I completely agree with Andy on the A/F ratios of the stock vs. pullied MINI. It is something I know RDR, Helix, myself and a few others I'm sure have been saying from the beginning. The MINI does not use a MAF for fuel, it has a MAP.

The stock and pulley A/F ratios I've done have been almost overlayable (not sure if that's really a word).

All of that said, that doesn't absolutely mean that the AmD OneClick doesn't work - it just means that the marketing may not be correct. I am currently trying to get a hold of one for testing, both dyno and A/F.

Andy - your plots rock! Are those done through the Rosstech software, or do you just get the data from there and have to make the plots on another proigram? If it is through the Rosstech stuff, I want it. E-mail me with purchase info.

RallyPerformance,

I really appreciate you taking the time to address questions and represent your products - Kudos and welcome to MINIdom!

[up on soap box]
The ECU should be looked at as another piece of the modifications puzzle. It can make more power, and can optimize the modifications done. It is NOT necessary to make the mods out there safe. The pulley, intake, exhaust, etc will work fine on their own. Is the ECU a good idea? That depends on what your goals are. I typically see anywhere from 8-14 hp on the Webb Motorsports ECU, and it costs $690 alone or $615 if you include the pulley. That gives a pretty good hp/dollar ratio if you have already done the intake and pulley. In fact, using that ration, there isn't much else that will give you that kind of bang for the buck. So it does make sense from a performance perspective, but it (and I say it again) should not be considered a requirement.
[/off of soapbox]

Hope that helps!

Randy
http://www.webbmotorsports.com

 

RandyBMC,

Thanks for your post.

Thanks for your take on the ECU upgrade. In my book Webb/PowerChip is the ECU to beat right now.
Any hint that your ECU chip will be tuned to a particular size of pulley? 15 vs 17 vs 19%? Or does that matter at all?

How do the different versions of your Webb/PowerChip ECU work- we could select an autocross, track, or pulley version of the software and that is what we would stick with? Too bad we could not switch between versions. Have something like the Shark injector technology that contains a street/pulley version for 93 octane and can also flash an autocross/track version on demand. When done with the event then flash back to street version.

What are the rough differences between the various versions of the Webb/Powerchip ECU (and how is your version different from the regular PowerChip software?)

And can you explain what would happen if I got your ECU upgrade and the Dealer installed v.36 or later software over it- what would it cost me to correct that error in terms of reflashing my ECU upgrade.

 

Here is some info on the latter questions:

Reflash and install info

I always enjoy answering your well thought out and verbose posts, minihune. :smile:

I have not developed a software version for the 17 or 19% pulley. As you know, I'm not a big fan of either, and I think the testing is at best incomplete on the results of these. There may be more in the future, and I know reputable folks, like Eric ay Helix, are working on it as well. For now, nothing on the ECU front is available for those sizes, but that doesn't mean that you wouldn't benefit from the ECU programming for the 15% pulley with these other sizes (and I'm sure you actually would). As has been discussed above, the ratio should remain close as far as the metered A/F to what has been set in the ECU parameters.

There are different versions. There is a 91 and 93 octane for the pulley, the pulley/intake/exhaust, the pulley/intake/exhaust/throttle body, and the monster for headwork and cams. I also have an autocross version which has a soft rev limit at a higher point (to keep from having to shift to the next gear), or a stock point if the class does not allow for redline changes. Powerchips has a stock S and a Cooper ECU program that I distribute, but I had nothing to do with the develop of it (it works well though as tested).

Rough differences from Powerchip and Webb Motorsports:

Different Redline
Different A/F ratio curve
Throttle response mapping

Let me know if you have any other questions - and it's easier to answer from the forums on Webb Motorsports, as I monitor those a lot more religiously than I do the wonderful world of NAM. :smile:

Randy
http://www.webbmotorsports.com

 

Randy,

Those were collected using a wideband A/F meter. A very reasonably priced one is available here:

http://www.innovatemotorsports.com

I'd recommend welding a bung upstream of your cat for most accurate measurement.

