Drivetrain Analyzing and attempting to solve the mystery of “The Dog” MCS:
4th Gear
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Ryan's hypothesis doesn't need empirical evidence to back it up. I think it's safe to say that everyone who's been exposed to a lot of these cars in testing has seen a pretty significant variance.
Better idea. If you don't think it's true, stop reading this thread. Only those interested in pursuing the line of inquiry stay on board.
Now seriously. I think, Ryan, that you could at least eliminate some variables by using the same test harness on more than one car and see what kind of values you get. Measure boost pressure, for instance, using the same gauge on different cars. Wouldn't this give a quick read on how consistent the intake side of things is?
As flaky as the software is on this car (not to self: avoid cars with Siemans software), and as complex as the intake plumbing is on this car my UNeducated guess would be that it'd have to be on the intake side.
Couldn't you break the system up into chunks, devise tests to measure the effectiveness of each chunk, and at the very least narrow the search?
Interesting thread, the tangents aside. Find me more power and I'll buy you a t-shirt
Jeff
Better idea. If you don't think it's true, stop reading this thread. Only those interested in pursuing the line of inquiry stay on board.
Now seriously. I think, Ryan, that you could at least eliminate some variables by using the same test harness on more than one car and see what kind of values you get. Measure boost pressure, for instance, using the same gauge on different cars. Wouldn't this give a quick read on how consistent the intake side of things is?
As flaky as the software is on this car (not to self: avoid cars with Siemans software), and as complex as the intake plumbing is on this car my UNeducated guess would be that it'd have to be on the intake side.
Couldn't you break the system up into chunks, devise tests to measure the effectiveness of each chunk, and at the very least narrow the search?
Interesting thread, the tangents aside. Find me more power and I'll buy you a t-shirt
Jeff
4th Gear
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 772
Likes: 0
From: Denver, CO
This is just a thought, but maybe the ECU's are like CPUs. When a CPU is made, there are always those that dont come out perfectly and are sold as slower chips(like a AMD 64 2800+ instead of a 3400+), but instead of controlling which chips go out, MINI just uses all the ones that work. Again just a thought.
Turbius Maximus
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,416
Likes: 0
From: Infinity and beyond
ofcourse the funny thing is most engines prolly have this kind of situation...but I don't see that many minivans lining up and going tothe dyno....I mean we (the mini collective) are by far the most passionate group I have seen we pay attention to it all...squeaking, creaking...HP...looks....handeling...etc...so honestly other than a motor that is tuned but F1 type standards....(ok that's a bit much but you know what I am saying) the fact is this is a production viehicle not a Lambo or something like that....although as I was parked next to my buddies gallardo tonight...I thought...you know...I love my mini...it's just as pretty....it's just different...I would enjoy the gallardo just as much...but I would NEVER give up my mini...
1st Gear
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Tuls
ofcourse the funny thing is most engines prolly have this kind of situation...but I don't see that many minivans lining up and going tothe dyno....I mean we (the mini collective) are by far the most passionate group I have seen we pay attention to it all...squeaking, creaking...HP...looks....handeling...etc...so honestly other than a motor that is tuned but F1 type standards....(ok that's a bit much but you know what I am saying) the fact is this is a production viehicle not a Lambo or something like that....although as I was parked next to my buddies gallardo tonight...I thought...you know...I love my mini...it's just as pretty....it's just different...I would enjoy the gallardo just as much...but I would NEVER give up my mini...
Turbius Maximus
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,416
Likes: 0
From: Infinity and beyond
Originally Posted by SiMPLE_SiMON
??? No offense, but try checking out the Honda crowd sometime. You might also want to take a peek at the Miata, EVO, WRX, Supra, BMW and Porsche forums as well.
