Sit tight everyone. I have a G Tech and I will give y'all some numbers just as soon as I get a few more mods taken care of in the coming weeks.

 

for some reason, it is more likely that you will see dyno measurements, subject to many weakly controlled variables and therefore not directly comparable. Even though the machine costs $40,000 and a set of runs can approach $150+. Dyno queens reign.

I agree about the need for 0-60, better yet, 1/4 mile times and trap speeds. What the hell, a trip to the drags is no harder on your car than the dyno, much more fun and far cheaper. The G-tech has it's own issues, but it is at least something accomplished on a moving car.

 

Here's the data from the fastest run from each car for those who want to do crunching. Some of the cars were run with different combinations of items to be logged, hence the reason why some cars have blank columns:

http://www.ross-tech.net/andy/mini/socal/socal2.xls

I apologize to M7 and the followers of M7 for incorrectly stating that:

"Bill's car had the unique advantages of running with no air filter whatsoever and having a fan blowing directly into the throttle body (conditions that were not present for any of the other cars run that day)"

What I should have said was:

"Bill's car had the unique advantages of running with race gas, no air filter whatsoever and having a fan blowing directly onto the intercooler (conditions that were not present for any of the other cars run that day)"

Let it never be said that I don't account for, and correct my mistakes.

 

Chill....like i said, it wasnt aimed at you. You were blatantly just trying to figure out the performance of the kit. That is VERY reasonable. Thats how most engine things are valued.

I was adressing people who ARE only interested in straight line with their MINI's. And they are out there. I just used your quote because it seemed soewhat relevant even though i know you dont drag your MINI. Again, im sorry you misunderstood, but i said it was directed at you.

I never said it shouldnt be answered. I look forward to results.

 

I guess my priorities are a bit different when it comes to cars, I own a 95 ZR1 and my wife owns a 95 Z28, at the time it was the best 0-60 mph GM had to offer, in the winter she drives a Jimmy and I drive an Envoy, they are both on Blizzaks, and on ice and snow our 4x4s on Blizzaks are pretty much the best 0-60 mph money can buy without riding a ski-doo on the icy street.

Now I own a MINI and still kept the others, I love the MINI and am willing to spend a few bucks on it but I'm not planning on racing it, but it may change but right now it is to be driven on the street and if $5k gets me only 0.2 sec. faster 0-60 time like JCW, I don't think I will bother.

I prefer test done by Car Magazines because these guys don't own the car, are not selling the car, they are only testing the car but with owners or sellers of upgrades it's very difficult to get a true result.

To be honest if I was closer to Bill, I would meet him with my wife's Z28 and if he could keep up with me from 0-60, I would give my credit card number to Peter as soon as I get out of the car.

BTW, the wife's Z only gets 5.8-5.9 to go from 0-60 and I believe the Cosworth can do that but I need to hear or see it so I don't end up with a desapointement, one more reason why I need this, I'm trying to convince my wife to buy a MINI to replace her aging Z28 and unless I can beat her off the line, she'll keep saying NO, but she drove the MINI and loved it but if it's slower than her Z, she won't want one, so Peter can have 2 customers instead of 1 but if I spend $5k and she beats my a**, she will never buy a MINI and I know that, I already picked a color that she likes, it would be dark blue, black top and dark tinted rear windows with aftermarket Chrome 5 spokes, all options except sunroof and NAV.
So the sooner I can get those numbers, the sooner I'll have my car done and the sooner I can teach her what that little car can do, the sooner I'll be ordering the other one.

I know you didn't reply to me directly but I've been around Forums for 8-9 years already and everytime someone reply something negative about a question, it kills the thread right there and you'll never get your answer, that's not the first time I asked that question and will keep doing so from time to time and will keep asking the Cosworth owners if they had a good race story to tell and eventually I'll get the answer I'm looking for, even if I have to take a trip to CA or Florida to get my answer, I might even do that.

 

I am beginning to look forward to starting my day with a nice cup of coffee and reading the morning " ANDY " Today was a red letter event to say the least .Low and behold an APOLOGY We have printed it out and are displaying it in a place of honor on the order board.
The statement below is getting closer to the truth but you keep leaving out some pertinent facts which have been explained to you previously . I am sure this was just a over site.

" "Bill's car had the unique advantages of running with race gas, no air filter whatsoever and having a fan blowing directly onto the intercooler (conditions that were not present for any of the other cars run that day)"

As I mentioned before the RACE gas in question was a mix of race and 91 which averaged out to about 94 octane . The ECU map was still written for 91 which is probably the reason we lost 2 hp with the RACE gas over our last test with 91 only .
The carpet fan blowing on the intercooler was certainly not the same condition as the other cars running as they were spraying water on theirs which was probably to their advantage.
Lastly I want to thank you again for giving us the opportunity to state proudly that the difference between running with and without an air filter was a ONE hp loss which when you factor in the average differences between back to back dyno runs equals almost NO change which proves that we certainly have the rite filter for the job.
Thanks for the support and have a wonderful weekend .

