Top Mount?
#1
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Top Mount?
Would an upgraded top mount IC be feasible/worth it on Fc's? I've heard that getting a front mount increases lag perceptively, so wouldnt the upgraded top mount both keep lag down while improving performance? (and would it even fit?)
#2
Rotorhead
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
Posts: 9,136
Likes: 0
Received 39 Likes
on
33 Posts
I don't think a top mount is worth it because there really isn't much room for a significantly larger intercooler, and the airflow through the hood scoop isn't very good.
An FMIC in itself doesn't necesarily increase lag. However, lag will increase with an increase in the volume of the intercooler and piping. Pressure drop due to piping bends or other restrictions will also increase lag since the turbo will need to spin faster to produce the same boost at the manifold, and it takes a little more time for the turbo to spin faster. This is why it is important do try and reduce the amount of bends in the piping, and also to research intercoolers so that you don't use one with a lot of pressure drop at your estimated airflow and boost levels.
An FMIC in itself doesn't necesarily increase lag. However, lag will increase with an increase in the volume of the intercooler and piping. Pressure drop due to piping bends or other restrictions will also increase lag since the turbo will need to spin faster to produce the same boost at the manifold, and it takes a little more time for the turbo to spin faster. This is why it is important do try and reduce the amount of bends in the piping, and also to research intercoolers so that you don't use one with a lot of pressure drop at your estimated airflow and boost levels.
#3
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
iTrader: (1)
Yeah, theres a point where topmounts just blow, even the big ones.
You ever seen the air flow sheet for the FC3S? The hood scoop is garbage, it's really not that efficient. Maybe a cowl, or vent would be better
But FMIC is best for heat exchanging, and just make sure your intercooler piping is properly sized (not way too big, or too small). And make sure it's a good FMIC (although most will be fine, some are more efficient than others)
You ever seen the air flow sheet for the FC3S? The hood scoop is garbage, it's really not that efficient. Maybe a cowl, or vent would be better
But FMIC is best for heat exchanging, and just make sure your intercooler piping is properly sized (not way too big, or too small). And make sure it's a good FMIC (although most will be fine, some are more efficient than others)
#4
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Madison, AL
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the neatest IC setups for the 2nd gen that I've seen was an HKS air to water IC that kept the intake air heat exchanger in ths stock location and had the heat expulsion exchanger mounted in front. Looked like the best of both worlds. Air to water heat exchangers are generally far more efficient than air to air given they take up the same volume.
I saw that set-up in a magazine in '87 and have never seen one since.
I saw that set-up in a magazine in '87 and have never seen one since.
#5
Rotorhead
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
Posts: 9,136
Likes: 0
Received 39 Likes
on
33 Posts
Originally posted by rx914
One of the neatest IC setups for the 2nd gen that I've seen was an HKS air to water IC that kept the intake air heat exchanger in ths stock location and had the heat expulsion exchanger mounted in front. Looked like the best of both worlds. Air to water heat exchangers are generally far more efficient than air to air given they take up the same volume.
I saw that set-up in a magazine in '87 and have never seen one since.
One of the neatest IC setups for the 2nd gen that I've seen was an HKS air to water IC that kept the intake air heat exchanger in ths stock location and had the heat expulsion exchanger mounted in front. Looked like the best of both worlds. Air to water heat exchangers are generally far more efficient than air to air given they take up the same volume.
I saw that set-up in a magazine in '87 and have never seen one since.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
CaptainKRM
2nd Generation Specific (1986-1992)
14
08-26-15 09:52 PM