So my point is...sure there we are doing Dyno pulls with the supras...but you don't here Oh mine is only making 759....and yours is @ 767...hmmmn...must be something wrong....or it must have not been built right...yes the other goups are enthusiastic....I don't find it to be the same...I never heard a news report about any other car than the mini stating...the first year they were out they had the highest complaint rate...due to our love of our cars...they also had the highest satisfaction rate....if that isn't an oxymoron what is...LOL
1st Gear
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Tuls
I still disagree with you...the mini is not the only car I have or tune plus, I have been tuning cars since before I was old enough to drive one legally....yes these people are into thier cars(the ricers/others)...but as I have had the expierence of them coming out with us (ricer or two rolling with a group of minis) they even said they were suprised at how much we were nit picking...more importantly they thought it was really cool that it wasn't a D*@k contest....unlike Supras, BMW, porsche, ETC.....I was with three 750 hp supras and a Gallardo last night...one of the supras we are building into race car that has to be ready buy thursday...local highend supra shops/part dealers wouldn't sell to us....certain parts knowing it would cause us not to be able to make the vegas meet....if someone in the mini market did that....I just don't think it would happen....
So my point is...sure there we are doing Dyno pulls with the supras...but you don't here Oh mine is only making 759....and yours is @ 767...hmmmn...must be something wrong....or it must have not been built right...yes the other goups are enthusiastic....I don't find it to be the same...I never heard a news report about any other car than the mini stating...the first year they were out they had the highest complaint rate...due to our love of our cars...they also had the highest satisfaction rate....if that isn't an oxymoron what is...LOL
So my point is...sure there we are doing Dyno pulls with the supras...but you don't here Oh mine is only making 759....and yours is @ 767...hmmmn...must be something wrong....or it must have not been built right...yes the other goups are enthusiastic....I don't find it to be the same...I never heard a news report about any other car than the mini stating...the first year they were out they had the highest complaint rate...due to our love of our cars...they also had the highest satisfaction rate....if that isn't an oxymoron what is...LOL
I agree that the mini crowd seems to be more "mature" than many other groups and people are happy to help each other. It's one of the big reasons that I'm thinking about getting rid of my EP3 and getting an MCS. You should also check out the Miata groups sometime. They're very similar to the mini groups but are much, much larger in number.
6th Gear
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta/Amsterdam
Ryan,
Another interesting point, is how many miles the cars have on them. Two car magazines have now shown with documented evidence that the MCS becomes quicker with age. One of them (I think Car and Driver) showed that a stock MCS made 0-60 in 7.4secs, then 40,000 miles later on the same car, it pulled it in 6.9secs. They showed the 1/4 mile increased similiarly. Another long term test reports showed the same, but I can't remember that magazine either. I think that is an interesting point. Maybe there is some difference in power, not only in the break in procedure, but also with the mileage on them as they begin to loosen up. Many new cars are coming out this way it seems. One example is the new GTO. There are a ton of dyno pulls showing significant increases after about 5,000 miles on the car. So much so, that some people are thinking it is in the ECU, since it is so consistent.
I would still really like to see the numbers as well. It would be interesting to see them and how they are spread out. Are you going to show them at all to us?
Also, I am very curious on your JCW pulls. I think Helix has shown some low numbers. Everyone keeps showing ridiculously low numbers on these cars. Most that I have seen are showing just a hair above the dyno runs for a stock + 15%. Why is this? It only has a slightly smaller pulley, that should only be 1 or 2hp lower. Also, why do all the dyno runs look low, but yet everyone says the cars are faster than the stock cars with basic mods, and the magazines show better numbers?
Another interesting point, is how many miles the cars have on them. Two car magazines have now shown with documented evidence that the MCS becomes quicker with age. One of them (I think Car and Driver) showed that a stock MCS made 0-60 in 7.4secs, then 40,000 miles later on the same car, it pulled it in 6.9secs. They showed the 1/4 mile increased similiarly. Another long term test reports showed the same, but I can't remember that magazine either. I think that is an interesting point. Maybe there is some difference in power, not only in the break in procedure, but also with the mileage on them as they begin to loosen up. Many new cars are coming out this way it seems. One example is the new GTO. There are a ton of dyno pulls showing significant increases after about 5,000 miles on the car. So much so, that some people are thinking it is in the ECU, since it is so consistent.
I would still really like to see the numbers as well. It would be interesting to see them and how they are spread out. Are you going to show them at all to us?
Also, I am very curious on your JCW pulls. I think Helix has shown some low numbers. Everyone keeps showing ridiculously low numbers on these cars. Most that I have seen are showing just a hair above the dyno runs for a stock + 15%. Why is this? It only has a slightly smaller pulley, that should only be 1 or 2hp lower. Also, why do all the dyno runs look low, but yet everyone says the cars are faster than the stock cars with basic mods, and the magazines show better numbers?
