1st Gen Cooper S Out-Performs 2nd Gen....

[minicabrio]

Quote: Originally Posted by Ant FR (original)

trouble is not many R56's make it past 1000 miles before they go bang.......

What information do you base that on as I've not known of any R56s go 'bang'

[manwithnoname]

Quote: Originally Posted by Paul Mullett (original)

Well, compared to their stated figures, according to a Swedish company....

MINI Performs Better Than it Should, Most Cars Dont.



Strange that, as we've seen so many posts on here claiming that the turbo S is well over-performing?

I am amazed people waste so much time over it all. The results are never conclusive as there are too many variables. At the end of the day who really cares?

[Paul]

Quote: Originally Posted by manwithnoname (original)

I am amazed people waste so much time over it all. The results are never conclusive as there are too many variables. At the end of the day who really cares?

Who cares? I guess all those people who "waste so much time over it all" do.

It's always a popular topic, but you're right there's so much to consider.

I think it's interesting the site is sort of claiming to be an authority on the subject and presenting results in a manner which encourages cross referencing and competition. Yet still we all know that car a and car b, even though identical in spec, can perform very differently.

[manwithnoname]

Exacty, it is a totally pointless exercise.

[Tigger, Eeyore & Roo]

I've got to disagree with this.

Though maximum bhp figures are fairly meaningless, complete bhp and torque curves are very useful, especially when I can drawer a direct comparison between different cars, in this case the R53 and R56.

manwithnoname may find it pointless, but I don't.

Tigger.

[Paul]

Curves are interesting, power delivery and such and any blips and "weak spots".

I find this sort of thing interesting, but I do understand the point (I think) being made that people use them purely for bragging rights and "real HP" figures, and that's not really the point or purpose (I feel).

That said, a Rolling Road day is still a good day out.

[Ant FR]

i love my R53 and thats that as far as i am concerned. And i am sure some will love the R56, they got to even though its got a face only a mum could love.....

[minicabrio]

Quote: Originally Posted by Tigger, Eeyore & Roo (original)

manwithnoname may find it pointless, but I don't.

Me neither... The graphs themselves are a great way of comparing how two different engines put out their power and torque.

It's great comparing engines like the 2002 M5 with its V8 to the 2005 model with the V10. The old V8 has a perfect power curve between 1500 and 5500 RPM, whereas the V10 has a tiny trough between 3000 and 4000.

[manwithnoname]

Quote: Originally Posted by Paul Mullett (original)

I find this sort of thing interesting, but I do understand the point (I think) being made that people use them purely for bragging rights and "real HP" figures, and that's not really the point or purpose (I feel).

Exactly.

[msh441]

Quote: Originally Posted by OttoMannS (original)

If you post this over at R56 "loving" sites such as MotoringFile and NAM, you will get quite the response....

Only if no one actually reads the article itself.

The 1st gen car "outperformed" the 2nd gen car with regards to manufacturer's suggested output vs. real world dyno results. That's it.

Nice and all... and the bhp/torque graphs ARE interesting if you've never seen them accross the model range before... but theres no use making any more of this than it is: MINI & BMW are more accurate quoting or downplaying their power figures that other manufacturers. Pretty simple.

But hey OttomannS, you could allways post it up and see what kind of reaction you get.

[Lordy]

http://www.mini2.com/forum/2nd-gen-e...ml#post3063300

http://www.mini2.com/forum/2nd-gen-e...ml#post3063398

These are rolling road charts for various cars , done 2 weeks ago , my r56 has done 7k and is well and trully run in !!!!!

[Minipnut]

Did you notice the 1st gen's were using 95 ron while the 2nd gen was using 98ron ? cheaters ! haha 1st gen 4 life!

[DaFlake]

Quote: Originally Posted by Minipnut (original)

Did you notice the 1st gen's were using 95 ron while the 2nd gen was using 98ron ? cheaters ! haha 1st gen 4 life!

Actually, this is done because that is what is required for the turbo. Fairly standard. I run 95 Ron in my 06 with no problems and there is really no need to go higher but the turbo will need it. They just kept the playing field level by using the proper fuel for the engine tested.

[Minipnut]

But that is hardly fair, im pretty sure the new turbo could run on 87 if it was forced to but it wouldnt be to happy about it... imo 98 vs98 is fair keep the playing field level, 3 octane does make a diff in Euro/Ricer cars you should watch the 5th gear ep where they test it.

YouTube - 5thGear - High Octane, better? (Korean Subtitle)

here it is
Callan

[DaFlake]

Quote: Originally Posted by Minipnut (original)

But that is hardly fair, im pretty sure the new turbo could run on 87 if it was forced to but it wouldnt be to happy about it... imo 98 vs98 is fair keep the playing field level, 3 octane does make a diff in Euro/Ricer cars you should watch the 5th gear ep where they test it.

YouTube - 5thGear - High Octane, better? (Korean Subtitle)

here it is
Callan

It is very fair.

How do you compare two totally different engines? You control the test by keeping the playing field level and using the minimal requirements by both engines then measure the output. The minimal requirement for each engine is used and 95 RON is used for the R53 as that is the minimum. You are thinking in terms of high performance, where the testers and myself are thinking about normal performance.

If I used 98 in the R53, then I give that engine an edge on performance over the R56. What then?

This is all about controlling the environment of that engine.