i've been wondering about that too! Figured it was a miss print but if you go back and look, every time numbers are quoted they mention rear horsepower. I wonder if they dynoed the right car!

 

actually, if you measure horsepower by monitoring the rear wheels on a fwd car,
you don't get spurious blips from front tire wheel spin.
(or am I f.o.s?)

 

>>actually, if you measure horsepower by monitoring the rear wheels on a fwd car,
>>you don't get spurious blips from front tire wheel spin.
>>(or am I f.o.s?)

f.o.s.

 

>>I have seen that, but that doesn't address the question of how much of the gain the Shark is actually responsible for. In fact, that chart doesn't indicate which runs (if any) had the Shark installed.
>>
>>Added to that, I am EXTREMELY skeptical of any dyno charts showing signifcant low-end torque gains from intakes. Here's what my boost curves look like with the stock airbox compared to the Alta intake:
>>
>>
>>
>>Note how the curves are almost identical to 4500 rpm.
>>
>>_________________
>>
>>
>>
>>1/4 Mile Database


Andy,

I totaly agree there, you should see the most improvements from a free flow air filter at the top of the curve where the stock filter begins to fall off because of airflow restriction. Low end torque and High end "FWHP" are always a trade off.

The Dyno chart from Turner is Stock, Pulley/Shark, Pulley/Shark/Intake. Turner doesn't install pulley's without the ECU because they say it run's too lean without it.

 

I love this thread!

I'm seriously considering ordering the Shark when I get a pulley. I'd also like to get a set of headers and, in the future, a larger throttle body.

Should I, a.) just get the pulley and the Shark and forget about the rest? b.) get the headers and take my chances?

 

I have the Shark, pulley, and Air Box and very happy with.
Maybe a nice exhaust will be next.

I don't think than we need more for an everyday car...

 

>>The Dyno chart from Turner is Stock, Pulley/Shark, Pulley/Shark/Intake. Turner doesn't install pulley's without the ECU because they say it run's too lean without it.
>>

That's funny - Turner USED to say the car runs too RICH without the software.

https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...amp;topic=8305

Until I see an actual dyno chart showing the change from JUST the shark (and even better, an A/F chart comparing the shark to stock) I don't believe the hype.

 

This is a great thread... Jim, thanks for your time.

My big complaint with the MCS is the "run-on" I get when I completely lift the throttle.

I'd like the car to decelerate from compression braking when I lift (like pre-emissions cars and purpose-built race cars do), instead of the ECU adding in fuel to reduce emissions during decel, making the car slow at a leisurely rate.

Jim, does the Shark Injector address/correct this situation?

Thanks,
Mike

 

Dual mass flywheel is the likely culprit for the run on. It weighs like 20-30 pounds. I picked up one when I was in the shop at Peabody mini (great place by the way) and was stupified by how heavy it was.

 

Don't forget that the supercharger acts as a flywheel as well (spinning 2.06 times engine speed or faster ).

 

I think the "run on" is also a symptom of forced induction. I see the same thing of my turbocharged Audi.

 

Randy, it would be great if you could give your opinion on the Shark. How does it compare with your Powerchip?

 

>>I'd like the car to decelerate from compression braking when I lift (like pre-emissions cars and purpose-built race cars do), instead of the ECU adding in fuel to reduce emissions during decel, making the car slow at a leisurely rate.

After driving the car everyday for over half a year, this is something we get used to and adapt, like most other things. I remember the first 1000 miles with the car, the engine delayed drastically. The Quicksilver exhaust has helped make things a lot more snappier though as far as that throttle lift off response but the same exact change may not have been felt if it was the first mod I did. I say this because I put the exhaust after the intake and pulley, and those modifications with a stock exhaust make the engine feel very restricted for that part of the equation, making things feel a lot more in balance when you get a system that reduces the backpressure. When I drive other cars, the response is still generally very different than the (laggy) MINI but regardless of that, it's easy to get used to and forget about it with enough use and fun.

 

just installed the Shark tonight and here a notable differance in the power of the car now. it feel a little slower then hartge i drove last week.
current car Mods
Shark
M7 Plasma booster
MINI Mania header with cat
free flow exhaust
IK22 plugs

future mods
Pulley "next week"
rear sway bar "next week"
Alta intake

 

>>just installed the Shark tonight and here a notable differance in the power of the car now. it feel a little slower then hartge i drove last week.
>>
>>future mods
>>Pulley "next week"

 

Speaking of headers. The "original" Milltek will be back in stock late this week or early next week at only $895 (aka Quicksilver or London Stainless). And don't forget we also stock the Shark for immediate shipment. -Pete, Stratmosphere
Milltek Mini Header

 

OK, some dyno charts. What you are looking at are two charts. One is our Mini S with Stock software, Rogue airbox, Milltek catback and 15% pulley. Two pulls shown on that chart. The second chart is all the same EXCEPT the SHARK software is installed (93 Octane). Once pull is displayed.

What you can see. Earlier torque with the Shark and 9-10hp at the wheels gain. Earlier in this thread I explained we are running more rich than the OEM software. If the Shark ran lean, more power would be here. -Pete, Stratmosphere.

BEFORE - NO SHARK


AFTER - SHARK SOFTWARE UPLOADED

 

Those plots aren't technically at the wheels since the Dynapack bolts to the hubs. What is the difference between the two runs in the first plot? Do you have a run showing the shark and non-shark on the same plot? Do you have any runs showing the car bolted to the Dynapack stock?

For those who don't know, a Dynapack is a type of dyno where an electric motor is bolted to each hub of the car (in place of the wheels) and power is measured through the motors.

 

The first chart simply has two pulls printed on it. Later on that day, the Sharked pulls occured. The chart shown represents a typical pull with the Shark. In general, the first pulls were "flyers" with higher numbers which we would discard, but I'm showing that in the stock pull (you can see the second pull there was lower but I'm showing the "flyer". The Sharked pull is not the flyer run, we had even higher numbers, especially torque. But I have to show what YOU can expect to get, not what I hope you could/might get. I guess I need an education about "at the wheels". I've seen everyone quoting this method as power at the "wheels" but what do I know! -Pete, Strat

 

Here's the higher of the two stock pulls compared with the shark pull, in a little more easily viewable format:

 

Damn! You need a job?

 

I play with graphs all day for a living. One more doesn't make a dent in my productivity.

 

If I am reading them correctly, it looks like 8.5 horses and only 2 lbs of torque. And the torque doesn't really seperate from stock until approaching 5k RPMs.

 

The torque also hits ealier and stays later as well. Plus, don't forget that the Fuel-Air is now corrected to run less lean (more lean would = even more power) -Pete, Strat

>>If I am reading them correctly, it looks like 8.5 horses and only 2 lbs of torque. And the torque doesn't really seperate from stock until approaching 5k RPMs.

 

The torque also hits ealier and stays later as well. Plus, don't forget that the Fuel-Air is now corrected to run less lean (more lean would = even more power) -Pete, Strat

>>If I am reading them correctly, it looks like 8.5 horses and only 2 lbs of torque. And the torque doesn't really seperate from stock until approaching 5k RPMs.