Turbius Maximus
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,416
Likes: 0
From: Infinity and beyond
Originally Posted by SiMPLE_SiMON
Your initial post seemed to be saying that only Mini drivers would notice the difference because so many are getting their cars dynod (which is foolish). The vast minority of mini owners are not dynoing their cars.
I agree that the mini crowd seems to be more "mature" than many other groups and people are happy to help each other. It's one of the big reasons that I'm thinking about getting rid of my EP3 and getting an MCS. You should also check out the Miata groups sometime. They're very similar to the mini groups but are much, much larger in number.
I agree that the mini crowd seems to be more "mature" than many other groups and people are happy to help each other. It's one of the big reasons that I'm thinking about getting rid of my EP3 and getting an MCS. You should also check out the Miata groups sometime. They're very similar to the mini groups but are much, much larger in number.
we (my local motoreres) noticed it the first time we all drove together....the difference I felt was that most would have just shruged it off not caring...where as the mini folk were complimentery, baffled, and excited to see the car strong....so we went to the dyno to see if it was true...or I was just that good at driving...LOL....it ended up I have 160 WHP stock...heh heh YEAH!
sorry again about that misunderstanding...it's tought to pick out what to type into a post...I hate to babble on and on...somtimes I am so to the point I forget key point...heh heh...
2nd Gear
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
I think Greatbear put the issue to bed on the first page. If you are not controlling, monitoring and equalizing the parameters of the engine, you have little basis for comparison.
Most OEM/Tier suppliers have $1 MILLION chassis dyno cells that are climate controlled, have conditioned oil/air/cooling inputs, and feedback from the engine sensors to auto adjust. Repeatibility is within a few percent. Most use certified fuel. And if you think 94 octane is 94 octane, well, let's just say R+M/2 means very little in professional circles.
But where does that leave the MINI community?
Use common sense. I've seen cars produce low numbers on a dyno but it sheds a full second on the track. If your cars feels and performs faster, it might just be better.
Pay attention to heat. The MCS is horribly sensitive to heat- and its less about the intercooler size than you think. The tight engine compartment makes it tough to get air in and air out. A better radiator, air flow and thermal management are your friends here.
Buy REAL fuel. Go to racegas.com and find a location near you that sells GT100. Put in a full tanks worth. Reset the ecu and drive the snot out of it. Betcha its fast!
Realize your limitations. A 1.6L engine in a 2800 lb car will never be a rocketship. It will squirt and look good doing it, but its not a Porsche, Supra or an EVO. 140 hp per litre is about the limit of a high performance production engine. 225 hp is also about the maximum amount of power you want in a FWD MINI. As soon as the AWD option becomes available, you may double it!
Most OEM/Tier suppliers have $1 MILLION chassis dyno cells that are climate controlled, have conditioned oil/air/cooling inputs, and feedback from the engine sensors to auto adjust. Repeatibility is within a few percent. Most use certified fuel. And if you think 94 octane is 94 octane, well, let's just say R+M/2 means very little in professional circles.
But where does that leave the MINI community?
Use common sense. I've seen cars produce low numbers on a dyno but it sheds a full second on the track. If your cars feels and performs faster, it might just be better.
Pay attention to heat. The MCS is horribly sensitive to heat- and its less about the intercooler size than you think. The tight engine compartment makes it tough to get air in and air out. A better radiator, air flow and thermal management are your friends here.
Buy REAL fuel. Go to racegas.com and find a location near you that sells GT100. Put in a full tanks worth. Reset the ecu and drive the snot out of it. Betcha its fast!
Realize your limitations. A 1.6L engine in a 2800 lb car will never be a rocketship. It will squirt and look good doing it, but its not a Porsche, Supra or an EVO. 140 hp per litre is about the limit of a high performance production engine. 225 hp is also about the maximum amount of power you want in a FWD MINI. As soon as the AWD option becomes available, you may double it!
