[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.....lol

[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.

[Minipnut]

my mini hand book states the minimum requirement for my car is 91 and recommended is 98-100, my friends 56 says exactly the same ?

[DaFlake]

Quote: Originally Posted by Minipnut (original)

my mini hand book states the minimum requirement for my car is 91 and recommended is 98-100, my friends 56 says exactly the same ?

91 what?

I looked in the manual and that is the AKI rating which is typically the octane rating (US Based).

octane rating: Information from Answers.com

Above is a good description of how fuels are rated and how they are different from country to country. Your 91 AKI is what we in the USA call Premium fuel (top octane rating at most pumps). The tests are based on RON (a different formula), not AKI... You put 91 RON in a R56 and see how that baby runs.

[DaFlake]

Forgot to mention that the minimum AKI is 87 BUT the manual states that you should run the recommended rating of 91. Anything lower than 87 could damage the engine.

Bottom line is that you run the recommended fuel for each engine and then compare them to see how they compare. Don't give one an edge in either direction. If you want to run higher octane then you can but the tests should be standardized.

Sorry about the dual posts, but I got sucked into a meeting.