Sponsored

Ambient Thermal Management IS BACK! Celebrate With A Forum Discount!

Status
Not open for further replies.

jbailer

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 1, 2015
Threads
43
Messages
3,273
Reaction score
1,290
Location
Maryland
First Name
Joe
Vehicle(s)
2015 EB Magnetic Premium PP 50AP
Our silicone pipes are made to fit the stock BOV! But it is relocated. Were you told otherwise?
Thanks! Would you elaborate on the use with the stock BPV and maybe pics with it installed. I was asking in post #8 and #18, trying to figure out if I could use the stock BPV with the ATM charge pipes as it was intended, no vent to atmosphere. Does the relocation of the BPV cause any problems or need to change anything else?
 
OP
OP
Ambient Thermal Management

Ambient Thermal Management

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 24, 2017
Threads
8
Messages
47
Reaction score
42
Location
NJ
Vehicle(s)
Ford and BMW
Thanks! Would you elaborate on the use with the stock BPV and maybe pics with it installed. I was asking in post #8 and #18, trying to figure out if I could use the stock BPV with the ATM charge pipes as it was intended, no vent to atmosphere. Does the relocation of the BPV cause any problems or need to change anything else?
Going to call in help from our customer base if possible :) Would anyone have pics of our hoses with the stock BPV/Diverter valve installed?
 

jbailer

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 1, 2015
Threads
43
Messages
3,273
Reaction score
1,290
Location
Maryland
First Name
Joe
Vehicle(s)
2015 EB Magnetic Premium PP 50AP
Going to call in help from our customer base if possible :) Would anyone have pics of our hoses with the stock BPV/Diverter valve installed?
I'm looking for more than just pictures although that would be nice. Would you please comment to the functionality with the stock BPV? If the hoses have an adapter to accommodate the stock BPV, does it change the functionality so it's no longer a BPV diverting air to the intake and is now vent to atmosphere or does the adapter allow the stock BPV to work in the stock manner as a diverter to the intake? When I asked before, I got that the adapter itself is a VTA.
 

TheLion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Threads
68
Messages
1,621
Reaction score
585
Location
US
Vehicle(s)
Ruby Red 2016 Mustang GT PP 6-MT
Any data on the pressure drop? We know it cools very well, at least as good if not better than the big cores like I'm running (20x14x3.5 levels with cast end tanks). But I'm considering changing over if I could improve responsiveness a little more by lowering the pressure drop.

Most big cores run about a 1.5 to 1.8 psi pressure drop, while I can't find any data on the pressure drop of the Levels I'm currently running, it's an off the shelf core he uses so it's probably right around there.

If ATM could provide pressure drop data that's better I might be willing to switch given that's the only engine upgrade left I could do to eek out a bit more performance without voiding the warranty on the Ford Performance tune.
 

Sponsored

OP
OP
Ambient Thermal Management

Ambient Thermal Management

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 24, 2017
Threads
8
Messages
47
Reaction score
42
Location
NJ
Vehicle(s)
Ford and BMW
I'm looking for more than just pictures although that would be nice. Would you please comment to the functionality with the stock BPV? If the hoses have an adapter to accommodate the stock BPV, does it change the functionality so it's no longer a BPV diverting air to the intake and is now vent to atmosphere or does the adapter allow the stock BPV to work in the stock manner as a diverter to the intake? When I asked before, I got that the adapter itself is a VTA.
Sorry, now I understand what you are asking.....That is correct, our adapter is VTA so unfortunately you wouldn't have a choice when using the stock BPV. Although I do recall a member saying it's a lot quieter than expected.

Another option may be ditching the stock BPV and getting something like the TurboSmart Kompact Plumb Back or similar, but I don't know if that option would interest/work for you.
 
OP
OP
Ambient Thermal Management

Ambient Thermal Management

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 24, 2017
Threads
8
Messages
47
Reaction score
42
Location
NJ
Vehicle(s)
Ford and BMW
Any data on the pressure drop? We know it cools very well, at least as good if not better than the big cores like I'm running (20x14x3.5 levels with cast end tanks). But I'm considering changing over if I could improve responsiveness a little more by lowering the pressure drop.