BTW, would you mind answering the questions I posed here?

http://www.webbmotorsports.com/forum...opic.php?t=163

I'm curious to know what sort of testing and forensics you did to determine that :

"The seal was compromised by the heat of the hub during the installation, but it has been on the car for some time now - just when the 19% pulley went on did it finally give up the ghost. "

 

I would like to say that Randy's is the chip to beat, but that is such a blanket statement. Nothing against Randy, I really respect him, but in this scenario he is a vendor/developer of this software package. It may or may not be the best product out there. His has some good performance, but the cost is higher than some and it is a pain to reload into the car. I know that each individual will have different needs, so it is good that a lot of products are out there. Some will be cheap and that is good for some people, but others offer more performnace and that is what other people are looking for.

There has never been any real good testing across all the different ECUs out there. I would really like to see that. It would clear a tremendous amount of smoke and offer some real tangible results for all of us to use when evaluating the different items. Randy has been really good with a lot of items, but it would be great to see an independent third party provide some evaluation and numbers as well. For ECU evaluation I would like to somehow see these different categories:

-Price
-Performance hp/torque
-Evaluation of ability to tie in the modifications into a coherent package
-Ease of Use
-Company History

We have results for some items. But many of them are from different people looking at each item in isolation. Worse yet some numbers are only found by the manufacturer. Even with Randy's chip we only see his numbers. Every manufacturer is going to test different ways, I would like to see all of them tested under similiar conditions (as similiar as we can).

It is disappointing that this community doesn't really have anything like that. And it is really evident with some products. Exhaust is a good one. Exhausts in our community is such "bandwagon" item. One minute it is the magnaflow, then it is the UUC. For a while everyone couldn't wait until the UUC came out. Randy gave it a good review and everyone was buying it and there were posts galore. Then the Miltek slipped in. Randy gave it a better review and everyone forgot the UUC and then started buying the Miltek. Everyone originally commented on the finish and the sound and the performance of the UUC. Pretty soon people were stating how stupid it was to pay such a high price for a nice finish when it was just under the car, and many more other comments. I know that some things will come out and will be better than previous ones, and we are in the early stages of this community, but it is really amazing the vagueness of everything. Another good example is the "smoothness" of everything. If you combined all of the different evaluations that we have seen of everything and the smoothness that these products add, I should be able to have one smooth car. Everything seems to give the car a smoother feel. By reading everyone's comments you would think we have the roughest unsmooth car on the market.

It would be nice to see an evaluation of the exhausts. One which included a lot of sound bytes, and a consistent evaluation amongst a few people. I know a lot of it is subjective, but it is so hard to really evaluate personally these items. One person who has Brand A has only seen a Brand B exhaust. It is quieter they state, and then mention some "seat of the pants" stuff. While another person says Brand B doesn't produce any power.

Don't get me wrong, I know it will be subjective. Just like Auto magazines are subjective, but it is still nice to see the evaluations in the auto magazine because there is some consistency to the evaluation. This isn't a negative post against anyone, just a concerned modifier who would like to see more detailed unbiased information on all the options for various categories.

I know I have gone on to long here. But I know others are frusturated as well. I know it takes a lot of work for people to do this, but it would be nice if some shops or a magazine was started to do this. I would be willing to pay for good comprehensive reviews of technology out there in the form of a magazine.

 

>>Randy,
>>
>>Those were collected using a wideband A/F meter. A very reasonably priced one is available here:
>>
>>http://www.innovatemotorsports.com
>>
>>I'd recommend welding a bung upstream of your cat for most accurate measurement.
>>
>>BTW, would you mind answering the questions I posed here?
>>
>>http://www.webbmotorsports.com/forum...opic.php?t=163
>>
>>I'm curious to know what sort of testing and forensics you did to determine that :
>>
>>"The seal was compromised by the heat of the hub during the installation, but it has been on the car for some time now - just when the 19% pulley went on did it finally give up the ghost. "

Check out the forum, as I responded over there. Sorry I missed the question - I think it may have been while I was in sunny Florida vacationing :smile:

Randy

 

>>
>>I haven't seen any either. Although there are some discussions going on with AmD about the chip on Mini2 http://www.mini2.com/forum/showthrea...;highlight=AMD
>>
Discussion it's an Infomercial!

