ARM FMIC Hybrid Test

Background:

After seeing this misleading claim from Ed Susman, the owner of Equilibrium Tuning, about a competitor’s intercooler product:

Ed Susman's Misleading Sales Pitch
Ed Susman’s Misleading Sales Pitch

I made a post comparing data from an EQT customer who had used a Baun Performance / Vibrant 12810 FMIC (the product the ARM FMIC copies) and then switched to a do88 stock mount IC.

Vibrant / ARM FMIC vs do88 – EQT Vortex XL Turbo

The difference in performance from the Vibrant FMIC was not “very suboptimal,” failing to suport the claim from Ed Susman.

In addition to Ed’s claim lacking substantiation on his part, it also misleads consumers by disregarding the recommendation by ARM Motorsport for consumers to use Bicooler hoses if they plan to operate with an upgraded turbo.

If you’re running or plan on running an upgraded turbo on your MQB, you will want to opt for the ARM Bi-Cooler Hose Upgrade.

ARM Motorsports – Mk7 FMIC Product Description

ARM Motorsport Bicooler

With the Mabotech M520 hybrid turbocharger currently installed on my GTI, this presented an opportunity to obtain unbiased information about how the ARM FMIC performs with a hybrid turbocharger (something bigger than an IS38, as Ed Susman claimed).

Mabotech M520h and IHI IS20 Turbocharger Swap
Mabotech M520h and IHI IS20 Turbocharger Swap

I contacted ARM Motorsports and offered to make a comparison of their FMIC performance using the Bicooler hoses, and without the Bicooler hoses, operating with a hybrid turbocharger.

They were receptive to the suggestion and shortly thereafter loaned me some of their parts to record data with.

ARM Motorsport FMIC Kit
ARM Motorsport FMIC Kit

With the products on hand I set about installing the FMIC WITHOUT the Bicooler hoses, the configuration ARM Motorsport advises against when using the hybrid turbo.

ARM FMIC Installation
ARM FMIC Installation

Test process:

The data would be collected during a full-throttle fourth-gear pull, starting around 2,000 RPM and ending around 6,500 RPM.

Comparison data is from the same GTI using an Integrated Engineering V1 stock location intercooler and Vibrant 12810 FMIC paired using bicooler hoses. This is the cooling setup I have been using for a few months in support of the tuning using the M520 turbocharger.

The boost curve using this turbo and a Russell Road & Racing E50 ECU tune is shown below:

ARM FMIC Hybrid Turbo Boost Curve
ARM FMIC Hybrid Turbo Boost Curve

Test results:

Below is the Intake Air Temperature (IAT) curve using the ARM FMIC without Bicooler hoses.

Note: The ambient temperature when recording is 59 degF.

ARM FMIC Hybrid Turbo IAT Curve
ARM FMIC Hybrid Turbo IAT Curve

In the following chart, the IAT of the IE V1 & Vibrant combination is added (orange lines).

Note: Ambient temperature when recording with the IE & Vibrant is 62 & 63 degF.

ARM FMIC vs IE V1 & Vibrant Bicooler IAT Curves
ARM FMIC vs IE V1 & Vibrant Bicooler IAT Curves

The combination of aftermarket stock location and FMIC shows the IAT steadily decreases and then holds throughout the pull. In comparison, the ARM FMIC alone shows a gradual upward trend of IAT during the latter portion of the pull.

At 6,500 RPM, there is a 2-8 degF difference between the data sets.

Although the ARM FMIC does show a higher IAT, it would be disingenuous to describe this slight difference as “very suboptimal,” as Ed Susman claimed.


Next is the turbocharger wastegate duty cycle (WGDC).

The M520 turbo operates around 55% WGDC at the upper end when matched with the ARM FMIC.

ARM FMIC Hybrid Turbo WGDC
ARM FMIC Hybrid Turbo WGDC

The following chart adds the comparison data from the IE V1 & Vibrant FMIC (orange lines).

This pairing operates around 43% to 47% WGDC.

Unsurprisingly, the Bicooler reduces pressure drop and correlates with a decrease in the WGDC of approximately 10%.

ARM FMIC vs IE V1 & Vibrant Bicooler WGDC Curves
ARM FMIC vs IE V1 & Vibrant Bicooler WGDC Curves

Once again, considering Ed Susman’s claim that “We have seen very suboptimal results from the ARM intercooler on anything bigger than an IS38“, the evidence does not support this claim.

A wastegate duty cycle of 55% on a turbocharger operating at 32-34 psi is not “very suboptimal.” It is only slightly higher than the combination of the IE V1 aftermarket stock location & Vibrant FMIC Bicooler.

Conclusions:

EQT owner Ed Susman’s claims about a competitor’s product’s poor performance prompted an investigation into their validity.

An ARM Motorsport FMIC was purposefully installed and operated in a manner inconsistent with ARM Motorsport guidance to use Bicooler hoses when operating with a hybrid turbocharger,

This mismatching of parts was done to obtain data on the product’s performance and compare it with a Bicooler combination consisting of an Integrated Engineering stock-location intercooler and a Vibrant front-mount intercooler.

Results showed the ARM Motorsport FMIC cooled slightly less well (2-8 degF) than the IE & Vibrant combination, and pressure drop was also somewhat higher (~10%), at around 55%, for the conditions of this test.

This evidence does not support the claim made by Equilibrium Tuning owner Ed Susman.

Ed Susman and EQT risk being sued for False Advertising under section 43 (a) of the Lanham Act.

Next steps:

Configuring the ARM Motorsport FMIC with the ARM bicooler hoses will be done to collect comparison data of the recommended configuration.

References:

Leave a Reply