I don't doubt that it's possible, given enough traction and power. But, I'd like to know if anyone has actually measured it. FWIW, here is my MCS getting to 60 in about 6.4 seconds:



This is logged with prototype diagnostic software that reads individual wheel speeds. The average speed of the rear wheels is used, corrected for tire size, and verified to be within 0.1 s and 0.1 mph of the dragstrip timeslip.

 

Because I like to see actual results, not assumptions or conjecture.

 

>>And I guarantee it.

I think if Peter had said something more on the lines of "I've never tried it, but it seems reasonable that you could get 5.5 seconds using the blahblahblah" instead of "... I gurantee..." without ever having demonstrated it, that Andy would not have questioned Peter.

In my opinion, Peter's maketing-speak gets in the way.

 

SuperSam wrote: I wholeheartedly disagree. The vendor making the claim has the responsibility to back it up. Do you accept all vendor claims without question?

 

I would think traction to get 5.5 would be pretty tough. Even with 225 drags...

 

I see your point. I personally wouldn't use the word "guarantee" unless I was willing to stand behind it. But in order to be legally binding, it would be very difficult to enforce without written proof.

 

There is a vendor announcement forum, but only vendors can reply to posts there.

 

>>call it the Andy's Skepticism Thread

Do you have any documents or charts to prove he is sceptical?

 

Every thread is an Andy's Skepticism Thread. I am a charter member of Team Skepticism.

 

I think y'all scared Detonate away. :smile:

 

Sorry I didnt reply any sooner, it's only been a day.

I think 6.0 seconds is not shabby either with a mini. I chose to ask about minis rather than any other car because its lightweight, unique in most areas and has great handaling. A lot of cars can be modded to be fast but their not minis. So the problem is to make the mini fast.

I did my research on cars out there and alot of them would be really expensive to reach that possibilty of 0-60 in 5.5.
WRX = glass tranny (or replace with 6 spd STI tranny)
hondas = hondas
IS300 = (rear taillight)
S4 = Heavy
A4 = Heavy for a 1.8
M3 = not a mini, not as fun.

The only things that obstructs me from jumping into a mini is theirs no spare tire, and maybe the small engine (going up hill with passengers). I popped a tire and bent the rim turning into a pothole uphill going @60mph. It sliced the wall of the tire and then it bent. I'm paranoid about being ditched somewhere with no tire.

 

That's why they come with runflats. Most of us have ditched those though for increased performance. Also, I believe we have roadside assistance included?

If you are cool with 6 seconds, that can be had, no doubt. Heck, I might be there now myself. If you get an MCS for MSRP, you can be out the door for just under 25k.

1k will cover you for an intake an exaust.
1k also for pulley, ECU, plugs and wires

Depending on what you choose, and who you ask, this should get you in the 200 to 220 hp range.

2k on wheels and tires, plus a rear sway bar and you might be quite content with that set-up! Best of luck to you...


_________________
2003 IB MCS

 

>>Well, my MCS does the 1/4 mile in 14.7 @ 96 and the 0-60 is 6.5 s. Shaving another second would take quite a bit more power and traction.

Andy,

Is this with the 19% pulley. I would think you would be faster than 6.5s. Stock is 6.9.

 

>>Let me rephrase the question. Have you ever measured a 0-60 time of 5.5 seconds or less using your nitrous kit?

Andy,

Doesn't minimeeS, use the M7 kit? I know he uses a 50 shot, and he is pulling very low 13's? I think 13.07. I also thought that he was sponsored by M7. A 13.07 at 109mph is easily less than 5.5 seconds. It is closer to 5.0 seconds. This trap speed is faster than the Mustang Mach 1, 2004 Pontiac GTO... and both of those run in the low 5's, depending on magazines 5.3-5.5seconds. Both of those cars do about 13.3 at 105mph at best.

 

I am by no means an engineer, so excuse this question if it sounds ridiculous. I know that different gears supposedly redline at different RPMs. Is this true? If not, judging by andy's graph he goes a decent bit above the redline in second. Perhaps if we knew exactly where to shift to get the optimal hp (before it peaks), getting closer to under 6 sec could be fractions of a second easier. Also how much do the rear tires matter in acceleration in a FWD car? That could be an easy way to shed weight (thinner lighter rear wheels + tires) if you wanted to take it to a track just to get a certain time. Otherwise, a 0-60 time isnt that important. For driving every day, the Mini is fun because it feels quick and handles quite nicely. Throw in a sway bar and a couple engine mods, and its hard to beat the performance. IMO a 0-60 time is like a bench-pressing weight, it doesnt matter how much you can throw up if you're sporting a mullet and mc hammer pants because you won't impress your target audience. Just look at the strongest man competition on ESPN, those guys aren't married to really smart beautiful women.

 

>>Just like the topic says but without removing any of the interior. Please and thank you.

Detonate,

0-60 is not the endall for acceleration performance. Cars like the EVO and WRX make fantastic numbers. In fact, the WRX is considerably faster in 0-60 than the MCS, but yet the wheel hp is lower than an MCS with a 19% pulley. The 0-60 is acheived because you can rev the engine and bounce off the limiter and then just dump the clutch with little to no wheelspin. While this gives you much lower 0-60 times it is not real world. You would demolish your engine/clutch.... in short order doing this all the time. My MCS with a few mods, seems just as quick in daily driving than the WRX (non-STi). Daily driving , I mean exit ramps, highway merging... The power on the MCS is instant, while on the WRX to make it quick you need to keep it reved well to keep boost up to feel the quickness. Obviously this is only my opinion. I have driven the WRX some and that was my impression of it. I think putting a flowed head with larger exhaust valves, 19% pulley, header/exhaust, chip, larger intercooler, throttlebody, LSD, and lighter rims and you could have a very quick car that handles great. If you want to get really extreme, put on the extra Turbo.