FYI, I was the guinea on the above Shark Dyno runs that Andy posted.

Who will step up to the plate and be the AmD One Click guinea?

 

>>>>
>>>>I haven't seen any either. Although there are some discussions going on with AmD about the chip on Mini2 http://www.mini2.com/forum/showthrea...;highlight=AMD
>>>>
>>Discussion it's an Infomercial!
>>
>>FYI, I was the guinea on the above Shark Dyno runs that Andy posted.
>>
>>Who will step up to the plate and be the AmD One Click guinea?


Again, I don't think that a single dyno run is all that is needed. Heck Randy's website says that his Webb/Powerchip has seen gains of 17hp. Then in this thread he states he has seen anywhere from 8-14hp on this chip. So from Randy's own words we have seen anywhere from 8-17hp. At 17hp his chip is seeming attractive. At 8hp it isn't so good anymore.

I don't think it is an informercial per se, AmD hasn't made any claims on the chip. No different than Randy talking about his chip. I would like to see a dyno of Randy's chip which I don't believe I have seen posted, but maybe I am missing it somewhere.

 

" I would like to see a dyno of Randy's chip which I don't believe I have seen posted, but maybe I am missing it somewhere."


I am still waiting for the Milltek and Alta catback`s dynos! :evil: :evil:

I remember early posts stating that Magnaflow produced ~15 hp :evil: .

Has anyone, besides Randy, tested Randy`s chip? I would LOVE to see those dynos.

Paul.

 

We need the equivalent of UL Labs for MINI mods, but it will never happen, since anyone with a dyno will either need money for dyno time or will be trying to sell stuff. The next best thing we can do is have as many customers as possible dyno the parts, thereby giving a decent overall picture of the effectiveness of the mods.

 

>>
>>
>>Again, I don't think that a single dyno run is all that is needed. Heck Randy's website says that his Webb/Powerchip has seen gains of 17hp. Then in this thread he states he has seen anywhere from 8-14hp on this chip. So from Randy's own words we have seen anywhere from 8-17hp. At 17hp his chip is seeming attractive. At 8hp it isn't so good anymore.
>>
>>I don't think it is an informercial per se, AmD hasn't made any claims on the chip. No different than Randy talking about his chip. I would like to see a dyno of Randy's chip which I don't believe I have seen posted, but maybe I am missing it somewhere.


Once you see the difference in dyno runs, even under a controlled environment, with the different cars, you would understand the difference and range in numbers. I was giving you the low and the high. I can say the average. "typical results" are in the 13hp neighborhood. I have different programs as well - 91 and 93 octane too - so there are just differences in the dyno runs based on so many factors it is mind boggling. I totally agree that you can't use just one run. Here are some differences I've seen on the same car just from different testing conditions on the same dyno: 8-15hp on exhausts, 8-14hp from ECU, 12-19hp on the pulley, etc.

There are differences, and the key is to have as many runs as possible to be able to get a good idea for what the average should be. From a marketing perspective, I should never have posted the lows, but I think it is a more accurate statement.

There are so many numbers running around, that it is hard to make sense of any of it - Mustang, Dynojet, Dyno Dynamics, Superflow - all of these dynos read differently. Where they are and how they are operated produce different numbers. The ambient conditions make a huge difference as well. I hope that I have helped in making it clear why there are differences in numbers, and how they get out there.

For what it is worth, if I see a trend after more testing on a particular part, like exhausts for instance, I change the posted numbers to reflect the most accurate data I have. That was illustrated on the dyno after we started doing a lot more testing with pulley equipped cars. The Mule is a great little car, becausse it seems to like everything - ECU, exhaust, pulley, etc. After testing several cars, you get a better picture and can post the most accurate numbers - both high and low as well as average. Take a look at the site, and it reflects these numbers now - on a Dynojet, in Denver, under several different conditions.

