MINI Cooper Forum banner

61 - 80 of 101 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
209 Posts
I know of Millway motorsport in Andover, their rollers are very good, so have no problem with the readouts or the claimed figures.

Once more roland, excellent work ! :D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,813 Posts
Discussion Starter #64
Humerless Ill say it again ,this 'baseline' fixation is totally pointless. Let me give you
a similar scenario: I have a micrometer which is a measuring instrument (as is the rolling
road), I want to check the calibration of my micrometer to ensure its reading right, so what method should one choose to check its reading correctly ?
(A) A calibration slip designed and made for the purpose or
(B) a component, picked out of the batch of 20,000 components
Ive just made .,,. all with a plus or minus 10 thou dimensional tolerance on them ?

'B' theory is like calibrating the rollers with a car (baseline theory) ; they are all the same part (ie Cooper S) but have manufacturers
tolerance as regards min power output . BMW may decide that 163 bhp is minimum permissable power but due to production tolerances may go as high as (say) 183 bhp
What possible use is using this to calibrate the rollers? Also what if theres an air leak on the base run and it reads 163bhp ,I go away tighten the clamps do a a rerun and get (say )
175 bhp ? If I happen to add a pulley & chip at the same same then the power figure GAIN will be inflated.

PS The correct answer is of course (A)

Best Regards Roland Gt Tuning Ltd
 

·
Now With More Cowbell
Joined
·
1,687 Posts
I have a problem with this reply.

What you're saying is "trust me". "Trust me more than BMW. Trust me more than any figures I might come up with on a baseline run."

That's all well and good. Im sure you're an ethical fellow. But ethics aside, I want to see some hard numbers. If you don't trust your dyno to provide adequate baseline numbers (calibration or no) then why do you trust it to give modified output numbers? Do you have any hard evidence to support your contention that cars might run anywhere from 163-183 hp in stock trim?

To me it doesn't really matter what the car's stock output is. Show me that, then show me your improvements. If it's 70 over stock and stock is 163, you get a pat on the back. If it's 70 over stock and stock is 183, you still get the pat on the back. A gain is a gain is a gain. But let's see what the gains really are.

Show us the baseline. :)

-CW

Edit: I was just thinking, this works both ways.

If your baseline reads 160hp and your modified car reads 230hp, we celebrate.
If your baseline reads 180hp and your modified car reads 230hp, we still celebrate, just a little less.
But if your baseline comes in at 140hp and your modified car puts out 230hp, there's dancing in the streets and a Nobel prize nomination in the offing. :p

Isn't this reason alone to post it up?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
I have to agree with Roland. All cars differ and give differing stock output power. Gains at the wheels will vary as a result, depending on which car it is. The only real test is to measure accurately the stock power at the flywheel, and measure accurately the modified power at the flywheel. The difference between these is the gain made on that car only, and not to be confused with the gains that can be made on all other identical models, because it will be different for each one.

Adam.
 

·
hey lightbulb head....
Joined
·
1,305 Posts
roland probably hasnt got the baseline bhp of the car because he was to damn quick to get these great products tested on it!

look, whatever the baseline is, whether 163 -180, the gains are very impressive in any case.

keep up the work roland, maybe these skeptic people might produce tuning as good as yours one day!:)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,813 Posts
Discussion Starter #68
Humourless OK baseline isnt totally pointless (just 'fairly pointless' ) Anything that is manufactured has production tolerance. If we used your baseline method we calibrate using a std CS of UNKNOWN output that also may have a small fault (airleak say) ,we wait 6mths and do a modified run. and compare output ? IMHO not the best way.
Heres another example: We do a baseline run on your CS,which just happens to give a crapy output of 155bhp. Not known at the time the reason the power was particularly low
was due to a well below average port size/alignment on head & manifolds. If we then flow the heads and gain a whopping 40bhp on this car,this will give an inflated figure as to power gains that could be expected on most cars.
If Im going to cheat Im going to cheat. To cheat using 'baseline calibration' (if you can call it that!) all I do is pull the pipe off that goes to my boostguage,so we get an airleak on the
manifold,do a run get a printout for say 153 bhp,go away plug the leak add say a new
exhaust (which is just about to go on sale) do another run and hey presto we have
165bhp. I then go away and market it as 'Adds 12bhp -- Rolling Road Proven!'
On top of that I can then go on to say to those who question it...' Yes AND the rollers read low aswell,,,,the std car only read 153bhp.' Customer says : ' WOW I'll have two of those then !'
Regards Roland GTT
 

·
saving the world
Joined
·
2,896 Posts
The arguement here goes both ways really, and is being stretched to it's limits by both sides, but to say a baseline run is pointless for the sake of the comparison is a little unfair.

Bravo for 273bhp though - that's an unreal result!
 

