Aftermarkit FMIC weights vs stock
Mar 12, 2009, 02:23 PM
#47
Mar 12, 2009, 03:09 PM
#48
Evolved Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: CAN
Posts: 1,366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn`t asked anyone to compare dyno figures, it was a FYI only. How you interpret the data is up to you.
Not sure what your concern is regarding the dyno, as the numbers seem reasonable to me: stock baseline - 249whp, w/ ARC intercooler - 276.6whp.
JDM Evo X has 300hp at the crank so the peak values maybe a little optimistic, but I could count on the relative gains as reference.
Now if you still have concern regarding the accuracy of the dyno, write to ARC Japan and question them about it, this graph is pulled from their in-house dyno on Evo X.
Yes 1-2whp may offset the weight differences in terms of acceleration, but putting extra 15lbs dead weight at the FURTHEST front part of the car WILL affect weight distribution. Whether this is of concern again it`s up to you, there are always things like CF hood to offset the weight differences, right?
Not sure what your concern is regarding the dyno, as the numbers seem reasonable to me: stock baseline - 249whp, w/ ARC intercooler - 276.6whp.
JDM Evo X has 300hp at the crank so the peak values maybe a little optimistic, but I could count on the relative gains as reference.
Now if you still have concern regarding the accuracy of the dyno, write to ARC Japan and question them about it, this graph is pulled from their in-house dyno on Evo X.
Yes 1-2whp may offset the weight differences in terms of acceleration, but putting extra 15lbs dead weight at the FURTHEST front part of the car WILL affect weight distribution. Whether this is of concern again it`s up to you, there are always things like CF hood to offset the weight differences, right?
Just curious how to read that dyno chart you posted, unless all the intercoolers are compared on the same dyno with the same calibration, it's really hard to pin down 27.5 whp as they all read different. I'm sure it's comparable to the better aftermarket ones we have in the US that are heavier but those graphs don't look like they are the right shape for coming off an Evo X. As for the weight difference I spose it only has to be within 1-2 whp which will be really hard to measure run to run, pretty much splitting hairs at that point.
Mar 13, 2009, 09:52 AM
#50
Evolved Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: CAN
Posts: 1,366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to mention Mitsubishi purposely relocated the battery and windshield fluid to the back for optimizing weight distribution, further weight reduction was treated in the front by using aluminum hood and fenders. Ideally it would be the BEST to maintain this perfectly balanced setup, whether you care or not is again personal preference 
Last edited by LVSBB6; Mar 13, 2009 at 10:01 AM.
Mar 14, 2009, 07:09 AM
#52
Evolved Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 1,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn`t asked anyone to compare dyno figures, it was a FYI only. How you interpret the data is up to you.
Not sure what your concern is regarding the dyno, as the numbers seem reasonable to me: stock baseline - 249whp, w/ ARC intercooler - 276.6whp.
JDM Evo X has 300hp at the crank so the peak values maybe a little optimistic, but I could count on the relative gains as reference.
Now if you still have concern regarding the accuracy of the dyno, write to ARC Japan and question them about it, this graph is pulled from their in-house dyno on Evo X.
Yes 1-2whp may offset the weight differences in terms of acceleration, but putting extra 15lbs dead weight at the FURTHEST front part of the car WILL affect weight distribution. Whether this is of concern again it`s up to you, there are always things like CF hood to offset the weight differences, right?
Not sure what your concern is regarding the dyno, as the numbers seem reasonable to me: stock baseline - 249whp, w/ ARC intercooler - 276.6whp.
JDM Evo X has 300hp at the crank so the peak values maybe a little optimistic, but I could count on the relative gains as reference.
Now if you still have concern regarding the accuracy of the dyno, write to ARC Japan and question them about it, this graph is pulled from their in-house dyno on Evo X.
Yes 1-2whp may offset the weight differences in terms of acceleration, but putting extra 15lbs dead weight at the FURTHEST front part of the car WILL affect weight distribution. Whether this is of concern again it`s up to you, there are always things like CF hood to offset the weight differences, right?
Later, Ken
Mar 14, 2009, 09:51 AM
#54
Evolving Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, but it is a lot closer than the CT9A. Mitsubishi worked hard on that aspect of the car and I would rather make it better than worse.
