When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
2016 MINI Cooper S with JCW Tuning Kit on the Dyno
Tomorrow I am scheduled to put my 2016 MINI Cooper S with JCW Tuning Kit on the Dyno. Can't wait to see the numbers...
Thanks to Jerry at NM Engineering, I did learn today that you do need to put the MINI in "Dyno Mode" in order to get correct data. I made a quick video demonstrating this:
Just saw your MotoringFun site and it looks like we're going down parallel paths! No superman theme here (cool idea) but my car is similarly specced and I had ordered some of the same bits as you (JCW turn lights, JCW redline grill, NM sway bar). Quick question: Are you planning on any other performance mods in addition to the JCW Kit?
Look forward to the results. Thanks for documenting the dyno mode too, that's way easier than I expected!
I've been doing a bit of datalogging, and it appears the car's torque algorithm reacts to the pedal delta rate of change. Try a dyno pull by slowly squeezing to the floor and compare to jamming the pedal to the floor. My hunch is it'll be a big difference in low end torque.
The dyno shop is supposed to be e-mailing me the raw data files tomorrow morning so I can properly export the data with proper SAE correction. For now, all I have is a photo I took with my iPhone of the monitor on the shop's wall (note the results were shown with STD correction so I am told to expect the results to be about 4 - 5hp lower once adjusted for SAE correction). Still - even with that consideration, I think Clark did very well @ 210whp / 241 ft/lbs with STD correction... Will post proper export once I get the data files...
I am curious as well. I plan on having a group dyno day for our local MINI club in October. Hopefully we will get a factory JCW to come out so we can see what it can do as a comparison.
BTW - while I am still waiting on the raw data, I did post a video of the dyno run if you are interested:
The dyno shop is supposed to be e-mailing me the raw data files tomorrow morning so I can properly export the data with proper SAE correction. For now, all I have is a photo I took with my iPhone of the monitor on the shop's wall (note the results were shown with STD correction so I am told to expect the results to be about 4 - 5hp lower once adjusted for SAE correction). Still - even with that consideration, I think Clark did very well @ 210whp / 241 ft/lbs with STD correction... Will post proper export once I get the data files...
Great peak numbers! Yes, SAE correction is a better comparison. Doing same-day dynos with other MINIs will be fantastic as it really puts everything in perspective.
It would also be helpful to hookup an OBDII datalogger to measure MAF, MAP, timing, and WBO2 to get a basic idea on how the engine is running. From there you can rationalize the power at the crank.
Next time, please have the dyno operator start the pulls at 1000 RPM. You missed a whole bunch of low end torque by starting so high in the RPM band. The engine's advertised peak torque is at 1250, so you want to try to give the turbo time to spool to capture that.
I actually had DashCommand connected for the first 2 runs. I am going to get the data out of that as well to replay the run. Maybe you can help me make sense of some of that data?
Kind of fundamentally, the MAF readout essentially equals horsepower, taking some rough assumptions about BSFC [Brake Specific Fuel Consumption]. Seeing the ignition timing let's you deduce if the knock strategy is very aggressive or not (or bad fuel), and the MAP is just fun to see how much boost it's running. The ignition timing and WBO2 on modern GDI engines almost always throws off the old-schoolers that aren't used to seeing actual fast-burn low-diameter bores where mechanical quench and flame propagation speeds are excellent.
I've done a tiny bit of datalogging on my JCW, so I can help corroborate what you saw on the dyno. I'll also bring mine to a DynaPack in the near future, so while the raw dyno numbers won't be all that comparable, the datalogging will be.
Kind of fundamentally, the MAF readout essentially equals horsepower, taking some rough assumptions about BSFC [Brake Specific Fuel Consumption]. Seeing the ignition timing let's you deduce if the knock strategy is very aggressive or not (or bad fuel), and the MAP is just fun to see how much boost it's running. The ignition timing and WBO2 on modern GDI engines almost always throws off the old-schoolers that aren't used to seeing actual fast-burn low-diameter bores where mechanical quench and flame propagation speeds are excellent.