I have said it so many times that before, but during a conversation about dynos it must be included - the dyno is only a tool, and only part of the testing procedure. You must do other testing to verify the data - track testing, same gear timed acceleration, road testing, etc. If you depend solely on the numbers you get from the dyno, you are missing a big part of the picture.

I hope that helps - I really do. Feel free to call if you would like to discuss any other numbers.

Randy

 

Randy,

How about having a link on your sales pages to actual customer dynos of the products? I know that Sleepless posted some favorable results for the Evotech program here:

https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...amp;topic=9773

Even though I am not your customer, you are welcome to use my before and after results for the Magnaflow:

http://www.ross-tech.net/andy/mini/m...navschippd.gif

As well as my before and after results for the 15% pulley:

http://www.ross-tech.net/andy/mini/h...stockstock.gif

 

Some pics of the ECU plots. The reason I don't post them is because of the poor quality that taking a picture of the plot provides. As soon as I have the time, I plan to convert and label everything to be able to post in a sort of spreadsheet. I just snapped these from the ones I had from development dyno runs.


This is a shot of the before and after. The Before is 176hp and the After is 191hp. These are two of the sheets layed on top of on another - so it is a bit hard to see.


This is a shot of the dyno plots just from the development of the ECU.

Here is a plot from California when we were doing development out there. The red line is the Webb Motorsports ECU, the green is the same car with the EVOTech ECU, and the blue is the baseline.



Hope that helps!

Randy

 

Randy,

This may be of some help to you:

http://www.staples.com/Products/cent...ging/page2.asp

You won't be able to take the deduction until 2005, but oh well.

 

Thanks for the dyno's. You are correct they are one part of the picture, but a critical part nonetheless. They also do change a lot from scenario to scenario. But I think it is still good to show them, and it would be great if you had a link to them on a website.

I don't think any of us would care to much about car magazine reviews (and maybe some of us don't) if they never showed any data. If all the comments were "the BMW 745iL was much smoother than the Audi A8. If we were to guess our seat of the pants dyno tells us that the BMW is quicker". None of us would take too much stock into it. Even when they do, they still vary a lot. We have all seen MCS published doing 0-60 in 8 seconds all the way down to 6.9 seconds.

Andy,

I don't think we will ever see a "UL" type organization for the MCS, but maybe a good website showing reviews and numbers of different products from independent people would be good. I know this site does it, to some extent but it is too hard to find all the information sometimes. I know there was a site called mcshp.org somewhere, but I haven't seen it for some time. Maybe it will happen. Maybe if I want it so bad, I should put something together.

 

RandyBMC,

Did you get a flatbed photo scanner yet? I'm curious to see some plots. :smile:

 

Just installed my One-Click in my MINI cvt and haven't been able to stop smiling. I dont have any data but it seems that the change has definately helped. My MINI drives (in standard) nearly as well as it used to in sport. In sport it is awsome. The service that I recieved from Ram was excelent and if it wasn't raining today I would be out looking for an empty parking lot to play on.

 

Maybe we could get a university, such a Oregon State University's Mechanical Engineering Department, to conduct controlled tests on various upgrades using different manufacturer's products. We could also have them evaluate packages.
These test could be run on the same engine mounted on a test frame connected directly to their dyno. Atmospheric pressure, ambient temperature, engine temperature, humidity could all be controlled and recorded. This would provide the same frame of reference for all tests.

As a group we could pay a fee to them to evaluate and report on the results. This would get neutral, unbaised, results that would let us all know which products are winners. I for one would be willing to pay a fee for the results. To control cost of such tests, the manufaturer's could supply the performace components, and pay a fee to have their products tested under controlled conditions. The ME Department could become a "underwriters lab" of sorts for MINI products. This would provide valuable information for consumers as well as for the developers.

Developers, would you be willing to submit your products to such tests> What would you be willing to pay to have your products evaluated? Are you willing to cut through the marketing BS and put your work up against the competition?