Corksport / ETS / CP-E TMIC before/after logs - got 'em, post 'em

[dale_gribble]

There seems to be a void here. At large, all I can find for a before/after on these intercoolers is 'my car spools faster now' or 'the car pulls harder at 4k now' and other gratuitous data. I can't find any good datalog references to quantify, analyze and compare these TMICs. Given enough datapoints, we should be able to reasonably compare these intercoolers. As it stands, they are all hunks of metal, pretty much similar in size and function and maybe they are all one in the same performance wise.

The before/after datalog history is pretty thin for these TMICs given all of the cars that I see with them installed in peoples' sigs. I am hoping to compile a resource of before/after datalogs from a TMIC swap. I am hoping with enough data that we can find some trends and see what the differences are (pros, cons) between these top mounts. I am sure a bunch of you ran before/after logs to capture the gains.

I am personally leaning towards the Corksport because I really want to reuse my stock shroud, but I won't sacrifice performance for aesthetics. There just isn't enough hard data to convince me to support one over the other right now.

The more data we get, the more compelling analysis we can do.

[Dimenus]

Bumpity. Still running the stock TMIC so I can't contribute, but I'm interested.

[Keko]

Installed ETS TMIC, but I did it at the same time as Test Pipe, Internals, and Stage2 OTS.

FWIW, I can't tell a difference in BATs, but I also didn't monitor them with an Interceptor when I had stock TMIC. I'm sure it flows better, but I wasn't able to get a before/after to check actual results.

[sidekick]

I'll look for my logs when I get home, but the only difference I really noticed was lower BATs and I had to decrease my WGDC by about 10-15% across the board. I think it mainly allows the turbo work less to produce the same boost, because there is less pressure drop.

[dale_gribble]

Ok, here is my official Street Unit TMIC v. STOCK TMIC results. The Street Unit TMIC did provide solid gains for my car. The gains are pretty clear and quantified.

For similar intake air temps (shown in the table below), the SU TMIC keeps BATs at bay down much better to redline, by 10-15 degrees from 4500RPMs on. These cooler temps are a little more dense and allow the car to hold a little more timing which gives a nice performance boost from 4500RPMs on. I observed +12 HP from 4700RPM to redline with the Street Unit TMIC over the stock TMIC.

This also provides a good understanding of what an aftermarket TMIC does and what it doesn't. As you can see, the SU TMIC doesn't impact low end torque really at all and it shouldn't be expected to. Nor does the SU TMIC necessarily reduce BATs when cruising on the highway or partially hitting the throttle to pass a car. The SU TMIC (like all other aftermarket TMICs) is meant to better cool the air when a large volume of air is passing through the unit. Otherwise, at lower air volumes, the TMIC doesn't cool any better then stock. As a matter of fact, you can see that the Stock TMIC ran cooler BATs up to about 4k RPMs. The stock TMIC is more efficient at a lower air volume. Interesting, right?

So, to summarize, what an aftermarket, and in this case SU TMIC does:

Reduces BATs under WOT from 4k to redline
Holds higher boost
Looks cool
Cooler air gives power gains and allows for more timing above ~4500

What an aftermarket, i.e. SU TMIC does NOT do:

Cooler BATs at idle
Cooler BATs at partial throttle
Cooler BATs below 4k RPMs
Prevent heat soak at idle

These are things that I learned screwing with intercoolers over the last 8 months or so. I hope this information is helpful. I will soon be posting a SU TMIC v. my CX Racing FMIC comparo soon too. That one is kind of a mind fuck. Hint: they work the same.

[dale_gribble]

If you fegs have before/after TMIC logs, I can nerd em up in excel to share them here.

[dale_gribble]

Here is the CX Racing FMIC v. my SU TMIC results. For their part, they pretty much performed the same. The CX Racing FMIC showed slightly lower BATs at redline by 5 degrees or so, but the IATs were also about 5 degrees lower, so I think that is about a wash.

The SU TMIC held a little higher boost and timing was equivalent. VD logs showed similar power between the two intercoolers. If you consider that amount of work and hacking that it takes to install a FMIC and some of the headaches, which in my case is difficulty accessing the headlight door, loss of a little throttle response, higher coolant temps, constantly checking like 10 hose clamps and other small nits, the TMIC is a hands down win for me.

