[msh441]

Did a Dyno day Satuday with the MINI.

Saw some pretty cool cars (not just MINIs)... some others that reinforced the old addage "don't judge a book by it's cover". Specificlly a few ratty ricers putting up some scary figures (300hp out af a civic hatchback!?! A 450hp older rx7!?!).

Used a Dynojet and Winpep 7 program
Other stuff (some I didn't understand):
Gear - 3rd (used 4th on another chart, but figures were the same)
Run Type - RO (?)
Temp - 53.45 degrees F
Humidity - 61% humidity
Uncorrected - 1.00 (?)
CF - Uncorrected (?)
Smoothing - 5 (?)



Max power = 180.21(hp) between 5600-5700 rpm
Max torque = 204.25(ft-lbs) @ 4400-4500 rpm

From what I could tell, that's without the overboost kicking in. I had another run where it obviously did (I wish the charts were overlapped). Added about 5-10 ft-lbs more torque in a spike between 2500-4000 rpm, but was also down slightly 3-5hp up top.

So if the average driveline loss is 12-14% (180.21 x 1.00/.86-88 = X)... then I should be putting out between 204.78 and 209.55 at the crank!!! Pretty consistant with what I've seen from the corrected charts out there. Odd that the power peaks earlier with the US spec cars, though. Not sure which I'd preferr.

Power was a little down from what I had initially hoped, as MINI suggests the JCW kit produces 193hp. I can't say for sure whether they overestimated wheel horsepower underestimated crank horsepower. For now, I'm choosing to assume the latter.

What I'm most pleased with though, is the nice smooooootttthhhhh power curve ! You will definately get more power from some of the aftermarket verndors for the same price (Alta's showing 265+ right now with various combinations of their accessories if you've got the $$$!!!)... but I haven't seen anyone showing that smooth of a delivery (except Alta's bigger turbo/ECU... but that combo takes away athe bottom-end that I love so much, so...). Most still have that dip in power and torque around 3000 rpm. It's the best part about the JCW kit IMO. It just makes the car that much more drivable.

I figure once I get brave (OK, once I get more play $$$ in January) I'll tap into a little more power using Alta's boost tubes, turbo inlet and intercooler. That should be good for another 15-20hp. I think I'd be more-than-happy sitting in the 195-200 at the wheels and 215 lb/ft of torque give-or-take .

One can dream !

[Japper]

All manufacturers ( European anyway ) quote flywheel hp.

I've got the Boost tubes and Inlet pipe on back order. Should be here early Jan. According to Alta's dyno testing, these parts alone should add 20whp, the FMIC should add another 10whp. The intercooler would be perfect if you didn't have to trim the bumper and hose shroud to get the thing to fit and sit level...............as it is, not on my list

[minichara]

The average driveline loss is about 17-20%.
My MCS done in dyno without any kind of modifications about 190hp in the FLYWHEEL and 26,8 kgm of torque.
Dyno model: Maha LPS3000

[Japper]

Quote: Originally Posted by minichara (original)

The average driveline loss is about 17-20%.
My MCS done in dyno without any kind of modifications about 190hp in the FLYWHEEL and 26,8 kgm of torque.
Dyno model: Maha LPS3000

I'm not an expert but i believe it's been discussed and proven ( certainly on the R53 ) that 15% loss is the norm for the MINI.

[msh441]

Quote: Originally Posted by minichara (original)

The average driveline loss is about 17-20%.
My MCS done in dyno without any kind of modifications about 190hp in the FLYWHEEL and 26,8 kgm of torque.

17-20% would be... (crunching numbers)... 217-225hp the flywheel!!!

Quote: Originally Posted by Japper (original)

I'm not an expert but i believe it's been discussed and proven ( certainly on the R53 ) that 15% loss is the norm for the MINI.

Man! At 15%, that would still suggest I'm running 212hp at the flywheel.

So it's safe to say the JCW kit gives a ballpark 20hp boost from staock and smoothes out the torque/power curves. I'm happy with that... for now .

