt it straight back on (Subaru put them on for a reason). Having said that, I think there are one or two FMIC kits that don't require bumper butchery
08 February 2008, 01:26 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
No matter how good the mapping, you will lose some throttle response with a FMIC - it's the simple laws of physics (although good mapping can help ameliorate these losses). How important this is to you seems to be quite a personal thing as the mixed views on here demonstrate.
I had to cut my front bumper bar to get the FMIC. When I then replaced the FMIC with a TMIC, the first thing I did was to find another bumper bar and bolt it straight back on (Subaru put them on for a reason). Having said that, I think there are one or two FMIC kits that don't require bumper butchery
I had to cut my front bumper bar to get the FMIC. When I then replaced the FMIC with a TMIC, the first thing I did was to find another bumper bar and bolt it straight back on (Subaru put them on for a reason). Having said that, I think there are one or two FMIC kits that don't require bumper butchery
don't quite get that, if you wann looka t flow rates and the volume of the front mount the increase is tiny, and thats where you arguements falls down.
the problem as i've had it explained to me, is an incompatability between the front mount and the maf sensor, which causes the ecu to delay for a split second before deciding what to do, if you remove the incompatability then you wont get the issue, simple as.
tbh its an argument you can go on having all day, i stand by the fact theres only been one back to back test, however even the top mappers/tuners can't decided what the out come is, so do you want to make it up your self or go on the test out there?
08 February 2008, 01:39 PM
#22
don't quite get that, if you wann looka t flow rates and the volume of the front mount the increase is tiny, and thats where you arguements falls down.
the problem as i've had it explained to me, is an incompatability between the front mount and the maf sensor, which causes the ecu to delay for a split second before deciding what to do, if you remove the incompatability then you wont get the issue, simple as.
tbh its an argument you can go on having all day, i stand by the fact theres only been one back to back test, however even the top mappers/tuners can't decided what the out come is, so do you want to make it up your self or go on the test out there?
the problem as i've had it explained to me, is an incompatability between the front mount and the maf sensor, which causes the ecu to delay for a split second before deciding what to do, if you remove the incompatability then you wont get the issue, simple as.
tbh its an argument you can go on having all day, i stand by the fact theres only been one back to back test, however even the top mappers/tuners can't decided what the out come is, so do you want to make it up your self or go on the test out there?
I've nothing more to add here except for the fact that I've actually had both in my car and preferred the driveability I regained when I returned to a TMIC despite the fact I may have lost a few bhp in peak power by doing so. Installing then removing the FMIC was expensive, but for me, it was the right thing to do
08 February 2008, 02:15 PM
#24
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't think it's the front mount itself - more the 10ft odd of pipework that comes with it.
I've nothing more to add here except for the fact that I've actually had both in my car and preferred the driveability I regained when I returned to a TMIC despite the fact I may have lost a few bhp in peak power by doing so. Installing then removing the FMIC was expensive, but for me, it was the right thing to do
I've nothing more to add here except for the fact that I've actually had both in my car and preferred the driveability I regained when I returned to a TMIC despite the fact I may have lost a few bhp in peak power by doing so. Installing then removing the FMIC was expensive, but for me, it was the right thing to do
Did you try running without the dump valve Lunar?
David and Bob have suggested ditching it with my FMIC. Might help with the lag between changes?
TBH I'd do it just for the "squirrel munching" sound the resultant turbo stall makes, as J Clarkson put it. I like to think of them as chipmunks though.
Ns " Alvin, Simon, Theodore.......Theodore???? Nooooooooo!" 04
08 February 2008, 02:40 PM
#25
No - didn't try without DV. It could have helped I guess. I agree that the squirrel sounds you get without DV on each gear change are extremely cool 
and if I was running a TD series turbo, I'd throw my existing OEM DV in the bin straightaway!
and if I was running a TD series turbo, I'd throw my existing OEM DV in the bin straightaway!
08 February 2008, 03:50 PM
#28
the problem as i've had it explained to me, is an incompatability between the front mount and the maf sensor, which causes the ecu to delay for a split second before deciding what to do, if you remove the incompatability then you wont get the issue, simple as.
So Tidgy am I right in saying (as your quote above) if I get a Simtek remap to go with the FMIC hence the MAF being removed lag should be less
So Tidgy am I right in saying (as your quote above) if I get a Simtek remap to go with the FMIC hence the MAF being removed lag should be less
08 February 2008, 04:18 PM
#29
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the problem as i've had it explained to me, is an incompatability between the front mount and the maf sensor, which causes the ecu to delay for a split second before deciding what to do, if you remove the incompatability then you wont get the issue, simple as.
So Tidgy am I right in saying (as your quote above) if I get a Simtek remap to go with the FMIC hence the MAF being removed lag should be less
So Tidgy am I right in saying (as your quote above) if I get a Simtek remap to go with the FMIC hence the MAF being removed lag should be less
Might be worth asking your mapper if it's ok to loose the Dv that should help
Much cheaper than a new ECU! ns04
08 February 2008, 04:31 PM
#30
I had a hyperflow top mount before changing to fmic. Yes, i felt that i did
loose a little throttle response but after fitting a light weight flywheel it seemed to of improved things and feels no different to me. As for lag with a fmic, in my OPINION complete twoddle. One thing i did really notice from changing to a frontmount was on hot sunny days it didn't no way near affect the performance of the car in comparison to the topmount. But i do a lot of sitting at traffic lights, holiday traffic etc in the summer months, so the frontmount suited me. I always thought fitting a front mount was for safety NOT performance.
loose a little throttle response but after fitting a light weight flywheel it seemed to of improved things and feels no different to me. As for lag with a fmic, in my OPINION complete twoddle. One thing i did really notice from changing to a frontmount was on hot sunny days it didn't no way near affect the performance of the car in comparison to the topmount. But i do a lot of sitting at traffic lights, holiday traffic etc in the summer months, so the frontmount suited me. I always thought fitting a front mount was for safety NOT performance.