2007 MCS

R56


2006 MCS

R53

 

Very nice!!! Thanks for the information! So the big different in between R53 and R56 are the torque? HP is only few PS different... But I think the R56 will be much more easier and cheaper to mod.

 

Don't be so sure. The problems and delays they are having with the JCW are a sign of that. Seems that heat is the biggest issue.

You might turn out to be correct in the long run, but it certainly isn't a slam-dunk. The R53 can get signficant power gains with just a few inexpensive mods (pulley being the most significant of course). The R56 is a completely different ball-game.

 

That is true, and after all, I still prefer to own a supercharged car rather than a Turbo... Plus, I like the style of R53 better than the R56. And funny that last month when I was at the Montreal car show, I didn't even notice the R56 was there, since I thought that was a R53 .

 

Thanks so much for dyno pulls!!!

Would it be possible to get the graphs with more resolution?

Thanks again.

 

Interesting... the R53 has greater HP than the R56...

Also, the R53 is factory underated... while the R56 is factory overated...

Looks like the factory is hyping the R56 up... but the dyno tells the truth. As for additional performance: The R53 has simple and proven path, where as the R56 has encountered difficulty in boosting HP (see Munich JCW struggle)... great post btw!

Now we need someone to weight a new R56... and get to the truth on this one...

 

I think you would have to test more than one of each to see the reality... just like with the R53... we have seen a 30 WHP difference.... this can be true with any motor... My Ducati was also making more than it "should" have... so we will have to see as time goes on....

 

Good point Tuls regarding production variances. Also of note; the typical average of the R53 is mid 140's in WHP; seeing upper 160's in RRI's measurements puts major doubt in their system accuracy [unless they got a "hot one"]. Their wheel power measurements look accurate for the E60 //M5 and Audi RS4, but are markedly high on the Mazdaspeed6. Either this company is doing correction factors all over the map or they're getting unusual automotive samples from the factory.

 

all the torque at 1600 rpms is crazy. but i bet we come close with a 19% pulley! i know im getting 15 psi at 2000 rpms, not the same but pretty damn close.

 

I can't read the numbers..... what are they?

 

#'s in red are US known #'s. here is their r56 #'s

Powertrain performance Wheel power 124 (169 / 166) kW (PS / bhp) at 1/min 5815 Total wheel torque / total reduction 241 (178) Nm (lb-ft) at 1/min 4511 Stated engine performance Engine power 128 (174 / 172) kW (PS / bhp) at 1/min 5500 Engine torque 240 (177) Nm (lb-ft) at 1/min 1600 to 5000 Discrepancy (measured/stated) Power / Torque -3% / +0.5%

and their r 53 #'s

Powertrain performance Wheel power 126 (172 / 169) kW (PS / bhp) at 1/min 6213 Total wheel torque / total reduction 225 (166) Nm (lb-ft) at 1/min 3518 Stated engine performance Engine power 125 (170 / 168) kW (PS / bhp) at 1/min 6000 Engine torque 220 (162) Nm (lb-ft) at 1/min 4000 Discrepancy (measured/stated) Power / Torque +1% / +2%

I'm pretty sure these are all crank #'s I would much more like to see the power to the wheels! lets get those #'s please!

 

looks like it's pulling timing at the top. And is this the standard power or the "overboost"? I'm guessing standard because of how flat the torque curve is (overboost locks out the wastegate, and the torque curve wouldn't be flat).

But good to see the data side by side.....

Matt

 

It should also be mentioned that looking at the test details, the R53 was using 95RON fuel while the R56 was using 98RON. So this is not entirely an apples to apples comparison.

 

Well, I wish this was 100% apples to apples comparison......but I'll take what I can get and thank you for this post!

 

Thanks for the #s... Considering ALL the new technology they put into the R56 motor, the resulting increases are less than spectacular. Just my 2pennies.

 

--->minimarks: a 37 Lb-Ft gain in torque [from the '02-'05's 155 Lb-Ft peak to the R56 MCS's 192 Lb-Ft peak in "overboost] is mighty impressive I think. It's about a 23% gain in torque; that's not spectacular? I agree on paper the peak HP figure [from the '06's 168 HP to the '07's 172 HP] isn't anything to write home about, however after driving the new turbo engine; the low-RPM torque improvement is definitely noteworthy. All that said, wouldn't you agree that it's in MINI's best interest to not instantly obsolete R53's by not making too big a power improvement; otherwise MINI would be accused of straying too far from the "balanced chassis" formula and also not leaving room for future JCW options. Sometimes it's about marketing positioning more than all-out HP wars that don't really apply to such a specialty car anyway.

Hope that gives an alternate perspective,
Ryan

 

When I see the FULL JCW R56 (Not the Stage 1 200HP one) I will believe it.

 

What will you believe C4?

 

OK, now I am confused. Randy Webb claims to have dynoed his bone stock R56 MCS to 209HP at the wheel.

Is it the altitude that makes the difference here? His are the first claims I read about this car braking the 200HP in stock from.

 

174/198 on our car at sea level.

 

This is the most interesting dyno ever! So the two cars are very close in performance, but the new one has more grunt at low rpm. Thanks a lot!