The only thing the FMIC did much better than my TMIC which is indisputable to me, is do a much better job at minimizing heat soak.

[razorscs]

I'm with you, for my needs, a quality TMIC is hands down a winner for me over a FMIC. Constantly checking clamps, having to relocate the washer reservoir, and all the excess clutter all killed it for me and I haven't missed my FMIC for a second since I replaced it with my ETS.

[sidekick]

So here are two different Virtual Dynos showing the Stock TMIC vs Corksport TMIC. I attached the logs at the bottom. I can't say how much of a difference it really made in HP/TQ, due to them being virtual dynos, but you can see I picked up about 1-2PSI of boost.

[dale_gribble]

One thing missing from your logs is intake air temps. Do you log those? Those come in handy when baselining datalogs from different runs.

[Code Monkey]

FWIW, IM & TB TIGs, EGR delete, and TB coolant reroute dropped my BATs by 20 degrees on average, something you may want to look into in addition to an upgraded TMIC.

[dale_gribble]

@boost_addict

I stacked up some data from your logs. There is one thing I am seeing here; Either you ran logs in higher outside temperatures when the Corksport TMIC was on vs. the stock TMIC or the Corksport doesn't cool BATs any better then stock... No reduction in BATs = no cooler air = no increase in timing = basically no power gains. Were your logs run in the same conditions, same outside temps?

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by dale_gribble @boost_addict I stacked up some data from your logs. There is one thing I am seeing here; Either you ran logs in higher outside temperatures when the Corksport TMIC was on vs. the stock TMIC or the Corksport doesn't cool BATs any better then stock... No reduction in BATs = no cooler air = no increase in timing = basically no power gains. Were your logs run in the same conditions, same outside temps?

One night was 60 degrees and the other was 61. It was on the same stretch of road as well. I noticed that too though. I'm not sure why they didn't drop. It may have been more heat soaked to begin with or something, unfortunately I didn't log IATs.

[Code Monkey]

Here's a "comparison" between stock TMIC and 3.5" ETS TMIC.

The OEM TMIC logs were taken 19jun2012 while I was in the middle of the freektune. Then my clutch failed and the ETS logs were taken 18aug2012, still in the middle of the freektune.

On average, the temperatures were similar across the two logs but the variation in temps was lower with the ETS IC.

OEM summary:

. su IAT BAT if APP > 99
    Variable |       Obs        Mean    Std. Dev.       Min        Max
-------------+--------------------------------------------------------
         IAT |        60      135.74    6.519259      127.4      145.4
         BAT |        60    149.8055     4.00124     145.62     160.25

ETS summary:

. su IAT BAT if APP > 99
    Variable |       Obs        Mean    Std. Dev.       Min        Max
-------------+--------------------------------------------------------
         IAT |        62    132.7129    4.279822      127.4        140
         BAT |        62    149.5627    2.629695     146.75     154.62

The common theme is that most of the time the BATs follow a U curve - they drop as you start moving, flat line for a wee bit, then shoot up as you pass 5000 rpms. The ETS IC is a bit more efficient than stock at reducing the BATs on the initial move, extends the flat line to about 5500 rpms, and prevents the BATs from climbing as high as the stock IC. This behavior is consistent over many, many logs I have taken.

Do not take the attached logs as gospel, each was an unfinished tune.

[rolanblack]

At one point i thought fmic was the way to go. Reading and seeing that tmic is actually better for the k04. Ever considered sealing the intercooler duct better then taking some logs to see the amount of air we all in general lose with the tmic and see it gives better readings with stock vs aftermarket

[dale_gribble]

Originally Posted by rolanblack At one point i thought fmic was the way to go. Reading and seeing that tmic is actually better for the k04. Ever considered sealing the intercooler duct better then taking some logs to see the amount of air we all in general lose with the tmic and see it gives better readings with stock vs aftermarket

Based on some experiments I have run with my old CP-E TMIC and this SU TMIC, I haven't seen a single gain from playing with the duct to intercooler sealing.

[rolanblack]

Bummer dude. I thought that would play a part. I pushed on the seal and noticed the outer leftover seal overlaps creating maybe 3-6mm gap.