I've done a tiny bit of datalogging on my JCW, so I can help corroborate what you saw on the dyno. I'll also bring mine to a DynaPack in the near future, so while the raw dyno numbers won't be all that comparable, the datalogging will be.
Great thread. If I read your link correctly you said the published JCW Tuning Kit number is 210 BHP, and your car got about 206 BHP. You also said your car got about the same as the fJCW published number of 230 BHP. That seems not true, 206 vs 230. Am I missing something? I would fully expect the fJCW car to exceed your setup because it has a bigger turbocharger in addition to the ECU tune. What did you pay for the tune may I ask? Thanks for this info. Wish I could dyno my car, but I don't know where, and I don't have a Dyno Mode either.
Great thread. If I read your link correctly you said the published JCW Tuning Kit number is 210 BHP, and your car got about 206 BHP. You also said your car got about the same as the fJCW published number of 230 BHP. That seems not true, 206 vs 230. Am I missing something? I would fully expect the fJCW car to exceed your setup because it has a bigger turbocharger in addition to the ECU tune. What did you pay for the tune may I ask? Thanks for this info. Wish I could dyno my car, but I don't know where, and I don't have a Dyno Mode either.
Yes, you're confusing advertised crank HP to measured wheel HP. It would help if you read the whole thing, because mct explains that. Wheel power on a chassis dyno does not equal advertised power at the crank. His car showed 206 wheel HP, which translates to roughly 230 engine HP.
The R56 et al doesn't have a dyno mode because it's doesn't need one like the BMW F-series chassis. You just run it on the rollers and it goes.
Yes, you're confusing advertised crank HP to measured wheel HP. It would help if you read the whole thing, because mct explains that. Wheel power on a chassis dyno does not equal advertised power at the crank. His car showed 206 wheel HP, which translates to roughly 230 engine HP.
The R56 et al doesn't have a dyno mode because it's doesn't need one like the BMW F-series chassis. You just run it on the rollers and it goes.
OK I get that BHP>WHP. But what do you do, add 10% to the WHP to get the BHP? That's what's always confused me.
OK I get that BHP>WHP. But what do you do, add 10% to the WHP to get the BHP? That's what's always confused me.
Kind of. The drivetrain has frictional losses, and many enthusiast communities end up using sometimes-guessed and sometimes-educated percentages to fudge a wheel HP number to show off and proudly proclaim the HP at the crank. With many FF platforms, 12% drivetrain loss is a reasonably accepted loss number. Let's just go with that for a minute.
Wheel HP = Estimated Crankshaft HP minus Frictional Losses
206 wHP = X HP - (X*0.12)
206 = .88X
206/.88 = X
X = 234 estimated crank HP
Another thing is you can try to calculate the actual power produced by looking at data logging. This is where having a MAF measurement is particularly useful, as it shows the gross airflow into the engine. Roughly speaking, 1 Lb/Min of airflow approximates 10 HP. Of course, this will be subject to temperature and barometric variations; a hot summer day in Orlando will yield the same chassis dyno SAE numbers as a cold winter day in Minneapolis, but the MAF number in Minneapolis will be much higher, since the up-north car will be actually making more power. That's why we use SAE corrections when comparing dyno numbers, to level the atmospheric playing field.
As an example, I've taken some datalogs of my F56 JCW, and have observed 25 to 26 Lb/Min of MAF at higher RPM at WOT, so it can be loosely assumed the engine is making 250 to 260 HP on a warm summer day. As such, I could expect to see about 224 wheel HP on a typical Dynojet. Of course, that's making some assumptions, but it's in the ballpark.
08-21-2015, 07:56 PM
Yes, SAE correction is a better comparison. Doing same-day dynos with other MINIs will be fantastic as it really puts everything in perspective.