Most big cores run about a 1.5 to 1.8 psi pressure drop, while I can't find any data on the pressure drop of the Levels I'm currently running, it's an off the shelf core he uses so it's probably right around there.

If ATM could provide pressure drop data that's better I might be willing to switch given that's the only engine upgrade left I could do to eek out a bit more performance without voiding the warranty on the Ford Performance tune.
You have a PM :) I'm working on getting more info but our unique core design is known all over the web (BMW world for example) for low pressure drop and superior cooling. Let me see what info we can find to help answer your question!
 

jbailer

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 1, 2015
Threads
43
Messages
3,273
Reaction score
1,290
Location
Maryland
First Name
Joe
Vehicle(s)
2015 EB Magnetic Premium PP 50AP
Any data on the pressure drop? We know it cools very well, at least as good if not better than the big cores like I'm running (20x14x3.5 levels with cast end tanks). But I'm considering changing over if I could improve responsiveness a little more by lowering the pressure drop.

Most big cores run about a 1.5 to 1.8 psi pressure drop, while I can't find any data on the pressure drop of the Levels I'm currently running, it's an off the shelf core he uses so it's probably right around there.

If ATM could provide pressure drop data that's better I might be willing to switch given that's the only engine upgrade left I could do to eek out a bit more performance without voiding the warranty on the Ford Performance tune.
Lion, I'm pretty sure I remember the PD for the ATM FMIC was <1 PSI. That was one of the deciding factors for me. JerseyDevil wrote about their design and how it minimized Pressure Drop before they released the product, I couldn't find all the info but did find this post where they say .5psi at 70 mph. http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showpost.php?p=757201&postcount=30

If you do a search by his name and terms, you'll find a lot of the early information and testing they did.
 

TheLion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Threads
68
Messages
1,621
Reaction score
585
Location
US
Vehicle(s)
Ruby Red 2016 Mustang GT PP 6-MT
I think the pressure drop being talked about was for the air intake because he said they saw a 0.5 psi drop after drilling out the dimples in the grill meaning that was an early attempt at making a ram air intake like my velossatech with the GT grill mod.

I did find something interesting though by comparing the sizes of the MAP Race FMIC to the Levels Street. There's not any hard data on the pressure drop in the Levels FMIC, I only saw temperature drop which is exceptionally good (not quite as good as the ATM, but close enough that it's neck and neck).

The MAP unit performs essentially the same as the levels in terms of temps. The MAP core's volume (not internal volume, but core size) is 990 in^3, the Levels is 980. Both are the same type of bar and plate core, with the levels presenting a bit more frontal area as it's taller and thinner than the MAP.

MAP lists 1psi drop at 1000CFM. I'd expect the Levels to be nearly the exact same given the internal volumes are also going to be nearly identical and their cores are so close in design / sizing. So the question I have is, can the ATM core beat the pressure drop in the Levels / MAP unit's by any meaningful degree that would justify an upgrade from an already good unit?

It would have to be at decent margin to justify an upgrade, yes if it was a new purchase I would have gone with the ATM from he start given the price is only $100 difference, but they were out of production when I originally upgraded.

Unless they are getting 0.5~0.7 psi drop at 1000CFM (or the levels is for some reason much worse than the MAP which I doubt) there's not enough cooling difference to have an impact for anything but straight up racing, even then 10F difference isn't much (levels / map units typically are only 10-20F above ambient worst case).

The ECU starts reducing timing at 100F, and it starts pulling throttle at 150F according to what I read from FFTech in their testing of IC's way back. So I could see the ATM making a difference of maybe 1mph over a MAP / Levels on 90F+ day, but I doubt even that with only 10F average difference.