[ryceboi]

here's mine from 2006 logging with AutoEnginuity (pre-AP, which is why there are so few data points)

stock TMIC w/ AEM cai (91 octane):
IAT = 68F constant
rpm boost AFR BAT
2500 2.32 14.5
2900 9.27 -----
3000 ---- 13.14 96.1
3300 16.24 12.45
3600 ---- 10.61
4000 16.52 10.26 92.6
4300 ----- 10.26
4700 16.09 -----
5000 ----- ----- 90.5
5100 ----- 10.03
5350 15.08 -----
5400 ----- 9.8
5860 10.15 -----
6000 5.51 ----- 89.4

ETS 3.5" TMIC w/ AEM CAI (91 octane)
IAT = 69F constant
rpm boost AFR BAT
3000 2.61 13.95 111.9
4000 16.68 11.64 89.4
4900 ----- 10.72
5000 15.37 ----- 89.4
5300 ----- 10.5
5700 ----- 10.5
6000 14.79 -----

I probably need to log again with the AP, but now I have different mods so it won't exactly be apples to apples, nor do I want to unbolt everything.

My takeaway from the ETS is that the pressure differential across the core was much less than the stock TMIC, probably due to the bar/plate vs. tube/fin design. Thus, the volume pre-throttle remains at a higher pressure/boost during high flow/rpm.

The other benefit of the ETS is the heat transfer efficiency. With the stock TMIC, it takes longer for the BAT to lower to 89.4F while the ETS shot down quickly even with heat soak. The bar/plate and core size come into play here. More surface area means greater heat transfer rate. The same works for brake rotors.

Funny thing is I did not see the parabolic curve for BAT you all did even with the stock TMIC. I'll log again on my current setup with the AP just to see if that still is the case.

[Yatta]

It's just a thought, but wouldn't reducing restriction reduce low speed thermal transfer? I believe all of these cores flow better than stock, this should reduce the load on the turbo for a given pressure level, increase low speed bats and decrease high load bats. , assuming the new cores have more thermal mass. Has anyone weighed them?

I've been planning on replacing the stock tmic solely to gain the head room that the decrease in pressure drop that will occur and the ability to go above the boost levels that Mazda intended for the stock core.. Will be following this thread, thanks!



But it isn't respectable. It's mildly terrifying. And that actually makes it quite appealing. - Mazda 3 MPS review, Matthew Jones, Top Gear.

[Hush]

I wish I could find the thread, but someone posted this up today:

Spearco - All About Intercooling

Sub'ing for great info, thanks!

[ryceboi]

Originally Posted by Yatta It's just a thought, but wouldn't reducing restriction reduce low speed thermal transfer? I believe all of these cores flow better than stock, this should reduce the load on the turbo for a given pressure level, increase low speed bats and decrease high load bats. , assuming the new cores have more thermal mass. Has anyone weighed them?

You're both right and wrong here. The reason for the high BATs at low RPM are due to heat soak. Efficiency works both ways - cools down faster, heats up faster. Obviously, vehicle speed means more flow across the cooling fins and less heat soak.

The internal core restriction, however, does not necessarily contribute. This would only be a factor if all intercoolers are made equal and the only difference would be pressure differential. Higher pressure differential means higher temperature differential. Higher temperature diff, higher heat transfer rate. But the intercoolers are different so efficiency comes into play and internal restriction has little effect on the equation.

Someone had weighed the cores once, but that thread is buried somewhere. My arm scale says aftermarket cores are at least 2x heavier than OEM.

[jdmage_mx5]

Originally Posted by ryceboi Someone had weighed the cores once, but that thread is buried somewhere. My arm scale says aftermarket cores are at least 2x heavier than OEM.

I fully agree, the corksport TMIC and the CP-E TMIC weigh more than the OEM by a couple of pounds.

I will have to dig through my log files tonight to find good clean runs but I do have logs of OEM vs Corksport vs CP-E that were taken within a two week period with temps being +/- 7* outside. The only main thing I noticed is that the idle/cruising temps were about the same but at WOT the BATs dropped a lot quicker along with better heat soak recovery from idling.....of course this is all to be expected given that is the whole point of an aftermarket TMIC.