Originally Posted by Greatbear
The difference in resulting performance mod gains using similar equipment between cars falls in line with the difference in stock performance. There is definitely something inherent to the cars and not necessarily the mods making this difference. A look through NAM will show people with vast differences in fuel mileage (with some having dismally low despite 'sane' driving), varying degrees of the stumble/yo-yo, cold start issues, hesitation, etc. In some cases a trip to the dealer for the latest software works wonders, other times nada, if not worse. For comparison, my car gets decent mileage, practically astounding at a true 31-32 on highway compared to some getting 10mpg less, no stumble, but the yo-yo in varying degrees (made WORSE since a software update). Where is the consistency?
It appears to me that the biggest factors affecting this are the ECU, the blower, and possibly 'sensory input' meaning the quality of the various pressure, temperature and other senders on the engine. The ECU itself, the fuel maps as well as 'base programming' stand to have the most variation judging by the endless revisions to the code and the maps, and the questionable success of reprogramming. There is undoubtedly differences in 'raw' ECUs over (production) time as well, which may operate differently depending on the installed code. Slight changes in the hardware which may affect how the ecu interprets a sensory signal before making it available in the registers for the processor to read and interpret, that sort of thing. At times I wonder exactly how well, if at all, a new 'reflash' of the ECU at the dealer 'takes'.
There is also going to be differences in the overall quality of the blower, how well the rotors seal against the case and each other and the timing gears keeping things consistent. The slightest leak can vary the produced boost by a couple psi, and such an internal leak causes a rapid buildup of heat as the preheated air recirculates and adds to the heat being produced by the compression process. Some people may have slight leaks in the intercooler boots from loose clamps or production tolerances in the rubber.
The sensory/data aquisition part of the puzzle plays a big role too. The quality and repeatability of the O2 sensors, the MAP-IAT sensor, and the engine temp sensors play a huge role in how the ecu sees the engine operate as well as keep tabs on the ecu's operation during closed loop. There is no doubt that most, if not all MINIs run quite rich, and on the rich side of stoic it does not take a big change in fuel to make a big change in output (and mileage). It seems to me that the ECU is programmed to 'safe' the engine at the slightest hint of detonation or excessive IAT and keep it there much longer than necessary.
Fuel quality plays a big role as well, and in this day of high gas prices and excessive profiteering of all stages in the oil industry, the chance of getting a tankful of 'regular' out of a 'premium' pump is very likely. Drive the car anywhere close to hard, and the engine will be running in 'safe mode' quite often.
I dont know if there are different camshafts for each version of the MINI engine, though it makes sense that there should be. A normally aspirated engine likes to see more overlap to aid in cylinder scavenging, where a blown engine would want less overlap so as to not essentially blow it's boost through the exhaust. It would not surprise me if some engines may have escaped with the wrong cams installed at the factory.
Being that today's CNC milled engines are fairly consistent in their assembly tolerances, I dont see fitment issues like port alignment being much of a concern except for those trying to extract the last bit of power through porting and matching. Timing is fixed by the crank timing disk and not subject to big variations there, and timing itself is set by the ECU. Cam timing can see the biggest variation via a stackup of tolerances with sprockets, keyways and chain length, but since it is a chain system it is inherently more consistent that one using a belt. Fuel pressures and injectors can show up differences as well, especially in open loop (WOT).
I think that once the huge variations in stock MINIs are explained, we can fix the modded ones by proxy.
It appears to me that the biggest factors affecting this are the ECU, the blower, and possibly 'sensory input' meaning the quality of the various pressure, temperature and other senders on the engine. The ECU itself, the fuel maps as well as 'base programming' stand to have the most variation judging by the endless revisions to the code and the maps, and the questionable success of reprogramming. There is undoubtedly differences in 'raw' ECUs over (production) time as well, which may operate differently depending on the installed code. Slight changes in the hardware which may affect how the ecu interprets a sensory signal before making it available in the registers for the processor to read and interpret, that sort of thing. At times I wonder exactly how well, if at all, a new 'reflash' of the ECU at the dealer 'takes'.
There is also going to be differences in the overall quality of the blower, how well the rotors seal against the case and each other and the timing gears keeping things consistent. The slightest leak can vary the produced boost by a couple psi, and such an internal leak causes a rapid buildup of heat as the preheated air recirculates and adds to the heat being produced by the compression process. Some people may have slight leaks in the intercooler boots from loose clamps or production tolerances in the rubber.