Randy
M7 Tuning

 

I'm glad you agree 100% with the facts in this statement:

"Bill's car had the unique advantages of running with race gas, no air filter whatsoever and having a fan blowing directly onto the intercooler (conditions that were not present for any of the other cars run that day)"

You may feel that race gas, removing the air filter, and using a fan had no effect (that's your choice to believe what you want to believe) but I'm glad that you don't dispute the above facts.

I may have missed it, but where are the before and after dynos comparing the old AGS SID against the new AGS SID? I may have missed it, but where are the before and after dynos comparing the Cosworth car in its current form on street gas versus race gas? I may have missed it, but where are the before and after dynos comparing the Cosworth car in its current form with and without the fan on the intercooler? I may have missed it, but where are the before and after dynos comparing the Cosworth car in its current form with and without the air filter?

You realize that to actually measure a repeatable change you'd need to:

Dyno with air filter in place
Dyno with air filter removed
Dyno with air filter in place again

Here's a good example of what I'm talking about:

https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...t=29748&page=2

Your statement that "the difference between running with and without an air filter was a ONE hp loss" doesn't appear to be validated by the above testing regimen. In fact, unlike every other car that made less and less horsepower on each successive run, your Cosworth car miraculously made MORE horsepower as soon as the filter was removed.

 

You must have been very sad yesterday since I had a cold and didn't post all. I did, however, read some excellent fishing stories by Ernest Hemingway.

 

I did notice that you were among the missing yesterday. That Hemingway could sure tie a fly Drink lots of fluids and have a good weekend.

Randy
M7 Tuning

 

Zwon: get a ride in a twingcharged rig; for about the same $...5k. you won't be disappointed . where are you located? there are quite a few out there by now.

 

Dont want to change the trust ofthe thread but to follow up JLM I might add that it is true 5k plus install will get you the basic twin charge kit but from what we have seen here in with the Oh Oh ( https://www.northamericanmotoring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46902 )thread and the two local cars you will need to spend a LOT more to actually keep them running. We have two cars in town with the twin charge set up. One is silver and his time line went as follows. Installed system , ran one week, blew turbo , replaced turbo, ran another week, blew pistons , replaced pistons etc and is running at present. The other mini a well known all red one had similar issues and also had to replace pistons and is once again running all though at a reduced HP output in the 240 range. JLM with your knowledge base you would be the perfect person to answer the question of how much do you think a twin charge system which will continue running will actually cost? What would it cost to rebuild a motor and install a new set of custom pistons ? Would you not agree that the true cost of the kit should be the total amount that it takes to complete a car that will last more than a couple of weeks. The 5k is a nice start but no where the total amount to make it continue to run.

 

no doubt there are some blown twin rigs, but you have to consider the devil was pushing his envelope pretty hard, shooting for 300+whp without the pistons Hubie has quite a performance record on his, also didn't have piston problems until he pushed past 300.
more data points are needed as well as contributing info.
if you were to build a truly bombproof motor, the bottom end is a 3k propositon, add to that the 5k twinrig and look for sub 5 sec 0-60 all day long. If all you want to do is replace the pistons...I hesitate to use the phrase...but you can just drop them in there for $700 parts (what a few others have gotten away with.

even if you go whole hog and drop 8 or 9k (gasp), the $/whp is not so bad:

pulley: 400, 20whp (20:1)
head/cam, etc package: 5,000, 50whp (100:1)
twin, no pistons: 5,000, 100whp (50:1)
twin, shortblock 9k, 150 whp (60:1)
twin, new pistons: 6,000, 140 whp (42:1)

 

They're two very different things. (I guess that's your point). Very few things are sold on CoO, even though that should be the metric, but sometimes you end up with a high purchase price and low CoO (this is something that is reliable over a long time), that no one can afford, whereas if you buy a less expensive system that costs more to own and operate, it may be better suited to one's particular cash flow situation....

So there is no best way, yet again....

What about nitrous?

Matt

 

That's a great way to look at it.
Cost now AND later.

I know I'd rather pay now, for reliability.
Than to pay later for a BLOWN turbo or whatnot, due to the product malfunction or poor engineering.

Twincharging just seems like a big gamble. A bigger gamble than the other mods I've seen available here and on other sites.

 

JLM good info. I knew you were the one to ask !