I purchased a Perrin Stealth FMIC and I have yet to even open the box due to the weight penalty that I am not willing to pay. So I will be sticking with the stock FMIC for now and probably offloading the Perrin.
I purchased a Perrin Stealth FMIC and I have yet to even open the box due to the weight penalty that I am not willing to pay. So I will be sticking with the stock FMIC for now and probably offloading the Perrin.
Mar 14, 2009, 10:08 AM
#55
Evolved Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: CAN
Posts: 1,366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before I ask about the accuracy of the numbers you got, who is Evogen? does he even EXIST on this forum? I tried running a search but no luck...
But you have pointed out an excellent fact. Size DOES NOT necessary equals power. HKS has a bigger volume size then most intercoolers available, but does it make the most power?.....NO!!! it only makes 10whp, thats odd isn't it!? It makes me wonder how other manufacturers came up with 20-25whp with their smaller intercooler so maybe there is more than just a size war when it comes to intercooler design?? and if a smaller I/C could make more power than HKS, why can't ARC do the same?
I won't comment on the ARC dyno figures again, its getting dry. Whether you believe it is up to your personal preference. But I found some interesting facts about their intercooler design:
1. The Fins are recessed to force air through more effectively
2. They have developed their own "micro" tubing that is unique in core design
3. Fins are also waved so that air hits every part of the fin, dissipating heat as its passing through.
There is no miracles here, just innovative engineering.
But you have pointed out an excellent fact. Size DOES NOT necessary equals power. HKS has a bigger volume size then most intercoolers available, but does it make the most power?.....NO!!! it only makes 10whp, thats odd isn't it!? It makes me wonder how other manufacturers came up with 20-25whp with their smaller intercooler
so maybe there is more than just a size war when it comes to intercooler design?? and if a smaller I/C could make more power than HKS, why can't ARC do the same?I won't comment on the ARC dyno figures again, its getting dry. Whether you believe it is up to your personal preference. But I found some interesting facts about their intercooler design:
1. The Fins are recessed to force air through more effectively
2. They have developed their own "micro" tubing that is unique in core design
3. Fins are also waved so that air hits every part of the fin, dissipating heat as its passing through.
There is no miracles here, just innovative engineering.
FWIW Evogen, EVOM member, recorded 8whp gain ( https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...rcooler-2.html) from his ARC FMIC so this figure is at odds with ARC's claimed>25 whp. In addition, it is unclear whether ARC's results were with or w/o hardpipes. HKS presented their data for the FMIC alone (10 whp) and then with pipes (another 10whp) yeilding 20 whp. So I will bet that ARC's numbers are with both FMIC and hard pipes coupled with a tune could yeild around this figure. In short, there are no miracles with the ARC unit or really "intercooler assembly"[my words].
Later, Ken
Later, Ken
Last edited by LVSBB6; Mar 14, 2009 at 10:24 AM.
Mar 14, 2009, 08:50 PM
#56
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ya I'm sure, look at the graph you posted...its PS not HP. An intercooler that is the same thickness as stock is not going to cool as well as the Buschur or AMS because it won't be able to support the same cfms. Also with regards to your "lack of r&d" comment...that's not the case at all on some of the intercoolers that require mounting modification. When your FMIC is 4"+ it's required because of the depth of it, there is no way to engineer around that without modifying the front bumper beams back. ~Trent
Mar 14, 2009, 09:35 PM
#57
Evolving Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dubai
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This dyno includes the ARC induction box + ARC intercooler, there is no ARC intercooler only dyno from ARC.
Baseline: 249.1 PS
ARC Induction Box: 268 PS
ARC Induction Box + Intercooler: 276.6
Intercooler gains: 8.6 PS
Source: ARC JP
Baseline: 249.1 PS
ARC Induction Box: 268 PS
ARC Induction Box + Intercooler: 276.6
Intercooler gains: 8.6 PS
Source: ARC JP
I didn`t asked anyone to compare dyno figures, it was a FYI only. How you interpret the data is up to you.
Not sure what your concern is regarding the dyno, as the numbers seem reasonable to me: stock baseline - 249whp, w/ ARC intercooler - 276.6whp.
JDM Evo X has 300hp at the crank so the peak values maybe a little optimistic, but I could count on the relative gains as reference.
Now if you still have concern regarding the accuracy of the dyno, write to ARC Japan and question them about it, this graph is pulled from their in-house dyno on Evo X.