The sensory/data aquisition part of the puzzle plays a big role too. The quality and repeatability of the O2 sensors, the MAP-IAT sensor, and the engine temp sensors play a huge role in how the ecu sees the engine operate as well as keep tabs on the ecu's operation during closed loop. There is no doubt that most, if not all MINIs run quite rich, and on the rich side of stoic it does not take a big change in fuel to make a big change in output (and mileage). It seems to me that the ECU is programmed to 'safe' the engine at the slightest hint of detonation or excessive IAT and keep it there much longer than necessary.
Fuel quality plays a big role as well, and in this day of high gas prices and excessive profiteering of all stages in the oil industry, the chance of getting a tankful of 'regular' out of a 'premium' pump is very likely. Drive the car anywhere close to hard, and the engine will be running in 'safe mode' quite often.
I dont know if there are different camshafts for each version of the MINI engine, though it makes sense that there should be. A normally aspirated engine likes to see more overlap to aid in cylinder scavenging, where a blown engine would want less overlap so as to not essentially blow it's boost through the exhaust. It would not surprise me if some engines may have escaped with the wrong cams installed at the factory.
Being that today's CNC milled engines are fairly consistent in their assembly tolerances, I dont see fitment issues like port alignment being much of a concern except for those trying to extract the last bit of power through porting and matching. Timing is fixed by the crank timing disk and not subject to big variations there, and timing itself is set by the ECU. Cam timing can see the biggest variation via a stackup of tolerances with sprockets, keyways and chain length, but since it is a chain system it is inherently more consistent that one using a belt. Fuel pressures and injectors can show up differences as well, especially in open loop (WOT).
I think that once the huge variations in stock MINIs are explained, we can fix the modded ones by proxy.
6th Gear
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta/Amsterdam
Ryephile,
Did the cars you were analyzing have different mileages? Now that a lot of the magazines are posting their long term tests on the Mini's it appears that there is significant performance difference on brand new Minis and 40,000 mile Minis. I would have brushed this off. Except that it seems like it is pretty consistent. Every magazine has shown an improvement. Some as much as .5 seconds from 0-60.
Did the cars you were analyzing have different mileages? Now that a lot of the magazines are posting their long term tests on the Mini's it appears that there is significant performance difference on brand new Minis and 40,000 mile Minis. I would have brushed this off. Except that it seems like it is pretty consistent. Every magazine has shown an improvement. Some as much as .5 seconds from 0-60.
6th Gear
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,253
Likes: 0
From: NY NY
CNC milling is OK, but it isn't done to the complete head. The combustion chambers are left as cast with a slight buff. The port interiors are completly as-cast and the port openings are untouched. Each valve pocket is machined from the combustion sided but only about 3/4" deep...just enough to place the seat. The transition from machined to cast is not finessed at all.
It would be very complex to program a machine to completely CNC machine the port interiors, probably not even possible. this will always be a hand done process and probably not offered stock. (My guess is this is about all the JCW headwork does, and while it is certainly needed, more can be done)
It would be very complex to program a machine to completely CNC machine the port interiors, probably not even possible. this will always be a hand done process and probably not offered stock. (My guess is this is about all the JCW headwork does, and while it is certainly needed, more can be done)
2nd Gear
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Quick note:
Go here for complete CNC head porting
http://www.directmotion.com/
Go here for complete CNC head porting
http://www.directmotion.com/
Originally Posted by jlm
CNC milling is OK, but it isn't done to the complete head. The combustion chambers are left as cast with a slight buff. The port interiors are completly as-cast and the port openings are untouched. Each valve pocket is machined from the combustion sided but only about 3/4" deep...just enough to place the seat. The transition from machined to cast is not finessed at all.
It would be very complex to program a machine to completely CNC machine the port interiors, probably not even possible. this will always be a hand done process and probably not offered stock. (My guess is this is about all the JCW headwork does, and while it is certainly needed, more can be done)
It would be very complex to program a machine to completely CNC machine the port interiors, probably not even possible. this will always be a hand done process and probably not offered stock. (My guess is this is about all the JCW headwork does, and while it is certainly needed, more can be done)
MINImotor: thanks for the link, however based on their FAQ section, they don't look to be too useful for us consumers:
Some of your other points are confusing.
