Hopefully I'll be receiving my Pace SMIC from Per soon to complement my L&M chargecooler and I was wondering what the general consensus is on this set-up compared to running a FMIC?

I'm currently running a standard turbo with uprated 360 thrust bearings but I may upgrade to a Superspool at some point in the future. I'm not too fussed on turning my Coop into a massive BHP monster and I'll probably be happy when I get around the 270bhp to 300bhp mark,so would this cooling set-up be ok?

Baz

A FMIC is better, certainly in terms of responding to immediate air flow i.e. low speed driving to open road. The chargecooler acts as a heat sink until sufficient airflow has cooled the fluid meaning it doesn't reduce the charge temperature at all. Once the core temperature has dropped then it should work quite efficiently.

I ran a Pace SMIC and chargecooler for about a year, when I was at about 300bhp

First thing - its definitely NOT as good as a decent FMIC, both in terms of flow and cooling

However, its massively better than the poor standard SMIC, and thus is a very worthwhile mod.

As long as you stay at around 300bhp, it will be fine. If you decide to go for much more, you'll need a FMIC

The only downside with the chargecooler is that the volume of coolant is poor, so it gets hot pretty quickly in traffic. Also, the pre-rad is small, so it takes a while to cool down once you've got moving again. I modified mine to use a second pre-rad, in series with the first. This had two effects - firstly, it almost doubled the amount of coolant, which meant it took longer to get hot, and second it cooled down quicker as well.

hope this helps

Thanks guys,nice to get your opinions .

Obviously it's something to keep in mind i I ever were to go further than 300 but I can't see that happening (although I was always saying I was going to stay standard but that's went out the window now ).

Baz

On the topic of SMIC vs FMIC, it appears widely accepted by discussions on the forum that the standard SMIC is inefficient. Im wondering for a sub-300hp coop how much of this is related to the positioning of the standard SMIC and how much is related to the size + flow capabilities of the unit itself?

For argument sake, if the standard unit was repositioned to the front would this make any significant difference? How would this compare in effectiveness to an uprated SMIC like the Pace unit but keeping it in the original position?

I don't think its the position of the smic that is the issue. Air is directed to it by the air funnel attached to the bumper anyway. Its more to do with the size.

Mmmm ok...so if that is the case then it seems like the need to strike a balance between size (flow capability) and lag from a larger IC?

From reading the feedback on the uprated Pace SMIC, which i believe is only slightly larger in volume (20mm thicker, similar frontal area), this is still regarded as insufficient. So the problem is because the standard location cannot house a large enough IC for optimum cooling efficiency? Therefore the need to go FMIC to allow a "large enough" IC, with the added benefit of direct air flow.

Am i thinking along the right track?

Correct

The standard location is so tight that even the pace smic just about makes it in. Put a thicker rad and it will clash.

Cool....thanks for clarifying one of many coop-related theories flying around in my mind!

Without getting into the maths is there any consensus on the optimised size for an ideal FMIC for a coop running stock turbo and standard boost levels (assuming flow rate constant). It appears the Evo FMIC is favoured from discussions on the forum...but is this the best trade-off for flow+cooling v lag...or is this mainly due to availability?

the best intercooler for a Coupe with a standard turbo running standard boost, is (funnily enough) a standard intercooler. Its only when you start to push more boost that you need significantly better intercooling, and the first step is a Pace SMIC - simply the fact that its thicker and has welded aluminium ends makes it better at dispersiing heat than the stock item with its crimped plastic ends

Remember that the ECU has the capacity to adjust fuelling and timing when the intake temps get too hot, so for a standard car, there's no danger of damage.

And boost too.

I've been thinking about the wheelarch pressure which always appears on cars unless they look completely different. To me it seems strange Fiat has a grille behind the SMIC opening to that pressure. Obviously the coolingair from the IC has to go somewhere, but there seem to be a clash there..?

yeah, that crossed my mind previously.

i thought a spinning wheel caused a vortex where the air doesnt move? previously explained to me that on motorbikes can cause them to overheat as the radiator is behind the front wheel.

Ry

Is there anything that can be added to (or indeed replace) the water/coolant mix to improve the chargecooler performance?

Baz

You can use 'water wetter' which *alegedly* allows better heat transfer - never seen it proved though

The biggest gain is to massively increase the coolant volume (install a large reservoir) and/or increase the size of the radiator.

not suggesting this will fit, but worth a look

Water cools something like 25 times better than air so it does a good job on it's own, I tried water wetter and didn't notice any difference with my chargecooler.
As nigel said, a larger pre-rad and more water volume are your two best options.

So would it be possible, as per Nigels comment, to install a second pre-rad in the same area as an FMIC would go. Surely there would be space there, and it should get decent airflow too.

My question would then have to be "What size of pre-rad could you get away with without having to remove the undertray as with most FMIC's?"
Perhaps someone can tell me the dimensions of a suitable FMIC as i guess this wouldn't be far off.

Any input you may have on this Nigel would be of help, as I will be fitting my chargecooler soon, so would be best to look at this option at the same time. Also, would the hoses just run from the outlet of one pre-rad to the inlet of the other, and then the whole lot be connected in as thought it were one unit? (If that makes sense)

I am also assuming that the standard PACE header tank will still be sufficient for the job?

Iain.

A pre-rad is much thinner than a fmic so your on to a winner straight away. There is no need to go that large though, your only ever going to cool to ambient air temps and the speed the water is flowing through the chargecooler means it won't get too hot.

MADCoop - yes, simply connect one pre-rad to the next so the coolant flows through one, then the other - I would suggest it flows through the larger one first

You don't need to go huge - you *might* even get away with replacing the single, small Coupe pre-rad with a decent size single alternative

The next thing is to incorporate a big reservoir - a washer bottle from a Marea would do it (same chassis configuration as the Coupe, but the bottle is on the left wing, so you'd need to run with an induction kit, as the new reservoir would go where the standard Coupe airbox is)

Cheers Nigel - all good advice.
Although I do have space to add the water bottle (or even better a nice alloy header) is this absolutely necessary if I was to increase volume with a second, larger pre-rad?
I'm not really too sure about the volumes I would be talking here, but figure if I used your initial suggestion of a tandem pre-rad, surely I would gain enough volume anyway.
Would I also be right in assuming that if I ran with a larger water bottle, this would completely replace the small header supplied in the PACE kit?

Iain.

Iain - the idea of the big reservoir is to maximise the amount of fluid, and therefore increase the heat capacity (and thus the cooling capacity) - one of the failings of the chargecooler system is that it heats up pretty quickly, rendering it useless until you've driven a few miles

Whilst a second pre-rad will increase the coolant capacity, it won't add more than a couple of litres - you need to add as much as possible

You'll still need the Pace swirl pot - this has to be the highest component in the system (the pump also has to be the lowest point)

All clear now Nigel, thanks for the advice and the correction about the swirl pot.

Iain.