·
Now With More Cowbell
Joined
·
1,687 Posts
roland2003 said:
Humourless OK baseline isnt totally pointless (just 'fairly pointless' ) Anything that is manufactured has production tolerance. If we used your baseline method we calibrate using a std CS of UNKNOWN output that also may have a small fault (airleak say) ,we wait 6mths and do a modified run. and compare output ? IMHO not the best way.
Heres another example: We do a baseline run on your CS,which just happens to give a crapy output of 155bhp. Not known at the time the reason the power was particularly low
was due to a well below average port size/alignment on head & manifolds. If we then flow the heads and gain a whopping 40bhp on this car,this will give an inflated figure as to power gains that could be expected on most cars.
If Im going to cheat Im going to cheat. To cheat using 'baseline calibration' (if you can call it that!) all I do is pull the pipe off that goes to my boostguage,so we get an airleak on the
manifold,do a run get a printout for say 153 bhp,go away plug the leak add say a new
exhaust (which is just about to go on sale) do another run and hey presto we have
165bhp. I then go away and market it as 'Adds 12bhp -- Rolling Road Proven!'
On top of that I can then go on to say to those who question it...' Yes AND the rollers read low aswell,,,,the std car only read 153bhp.' Customer says : ' WOW I'll have two of those then !'
Regards Roland GTT
Less verbiage, more baselines.

Many thanks!

Yours,

-CW
 

·
Now With More Cowbell
Joined
·
1,687 Posts
LordNikon said:
There is no baselines, that has already been said IIRC

Flogging a dead horse springs to mind :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
You're welcome to express the point of view that it's unnecessary for a baseline graph to be plotted and posted. Mine differs. If one doesn't exist, then there's no way of proving or disproving a claim.

It just strikes me as common sense that there's no real way of knowing what improvements have been realised unless you know what your starting point was. That's my sole issue. For all I know his car could be running 130hp over stock rather than the claimed 110hp. Or it could be running only 90hp over stock. Gains are gains, but show us the facts.

You may accept the claims made. I have a little more skepticism. I've stated what it takes for my skepticism to be dispelled. You've chosen a different threshold of credibility than mine, that's all.

-CW
 

·
Hmm....silly name now
Joined
·
303 Posts
Roland,

Congratulations on your results first of all,

I was just wondering is it really possible to keep the inlet charge temperature cool enough on a rolling road to give a sensible result ???

Does your GTTintercooler and spray keep temps cool enough to produce maximum power possible, the reason I ask is my car suddenly feels a lot quicker as we go into winter - I'm running a 15% pulley, Big valve head, Scrick cams, milltek manifold+ cat back with standard intercooler, thinks me needs a bigger intercooler :D

Cheers

Chris
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,813 Posts
Discussion Starter #74
Thanks KLF, Yes we have the new GTT 16 tube intercooler which does play a big role which is why it will be included in all our conversions from stage 3 and up. A nice cold morning still gives noticably more power as you say but the one thing I have noticed is that power doesn't appear to drop off after a caning ( butt dyno only ,and no 'baseline butt either :D .) On the rollers we found it best to use
the bonnet shut,also there was a blower fan and we use water sprayed onto intercooler
(as disclosed ) TBH the day we went on the rollers they left the car ticking over for 25minutes with no fan on! that first run was a bit low so it was discounted. Once the coolant etc cooled down the power got better and better
Regards Roland Gt Tuning
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
444 Posts
chiptuning said:
Not strictly true. 3 (simplistic) ways to increase bhp at same rpm -

1. Optimise AFR for given amount of air by remapping fueling.
2. Optimise AFR for given fueling by increasing the amount of air, assuming ECU won't compensate for this.
3. Optimise ignition timing for given octane rating.

Combinations of all 3 are normally used, but the point is that increasing bhp does not necessarily mean increasing air flow. That's how you tune a normally aspirated engine with just an ECU remap - adjust the fueling and ignition - since air flow stays the same.

Adam.
I'm baaaaaaack! Woo Hoo!

Hope everyone had a good weekend!? ...and took the right medications/remedies to corrrect thier 'backfire' problems LOL :p ;)

Adam... if you take my remarks in the context of this discusion you'll see that I'm not in dispute with any of what you've just posted.

My questions regard Roland saying he was using stock ECU/software AND injectors. So this precludes him changing fueling and or timing in the manners you mention.

I think w'ere getting back to where this thread originated - before it spun into a "minimc says Roland can't create X horsepower" thread. :eek: ;)
 

·
MUGEN POWER
Joined
·
11,372 Posts
minimc said:
....stock ECU/software AND injectors. So this precludes him changing fueling and or timing.....
doesnt the standard software adjust the timing and fueling?!?!?:confused:

or is it just a case of the standard software maxxing out when running high power??:confused:

:)
 

·
Track addict
Joined
·
5,960 Posts
Its interesting to consider all this 'baseline' arguments. I do beleive it would be good and proper to have a 'standard' S run the rolling road at the same time as a conversion, so that simple things like local conditions can be discounted on test results..... but the only way to produce reliable results is to take an average reading over many examples - I don't believe for a minute BMW only tested one S before they put the power output at 163bhp - they probably released an average figure for tests over a range of sample cars. I don't know if thats true or not, but it would seem logical to me.