My uneducated opinion is anyone with a K04 should be happy with a TMIC but if you are BT or plan on going BT in the near future you should save your clams for a FMIC. It's all about your future plans and putting the money in the right areas. K04 people could put that extra $200 or more towards meth, better tune, beer, etc.

[Oni]

If you're looking to compare cooling efficiency wouldn't you want to plot Delta T (BAT - IAT) over the entire rpm range in the same gear? HP is irrelevant because everyone's tune is different, but the smallest temp rise should be best, assuming all aftermarket TMICs let the K04 breathe as best as it can.

[Yatta]

Originally Posted by Oni If you're looking to compare cooling efficiency wouldn't you want to plot Delta T (BAT - IAT) over the entire rpm range in the same gear? HP is irrelevant because everyone's tune is different, but the smallest temp rise should be best, assuming all aftermarket TMICs let the K04 breathe as best as it can.

Hp isn't that important..... But...

Pressure drop inlet to outlet at an airflow rate, with a delta in temps...

Watching HP sometimes will infer airflow

You also need to know the temp of the cooling air going through the IC and how much...









...........

But it isn't respectable. It's mildly terrifying. And that actually makes it quite appealing. - Mazda 3 MPS review, Matthew Jones, Top Gear.

[Oni]

It's a simple engineering mass balance, only problem is you'll never have enough variables known, so you have to assume some things. (we're vehemently agreeing I think)

[dale_gribble]

Here's an interesting data piece.

I ran the SU TMIC for a few months (pre SU drama) and due to some fitment issues of that TMIC on my car, I sent the SU TMIC back to SU for analysis/repair. I decided to go ahead and pick up a CS TMIC in the meantime. I figured I would get test data, and depending on which TMIC performed better, I would sell the other when the repaired SU TMIC comes back. Aftermarket TMICs are not hard to sell and don't devalue much (of course that was pre-SU/SURE drama).

I will say that the CS TMIC is aesthetically much more pleasing when the stock shroud is on. The fit is also very good; I didn't have any of the mechanical fitment issues I had with the SU TMIC. The SU TMIC is a little uglier and in my case, the fitment wasn't very good which I am expecting to get remedied by SU. In the end, it comes down to how does the TMIC perform, and I was in a rare position to do an apples to apples performance comparison that I wanted to share.

Both TMICs flowed the same as measured by airflow readings and equally held boost. Both TMICs are superior to the stock TMIC in this capacity. Both TMICs did a pretty equal job of shedding heat soak although I think the SU TMIC shed heat soak a little faster.

The key takeaway here is in the IAT v. BAT between intercoolers. I had a suspicion that the SU TMIC ran cooler and was better at shedding temps in around town driving. I finally got a chance to stack logs and my suspicion was confirmed. The SU TMIC pulled BATs lower and held them lower by 5-7 degrees F through the entire pull, when IATs were the same (within 2 degrees).

I can say with some level of confidence, that based on this quantified data point and my empirical experience that the SU TMIC does a better job at cooling than the CS TMIC.



What does the lower BATs mean exactly for performance? I don't exactly know what 5-7F in lower BATs mean for our cars. It could be in the noise as far as I know. I'll let the experts discuss that.

[dale_gribble]

So, we still need some recent before/after data for the CPE and ETS TMICs. Someone has to have recent AP data for these comparisons to round this thread out.

[sidekick]

The 4th gear logs I took last night show about 10WHP higher with 10° cooler ambient temps/BATs, so lower BATs make a pretty substantial difference.

[chomorro]

I have all bolt ons running a oem tmic and just recieved an ets tmic in the mail. I would like to contribute to this thread. What logs would you like me to take tomorrow with the the stock and then the ets?? I mean what ap log parameters?

Its going to be hot as heck out tomorrow during the day and i will be running strictly cobb ots map stage 2. I was planning on running the same map stage 2 91 octane for upgraded internals and just resetting the ecu after the tmic install to see a more direct comparison instead of changing the map to stage 2 91 octane hpfp intercooler.

Cheers hope this helps someone out. I wanted a cobb/tr8l fmic but im saving a few more dollars and if this tmic works out great no reason to change.