That's what I was curious about, as to how much the rounded bars and their end tank design affect pressure drop over your typical square designs. A good core should produce around 1-1.5 PSI drop at the target flow rates. Too much more and it's an indication the core is not sized properly for the application. I was thinking that if the ATM unit provides a combination of 0.3~0.5 PSI less drop and an average of 10F better cooling it might be worth the cost to upgrade from an already decently good unit.

http://www.focusst.org/forum/focus-st-performance/10392-thread-end-all-fmic-tech-questions-source-bell-intercoolers-faq.html
 
Last edited:

jbailer

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 1, 2015
Threads
43
Messages
3,273
Reaction score
1,290
Location
Maryland
First Name
Joe
Vehicle(s)
2015 EB Magnetic Premium PP 50AP
I really doubt it's going to be that much of a difference to spend the money again. I'm pretty sure when I bought mine I asked and was told just under 1 psi but it sounded like it was close.
 

Sponsored

TheLion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Threads
68
Messages
1,621
Reaction score
585
Location
US
Vehicle(s)
Ruby Red 2016 Mustang GT PP 6-MT
I really doubt it's going to be that much of a difference to spend the money again. I'm pretty sure when I bought mine I asked and was told just under 1 psi but it sounded like it was close.
That's what I was thinking. Unless for some reason my Levels IC had a far worse pressure drop than the MAP unit which is nearly identical (just slightly different layout as it's a bit fatter and shorter vs. taller and thinner which is typically better). But I wanted to see some hard data on pressure drop just in case they were able to achieve something significantly better than what I already had (such as 1/2 a psi vs 1).
 

TheLion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Threads
68
Messages
1,621
Reaction score
585
Location
US
Vehicle(s)
Ruby Red 2016 Mustang GT PP 6-MT
What i'd really like to do is get the car on the dyno as is, try their FMIC and then dyno it again to see if there's any tangible difference. A slightly lower pressure drop and 10F colder temps might net 5~10hp gain and slightly better response yet.
 

TheLion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Threads
68
Messages
1,621
Reaction score
585
Location
US
Vehicle(s)
Ruby Red 2016 Mustang GT PP 6-MT
By the way, if you made a recirculating adapter for the stock diverter valve I' would not hesitate to upgrade the charge pipes. The AEM aluminum charge pipes I have are pretty decent, but the silicone one piece units would be even better.

But without being able to configure it in a stock recirculating application it's a no go for me. That function (reticulation) does have some value and function as well as being completely silent which I prefer as do many others who use their EB's as daily drivers.

I also have emissions testing as well so anything that can prevent me from passing e-check is a no go and VTA will cause you to run a bit rich off-throttle unless you have an off-road tune.

There's a ton of us running the Ford Performance calibration for warranty / safety / longevity purposes and some even who have to pass e-check so preserving the stock re-circulation function only ensures that the Ford Performance calibration will run properly as it was set up for an otherwise stock car.

So most of us running the FP Cal are only making cooling system upgrades (inter cooler, charge piping) and preventing boost leaks (DV+ valves). With just those changes the EB really wakes up and easily performs as well if not better than more expensive cars like the WRX STI or 2016+ Camaro V6 etc.
 

jbailer

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 1, 2015
Threads
43
Messages
3,273
Reaction score
1,290
Location
Maryland
First Name
Joe
Vehicle(s)
2015 EB Magnetic Premium PP 50AP
By the way, if you made a recirculating adapter for the stock diverter valve I' would not hesitate to upgrade the charge pipes. The AEM aluminum charge pipes I have are pretty decent, but the silicone one piece units would be even better.

But without being able to configure it in a stock recirculating application it's a no go for me. That function (reticulation) does have some value and function as well as being completely silent which I prefer as do many others who use their EB's as daily drivers.

I also have emissions testing as well so anything that can prevent me from passing e-check is a no go and VTA will cause you to run a bit rich off-throttle unless you have an off-road tune.

There's a ton of us running the Ford Performance calibration for warranty / safety / longevity purposes and some even who have to pass e-check so preserving the stock re-circulation function only ensures that the Ford Performance calibration will run properly as it was set up for an otherwise stock car.

So most of us running the FP Cal are only making cooling system upgrades (inter cooler, charge piping) and preventing boost leaks (DV+ valves). With just those changes the EB really wakes up and easily performs as well if not better than more expensive cars like the WRX STI or 2016+ Camaro V6 etc.
+1

I was all set to get the ATM charge pipes until I learned I couldn't use them in the stock diverter config.
Sponsored

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
 




Top