*Why would a car produce reduced area under the curve yet be quicker on the track (theoretically speaking)?
*Using GT100 is NOT practical financially for a daily driver; got any other realistic solutions?
You still haven't touched on why the same configuration on different MCS's can yield different numbers. Stay on topic and give useful, practical information please.
...and you know this how? 
7. Why should I choose Direct Motion?
Direct Motion is your best, lowest cost, most reliable source of getting volume CNC head porting work done.
Direct Motion is your best, lowest cost, most reliable source of getting volume CNC head porting work done.
*Why would a car produce reduced area under the curve yet be quicker on the track (theoretically speaking)?
*Using GT100 is NOT practical financially for a daily driver; got any other realistic solutions?
You still haven't touched on why the same configuration on different MCS's can yield different numbers. Stay on topic and give useful, practical information please.
Originally Posted by MINImotor
As soon as the AWD option becomes available...
2nd Gear
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
I would guess that 90% of driving time behind the wheel of the MINI is completed in regular hum-drum situations. Maybe and on-ramp or two. I would suspect that premium fuel would suffice and the ECU would do its job to compensate with short term fuel and spark trimmings.
But on those rare occassions when you can set aside the daily grind and hit the twisties/autocross/track day, I would pay for GT100 (or similar unleaded performance fuel from BP/Citgo/76), reset the ECU, and have fun.
But on those rare occassions when you can set aside the daily grind and hit the twisties/autocross/track day, I would pay for GT100 (or similar unleaded performance fuel from BP/Citgo/76), reset the ECU, and have fun.
2nd Gear
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Ryephile
Some of your other points are confusing.
*Why would a car produce reduced area under the curve yet be quicker on the track (theoretically speaking)?
A properly set up track car will spend the majority of its time at peak power. "Area under the curve" would provide good driveability under a wide range of conditions and variables like typical strret driving. This suits most owners and weekend Auto-X-ers.
2nd Gear
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Ryephile
You still haven't touched on why the same configuration on different MCS's can yield different numbers. Stay on topic and give useful, practical information please.
As it applies to the MINI, I do not have and manufacturing perado data in front of me, but most modern engine assemblies facilities, which would include the TRITEC engine, have statistical repeatibility requirements of a Cp = 2.0 (which is the standard process capability under Six Sigma guidelines). This means that for a given parameter, say engine air flow, a mean figure is determined through testing. The process potential index, or Cp, measures a process's potential capability, which is defined as the allowable spread over the actual spread. The allowable spread is the difference between the upper specification limit and the lower specification limit. The actual spread is determined from the process data collected and is calculated by multiplying six times the standard deviation, s. The standard deviation quantifies a process's variability. As the standard deviation increases in a process, the Cp decreases in value. As the standard deviation decreases (i.e., as the process becomes less variable), the Cp increases in value.
Most engines are either cold or hot tested, or a statistical sample done based upon repeatibility testing. A hot test determines actual horsepower/torque numbers, as well as other variable output for the given test conditions (oil pressure, EGT, vacuum/boost etc). A cold test usually involves a motoring dyno that spins the engine up through a particular test set, and measures outputs. A cold test also includes a compression check/leak down check. Cold tests are usually performed on 100% of engines.
Typical engine manufacturing of a "boutique engine" such as the MCS would have a variability target of a few percent. Really.
However, the pickle juice in the eye for the automotive consumer is the brain of the powertrain system. And if you've read this far, I'll let you in on the dirty secret of high performance tuning modern day engines, your ECU is smarter than you. Its adaptive and very stingy- no matter whose chip or box or tune you have. The combination of an adaptive ECU and and electronic throttle control leaves you at the mercy of the OEM programming. There are two sides to the ECU, the hard coded side and the software. 99.9999999999% of tuners can only change the later.
The electronic throttle control (ETC) is adaptive. Its job is to achieve a target torque value for a given set of inputs. The torque values are hard coded. The ETC and ECU work in tandem to adapt their strategy to conform to these torque values. So give enough time, the powertrain will creep back to its regularly scheduled horsepower- within a given variability range.
