Well, as happy as I was with the feel of the software, the dyno doesn't lie.

I was a a little dissappointed with what came about today. We went up only 6 horsepower to a little under 189. While this does bring the car up to 209 horsepower at the flywheel, using an 11% driveline loss, it still isn't the number I wanted to see, and I believe there is more available through ECU tuning. It's back to the drawing board.

There are still several options I'm pursuing, for both standard S and the pulley S, so hope is not lost.


The good news was that the car still runs very rich - starting out at 13.3/1 and moving gradually to 11.5/1 at around 5000 RPM and finally going all the way to 11.1/1 at redline. There's a little room for improvement there, but I think the timing is going to be the key.

Also, we found that the car pulls more and more horsepower all the way to the redline, so increasing the redline to 7500 or so (from the stock ~7200) would also get more power.

I unfortunately ran out of time to swap in the throttle body to a relatively stock car.

Of course, more testing will follow.

As a side note, I was still happy with the linear changes the software made, and the seat of the pants difference is noticeable.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Randy

 

Randy,

Thanks for the update and the honesty. I think that's really something that distinguishes your opinion. It's not always a "Ra-Ra this is great", but things are kept in check in a realistic fashion. I know I'm not alone in my appreciation of your balanced view.

Dave

_________________
"You can't have a fast parade."

 

Randy, I second the praise for your honesty. You've become the exclusive supplier for my MINI :smile:

I look forward to your results for the pulley, ECU and throttle body. I hope you'll have a chance to test the complete package with a stock exhaust as I'm unwilling to live with any droning or resonance from aftermarket exhausts.

Thanks!

 

Randy,
Peak numbers are for bench racers. Area under the curve is where its at :smile: I'll take a fat gain in the midrange at the expense of making "only 6HP" at my peak 10 times out of 10. People often get caught up in trying to get that big peak number but not every mod is designed to raise your peak output. This can account for the "feel" you mentioned. I dont think you're going to unlock too much more power, but keep on trying, we all enjoy your updates/adventures! :smile:


--
Cheese

 

Yes Great work randy do you think that you could possibly post you dyno so far, i am interested as cheese said in you overall improvements not just peak, peak is great and all but overall hp AND torque are important, dont forget Hp is a result of torque X rpm, torque is what gets you moving "the seat of the pants feel" As a fellow race you opinion is very well observed appreciate the honesty in the unexpected results, but 6 hp is still 6hp and an improvement (those 6's add up) as you felt the improvement in the mid rpm rang how much did you gain in there HP and Torque

 

Randy,

Why did you decide to use 11% driveline loss? I was under the impression that 15% was a closer ratio unless you are not using a conventional DYNO. Also people remember that Randy is up around 6k feet and above in ALT. I know that he probably compensated at the DYNO for this but its just another factor that has room for error. I also have a feeling that even if you have all that breathability now you are restricted at the head and you have a bottleneck. I think that larger valves are inorder along with a good port and pollish and specific cam grind. Also I know for a fact that the Superchips software you are using was not specifically tuned for that Supercharger pulley or any of the other MOD's you have. These are all very important in the high tech motor world.

Bryan

 

Just my 2cents.:smile:

I know very little about dyno's and do not profess to be any kind of expert regarding matters related to ...HP gains, torque, wheel weight, rotational inertia (one of my fav's :smile.... and all the rest of these ..extremely interesting buzzwords and concepts....presented to a novice like myself.

It seems from my readings of the great many postings here on MCO, that dyno results are at best...varied and depend on so many varied variables/circumstances that they are liable to be skewed..more often than not.
I've read references to hot/cold engines, weather conditions, altitude, combinations of different bundled mods, re-setting ecu's...and the list goes on & on.

The dyno results seem akin to a statistical presentation, whereas one uses a statistical presentation to prove/disprove a particular point..... and where the same statistics can be used by another party to prove the exact opposite point :smile:....

What do all these dyno numbers really mean????
How accurate are they?????
How can we proactively use them to guide us in making prudent decisions....given all the variables and the conflicting info presented.

This is not a dig...honest...
I'm just confused
It's just a question as to ....what is "real" ????

Peace,
D

 

>>one uses a statistical presentation to prove/disprove a particular point..... and where the same statistics can be used by another party to prove the exact opposite point :smile:

Dennis,
You're right on about this. Although its using the same data but with different statistical analysis that can yield different results. See a book called "How to Lie With Statistics"
* Mfgr's dyno results = I don't trust

Thanks RandyBMC for your investment into all things MINI !!

p.s. My MCS should be ready for pickup Monday or Tuesday this week!! I'm saving up pennies to get some killer A/M items from mini-motorsport.com!