 

Indeed, the numbers look good, but you must remember than not everyone can wait 2 years to get their block done. And, if you're talking about a realistic investment of 9k, that's nearly enough to buy two Cosworth kits! That's two fast little cars. Of course, if you drop in a 275+ whp kit, you're gonna need beefed up driveline components, including clutch and of course lsd, and you're gonna burn through tires quicker. Maintainance costs, at the very lease, are gonna be significantly higher. If you're gonna do all of the work up front, you're adding thousands in labor costs for the install. If you don't do it all at once, and something breaks/wears too quickly, you're gonna have to deal not just with the money outlay but the lack of a car and the increased cost of a piece-meal install. Either way you slice it, I made a decision NOT to twin charge, and I'm completely happy I did . It is my only car, my daily driver, and it's really reliable. I don't have to worry about standing on the side of the road broken down .

 

i agree 2 yrs sucks. you might also note you had been waiting 2 years for the twin charge or the Cos package as well...all equally valid timeframes and yet irrelevant from this point in time.

 

How come there is no mention of Bob Nigbors numbers?? I think his acceleration times are amazing compared to the other cars. He only has 15% pulley, intake, exhaust and MTH, just goes to show how sweet those 2005 gear ratios are. Now I want to put an 05 gearbox in my car.


Does anyone know if the final drives are the same for the 05 cars?

 

Your torque figures are wrong.

Corrected:
1 Bob Nigbor 164.0 lb-ft (181.8 peak whp)
2 Mike Leggit 155.4 lb-ft (191.6 peak whp)
3 Tamoosh 152.9 lb-ft (179.8 peak whp)
4 Dave Chen 145.1 lb-ft (169.4 peak whp)
5 Cosworth 155.5 lb-ft (201.8 peak whp)
6 Jason Partin 144.7 lb-ft (168.5 peak whp)
7 Robert Works 150.4 (171.7 peak whp)

 

INTERESTING. Well, it sure looks like the dyno low-***** ;-). Look at the JCW torque: 150.x wheels [remember, JCW quote 180.68 crank!....so that would be like 19% driveline loss].... . Indeed, though, I wish I had had Bob's car to start my project with !

EDIT: Also notice that Mike's car [the one with Steve's ported head and all sorts of goodies] turned 155.4 lb ft. Looks like the Cosworth is sitting pretty well to me . This just reaffirms what I feel everytime I drive. Mwahahaha.

 

Camelpilot, how were the calculations incorrect?

 

hehe, only Andy will know why they are incorrect, because he calculated them.

My figures are straight off of the graphs.


You Cali guys - Come to the Nuts Scavenger Hunt! Sunday 11am. Be there or be square.

 

You’re partially right in that only Andy will know which two rows are being compared. Here are some interesting things I’ve seen with these numbers. The earliest pullout was at 6696 rpm by Dave Chen. The latest rpm/full throttle opening was Tamoosh at 2592 rpm. So there were some differences between lengths of time, rpm range, throttle opening duration and so forth for each car. If one were to split seconds/hairs and depending on where (which time/rpm blocks) you look at the comparison someone could have had a head start or someone else could have been cut down in their prime.

It’s interesting stuff that has not been available to the MINI general public before. I remember long ago watching the motorcycle GP teams in the paddock reading the data logs from the bikes. It was only the major teams that could afford the technology and no one let you look over their shoulder.

 

JLM I need to make a slight correction here. We had our first contact with Cosworth at last years SEMA show which will make next month our one year anniversary of partnership. It probably seems longer mostly because of all the chatter about it. Have a nice weekend.

Randy
M7 Tuning

 

Hang on here...

Your last statement is what IMO is wrong with this whole 'Twincharging' is risking your car thing.

This notion of automatic greater wear & risk is unfounded.

If you build a twincharged car to push max H/P (with stock parts) you sure are going to wear/break components faster than say a 19% pulley car.

BUT
Consider that a T/C MINI can have a supercharger with a LARGER than stock pulley running on it (spins S/C slower); cooler air intake temps (than a stocker, 15%/19%) and produce more H/P torque at a lower engine RPM.

How is this more risky? Yes you're running more boost... but its cooler boost. You don't need to run the S/C & various accessories as fast (as a 15% -19%) and you don't need to rev the snot of the engine! Sure you have the complexity of a turbo & associated heat/plumbing... but wear on the turbo is a new component - addetive wear... not some part of the engine that's already there.

A T/C car can certainly be built to be durable... It's just that the priority of the folks who bought the T/C MINI's (to this point) has been POWER. Whether these folks want to admit it or not, reliability took a back seat to thier quest for big numbers. Funny that Hubie, who's pushed the most power has had the best reliability.

The Cosworth package appears to produce some nice smooth power, with one of the smoothest looking dyno plots I've seen on NAM But the Cosworth is not doing much different than Webb, JCW or anyone else. You are buying the Cosworth name & reputation - this is all good NOTE: I am not saying it doesn't do ANYTHING differently than other tuners. Just nothing earthshaking.

Let the Cosworth kit stand on its own merrit/s. M7 & the proponents of Cosworth needn't stand on the shoulders of others to appear taller. IMO this is what it appears is going on re: reliability of T/C MINI's without framing the issues of T/C in accurate context.