If your recipe is going to include a 19% pulley, you should be including a short belt, 380cc injectors and a GIAC remap in the mix

 

The injectors are not really needed at this point.

I will not be using an actual 19% reduction pulley. The plan calls for a 15% to avoid all of the belt breakage issues and has a 3% crank pulley to make a total of 18% reduction.

The GIAC will never make as much power as a dyno tuned ecu. Once you dyno the car send the results to franz and he will write you a program to help adjust the timing and fuel curve. Takes a little more effort but is still cheaper and will yeild more power and better running in the long run.

 

I think GIAC maps were developed using Helix's dyno

 

Don't apologize. Do be aware the test results do not support the theory.

Your recipe may very well add 45 HP and/or get someone to 205HP. I don't know. Neither do you.
Both dyno runs you cite are running cat-back exhausts, not one-*****. Will that make a difference? I don't know. Neither do you.
One is running One-click, the other the MTH. Does it make a difference? I don't know. Neither do you.

Not trying to be hard on you, but you don't KNOW the 205 recipe is correct until someone (preferably yourself) has done the recipe and achieved the expected results. Until then you BELIEVE it's true and that's great.

Just look up SpiderX threads to see that dyno expectations don't always match reality (but he's getting there!)
Dr Obnxs has the closest to your 205 recipe (sans crank pulley) that I know of, perhaps you can get him to dyno for a datapoint.

 

Im not claiming that the dynos have the EXACT equipment I chose. In all honesty I don't think any cat-back exhaust could add more than 2 hp over the one ball mod. Most of the flow to be gained in the cooper is with a header which is where the REAL results can be seen.

The CAI used have similar power as the HAI. If anything there may be a difference of a couple HP, DYNO ERROR could even do that....

Forced induction cars are all different. There is no possible way you can write one program and have it match perfectly with every cooper out there. With the MTH he will re-write it as many times as you want untill you are satisfied. If anything a properly tweaked MTH setup would make MORE power than any of those "one size fits all" ECU flashes.

 

MTH ECU maps are based on "a list of mods". If Franz does indeed tweak these maps based on dyno results you provide, you need to factor paying for dynos into the cost of your recipe.

 

Actually, MTH is not marketed to even give a HP boost. People have found that it usually does, but that's not the point of MTH. It's main focus is to change other parameters such as the powerband - brining torque down lower, easing back on the traction control, changing the rev limiter, removing the speed limiter, etc. He never claims that it will make more power. MTH is not the best way to go for all out power, some of the other guys are. Unfortunately most of the other guys don't change some of the parameters that MTH does, such as traction control - that was a BIG change for my car, and I'm glad I did it. If I could somehow stack GIAC and MTH features, that would be optimal.

 

Interesting that you should mention the "stacking" concept....

I have MTH flash and the dyno has shown only a very slight HP increase. However, as I have reported from my dyno runs compared to a stock ECU, the beginning of torque was effectly shifted to a lower rpm range. But, I must say that I agree the higher ASC/DSC thresholds are worth the price of admission to the MTH Club.

So, now to address the A/F maps. Franz A/F remapping from a single dyno plot will produce a single "static" change. However, it is my belief that it takes an iterative process to truly maximize power/torque when adjusting A/F mapping. Due to the closed-loop systems in our cars (a subject to which I will claim a great deal of ignorance), it seems probable that when you change some settings, other settings will react accordingly; thus, making these changes occurs within a "dynamic" environment. I want my A/F settings to be adjusted on a dyno in real time.

Therefore, I have decided to go with a product like the UNIchip which "piggy-backs" to the ECU via a "daughterboard" and intercepts requests for A/F mapping data. I will also have a custom set of maps created in real time on a top of the line dyno for my specific MSC with my exact combination of mods in order to wring-out all possible gains.

My stacking theory is that I believe the UNIchip daughterboard product may be able to be added while preserving the MTH DSC/ASC threshold settings. Not sure about this so I need to speak more with Ryan Malcolm at Detroit Tuned.

Theo

 

Theo, you say it's worth the price of admission to the MTH Club to get the higher threasholds, but it's free to get it from the dealer as higher thresholds are now programmed in the newer versions of stock software.

 

I think you're mistaken. My new '05 (Feb '05 build) was the most sensative traction control I have ever seen. I can't imagine prior versions being any MORE sensative. I don't know where you heard it was ever changed by Mini.

 

Has anyone "stacked" MYTH and Unichip, if so do they work well together. I have the Unichip and it works great , but I would like to have the DSC being not so quick to come on.

 

Minispilot,
Thanks for stirring up the thought process. I am a newbie to these cars so this information is useful. I am also not hung up on dyno numbers or obsessed with the ultimate amount of possible power. I would like to get a bit more power at a proven safe level. This keeps the car "balanced" as it was designed to be. Too much engine and not enough chassis/brakes is not a good thing.
So a 15% reduction pulley along with a CAI and maybe a one ball exhaust will probably be the extent of my mods. A reasonable and safe power boost.