 

Things that I always look for and keep in mind when looking at dyno results:

- Are they SAE corrected (this takes int account many of the atmospheric conditions like temp, presure etc.). This helps with accuracy.
- Are the dyno results from the same car and same dyno when making comparisons between addons. This helps with accuracy.
- Is the graph smooth
- Are the HP claims depending on a higher rev limiter; a very common practice to inflate the claims for a part; like an air intake when it is really the ECU change that is responsible
- Are the gains across a big portion of the RPM range; many modifications help only in the last 1000 RPM which is not very useful unless you race the car.
- Ignore driveline loss estimates because very few people agree what they really are; just look at the numbers at the wheel and compare to a stock car's power at the wheels.
- What is the air/fuel ratio; numbers higher than 14 are too lean and can cause engine temps high enough to do damage; this appears to not be an issue with the MINI :smile:
- HP gains from parts tested individually are not accumulative; you can just add the gain from an intake to the gain from the exhaust; you have to put them both on the car and do the dyno run; the result will always be less than simply adding the numbers together.

Finally, I assume about a +/- %5 error rate.

Your mileage may vary, but following these "rules", I find dyno results to be quite useful.


Having said all that, it would be nice if Randy posted graphs rather than just numbers; I would find that much more useful.

 

Sleepless are you using 17 or 18 inch ssr comps, i am looking to get 18 with 225/35/18 tires but heard their was a rub issue, just curios if that might have been your combo and how well did they fit?

 

Dyno results are not the final word. Dyno charts/graphs are a useful tool for tuning your car for best performance and who makes the most power on the dyno doesnt always make for the fastest car.

Numerically, I think dyno numbers are for the most part useless. The power of the dyno is graphical representation of engine behavior. Dynos or any other graphs of engine performance are great for seeing where problems may exist, and allow you to direct your tuning program towards these particular areas. For example, see the "Filter Shoot out" thread and you'll see a weird dip in boost at 3K. I havent figured out what this about but I'm working on it!

:smile:

--
Cheese

 

>> Sleepless are you using 17 or 18 inch ssr comps, i am looking to get 18 with 225/35/18 tires but heard their was a rub issue, just curios if that might have been your combo and how well did they fit?

Look here: SSR Comp thread

And here: H&R thread

Short answer: 17" SSR Comps with 215/45 tires. Before installing the H&R there was zero rubbing, but after the H&Rs I had to trim the inside of the wheel well liner.

My understanding is that 225's will rub even without lowering the car. Higher offset wheels would probably help but very few aftermarket cast wheels have a bigger offset.

Pete

_________________
Sleepless
02 MCS, H&R, Madness Intake and Swaybar, Ferodo pads, SSR Comps, Yoko ES100, PROMINI Guage Console

 

I have ROH 17 x 7 wheels.
I just added Toyo Proxes 215/45-17 T1S'.
No lowering........therefore no rubbing issues.

I've also researched the 225's, and every tech I spoke to agrees w/ you Sleepless....rubbing is in the cards.

BTW.... the Toyo's are...killer tires!!!! :0)

Peace,
D

 

Hey! those are my tires- but an inch bigger!

they do like to pick up nails though-I've had a couple of flats. one of them took a drywall screw in the tread near the sidewall and junked the tire. Ugh!

 

hey jlm,
i do remember both you & your tires.... :smile:
hope all is well w/ you

they are terrific tires
exhaust & sway bar both comming real soon...

peace,
d

what's an inch anyway...??? :smile:

let the jokes begin ...rofl

 

Tire thread??? What happened to the DYNO thread? :smile:

 

That's the problem with threads, they unravel

 

Thank you Randy for excellence in the way you work things for us...

I understand that for many people it is the actual goal of acheiving most ponies for the buck

I really trust your opinion in the way to get the best and the funniest MCS, I feel that power related to torque at lower RPMs, brakes and suspension are the keys to a more rewarding everyday use.

What are your comments?

PS I'm french, sorry for the wording.

 

Randy, what software were you testing? What ECU mods do you have lined up to test? Any opportunity to check into the GIAC mods that Helix handles? Are there going to be different ECU upgrades for pullied and non pullied S models?

Sorry for the barrage of questions, but the whole ECU thing is hard to keep up with.

 

>>Randy,
>>
>>Why did you decide to use 11% driveline loss? I was under the impression that 15% was a closer ratio unless you are not using a conventional DYNO. Also people remember that Randy is up around 6k feet and above in ALT. I know that he probably compensated at the DYNO for this but its just another factor that has room for error. I also have a feeling that even if you have all that breathability now you are restricted at the head and you have a bottleneck. I think that larger valves are inorder along with a good port and pollish and specific cam grind. Also I know for a fact that the Superchips software you are using was not specifically tuned for that Supercharger pulley or any of the other MOD's you have. These are all very important in the high tech motor world.
>>
>>Bryan

Bryan,

We came up with that driveline loss by looking at the dyno numbers for stock, and calculating from the flywheel number. We typically see 147 as a stock number. That would give a driveline loss of 11% using the stock 163 hp number. The other, less likely explanation is that the manufacturer is claiming low numbers - and the real S number is 170 or so. VW had done this with the original 1.8T for marketing reasons (the 150 they were claming was closer to 165, but the VR6 only made 172). For the S, being the top model, this theory just doesn't hold water, so I think it is more probable that the loss is just less than typical.