Yes 1-2whp may offset the weight differences in terms of acceleration, but putting extra 15lbs dead weight at the FURTHEST front part of the car WILL affect weight distribution. Whether this is of concern again it`s up to you, there are always things like CF hood to offset the weight differences, right?
Not sure what your concern is regarding the dyno, as the numbers seem reasonable to me: stock baseline - 249whp, w/ ARC intercooler - 276.6whp.
JDM Evo X has 300hp at the crank so the peak values maybe a little optimistic, but I could count on the relative gains as reference.
Now if you still have concern regarding the accuracy of the dyno, write to ARC Japan and question them about it, this graph is pulled from their in-house dyno on Evo X.
Yes 1-2whp may offset the weight differences in terms of acceleration, but putting extra 15lbs dead weight at the FURTHEST front part of the car WILL affect weight distribution. Whether this is of concern again it`s up to you, there are always things like CF hood to offset the weight differences, right?
Last edited by seven_227; Mar 14, 2009 at 10:20 PM.
Mar 14, 2009, 09:39 PM
#58
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basically all the data you used to back up the ARC's power is worthless. It's using an additional part which contributes a lot of power to the equation. It is unquestionably lighter than the ams or buschur units...but...the power gains on those other units will more than make up for the difference in weight.
Last edited by SilverEvoX; Mar 14, 2009 at 10:08 PM.
Mar 15, 2009, 12:03 PM
#59
Evolved Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 1,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LVSBB6, One has to be cautious about performance claims provided by the manufacturer. They are obviously attempting to hype their product so you will buy it. This hype is easy to achieve by the test conditions and is one of the reasons it is difficult to assess the performance gains as well as compare one product to another. It is this reason that I gave you the results from EVOgen (he exists as per thread wherein I referenced his name) where he purchased and installed the ARC and gained 8whp. He had no "axe to grind" so this result is unbiased.
According to Edgar, which I cited in another thread earlier, (21st Century Performance) " Because an air/air intercooler uses ambient air as the cooling medium, an air/air intercooler cannot be too efficient- simply, the bigger the intercooler, the better. In fact, the maximum size of an air/air intercooler is normally dictated by the amount of space available at the front of the car and the size of your wallet, rather than any other factor". Now HKS makes the largest volume intercooler at 1018 cubic in.; ARC's is 577.5. HKS, on their website, claim a 10 whp, half of ARC's . Doesn't this make you question, just a little, ARC's claim of 25 whp? You would perhaps argue with, It is the fin design of ARC that overcomes the size difference and results in more than doubling of whp. If this were, in fact, true, then it is reasonable to expect HKS to have done same. In addition, according to Bell (website), manufacturer style (bar and plate vs tube and fin) are "essentially all the same ..." efficiency.
Finally, I leave you with a question given the above: Which FMIC would you buy, the HKS or ARC unit? They both cost ~the same.
Later, Ken
According to Edgar, which I cited in another thread earlier, (21st Century Performance) " Because an air/air intercooler uses ambient air as the cooling medium, an air/air intercooler cannot be too efficient- simply, the bigger the intercooler, the better. In fact, the maximum size of an air/air intercooler is normally dictated by the amount of space available at the front of the car and the size of your wallet, rather than any other factor". Now HKS makes the largest volume intercooler at 1018 cubic in.; ARC's is 577.5. HKS, on their website, claim a 10 whp, half of ARC's . Doesn't this make you question, just a little, ARC's claim of 25 whp? You would perhaps argue with, It is the fin design of ARC that overcomes the size difference and results in more than doubling of whp. If this were, in fact, true, then it is reasonable to expect HKS to have done same. In addition, according to Bell (website), manufacturer style (bar and plate vs tube and fin) are "essentially all the same ..." efficiency.
Finally, I leave you with a question given the above: Which FMIC would you buy, the HKS or ARC unit? They both cost ~the same.
Later, Ken
Last edited by KPerez; Mar 15, 2009 at 12:06 PM.
Mar 16, 2009, 06:48 AM
#60
Evolving Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good info Kperez. If the volume of the HKS is almost twice that of ARC and they got 10whp, and ARC got 8whp, the ARC is still doing something right. Imagaine if ARC had the volume of HKS! How much is the HKS FMIC? (and the weight?)