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by chomorro I have all bolt ons running a oem tmic and just recieved an ets tmic in the mail. I would like to contribute to this thread. What logs would you like me to take tomorrow with the the stock and then the ets?? I mean what ap log parameters? Its going to be hot as heck out tomorrow during the day and i will be running strictly cobb ots map stage 2. I was planning on running the same map stage 2 91 octane for upgraded internals and just resetting the ecu after the tmic install to see a more direct comparison instead of changing the map to stage 2 91 octane hpfp intercooler. Cheers hope this helps someone out. I wanted a cobb/tr8l fmic but im saving a few more dollars and if this tmic works out great no reason to change.

Boost, IAT, BAT and RPM are the only ones that really matter for this testing, so just make sure those are included.

[chomorro]

Originally Posted by sidekick Boost, IAT, BAT and RPM are the only ones that really matter for this testing, so just make sure those are included.

ok will do. I only have a mac so no virtual dyno. What parameters do you need for that so someone can input that as well with my logs.

[dale_gribble]

Just log everything and we'll pull out what we don't need.

Thanks for doing this.

[chomorro]

I really underestimated the 4th of july traffic i tried many times in different spots to get a clean 4th gear pull but couldnt pull it off . I could only get to about 5000 5500 rpm before something was in front of me. Here is what I got, sorry guys.

Amb 86-89 logs are two 4th gear pulls but not all the way until redline. One log just freeway cruising, and one log idling for 5 minutes and letting it heat soak then pulling off to 35mph for a bit.

Now im going to install the ETS, and attempt the same stretch of roads and log it.

[chomorro]

Amb was much cooler on these logs 77-83.

Next up partial 4th gear pull same road didnt get to redline. One log freeway cruising, and one log idle 5 min then go to about 35mph.

One thing i noticed with heat soak is sitting in the drive thru with oem bats would go as high as 171 i noticed and when idling almost the same amount i got to about 151 with the ets but it took longer it seemed, hard to tell since the amb was 10 degrees cooler.

[ilias]

Any updates>? Thinking to get CS TMIC

[dale_gribble]

Good news bitches. Just got an ETS TMIC. I'm going to say, the thing is visually impressive. What I noticed first is how dense this thing is, both in terms of bars and fin density. It's much more dense than the SU or CS. For example, on a SU, I can see my hand through the cooling fins. On this guy, the fins are so dense and staggered that I can't see the other side. This has 19 flow channels and 19 rows of fins. The Corksport has 15 flow channels and 17 rows of fins, the SU 16/18.

Here's the CS and SU TMICs (CS left, SU right).



Here's the ETS. You can see how instead of the fins bent in a z pattern, the fins are squared and much tighter.



Now it's tough to say how it translates; but the fin/bar density is a very notable difference compared to the other 2. It's also a .25" taller core. My gut says it will cool better than the other two under boost and probably have a little more trouble shedding heat soak. Flow will probably be about the same, maybe a bit better, who knows.

Expect SU vs. ETS data in the next couple of days.

[dale_gribble]

Here's the ETS inlet and outlet; small details like chamferred and stuff. This thing shows a great attention to detail from an assembly perspective.

[shadesofgray19]

I don't know that a more dense fin arrangement is better. Seems like that would restrict air flow through the core, especially on a thicker core. This would result in not as effecient cooling on the bootom side of the core, which is the side more prone to heat soak. There needs to be a balance between density and thikness for propper air flow and cooling.

[jtt]

Nice! When I had a ets, I could do auto-x runs and the tmic would be cool to the touch.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[dale_gribble]

Originally Posted by shadesofgray19 I don't know that a more dense fin arrangement is better. Seems like that would restrict air flow through the core, especially on a thicker core. This would result in not as effecient cooling on the bootom side of the core, which is the side more prone to heat soak. There needs to be a balance between density and thikness for propper air flow and cooling.

I am an engineer with exposure to heat exchangers and thermal transfer and I still don't know what is going to happen; not even enough to hypothesize. There are too many variables - boost air temperature, outside air temperature, ambient temperature, core density, airflow, airflow evenness through the core, core pressure drop, radiant heat from turbo, hot spots, conductive heat transfer, airflow through the fins, heat distribution, internal core friction, turbulence, intercooler hood seal, etc.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk