Drivetrain Cosworth MINI Finally Back from the Dyno
6th Gear
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,719
Likes: 1
From: New Brunswick, NJ
The road is different from a load-bearing dyno. The road will obviously provide a somewhat uniform resistance to your tires. A load-bearing dyno gauges the load on it, but will vary the pre-load/resistance on the rollers. It does this, as I understand it, amongst other reasons, to protect itself from being spun wildly. Thus, on-road acceleration tests are PERFECT gauges of 'area under the curve' while dyno acceleration tests are affected by a computer-determined variable, the load on the wheels. This changes from run to run. I hope this helps.
Originally Posted by 62Lincoln
I'm confused. Why is it okay to do this:
But in Randy Webb's pulley eval thread, when he wrote this:
Here are the acceleration numbers:
3rd gear
Time from 3500 to 6000 RPM
Before: 7.5 seconds
After: 6.6 seconds
That is the average of five runs in each mode. The times were recorded using a Rubic stopwatch.
Andy wrote:
That's a 14.3 % difference in horsepower, or 25 WHP on a 175 WHP car. I have trouble believing that sort of gain, even with a crank pulley that has no mass at all.
When Randy performed actual dyno tests that showed a differential in time (averaged over 5 attempts), the results were dismissed.
But isn't the same sort of calculation being performed with Andy's comparison? Except it's a calculation based on one dyno run, not the average of several? Isn't this the same number that was dismissed in Randy's eval?
I'm confused, help!
But in Randy Webb's pulley eval thread, when he wrote this:
Here are the acceleration numbers:
3rd gear
Time from 3500 to 6000 RPM
Before: 7.5 seconds
After: 6.6 seconds
That is the average of five runs in each mode. The times were recorded using a Rubic stopwatch.
Andy wrote:
That's a 14.3 % difference in horsepower, or 25 WHP on a 175 WHP car. I have trouble believing that sort of gain, even with a crank pulley that has no mass at all.
When Randy performed actual dyno tests that showed a differential in time (averaged over 5 attempts), the results were dismissed.
But isn't the same sort of calculation being performed with Andy's comparison? Except it's a calculation based on one dyno run, not the average of several? Isn't this the same number that was dismissed in Randy's eval?
I'm confused, help!
hmmm...
where is this 'thread' u mentioned?
whats it tittled?
Originally Posted by 62Lincoln
I'm confused. Why is it okay to do this:
But in Randy Webb's pulley eval thread, when he wrote this:
Here are the acceleration numbers:
3rd gear
Time from 3500 to 6000 RPM
Before: 7.5 seconds
After: 6.6 seconds
That is the average of five runs in each mode. The times were recorded using a Rubic stopwatch.
Andy wrote:
That's a 14.3 % difference in horsepower, or 25 WHP on a 175 WHP car. I have trouble believing that sort of gain, even with a crank pulley that has no mass at all.
When Randy performed actual dyno tests that showed a differential in time (averaged over 5 attempts), the results were dismissed.
But isn't the same sort of calculation being performed with Andy's comparison? Except it's a calculation based on one dyno run, not the average of several? Isn't this the same number that was dismissed in Randy's eval?
I'm confused, help!
But in Randy Webb's pulley eval thread, when he wrote this:
Here are the acceleration numbers:
3rd gear
Time from 3500 to 6000 RPM
Before: 7.5 seconds
After: 6.6 seconds
That is the average of five runs in each mode. The times were recorded using a Rubic stopwatch.
Andy wrote:
That's a 14.3 % difference in horsepower, or 25 WHP on a 175 WHP car. I have trouble believing that sort of gain, even with a crank pulley that has no mass at all.
When Randy performed actual dyno tests that showed a differential in time (averaged over 5 attempts), the results were dismissed.
But isn't the same sort of calculation being performed with Andy's comparison? Except it's a calculation based on one dyno run, not the average of several? Isn't this the same number that was dismissed in Randy's eval?
I'm confused, help!
5th Gear
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 855
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by joker
where is this 'thread' u mentioned?
whats it tittled?
6th Gear
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,629
Likes: 7
From: Pipe Creek, Texas
Nice try in post #76 ingsoc but the DynoJet is not a true load bearing dyno. http://www.germanmotorcars.com/Dyno_...0inertia_1.htm
Thread Starter
|
4th Gear
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
From: Orange County, CA
Originally Posted by spillman
Sure, my next question would be what was the air temp and humidity on both days these numbers were recorded?
Base run: 68.68 degrees F, 29.84 in-HG, Humidity 24%
Best run: 81.11 degrees F, 29.76 in-HG, Humidity 28%
Bill
5th Gear
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 890
Likes: 0
From: Rutherfordton, NC
Originally Posted by CooperSS
If you look at the first dyno sheet on the first post it lists the conditions for both runs. To save you the trouble of going back and reading the first post I will reiterate them here.
Base run: 68.68 degrees F, 29.84 in-HG, Humidity 24%
Best run: 81.11 degrees F, 29.76 in-HG, Humidity 28%
Bill
Base run: 68.68 degrees F, 29.84 in-HG, Humidity 24%
Best run: 81.11 degrees F, 29.76 in-HG, Humidity 28%
Bill
5th Gear
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 855
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by k-huevo
Nice try in post #76 ingsoc but the DynoJet is not a true load bearing dyno. And yes, on an inertia dyno the car wheels have to turn two heavy drums. http://www.germanmotorcars.com/Dyno_...0inertia_1.htm
6th Gear
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,719
Likes: 1
From: New Brunswick, NJ
Keith is saying the dyno used is not load bearing. I did not know this. But, Alta still said that dynos change the resistance based on different factors, so I believe that the fact is that you can't compare time-to-speed on the dyno. That is what they said, and I've read similar information somewhere or another. Keith didn't refute what Alta said. I too am waiting for an authority. Again, have a great day everyone.
Thread Starter
|
4th Gear
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
From: Orange County, CA
Originally Posted by andy@ross-tech.com
I calculated torque from the change in speed over the change in time. The numbers are a bit off (+/- 2 lb-ft or so) from what the dyno showed due to smooth, rounding, and sample rates, but the finishing order should be the same:
1 Bob Nigbor 183.3 lb-ft (181.8 peak whp)
2 Mike Leggit 163.3 lb-ft (191.6 peak whp)
3 Tamoosh 161.6 lb-ft (179.8 peak whp)
4 Dave Chen 157.6 lb-ft (169.4 peak whp)
5 Cosworth 157.2 lb-ft (201.8 peak whp)
6 Jason Partin 148.6 lb-ft (168.5 peak whp)
7 Robert Works 148.5 (171.7 peak whp)
1 Bob Nigbor 183.3 lb-ft (181.8 peak whp)
2 Mike Leggit 163.3 lb-ft (191.6 peak whp)
3 Tamoosh 161.6 lb-ft (179.8 peak whp)
4 Dave Chen 157.6 lb-ft (169.4 peak whp)
5 Cosworth 157.2 lb-ft (201.8 peak whp)
6 Jason Partin 148.6 lb-ft (168.5 peak whp)
7 Robert Works 148.5 (171.7 peak whp)
An interesting comparison would be the Max Mass Airflow figures from your data sampling.
Can you post that?
Bill
6th Gear
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,629
Likes: 7
From: Pipe Creek, Texas
Here are some observations I’ve made doing the calculation using personal data collected on an inertia dyno (DynoJet), load bearing dyno ( Mustang), and WOT 4th gear on the street. The equation is closest to matching the DynoJet numbers for my torque, my acceleration times were the fastest on that dyno as well. I was much slower accelerating on the Mustang and the end numbers from the equation were further off. On the street, forget it, I was a slug and it sure didn’t feel that way at the time.
It seems to me that calculations done in a controlled environment (dyno shop) with the same measuring device (onboard diagnostics) and the same treatment (equation) applied to all participants would yield the best chance of internal validity. I don’t see how this can be considered an evil plot. We all have confirmation biases as a dimension of personal constructs, sometimes it helps to look at things objectively. I think the data shows differences not winners and losers.
Bill, the air mass numbers would be an interesting comparison, objectively speaking:smile:.
It seems to me that calculations done in a controlled environment (dyno shop) with the same measuring device (onboard diagnostics) and the same treatment (equation) applied to all participants would yield the best chance of internal validity. I don’t see how this can be considered an evil plot. We all have confirmation biases as a dimension of personal constructs, sometimes it helps to look at things objectively. I think the data shows differences not winners and losers.
Bill, the air mass numbers would be an interesting comparison, objectively speaking:smile:.
1st Gear
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
BEWARE: Opinion/Commentary Below. And it may be off topic to the current statuss of this thread
***BEGIN
I like the sound of that... differences, not winners or losers.
It makes me wonder, after seeing the first version of this thread topic, if there will ever be satisfaction that there ARE differences rather than "winners vs losers".
I cannot find the logic where one would fight so hard to negate a system, product, person, thing or service.
Coming from a tuning background, - Rolling with Vtech's, V8's, Sideways Slidestars, and now the MINI (well, starting to roll MINI Style as soon as it arrives) I've seen this same sort of thing happen in every community. Granted some more than others. Some less. I was hoping that this would be one of those "less than others".
Nothing seems substantiated enough for huge and heavy arguements. A hp her a hp there, +/- a couple torque pts... Whaa Whaa
The basis I feel, with this tuners community is that we need to do what WE feel is correct. Be it a Cosworth (which I'm diggin') or JCW or whatnot. If we feel there are valid advantages to our decisions as consumers, no one.... NO ONE, should create a turbulant arguement in regards.
Expressing and sharing data is one thing, which is very valid, but when you inject a personal agenda, opinion, "your ideals", into the data shared... You Flaw the data.
**** END
Now back to the discussion.
***BEGIN
I like the sound of that... differences, not winners or losers.
It makes me wonder, after seeing the first version of this thread topic, if there will ever be satisfaction that there ARE differences rather than "winners vs losers".
I cannot find the logic where one would fight so hard to negate a system, product, person, thing or service.
Coming from a tuning background, - Rolling with Vtech's, V8's, Sideways Slidestars, and now the MINI (well, starting to roll MINI Style as soon as it arrives) I've seen this same sort of thing happen in every community. Granted some more than others. Some less. I was hoping that this would be one of those "less than others".
Nothing seems substantiated enough for huge and heavy arguements. A hp her a hp there, +/- a couple torque pts... Whaa Whaa
The basis I feel, with this tuners community is that we need to do what WE feel is correct. Be it a Cosworth (which I'm diggin') or JCW or whatnot. If we feel there are valid advantages to our decisions as consumers, no one.... NO ONE, should create a turbulant arguement in regards.
Expressing and sharing data is one thing, which is very valid, but when you inject a personal agenda, opinion, "your ideals", into the data shared... You Flaw the data.
**** END
Now back to the discussion.
5th Gear
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,088
Likes: 2
From: out and aboot
Originally Posted by k-huevo
Of course, the valves didn’t create the difference alone
. My point was/is “other factors manipulated in concert with the larger valves” create a possible trade off or probable gain.
Valves opening sooner have to do with cam lobe profile or degreeing the camshaft via an adjustable sprocket and I’m not aware of how a change in valve spring might facilitate earlier opening.
Damn this rural dial-up can be frustrating by the time I process my reply, I’m already behind because of all those very nice, but too large for my dinky throughput, pictures.
. My point was/is “other factors manipulated in concert with the larger valves” create a possible trade off or probable gain.Valves opening sooner have to do with cam lobe profile or degreeing the camshaft via an adjustable sprocket and I’m not aware of how a change in valve spring might facilitate earlier opening.
Damn this rural dial-up can be frustrating by the time I process my reply, I’m already behind because of all those very nice, but too large for my dinky throughput, pictures.
just my $.02
4th Gear
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
From: Southern California
Originally Posted by andy@ross-tech.com
More in-gear acceleration times (ranked from fastest to slowest):
3k-4k
1 Bob Nigbor 1.772467527
2 Tamoosh 2.029757192
3 Mike Leggit 2.079485931
4 Dave Chen 2.096348363
5 Cosworth 2.103638261
6 Robert Works 2.223386673
7 Jason Partin 2.22884801
4k-5k
1 Bob Nigbor 1.842807356
2 Mike Leggit 2.000836206
3 Tamoosh 2.067704005
4 Cosworth 2.080506331
5 Dave Chen 2.106076667
6 Jason Partin 2.196385933
7 Robert Works 2.228617325
5k-6k
1 Bob Nigbor 1.921279301
2 Mike Leggit 2.057320782
3 Tamoosh 2.063780155
4 Cosworth 2.069408896
5 Dave Chen 2.177570489
6 Jason Partin 2.232134713
7 Robert Works 2.38586033
6k-7k
1 Bob Nigbor 2.064840188
2 Mike Leggit 2.080236452
3 Cosworth 2.106465594
4 Tamoosh 2.205212907
5 Jason Partin 2.601890374
6 Robert Works 2.607119855
7 Dave Chen 2.759495512
3k-4k
1 Bob Nigbor 1.772467527
2 Tamoosh 2.029757192
3 Mike Leggit 2.079485931
4 Dave Chen 2.096348363
5 Cosworth 2.103638261
6 Robert Works 2.223386673
7 Jason Partin 2.22884801
4k-5k
1 Bob Nigbor 1.842807356
2 Mike Leggit 2.000836206
3 Tamoosh 2.067704005
4 Cosworth 2.080506331
5 Dave Chen 2.106076667
6 Jason Partin 2.196385933
7 Robert Works 2.228617325
5k-6k
1 Bob Nigbor 1.921279301
2 Mike Leggit 2.057320782
3 Tamoosh 2.063780155
4 Cosworth 2.069408896
5 Dave Chen 2.177570489
6 Jason Partin 2.232134713
7 Robert Works 2.38586033
6k-7k
1 Bob Nigbor 2.064840188
2 Mike Leggit 2.080236452
3 Cosworth 2.106465594
4 Tamoosh 2.205212907
5 Jason Partin 2.601890374
6 Robert Works 2.607119855
7 Dave Chen 2.759495512
Many thanks for the analysis. The next time there's a dyno event, I'll try to get some more Bim-Com data. I find it very interesting that the M7 modified car had the equivalent of an 18% pulley, and showed some pretty poor times going from a-to-b (rpm). Also, what is your objective take on the poor torque results for the M7 modified vehicle? Thanks...
4th Gear
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
From: Southern California
Perhaps this has been addressed elsewhere, but I had trouble finding info.
1. What is the actual warranty on an M7 kit like the one installed in Bill's car?
2. If there is a warranty, is it verbal or put in writing?
3. Furthermore, since Cosworth did the rework of the stock head, do they provide any warranty?
4. Finally, if M7 has to replace a defective part or add their recommended modifications to a part they deemed sub-optimal, do they also pay for labor?
1. What is the actual warranty on an M7 kit like the one installed in Bill's car?
2. If there is a warranty, is it verbal or put in writing?
3. Furthermore, since Cosworth did the rework of the stock head, do they provide any warranty?
4. Finally, if M7 has to replace a defective part or add their recommended modifications to a part they deemed sub-optimal, do they also pay for labor?
No Point....
Originally Posted by ingsoc
I too am waiting for an authority.
Matt
4th Gear
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Future Cosworth Stage 2 owner
I'm planning on getting the Cosworth Package in Jan 06, I will store the car for the winter and will get on it in Jan.
I almost bought the JCW package but they wanted $7200 plus $1200 for the install and they send back all my original parts, even the exhaust and pulley.
That's in Canadian $$ of course.
But the Cosworth deal will save me money and give me more power and will have a rare car with a name and reputation that will last a long time.
I'm sure there are good tuners out there but all I was looking for was a good alternative to JCW that I can install myself, JCW has to be done by the dealer, they won't let me install it.
Also I can save enough money to pay for my LSD unit, it's a no-brainer.
I'm not looking for the most hp, as long as I have more than the JCW, that's all I want.
I'd pay $50 per driver to see a street race between a JCW and a Cosworth though, hopefully this will be tried before Jan. 06.
I almost bought the JCW package but they wanted $7200 plus $1200 for the install and they send back all my original parts, even the exhaust and pulley.
That's in Canadian $$ of course.
But the Cosworth deal will save me money and give me more power and will have a rare car with a name and reputation that will last a long time.
I'm sure there are good tuners out there but all I was looking for was a good alternative to JCW that I can install myself, JCW has to be done by the dealer, they won't let me install it.
Also I can save enough money to pay for my LSD unit, it's a no-brainer.
I'm not looking for the most hp, as long as I have more than the JCW, that's all I want.
I'd pay $50 per driver to see a street race between a JCW and a Cosworth though, hopefully this will be tried before Jan. 06.
right-0n!
Originally Posted by zrwon
I'm planning on getting the Cosworth Package in Jan 06, I will store the car for the winter and will get on it in Jan.
I almost bought the JCW package but they wanted $7200 plus $1200 for the install and they send back all my original parts, even the exhaust and pulley.
That's in Canadian $$ of course.
But the Cosworth deal will save me money and give me more power and will have a rare car with a name and reputation that will last a long time.
I'm sure there are good tuners out there but all I was looking for was a good alternative to JCW that I can install myself, JCW has to be done by the dealer, they won't let me install it.
Also I can save enough money to pay for my LSD unit, it's a no-brainer.
I'm not looking for the most hp, as long as I have more than the JCW, that's all I want.
I'd pay $50 per driver to see a street race between a JCW and a Cosworth though, hopefully this will be tried before Jan. 06.
I almost bought the JCW package but they wanted $7200 plus $1200 for the install and they send back all my original parts, even the exhaust and pulley.
That's in Canadian $$ of course.
But the Cosworth deal will save me money and give me more power and will have a rare car with a name and reputation that will last a long time.
I'm sure there are good tuners out there but all I was looking for was a good alternative to JCW that I can install myself, JCW has to be done by the dealer, they won't let me install it.
Also I can save enough money to pay for my LSD unit, it's a no-brainer.
I'm not looking for the most hp, as long as I have more than the JCW, that's all I want.
I'd pay $50 per driver to see a street race between a JCW and a Cosworth though, hopefully this will be tried before Jan. 06.
Tsk tsk tsk....
Originally Posted by zrwon
I'd pay $50 per driver to see a street race between a JCW and a Cosworth though, hopefully this will be tried before Jan. 06.
Matt
4th Gear
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Dr Obnxs
Are you really going to solicite an illegal act? I can think of some that are more fun that watching a race!
Matt
Matt
MCS 0-60: 6.8 sec.
JCW 0-60: 6.6 sec.
MCS Convertible 0-60: 7 sec.
MCS M7 Stage 2 0-60:
sec.(My ZR1 0-60: 4.1 sec.
) Oups!, did I throw that in there? wrong Forum, sorry 
Banned
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,640
Likes: 0
From: Flitwick UK
My Mini is 4.32 based on my 1/8 mile et and speed. That produced 231 dragstrip fywheel hp at 2510lb
http://www.wallaceracing.com/0-60_equation.php
http://www.wallaceracing.com/0-60_equation.php
Former Vendor
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,337
Likes: 4
From: oh10
Originally Posted by zrwon
Most people want 1/4 mile numbers, I'm more looking for a 0-60 mph time and so far nobody can answer that one, that's why I'd like to see that before I buy mine so I'll have an idea as to what I'm paying for.
MCS 0-60: 6.8 sec.
JCW 0-60: 6.6 sec.
MCS Convertible 0-60: 7 sec.
MCS M7 Stage 2 0-60: sec.
(My ZR1 0-60: 4.1 sec. ) Oups!, did I throw that in there? wrong Forum, sorry
MCS 0-60: 6.8 sec.
JCW 0-60: 6.6 sec.
MCS Convertible 0-60: 7 sec.
MCS M7 Stage 2 0-60:
sec.(My ZR1 0-60: 4.1 sec.
) Oups!, did I throw that in there? wrong Forum, sorry (not aimed at you zrwon....i mean in general)
4th Gear
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by RallyMINI
in all honesty....if 0-60 is your main concern, you bought the wrong car. Sorry to say it, but drag racing a MINI seems kinda silly to me
(not aimed at you zrwon....i mean in general)
(not aimed at you zrwon....i mean in general)
I only want to know, I do have a ZR1 to drag race and I DO NOT WANT TO DRAG RACE THE MINI, but if all car manufacturers, even trucks can give me that info, I think in this case it's a very simple question that deserves and answer.