[minichara]

Quote: Originally Posted by msh441 (original)

17-20% would be... (crunching numbers)... 217-225hp the flywheel!!!



Man! At 15%, that would still suggest I'm running 212hp at the flywheel.

So it's safe to say the JCW kit gives a ballpark 20hp boost from staock and smoothes out the torque/power curves. I'm happy with that... for now .

What I mean is 190 hp at the flywheel.
My question is, the JCW kit promises about 17hp.
The miltek full exhaust promises about +25hp ( I do not believe them, but I think that about 15-18 hp is a very normal number).
Why should somebody then istall the JCW kit?

[kevkbuk]

Quote: Originally Posted by minichara (original)

Why should somebody then istall the JCW kit?

Its more than just an exhaust. The remap alone improves drivabilitly no end and changes the character of the car. You have a full warranty and the prospect of better resale value compared to an aftermarket tuned car. Plus you get the improved exhaust manifold to handle higher temps, Mini must have changed it for a reason.

Oh, and don't the forget the badges, they add lots of power!

[msh441]

Quote: Originally Posted by minichara (original)

The miltek full exhaust promises about +25hp ( I do not believe them, but I think that about 15-18 hp is a very normal number).
Why should somebody then istall the JCW kit?

Alta's cat back is suggesting about 10hp... so 15+ from a turbo-back shouldn't be too much to ask. Alta's chart shows it best:



Thow on the bolt-on upgrades and add power... but there's still that massive torque hole and horsepower dip at 3000 RPM. All the bolt-on goodies in the world won't make it go away. In fact, they actually seem to excentuate the hole Making the same power at 3000rpm, but adding power on either side). The only thing that will smooth out that dip is ECU tuning.

Compare the charts to the JCW (keeping in mind the charts are compressed horizontally, so the dip is accentuated above. But even stretching the two out to mach, it's still VERY prevolant):



Torque smooths out momentarily at 3000rpm <highlighted in yellew>... but it no way takes the massive dive that the stocker does. Plus, not only do you have the added power up top (17hp+/-?)... but the little turbo doesn't gas out as quickley (power dropping off at 6000rpm, rather than 5000rpm as stock). You've got a bigger band up top where you can run the car <highlighted in red>. As stock, there's no point revving it out past 5000rpm... power just takes a dive after that.

So yes, the TOTAL power gain of the JCW can be topped by bolt-on products... but it's the ECU tuning that makes the kit. Can you go to the aftermarket for ECU tuning? Of course! And you'll get astounding power figures once you do (Alta's pushing towards 300hp on their GT turbo car with water/meth injection!!!) . Are you willing to take the risks associated with non-factory tuning? That's a question you have to answer for yourself.

[minichara]

Here is my dyno with out any kind of modifications...
(just some LOHEN stickers...)

So, is it advisable to pay $2500 in Greece in order to istall the JCW???

[emtrey]

My R56 has an auto trans so the ECU remap makes a major difference. It clearly feels like a different car. The remap changes the trans to shift from first rather than secoind at startup and has apparently remapped the shift points in non sport mode to be very close to the sport mode settings. ITS HUGE.

The engine itself feels stronger across the board with a mellow throatiness under low throttle and a nice high performance growl when pushed. A friend of mine with a manual trans R56 dorve my car the other day and was clealry impressed. He felt the engine was much stronger and sounded like it should rather than a bit wheazy. He is ready to go JCW, too. My son (owns a Boxster S) drove the car and loved it. His comment "-this little car is FAST. Maybe faster than my Boxster around town. The power is right there, all the time."

Around 2000 rpm in a high gear and w/o inducing a trans downshift, you can find some lag till it spools up but other than that, it just pulls much better than stock. As stated earlier, the ECU tune appears to be the big difference. Perhaps if MINI sold the ECU tune alone and let us get other exhausts or intakes, etc. more bang for the buck could be had. The JCW kit has stopped the car from feeling like something was holding it back. For me, I feel the JCW kit (w/ warranty) is very worthwhile. I am very pleasantly surprised rather than disappointed. It may not have MAX numbers compared to ALTA etc, but it feels great.

[msh441]

Quote: Originally Posted by minichara (original)

Here is my dyno with out any kind of modifications...
(just some LOHEN stickers...)

So, is it advisable to pay $2500 in Greece in order to istall the JCW???

So, muddling through what I can understand (seriously...its all Greek to me )... I'm seeing: 260 Newton Meters of torque (= 191 Foot lbs.)...187-190 hp. I'm assuming that's corrected to the the crank (which is consistant with a stock car: 164-167 at the wheels)... and one impossibly flat fuel/air mix curve (if that's what that is at the very bottom... wierd). But what's the lower 150hp curve shown in blue?

I'm curious as to what smoothing factor was used. Was that the 8.X? If thats the case, that's pretty high. From what I understand, more "smoothing" causes the computer not to plot out some of the variations in torque or hp throughout the curve. Effectivly not showing as much detail and making the curve appear, well... smoother.

So, assuming your curve is accurate... and depending on the drivline loss you buy into (12-14% sounds about right IMO)... the JCW kit would be giving you from 16-18 hp and 14-16 foot-pounds of torque at the wheels. More if you belive there's 17-20% loss. Worth $2500+an in-tact warrenty ? Up to you.

If it were me and my curve looked like that as stock, I would have gone for a turbo-back exhaust myself, throw on an intake and call it good after spending about $1200-1500. Then again, I haven't seen an R56S with a curve that flat without some SERIOUS ECU tuning (JCW or aftermarket). You must have got a good one .

[minichara]

The torque is 268,1 nm in 3615 rpms.
190 hp in the dyno hall, 187hp outside.

air temperature in 19,6 degrees (sorry, cannot do the conversion to Fahrenheits...)
induction temperature is 19 degrees.

Fuel: 95 octane

Hp in the wheels: 146,6 hp (maha dynos calculate about 22% losses)
Smoothing according to EWG

[gasss]

Quote: Originally Posted by minichara (original)

The torque is 268,1 nm in 3615 rpms.
190 hp in the dyno hall, 187hp outside.

air temperature in 19,6 degrees (sorry, cannot do the conversion to Fahrenheits...)
induction temperature is 19 degrees.

Fuel: 95 octane

Hp in the wheels: 146,6 hp (maha dynos calculate about 22% losses)
Smoothing according to EWG

95octane fuel remove hp at this engine, sure, my mcs in a maha dyno like your, more or less same air temperature, and with shell V-Power 98octane, 207hp-298nm, all engine stock.

regards from Madrid

[msh441]

Quote: Originally Posted by gasss (original)

95octane fuel remove hp at this engine, sure, my mcs in a maha dyno like your, more or less same air temperature, and with shell V-Power 98octane, 207hp-298nm, all engine stock.

Stock S? Or stock R56S JCW? Your numbers look like the latter.

Minichara is giving numbers from his stock S for comparison purposes.

[gasss]

Quote: Originally Posted by msh441 (original)

Stock S? Or stock R56S JCW? Your numbers look like the latter.

Minichara is giving numbers from his stock S for comparison purposes.

Stock S, in spain, all stock MCS R56 in dyno are about 200-210cv with 280-300nm, even more hp some press units.

Friend´s MCS R56 Stock car with 95octane run189cv, with 98octane, 203cv; I recommend 98octane for our engine, even more octane if is avaliable at the gas station, in spain 98octane is the higher

In a few weeks i´ll return to dyno my MCS R56 with JCW kit engine instaled (actually it´s in the dealer mounting the kit), i´ll post the results.

regards from spain

[Japper]

Quote: Originally Posted by gasss (original)

Stock S, in spain, all stock MCS R56 in dyno are about 200-210cv with 280-300nm, even more hp some press units.

Friend´s MCS R56 Stock car with 95octane run189cv, with 98octane, 203cv; I recommend 98octane for our engine, even more octane if is avaliable at the gas station, in spain 98octane is the higher

In a few weeks i´ll return to dyno my MCS R56 with JCW kit engine instaled (actually it´s in the dealer mounting the kit), i´ll post the results.

regards from spain

Your transmission losses are high, so the power estimated at flywheel from the rollers may be wrong.