 

I'll let you know in about a month and a half.

Theo

 

Which version of flash are you talking about? What version have you had to compare to?

I've had versions 33, 36, 39 non-JCW and 39 based JCW. 39 is, by far, the most relaxed has ever been. When changing from 33 to 36 I noticed no change. When upgrading from 36 to 39, BIG change!! 39 to 39/JCW no change noticed. Many, many NAM members have commented to this point as well. Remember the threads about people not being able to pull out into traffic because it kicked in too hard? Some of those people have commented that switching to 39 fixed their problem. Do a search, you will find it.

 

That's exactly how my stock 39 was! I would turn out and I wouldn't even feel or hear a slip - just a blaring orange light and no more power. It was REALLY bad. I litterally couldn't go WOT in 1st under 90% of circumstances. I turned it off more often than not.

 

If only DSC could be integrated with the rain-sensor for the wipers . Then we'd have something. Seriously, MTH would be worth it just to calm down the DSC, whether it makes power or not.

 

I was running under the JCW 210 v.39.x after going through v.36 and v.38 (v.38 ECU upgraded at MINIUSA, NJ!). All three versions have had no effect on the DSC thresholds of my '04 MCS (build date 9/18/03).

Theo

 

Well, since I have been brought up.....

I view Andy et. al. as the REALITY POLICE. In the past they have really pissed me off with there constant, what I percieved as negativity. If you look at my signature and follow my history you will learn that I learned the hard way that these, and all mods, are NOT purely additive and NOT linear and vary from car to car and dyno to dyno. If you took my mods and added them up I would be making some rediculous number, no need for turbo,..... but that is not how it all integrates. Andy et. al., I have come to appreciate, are only trying to keep us all aware of that fact, trying to "keep it real". This is a service because expectations (like mine) lead to spending a lot of money and not necessarily getting the results I was expecting. With a few exceptions, sorry Andy, I think that proof and the truth are all that (Andy, Eric, etc.) are after. I'm not here to defend Andy as he does not need my help in that regard, but I am here to offer third party credibility to his comments. Again, look at my signature, I have walked the walk.

Btw.......Randy Webb who has dynoed as many or more Minis than anyone speaks of how hard it is to dyno these cars and that his car recently took a 20+ whp loss at a new dyno. These dyno numbers that you see posted are not universally calibrated to a set standard (they may think they are) and atmospheric condition .......you know the drill........I still can't figure out what some of the brits are smoking/drinking. (Not all .... Supercooper)

 

OK, so you have a nice car with many mods but did you even read the thread? Here let me help you out.....

Now your saying that dyno results aren't accurate and that every dyno varies? I agree that every dyno run has some degree of "error" but you simply cannot ignore the fact that NOBODY has a 18% total supercharger reduction, an intake, exhaust WITH header, and ECU flash that dyno's under 180whp.

Once again, the 230hp version will have to be revised as I have not done enough testing or seen enough examples to give a definate answer. You guys also have to realise that dyno testing isn't everything. The main increase from the 230 package is the larger intercooler which will really only show gains in the real world while driving around.

Im not trying to sell anything here, im just tying to help the "common" guy to hop up his MCS in the most cost effective way.

 

MY FAVORITE POST IN THIS THREAD

 

I'm not against you........ I applaud your initiative........

I'm sorry if you feel jumped on.......yes I did read the the thread.

When I saw your post and the "better duck" I laughed........

What I am saying is that...........what I said....no need to repeat.

Mine was an excercise of explanation not taking sides........

looking back ..... pardon my arrogance.

 

Ok well im sorry i kinda overreacted and thought this was ANOTHER atack on the recipe.

I was serious when I said I like your car and your mods.

How do you like the M7 scoop? Have you looked into modifying it to allow more flow?

 

No harm, no foul.

My last three signature entries are on order. I am waiting on the scoop the intake manifold and the M7 SC mod. All of this should be in over the the July 4th weekend. ( I emailed Randy the order but I have not received a confirmation....late Friday order.....hopefully I will here from him tomorrrow). I think it is Rick-Anderson who modified his scoop.....I asked Peter about velocity vs volume to see if this mod is really a benefit....haven't heard back yet. Isn't that part of Bernouli's principle....I forget...been too long. Anyway i was bored and jumped the gun on my signature......what do the kids say...my bad

I am having fun with the car. I took it for another long drive in the mountains today and it is just a lot of fun and stress reducing.

My best,

Bob

 

I guess that goes to show not all cars react the same to the software. Some cars got a really bad throttle tip-in (and let-off) very jerky response when upgrading to 39.x. Others didn't. Mine, unfortunately was one of them. I'm sorry yours is one of the cars that didn't "accept" or react to the more lenient (less agressive) traction control.