[Gardus]

I'm in contact with the people at Supersprint, i think you all know this brand and the quality of their products.

They're working on the the exhaust system for the R56, they have a complete system from the downpipe to the tip, both in kat+silencer and straight pipe versions. It's still a prototype, production will start in a month.

http://www.clubminitalia.com/vari/supersprintr56.jpg

The problem is, I said them about the Milltek system, actually the only complete one, and they told me it's a lot of crap. They don't have a rolling road at Milltek and the increase in power is totally hypotetic and optimistic.

They had very little increase with their system so the R&D is working on the pre-turbo headers, to see if they are the problem. Maybe it's not possible to have some good hp without touching the ECU!

More info soon...

[marx87]

Quiksilver seems to have acheived a decent power gain off just changing the exhaust.

http://www.mini2.com/forum/2nd-gen-e...ds-booked.html

[Gardus]

Ttwo possibilities:

a) something in the SS system is totally wrong.

b) quicksilver and milltek lie.

For my experience is the second.

[marx87]

Quote: Originally Posted by Gardus (original)

Ttwo possibilities:

a) something in the SS system is totally wrong.

b) quicksilver and milltek lie.

For my experience is the second.

The user Pentagon has posted up some dyno results somewhere showing a considerable increase in horsepower.

[Sir Johnaraz]

Gardus easy there with your statements mate ....when comparing products you should go with the facts, so we should wait for a full comparison before making any statements like the above

[Gardus]

Dynos can be altered very easily! I thinks it should be a lot more interesting to see some pre and after in gear times, for example a tipical 50-90 kph in 3rd and 4th gear.

The quicksilver increases are more utopistics than the milltek's, changing the muffler has always low effect on the output figures, even on turbo engines.

The stock exhaust is already pretty straight, especially when we think of the one on the R53 and it's tortuos design.

I'm investigating about the sizes of the stock exhaust, do you know what is the inside pipe diameter?

[marx87]

Quote: Originally Posted by Gardus (original)

Dynos can be altered very easily! I thinks it should be a lot more interesting to see some pre and after in gear times, for example a tipical 50-90 kph in 3rd and 4th gear.

Why would Quicksilver alter the dyno readings? As far as i know this system is now available. Producing 'Made Up' figures could get them into trouble. I very much doubt they are lying.

[Gardus]

Well...i guess we have just to wait. The reason anyway could be to sell, don't you think? It wouldn't be the first time that some tuner do it.

[marx87]

Quote: Originally Posted by Gardus (original)

Well...i guess we have just to wait. The reason anyway could be to sell, don't you think? It wouldn't be the first time that some tuner do it.

Most successful companies dont need to do it. Based on the fact that False Marketing is ILLEGAL! and consequently can end up the company getting in trouble they dont need.

[Pentagon]

Quote: Originally Posted by Gardus (original)

Ttwo possibilities:

a) something in the SS system is totally wrong.

b) quicksilver and milltek lie.

For my experience is the second.

So my Italian friend, the three different rolling roads lie? K & N's state of the art £65000 rolling road lies? power plus' rolling road lies? Forge's rolling road lies? Look at the charts, and i'd be very careful what you say.

I've owned a 360 Modena, a Diablo SVR, two Aston Martins, a 530 HP 993 Turbo and a 993 3.8RS. I changed the exhaust on all of them. I didn't choose Supersprint.

My cleaner's boyfriend has a Supersprint exhaust on his Saxo. I'll ask him what he thinks, Ciao

[popey]

Boasting about your past cars will prove you right everytime

[Gardus]

Of course you didn't choose SS, they don't do system for thoose cars, they are more on cheaper cars. For the top brands i'd go for Tubistyle, Larini or handmade systems by Bartoli.

Back IT, i followed the 'mods booked in' topic, it's very interesting. Can I ask you if you have a dyno of the same car before and after the mod, the same day with the same temperature, and of course the same rolling road setup?
It's a matter of fact that the R56s have more hp than the specs say, i've seen some dyno over 180, and i'm confident this engine has a lot of potential.
Can i ask you why in the K&N dyno you used different Correction factors, specifically it says 2.89 and 2.61? The peak at 4300 rpm depends on the overboost funcion? It's a strange graph, more power at 4300 than at 6500? With the very flat torque of this engine it's really more realistic the first dyno of Power Engineering! I don't get it. power: torque*rpm...

I'm not trying to provoke anyone, i just to bring some light on the upgrades and the effect they have.

[Gardus]

I've just receive a new email from Federico from SS. He says that the stock exhaust goes from 60 mm of the central pipe to 50 of the last part (muffler). Maybe this is the reason for the increases in power changing only the catback!

The SS ehxaust is 60 mm all the way and has a metallic katt (200 or 100 cpsi), the stock one has a ceramic 400 cpsi.

I think with 200+ hp a 65 mm (2,5") straight exhaust would be the best, with a conic and not too short diffuser after the turbocharger anche a very light muffler. Maybe Bartoli could do something similar.

[Avantone]

Before I invested any of my hard earned, I'd like to see see the baseline graphs on a stock car and then the modified graphs with the same car on the same dyno. irrespective on conversion factors, the percentage increase/decrease would still be accurate.

I'd also be more interested in the torque curve - a motor with a peaky extra 30 bhp isn't usually quicker under all conditions.

Wouldn't the pipe diameter be wider at the header on account of the higher gas tempreture and lower density - you could argue you don't need the same diameter at the tail pipe as the gas is cooler (relatively).

Tony

[Gardus]

In a turbo engine: header: small, downpipe to tip exhaust: large and straight, withou fast jumps in diameter.
So you have fast gasses before the turbo (it starts to spin early), and no counterpressure after it (max efficiency).