Further to this line of arguement though, BMW claim 163bhp for the original S. Why do we believe that this is accurate? Is this measured by some kind of third party? Also, is there a tolerance figure that we are not told about? For instance, does it really say 163bhp +/- 5%?

After all, BMW claim something rediculous like 35mpg for the S. I don't think anyone believes for a minute that this figure is either true, or even representative. Instead, we all know that the mpg testing is designed to produce the best results under the strictest of controlled conditions.

Therefore, is the Cooper S 163bhp (+/- 5%) (At see level) (measured at 20degree Celcius) (with low polution levels) (when the suns shining) (according to strict fuel quality) (when the testers had a curry the night before) ?

I think that if I where publishing results for my companies performance tests, I would personally arrange for the same test to be carried out on several standard cars at the same time. I beleive scientists call this a 'control group'.

Then you would have a 'base line' of sorts, that everyone could understand, and although not purely scientific in all aspects, it would suffice for most.

:cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
444 Posts
Tony*t3 said:
.....

Therefore, is the Cooper S 163bhp (+/- 5%) (At see level) (measured at 20degree Celcius) (with low polution levels) (when the suns shining) (according to strict fuel quality) (when the testers had a curry the night before) ?
...Curry the night before. LMAO! :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
444 Posts
RedUn said:
doesnt the standard software adjust the timing and fueling?!?!?:confused:

or is it just a case of the standard software maxxing out when running high power??:confused:

:)
Short answer: Yes it does adjust timing and fueling (timing +/- 15 degrees I believe). But Roland can't manipulate this if he's using the OE ECU software settings and injectors. Under these circumstances the only variables he has control over are: air- creating higher boost, lowering pumping losses, fueling - octane level, and cooling- the cylinder and intake charge. So… NO he can’t adjust it via the ECU… not directly. Or else it wouldn’t stock now would it ;)

Adding further complication is the following:

At or near maximum power output the ECU is operating in 'open loop'. In open loop the ECU is using fixed ratios. It is not adjusting via sensory information – excluding knock sensors/other safety measures.

If you view an MCS AFR plot (air to fuel) & corresponding dyno you will see big changes at around 4k rpm. In most every MCS AFR plot I’ve seen AFR is around12:1 or 12.5:1 at 4k rpm. Within a 1000 rpm increase AFR drops to 11.5:1 or lower... by the time you hit 6k rpm its easily 11:1 to 10:1. This is VERY rich. As you begin to reach redline there is a spike upward. The AFR is begining to rise because of injector capablity. I say this becaue anyone who’s spun an MCS engine faster than 6250 knows that the AFR continues to rise. I have seen an average of around 11.5:1 at 7150 rpm. …Most cars with upped redline go to 7200 or 7250. If you cool the intake charge and make combustion chamber mods the numbers change, but not the direction of AFR values.

A modded car e.g. (15 thru 19% pulley mod) is flowing more air than what the ECU has been programmed to fuel for. ...So we see a leaning out of the A/F ratio. Note that this occurs on JCW and non-JCW modded cars producing horsepower in the 190-220 bhp range. When you start to flow more air the effect wil be greater. If you reach 13:1 AFR you are 'optimum' for peak torque/hp, but there's little room for error or bad fuel. As AFR increases preignition/ detonation are the concerns. This is why the new JCW 210 bhp kit adds larger injectors and further modified ECU settings.

So... when Roland talks about taking an MCS, making all sorts of mods, without modding the fueling/timing by way of aftermarket intervention - chip/software/injectors etc. AND producing 273 bhp he must be doing something 'very special'. ...That’s all I’m saying.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,813 Posts
Discussion Starter #80
OK heres the deal I'll connect up the wideband ,reinsert the stock software and we will take it in 4th gear all the way to 7K revs. We can have a Canadian forum member in the passenger seat noting the readings and I guarantee we dont go richer than 12;1 OR
leaner than 12.8:1 . On top of that I will then increase boost to 20psi (I believe thats a first)
and redo the test. Again I guarantee it doesnt go leaner than 12.8:1 even at 7000rpm (ie perfect) . :) Best Regards Roland Gt Tuning

PS Im also happy to put our CS against ANY other CS around the track or down the dragstrip. As long as its for a magazine or major event,and not TOO far. eg Castle Combe is close for us or Goodwood.
MINMC I dont agree with your fuelling & ecu theorys very much. :)
 
61 - 80 of 101 Posts
Top