[Paul]

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?

[Tigger, Eeyore & Roo]

Those results are fascinating! It's interesting to overlay the graphs from the supercharged and turbocharged S's and then switch between them!

The supercharged car is up a little on BHP, but it doesn't have that lovely flat torque curve of the turbo and it needs to be revved just a little harder to achieve similar BHP in the mid range. Interesting lack of significant flat spots for either car.

Tigger.

[Paul]

I certainly thought it was interesting.

[ru81]

Is there much difference in the weights of the two cars (R53 and R56)??

[minicabrio]

Quote: Originally Posted by ru81 (original)

Is there much difference in the weights of the two cars (R53 and R56)??

1st Gen = Unladen weight (EU): 1215 kg
2nd Gen = Unladen weight (EU): 1205 kg

That's for the Cooper S

[Japper]

The R56 wasn't 'Run in' yet though ( less than 1k ) whereas the R53 was at 11k.

[Tonyt3]

Hmmm, interesting. They seem to put forward that they are illiminating many of the external factors the Rolling Roads suffer from by taking away the Wheel/Roller interface - however, they must still be doing some 'drive train losses' calculations. BHP quoted by the manufacturer is the true power of the engine, before it enters the many various devices used to put that power down on the road - the gear box, drivshafts, hubs, wheels, tyres etc. These outputs are commonly reffered to as the 'bench' output, the engine quite literally strapped to a bench and tested rather than being installed in a car.

I wonder how many examples they test before they publish a 'base' figure? Ideally, these guys should test 10 'identical' Mini's, then publish the average perfiormane figure, and compare that to the manufacturers claim.....

All of us that have driven more than one of the same car know that they have different powers. Myself and my wife bought near identical Cooper S's at about the same time. Yet her car always felt 10% more powerful than mine - and was faster even though had heavier options.

[Paul]

It only sounds as if they test one car, a press car, for each type. Also, the fact that Audi's with their four wheel drive system apparently "under perform" very badly (among the worst of all against quoted figures), did make me wonder how they're calculations work in these instances.

[OttoMannS]

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

[kriation]

Quote: Originally Posted by Paul Mullett (original)

It only sounds as if they test one car, a press car, for each type. Also, the fact that Audi's with their four wheel drive system apparently "under perform" very badly (among the worst of all against quoted figures), did make me wonder how they're calculations work in these instances.

As an Audi owner, I can attest to the fact that on a dyno, the Audi seems as if it's under-performing because of significant power losses through the drivetrain. However, at the crank, some of these cars do actually over-perform from the manufacturer's stated numbers.

It's very hard for auto manufacturers to cookie cutter their cars, especially those of the sport/performance category so that they all perform the same. There's quite a bit of variation from car to car because of calculated tolerances during the engineering process.

[MINI-Morgan]

Very interesting graphs indeed! I would still like to see an R56 that has been run in on there instead with 5000miles. All good fun! Very nice torque curve on the R56 but very much impressed that the facelift MCS exceeded the manufacture spec.

[Paul]

It's ALL about the torque in the new S, the engine is a real cracker.

[Richard Crofts]

I heard it was a real rattler LOL

>>>>>>>Runs for cover

[Ant FR]

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

[Paul]

To be honest, while we had several reports of 1st gen MINIs going up in smoke (literally), and of course the early sparking fuel filler risk (!), I've yet to see that happen to a 2nd gen MINI. But that's beside the point, as this is really about engine tuning/claims against reality than it is anything to do with reliability.

[minicabrio]

Quote: Originally Posted by Ant FR (original)

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

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.