 

>>Just like the topic says but without removing any of the interior. Please and thank you.

Detonate,

0-60 is not the endall for acceleration performance. Cars like the EVO and WRX make fantastic numbers. In fact, the WRX is considerably faster in 0-60 than the MCS, but yet the wheel hp is lower than an MCS with a 19% pulley. The 0-60 is acheived because you can rev the engine and bounce off the limiter and then just dump the clutch with little to no wheelspin. While this gives you much lower 0-60 times it is not real world. You would demolish your engine/clutch.... in short order doing this all the time. My MCS with a few mods, seems just as quick in daily driving than the WRX (non-STi). Daily driving , I mean exit ramps, highway merging... The power on the MCS is instant, while on the WRX to make it quick you need to keep it reved well to keep boost up to feel the quickness. Obviously this is only my opinion. I have driven the WRX some and that was my impression of it. I think putting a flowed head with larger exhaust valves, 19% pulley, header/exhaust, chip, larger intercooler, throttlebody, LSD, and lighter rims and you could have a very quick car that handles great. If you want to get really extreme, put on the extra Turbo.

 

dgszweda1,

I have run nearly identical times with both the 15% and 19% pullies (within 0.1 s and 0.1 mph). My launch technique is definitely not very good (2.48 is a typical 60-ft time). By shaving 0.2 seconds off that (should be very doable), that would take MORE than 0.2 s off the 0-60 mph time. In my GTI, I was stuck in the same rut, then one day, it clicked ... 2.2's.

minime s (Jeff) did indeed run 13.09 @ 109. I'm sure his 0-60 time was low, possibly below 5 flat, but he had drag radials and other mods above and beyond just nitrous. When comparing fast fwd cars to fast rwd/awd cars, pay attention to both the 1/4 mile and the trap speed. My friend has an '89 Mitsu Mirage with a DSM 2.0 w/16G ... conservatively pushing 350 hp at 20 psi. He's run a very respectable 12.4 but his trap speed was 118 mph. Compare that to a Corvette Z06 that runs about the same time but at slower trap speeds. The Vette definitely gets out of the hole faster (close to 4 seconds flat) but the Mitsu catches it by the end of the run. Getting a very, very fast 0-60 time in a fwd car takes more than just power.

peterwhit,

Good points about the shiftpoints, but I haven't seen my horsepower fall off on the dyno. The optimal shiftpoints will ALWAYS be at at an rpm higher than peak horsepower.

:smile:

_________________
SHOW ME THE NUMBERS!

...How Fast is Your MINI?...My Mods...

 

Andy,
what determines the redline, and is it different for different gears?

 

In the MCS, the stock rev limit is 6950 rpm and is the same in all gears. Actual engine speed can get a teensy bit higher in lower gears since the limit is reached so quickly. Aftermarket programs increase that rev limit in some cases.

 

>>There is a vendor announcement forum, but only vendors can reply to posts there.

Andy,

You should be able to reply in the vendor announcements. Last I remember Every one could reply, but only vendors could post.

 

I've tried replying and last I checked, it's only for vendors.

 

Motor Trend got a 5.9 sec 0-60 and 14.2 in the 1/4 mile when they tested Mini Mania's stage 3 car, which had:

air intake, 15%pulley, performance head, water-air intercooler, ecu, header, cat back, flywheel, phantom grip


Link to article here

 

>>dgszweda1,
>>
>>I have run nearly identical times with both the 15% and 19% pullies (within 0.1 s and 0.1 mph). My launch technique is definitely not very good (2.48 is a typical 60-ft time). By shaving 0.2 seconds off that (should be very doable), that would take MORE than 0.2 s off the 0-60 mph time. In my GTI, I was stuck in the same rut, then one day, it clicked ... 2.2's.
>>
>>minime s (Jeff) did indeed run 13.09 @ 109. I'm sure his 0-60 time was low, possibly below 5 flat, but he had drag radials and other mods above and beyond just nitrous. When comparing fast fwd cars to fast rwd/awd cars, pay attention to both the 1/4 mile and the trap speed. My friend has an '89 Mitsu Mirage with a DSM 2.0 w/16G ... conservatively pushing 350 hp at 20 psi. He's run a very respectable 12.4 but his trap speed was 118 mph. Compare that to a Corvette Z06 that runs about the same time but at slower trap speeds. The Vette definitely gets out of the hole faster (close to 4 seconds flat) but the Mitsu catches it by the end of the run. Getting a very, very fast 0-60 time in a fwd car takes more than just power.
>>

Andy,

The trap speed is a much better indicator of the true power of the car. I think if you improve your 60ft times you would see much better numbers and start seeing a difference with the two pulleys. Someone in one of the compact car magazines last month had a 500hp SRT-4 with a stock block. He had some incredible 1/4 mile times, but had trouble taking off. He had to feather it at first and then really give it gas judiciously to get down the 1/4 mile. He was posting some decent time though in the 11 seconds. With the problems of front wheel drives, I don't think 0-60 or 1/4 mile is a good indicator. Besides no one performs this in the real world. 5-60 mph and 30-70 is much better indicator of power. It helps factor out wheelspin and RWD bias, as well as gives numbers for the type of acceleration that we encounter every day.

 

With the problems of front wheel drives, I don't think 0-60 or 1/4 mile is a good indicator. Besides no one performs this in the real world. 5-60 mph and 30-70 is much better indicator of power. It helps factor out wheelspin and RWD bias, as well as gives numbers for the type of acceleration that we encounter every day.


Amen to that! My guess is that I'd be doing 5.5 today if I could get "stickier" tires.