The altitude is definitely corrected for density and pressure (as it would be anywhere). All dynos need to correct for nonstandard atmospheric conditions. If the barometric pressure is very low, and the temperature is very high, even down in Florida at sea level the density altitude could be as high as a few thousand feet (just like Denver). The only way to be able to use a dyno is to compare apples to apples, so all of the dynos compensate for atmospheric variables.

As far as the head and valves go - there is definitely some room for improvement, and a head is in fact sitting on the bench waiting for the install (another How-to!), so I'll see if that is a roadblock. If the head flows very well though, the boost will be reduced, so stock valves with just a good port may be the answer.

The software I was using was in fact designed for the pulley I am using - by Graham Goode Racing in the UK. I still intend to look to other avenues for tuning the ECU however, as the results, while they did make a difference, were not indicative of the possible gains available.

GIAC still hasn't finished the product development yet. Unichip is available for development, but I honestly don't have the cash necesarry for the undertaking (any investors out there?), so that may have to wait for a few weeks. I am talking with George at MINI-Madness about developing something through Renntech as long as the cost is reasonable.

Dyno numbers, I have found, are only useful in being a part of the big picture - taken into consideration with acceleration tests, track time, and street driving to determine if we are heading in the right or wrong direction. I don't think the numbers are useless, as they seem to coincide with the other parts of the evaluation.

DK23,

GIAC, EVOTech, Superchips (already done), Unichip, Autothority and anything else I can get my hands on.

The software is different based on what mods you have - especially with the Unichip, which is a custom designed set of curves based on the mods you have (and requires dyno tuning to set up). Superchips for instance, has both tuning for a stock S and the 15% pulley S. GIAC also typically has different software versions available. Autothority works similarly too.

Hibou,

I totally agree, and have been taking a whole car approach, incorporating brakes (Brembo how-to and eval coming soon, as well as a Powerslot rotor how-to and eval), suspension (LEDAs will be here Monday), and motor modifications in building a MINI package.


As far as posting the curves, I will as soon as I get access to a scanner. The curves follow the stock curves pretty linearly, so the gains throughout the RPM range are similar. The torque numbers were 160ish at the wheels, and showed minimal change at all RPMs compared to pre-software.

OK, I think that answered most of the questions - let me know if you have any others.

Randy
randy@mini-motorsport.com
720-841-1002

 

Randy,
I've emailed you about UNICHIP.

--
Cheese

 

Hi Randy,
Do you measure exhaust temperatures during dyno runs? If so, what kind of temps before and after and where is the probe? If not, I suggest you add a probe, and try to measure stock and modified temps at part, and of course, full throttle. Sometimes that Lambda info can't be trusted and sometimes the egt is off too, from timing or late burn in the pipe. I think in that one post, where you said the ignition timing is key, you were right on. Some of that richness (9:1 or worse, I think you said) could be largely a byproduct of timing. An exhaust temp number would make a nice confirmation before you lean too much trying to raise your A/F numbers. I'd love to hear exhaust temp numbers. I'll need someone to compare with...

Sol

 

>>Hi Randy,
>>Do you measure exhaust temperatures during dyno runs? If so, what kind of temps before and after and where is the probe? If not, I suggest you add a probe, and try to measure stock and modified temps at part, and of course, full throttle. Sometimes that Lambda info can't be trusted and sometimes the egt is off too, from timing or late burn in the pipe. I think in that one post, where you said the ignition timing is key, you were right on. Some of that richness (9:1 or worse, I think you said) could be largely a byproduct of timing. An exhaust temp number would make a nice confirmation before you lean too much trying to raise your A/F numbers. I'd love to hear exhaust temp numbers. I'll need someone to compare with...
>>
>>Sol

Sol,

Another great tip! I'll check into this for the set of runs; I don't have any info on it now. I'm also checking into a Pocket Logger, and plan on talking with Andy at Rosstech who has had some great ideas for comparing apples to apples.

I'll keep you in the loop.

Randy

 

Randy,
I said 9:1 on the A/F. Was it that bad? Or did I imagine that number? In any case, it can't run well if it is much richer than 11:1, and the Bosch four-wire Lambda sensors start getting out of range at that voltage anyway. Do you use a Bosch four-wire O2 sensor?
Your time spent on this stuff is infinitely more valuable than any input I can give. It is very helpful to me and is much appreciated.

Sol

 

A/F can be as rich as the high 8's using the stock programming:



This is measured with a TechEdge Wideband A/F meter using an NTK L1H1 sensor:



http://techedge.com.au/vehicle/wbo2/default.htm