The problem is that SS has developed a nice exhaust, very regular and 60mm (a bit little to me), but they run different dyno and didn't see big increase in power... i think that when you'll touch the ecu increasing the boost and stressing the turbocharger, a big exhaust will keep it alive for more time and permit the bigger quantity of gas to come out.

Maybe we'll soon have a car with the ss system and the speed racing ecu remap...

[anissut]

I have to say that a lot of what Gardus is saying makes a lot of sense. I've just come out of an M3 CSL and both Supersprint and Militek made very good systems for the M3. The real gains only came from the 100 cell race cats. Sure, by adding a aftermarket centre section and backbox there were gains to be had but very little. Now that I have bought a Cooper S I was very interested in Militeks claim of 203 odd bhp for the MCS. I was just as interested when Quicksilver (via Pentagon) also mentioned good gains. I am very sceptical about tuners gains so I still believe that the MCS produces over 175bhp, possibly nearer to 185bhp in std form. A cat back exhaust may then release 5-10bhp taking the power output to around 195bhp. To get 15% power increase from a cat back exhaust system for some reason just doesn't make sense to me. I could be completely wrong and I really hope I am but the only way to test these things is to run two MCS in certain gears alongside each other in standard form. Then, put the exhaust on one of the cars and do the same test again to actually see if there is any difference. 30-70mph would be a good benchmark. 50-110mph would be another good test.

[Pentagon]

Quicksilver were too busy with gas flow meters, temp sensors, flow rate diagrams etc, I put it on a rolling road, not them

Ok Ok, my technical knowledge is not good and i don't want to get into as spat with the bigger boys in the playground but whatever they did the turbo feels/ sounds liberated and it is 100% 200BHP + with the Quicksilver and the K & N , not just from rolling roads but from real world, a world inhabited by owners of Clio 182' s, R32 and Gti Golfs and Imprezas that have tried ( no doubt ) and failed to overtake this car.

I don't have any ' involvement ' with any exhaust company and will offer objective opinions

If anyone wants to pop round with a stock R56 MCS we'll put it on the rollers and see. maybe we could do a side by side driving test on the way.

i suspect that the cat is pretty free flowing and the changing of the rear sections has freed some flow. It also always has shell V max in it. maybe that's another few HP...anyway how good does that exhaust look and sound anyway?

[Gardus]

Pentagon i'm not saying you didn't have any gain! If the story about the stock catback being 50mm is true it's normal that you feel the car faster (the sound has always a bit of effect), and the K%N of course does it works (where does it takes the fresh air, same pipe of the stock one?)
The 99 ron fuel helps too, the new ecu has a wider range of self-adjustment than the previous car.

I see you tried with different cars, did you drive alongside and try acceleration in the same gear? It's one of the best way to see how fast is a cas, overtaking is deceptive.

Could you simply take a stopwatch and measure the 30-70 mph time? So another R56 owner can do the same!
Did you notice a gain in top speed? It's one of the figure that reflects better a gain in hp. I guess a ~200 bhp r56 should hit a good 5 km/h more than a stock one, of course measured with a gps. Often the direct air intakes have problem at high speed that the rolling road doesn't simulate.

Quote:

Quicksilver were too busy with gas flow meters, temp sensors, flow rate diagrams etc, I put it on a rolling road, not them

So i guess you can tell me, why did you use different correction factors? What were the air temperature and pressure? Does the rolling road have good ventilation, is it a brake or an inertial system?
The 10 bhp increase at the wheels is just with and without the apollo intake or stock and then quicksilver+apollo?

[SiBradbury]

Quote: Originally Posted by Gardus (original)

I'm in contact with the people at Supersprint, i think you all know this brand and the quality of their products.

They're working on the the exhaust system for the R56, they have a complete system from the downpipe to the tip, both in kat+silencer and straight pipe versions. It's still a prototype, production will start in a month.

http://www.clubminitalia.com/vari/supersprintr56.jpg

The problem is, I said them about the Milltek system, actually the only complete one, and they told me it's a lot of crap. They don't have a rolling road at Milltek and the increase in power is totally hypotetic and optimistic.

I'm sure your mates at SuperSprint are well chuffed with you writing their private (and probably libelous) comments on this forum. I bet they're really pleased with you Gardus.

[Evo]

And here goes World War 3 :-) Actually our Italian friend is in his full right to doubt the claimed increase in horsepower for the cat-back systems mentioned. He's also done som correct observations regarding how an exhaust system works on a turbo charged engine. And Italian tuners in general know a thing or two of how to work on turbo charged engines. Because a couple of decades ago Italy had a tax law that punished engines with more than a 2 liter capacity. Therefore a lot of Italian car manufactures made very potent 2.0l turbo/biturbo engines (Fiat Croma, Lancia Integrale, Alfa Romeo 155, Maserati 222 Biturbo etc). There has been a hole industry tuning turbo charged engines in Italy for 20 years now.

I'm sorry to report that in Norway and Sweden, the general word of British tuning companies is that their claimed gains in power all too often is too optimistic. This is based on various objective comparisons of Norwegian cars modified in GB (the modifications often costing a lot less in GB when also including cost for travel and stay) against cars modified in Norway - often with rolling road power figures far below the british modified car. The Norwegian car is nine out of ten times always the stronger and faster. I can't explain it. It is just the way it is.

The best British tuning companies/manufactures as Cosworth, Quaife, Weltmeister, Ninemeister, 4T are of course world class. But I suspect the British tuning market for being too big (regardless of what it said earlier and above), with too many customers knowing too little about what to expect.

The Norwegian tuning landscape on the other hand is in fact quite small. Not unormal when Norway's total population is about 4,5 million, the capital city Oslo has 550.000 habitants, and buying a car in Norway costing at least 1,5x more than the retail prize in GB. We actually pay taxes per bhp on top of co2 etc. :-(