The differences you see between to equally modified MCS's are a combination of primary variability in engine condition (both as delivered and weat/tear from the owner), variability of the parts added (the 15% pulley maybe 14.95 or 15.05), variability of the test conditions, and the point in time of the ECU apapting to the modifications. The last one is further amplified because an ECU may be overly sensitive to the others "varibles", which will has the adaptation to happen quicker.
Hope this helps.
Originally Posted by MINImotor
your ECU is smarter than you
Originally Posted by MINImotor
the powertrain will creep back to its regularly scheduled horsepower
Finally - How do I DISABLE the adaptive logic and have it actually execute my mapping no questions asked? Try to keep your response in the form of ONE reply, please
2nd Gear
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
One reply = can't.
Well, there are a few ways......
Other automotive enthusiasts are diligently working to try and defeat similar adaptive technologies. The Subaru community seems to be making the most headway but this is mainly due to the lack of sophistication of the Subaru ECU.
The concern from automotive aftermarket companies is in liability. Remember "Unintended Acceleration"? If the computer/throttle are "tricked", then it cannot know the ramifications of its actions, which could allow it to open the throttle/add fuel etc when the driver isn't expecting it.
My money is on JCW (and maybe BBR, Hartage and Dinan) which has access to the base ECU architecture and logic. The german tuning community looks to have a few advantages over others as well, but I have yet to see this apply on the MY2005 MCS.
The other option is a standalone system that converts the ETC to cable operated. However, this would defeat the capabilities of stability control, and traction control, and cruise control and well....most other things that have "control" in their names.
But <yeah!> no one has demonstrated the limits of the variability of the system. I would suspect that the JCW kit opens these limits a tad more. I would guess that 225hp (crank) is the limit, but its really a torque limit. Over this winter season, a lot of the tuning community is locking their mad scientists in the basement to try and develop a solution.
I am very intrigued into the progress of Birsch and his car as it seems to respond very well to mods.
Well, there are a few ways......
Other automotive enthusiasts are diligently working to try and defeat similar adaptive technologies. The Subaru community seems to be making the most headway but this is mainly due to the lack of sophistication of the Subaru ECU.
The concern from automotive aftermarket companies is in liability. Remember "Unintended Acceleration"? If the computer/throttle are "tricked", then it cannot know the ramifications of its actions, which could allow it to open the throttle/add fuel etc when the driver isn't expecting it.
My money is on JCW (and maybe BBR, Hartage and Dinan) which has access to the base ECU architecture and logic. The german tuning community looks to have a few advantages over others as well, but I have yet to see this apply on the MY2005 MCS.
The other option is a standalone system that converts the ETC to cable operated. However, this would defeat the capabilities of stability control, and traction control, and cruise control and well....most other things that have "control" in their names.
But <yeah!> no one has demonstrated the limits of the variability of the system. I would suspect that the JCW kit opens these limits a tad more. I would guess that 225hp (crank) is the limit, but its really a torque limit. Over this winter season, a lot of the tuning community is locking their mad scientists in the basement to try and develop a solution.
I am very intrigued into the progress of Birsch and his car as it seems to respond very well to mods.
[QUOTE=MINImotor] ......
The other option is a standalone system that converts the ETC to cable operated. However, this would defeat the capabilities of stability control, and traction control, and cruise control and well....[QUOTE]
BRING IT ON! i don't have any of the controls and that slow rpm drop at throttle liftoff (for smog reasons, as i understand it) stinks.
The other option is a standalone system that converts the ETC to cable operated. However, this would defeat the capabilities of stability control, and traction control, and cruise control and well....[QUOTE]
BRING IT ON! i don't have any of the controls and that slow rpm drop at throttle liftoff (for smog reasons, as i understand it) stinks.
2nd Gear
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
From: Jamul, CA
There's potentially another power robbing box here...
Well, we are all programmed (including me) to look, and think, of the obvious---the engine must not be making enough power. It must be in the engine.
I suggest there is another big box, and it's a complicated one, in which there may be only slight defects, but HP robbing defects, that could go unnoticed---except on the dyno. What box? The transimission.