[msh441]

Quote: Originally Posted by gasss (original)

Stock S, in spain, all stock MCS R56 in dyno are about 200-210cv with 280-300nm, even more hp some press units.

This illustrates exactly why all dynos should be set up to show only wheel horsepower (WHP) and torque figures. Anything else is just theorehtical.

Quote: Originally Posted by minichara (original)

maha dynos calculate about 22% losses

So assuming it hasn't been cranked up beyond 22%... *crunching numbers*... gasss is in the area of 159-161whp. So a 10-12hp gain on minichara's 147bhp car on higher octane gas alone? Dang! Thant's an 8-9% performance gain.

92-94 octane is considered "premium grade" around here. Next time I do a dyno day, I'll be filling up on some high octane race fuel at the track and calculating a 22% driveline loss! I'll be putting up some 250bhp figures without even spending another dime!

All kidding aside... those power and torque curves are beautiful on those two. You guys should be very happy.

[minichara]

Quote: Originally Posted by msh441 (original)

This illustrates exactly why all dynos should be set up to show wheel horsepower (WHP) and torque figures.

Somthing tells me your using >20% correction factor? More like 22%, maybe?



OK... that might be in the ballpark... *crunching numbers*... so assuming it hasn't been cranked up beyond 22% you too are in the area of 159-161whp.

What do you mean...???

[gasss]

Quote: Originally Posted by Japper (original)

Your transmission losses are high, so the power estimated at flywheel from the rollers may be wrong.

I think transmision losses are higher than minichara´s car because in my car gear used is 5 (look the graph and max speed) not 4 like minichara or 3 like msh441, in 6gear transmision losses even would be higher; this dyno is fully set up, another model of car, show power grahps absolutelly right, even lower in some cases that the owner hope.

i dont want to be such a pain in the neck , but the most of MCS R56 at dynos, in Spain, are about 200-210cv (remember, always with 98octane), my car results are not nothing strange or unusual.

regards from Madrid

[msh441]

Quote: Originally Posted by minichara (original)

What do you mean...???

What I mean is that if everyone uses a different correction factor for driveline loss, comparing two different dyno graphs depicting crank, or brake horsepower means very little. Those peak power numbers are just estimates of what's being put out at the crank.

Wheel horsepower is wheel horsepower. Wheel torque is wheel torque. It's therefore the most accurate way to compare the maximum power produced by two different vehicles. It's the final result and the most accurate measure of what's being put on the pavement.

Granted, we were talking primarily about the "smooth-ness" of the torque curves of the S vs. the JCW cars. For that purpose, all charts have been very helpful. I was having difficulty however wrapping my brain around the peak power figures being put out there. I paid for a JCW kit that's putting out 180 wheel horsepower (and supposed to make 192 at the crank). So when someone comes along and says "all S cars in my country are putting out between 200-210 horsepower"... that peaks my interest and requires some investigation and further explaintion.

Quote: Originally Posted by gasss (original)

I think transmision losses are higher than minichara´s car because in my car gear used is 5 (look the graph and max speed) not 4 like your; this dyno is fully set up, another model of car, show power grahps absolutelly right, even lower in some cases that the owner hope.

i dont want to be such a pain in the neck , but the most of MCS R56 at dynos, in Spain, are about 200-210cv (remember, always with 98octane), my car results are not nothing strange or unusual.

No pain! I'm genuinly interested.

That makes some sense. 3rd or 4th are usually the gears closest to a 1:1 ratio but on the R56S, seems like 4th or 5th are the gears to use:

1st - 3.308
2nd - 2.130
3rd - 1.483
4th - 1.139
5th - 0.949
6th - 0.816

Anything above that (6th) and your overdriving the transmission a bit too much. I don't think that it'll make too much difference overall. Maybe 1-2%? I don't know. Heck, I used 3rd for mine, so what do I know!?!