I have a 2005 MCS with the following performance mods: Alta CAI and 15% pulley, 62 mm TB, MTH ECU remap, and "one-ball" exhaust. I had my car dyno tested last week. Results: Peak whp: 174 torque: 164. The air:fuel ratio was 11-13 until 4500 rpm where it dropped to low 10s. What are the conversions for BHP and torque? How do my results compare to the JCW conversion and other cars with similar mods?

 

Is it just me or does that seem a little low for the mods you have on your car? I guess it could be due to the conditions of where you are. But still seems low with the numbers. Just out of curiousity, what type of gas are you running?

Garrett

 

looks about right to me ....

 

IMHO I think that you are being hindered by the exhaust. I've dynoed my 04 with 15%, Alta CAI and Milltec at 180.

 

rich A/F is the culprit

 

Any idea what a stock MCS does on the same dyno?

 

The conditions shouldn't matter if the results are SAE corrected as all DynoJet dyno's have the ability to do.

 

SAE corrections don't hold up very well with forced induction engines.

 

They did a series of pulls out here at the local Dyno jet facility and your numbers are in keeping with what the majority received. The numbers were posted awhile back , at least a few months. Your numbers were equal to what the JCW guys were getting, mid 170's if that helps.

 

jlm, and Andy have great points. One that is too rich for best power output with that combo, and two, what does a stock mini do HP wise on that dyno. The stock mini HP would show what gains you really may have gotten, or at least close to it. With your setup, if you can tune your car to the 11s you will get much more power. I would guess 10 or so. Plus low 10s and high 9s are in the range for rich misfires to occure which can blow out coils and ruin piston rings.

Do you have the graphs of the AFR's along with HP?

 

This brings up a question. I know the MCS's run rich to begin with but I have an 05 MCS/15% pulley/JCW Intake/JCW ECU Flash......my question is am I still running too rich to realize potential power gains? I need to dyno the car.

 

If it was on a DynoJet then it seems pretty accurate to me. We had about twenty cars pull here in February and the people with intake, MTH (or no ECU), 15%, and an exhaust were anywhere between 168 and 178 whp. There were eight different cars in this range, and I would imagine the variances were dictated by the car's baseline strength, branded parts, and whether they had the MTH or not. As others have mentioned, a baseline of your car would be the only way to determine how much you actually gained from the parts. In regards to your A/F, I thought the MTH was suppose to lean it out? If it not--or if it didn't--you might consider a different map...or a different ECU to squeeze some extra hp.

 

I have my dynojet results in front of me. Bone stock 2004 MCS-159.05HP/146.68Max Torque. After install of 15% Alta pulley, Alta CAI, Milltec Exhaust and a set of Densos-179.82HP/160.85 max torque.

 

Perhaps the mixture seems excessively rich because he didn't have enough air flow for that RPM range on the dyno. I'm sure the mixture would appear leaner if he were actually moving or had the fan blowing enough.

Anywho, my two cents.

 

If the hood was open while on the dyno, there should be plenty of air getting into the filter. If there wasn't and it was causing a restiction (which would be very tough with the way we designed the intake) and causing a loss in boost, the ECU will see this and still deliver the correct amount fuel for the AFR's the tuner tuned for. At least you would hope it would. Maybe this chip is more timing and throttle response changes, not AFR's.

Either way, there is some untapped power in that car!

vegasdan,
Great gains! You surely need an IC to got with that!

 

Wow, 5 significant figure data... [/sarcasm]

Neil
05 MCS

 

And your point is..?

 

His point was that the last couple of digits don't really matter as they're outside of the dyno's accuracy of measurement anyway. There are too many other factors affecting the dyno for it to be that accurate - for example, tire pressures, humidity, temperature, how tightly tied down the car is, etc. Additionally, it probably wasn't calibrated to be that accurate in the first place.

It didn't seem like an attack - he was just making a joke. :smile:

 

For example, here is a discussion of dyno accuracy:

http://www.depac.com/applications.htm

 

I think the data is accurate for the intended comparison, that being the improvement over stock. In this case a 20HP gain. Sounded like a "flame" to me, who's laughing?

 

Not intended as a flame: my point was exactly what Strom said. Just a small reminder that one should think about how much meaningful accuracy is really there before expressing measurements. Many - oh how many! - years ago I had a physics teacher who knocked that into my thick head. Just because you can take a micrometer and appear to measure an eraser to a few ten thousands of an inch doesn't imply a meaningful result.

And now, back to the normally scheduled discussion...

Neil
05 MCS

 

From all I can tell it takes a lot of tuning by someone well versed in it to get the MCS to the correct A/F, which makes a big difference. I would think with those mods you'd see more power, since I've seen stock dynos get near 160 whp with no mods. That said each dyno is slightly different as are the conditions.

So, its all relative. If you had a weaker stock number then what you're getting now makes a lot of sense.

I've seen some run with the hood open and a fan at the radiator along with one on the intercooler to replicate driving to the best of their ability. I've heard simply opening the hood was not reliable or accurate.

 

It's hard to compare absolute HP between dynos since results can vary 10% or so... but it sounds like you are right in there. Do you have a baseline on your MINI to see delta improvements?

My MINI
Baseline : 162HP, 141 ft-lbs
19% pulley only: 175HP, 157 ft-lbs
~20HP gain around 5000 RPM

My peak flattened out because ECU went rich at end of pull. Needed fan right on intercooler.