Yes, the tranny...
I would like to know how anyone has tested the transmssion on the "dog cars"? Has anyone disconnected the engine and measured the torque parameters in the various gears of the "dog cars" with respect to the "hot cars". Perhaps there is a serious variation in quality control.
Maybe I've missed it, but I've heard tires, wheel diameters,...all sorts of things metioned---but I have yet to hear anyone mention "torque to rotate" specs on the Mini trans. It's just a gut feeling, but I'll bet there is a torque robbing surprise in there...
What about simple bearing binding, tolerance, or quality control issues with the good old tranny? It would seem to me that a bum tranny could squeak by a lot of real world testing---including the final drive inspection at the factory. I mean really, is some assembly line person going to deny a car shipment for a few likely unnoticed HP? That's a tough call to ask an hourly worker to put his/her initials on. That's just my two cents.
Or how about this scenario; True story: My buddies Jag was acting up years ago (1980s XJ something) It wasn't shifting properly. They tore the tranny down and found a bunch of chewed up shop rags in there---straight from the factory. He made out OK on that one! I wonder what it dynoed at?
Any thoughts on how to measure for this?
Marty
I suggest there is another big box, and it's a complicated one, in which there may be only slight defects, but HP robbing defects, that could go unnoticed---except on the dyno. What box? The transimission.
Yes, the tranny...
I would like to know how anyone has tested the transmssion on the "dog cars"? Has anyone disconnected the engine and measured the torque parameters in the various gears of the "dog cars" with respect to the "hot cars". Perhaps there is a serious variation in quality control.
Maybe I've missed it, but I've heard tires, wheel diameters,...all sorts of things metioned---but I have yet to hear anyone mention "torque to rotate" specs on the Mini trans. It's just a gut feeling, but I'll bet there is a torque robbing surprise in there...
What about simple bearing binding, tolerance, or quality control issues with the good old tranny? It would seem to me that a bum tranny could squeak by a lot of real world testing---including the final drive inspection at the factory. I mean really, is some assembly line person going to deny a car shipment for a few likely unnoticed HP? That's a tough call to ask an hourly worker to put his/her initials on. That's just my two cents.
Or how about this scenario; True story: My buddies Jag was acting up years ago (1980s XJ something) It wasn't shifting properly. They tore the tranny down and found a bunch of chewed up shop rags in there---straight from the factory. He made out OK on that one! I wonder what it dynoed at?
Any thoughts on how to measure for this?
Marty
6th Gear
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,627
Likes: 1
From: Neenah, WI
AFAIK Getrag has historically manufactured very solid transmissions, and I'd be suprised if there are wild variations of tolerances causing some cars to have reduced power. Even something like halfshafts binding up or dragging due to some kind of flaw seems unlikely since we haven't seen many (any?) failures of these parts.
--->MINImotor - Randy Webb has proven that ~220wHP is about the limit with the stock M45 setup. This is at 7,500 RPM with a blower ratio of 2.45:1, way over the blowers' specified redline. Reliability is only relative 
alas, not the point of the thread.... Furthermore, JCW's are not immune to "the dog" "disorder", which, based on your conspiracy theory that only OEM's have capability, means that the manufacture process, and not the software, is the problem, no? Can you say: sand casting? (read page 1)
--->Yfoiler - Excellent point! Just like engine tolerances, driveline tolerances will come into play as to how much power is transferred to the wheels.
alas, not the point of the thread.... Furthermore, JCW's are not immune to "the dog" "disorder", which, based on your conspiracy theory that only OEM's have capability, means that the manufacture process, and not the software, is the problem, no? Can you say: sand casting? (read page 1)--->Yfoiler - Excellent point! Just like engine tolerances, driveline tolerances will come into play as to how much power is transferred to the wheels.
4th Gear
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Ryan,
What range of boost presures have you seen across MINIs (a/m boost gauges--not the MAP sensor)? Is there any hope of devising a rig that you could easily plug in to a car or two to to comparative testing?
--Jeff
What range of boost presures have you seen across MINIs (a/m boost gauges--not the MAP sensor)? Is there any hope of devising a rig that you could easily plug in to a car or two to to comparative testing?
--Jeff