I wouldn't be surprised if most manufacturers derate power numbers in their literature. Otherwise, someone could test an engine and sue or demand their money back if the test numbers came up short. Derating power figures in the days of muscle cars was routine because they didn't want the insurance companies to have a hissy...

 

flatlander: Oh, I don't think the law suit issue is the case here, actually I think that it is lessons learned from back in the 60's and insurance companies. Do you think that insurance companies, STILL are looking for ways to increase the premiums? Case in point. I have had AIG, or more recentily they changed their name to 21st Century, were insuring my wifes Jeep and my Miata for $89. a month. When I changed to the JCW it went up to $112. a month. I switched to Progressive, whom I thought that I'd never do on account of political reasons, and the new rate is $77. per month, and now I have $500 collision and comprehensive where it was $1000 with 21st Century.

Sure, the sticker is more on the JCW than the Miata, but I think that the power rating had something to do with it too. Face it Flatlander, the insurance companies still look at power ratings.

Use to know a guy with the Flatlander handle. He was hot into hemi's and hotrods, like me. Think that he lived in no where Nebraska.

 

Certainly insurance companies are looking for ways to maximize their profit buy raising rates or finding ways to deny coverage. If you deny coverage, you kick potentially high risk folks (high powered car owners, for example) out of the gene pool.

Anyway, back in the day, the car magazines routinely noted that the cars they tested were noticeably more powerful than their ratings. They couldn't quote people directly, but they would mention things and classify them as rumors. They would test something like a 427 Chevy with dual 4's and it would be rated at 425hp, but the rumor would be that it was actually upwards of 450.

A note about Progressive:
I used to have an Isuzu Trooper that I bought new in '94. It went when I bought the MINI. I had had the truck for 5 or 6 years when I had an accident (hit a deer) that cost about $7,000 to repair. The body shop manager told me that it was a good thing the I didn't have Progressive. He went on to explain that Progressive usually forced him to use generic body panels when possible. However, due to production volumes, that wasn't the case for the Trooper and probably wouldn't be for the MINI or the Miata. There just weren't enough vehicles on the road that would warrant someone making 3rd party body parts. Anyway, that was a while ago and Progressive may have changed.

And no, I'm not from Nebraska. I'm originally from northwest Ohio. Pretty flat out there also...

 

That color combination sounds intereting, Horizon Blue with a Pure Silver roof. I think that Mini is missing the boat on not offering more roof options. I know it would be more work, but also make the cars more distinctive.

As for Progressive, I've heard many things in past years, but there have been some changes in the past couple of years. Anyway, if they aren't what they seem to be, I'll just change to someone else.

As for the 425 Chevy, that 450 hp is probably a little low, we all head that it was closer to 500 hp. The 454 usually dynoed in the 520's or so. I saw one on a dyno back in 1970, when they were comparing the 454 to the latest 426 hemi. The hemi had a Crane cam and only one four barrel and it dynoed at 538 hp and the 454 at 432 hp. The single four hemi was suppose to be the motor for 1972, but never made it. Just like the dual overhead cammed 340 for the Demon and Duster. Insurance companies killed those, well the government regulations of emissions too. Another era, so now we have our Mini's.

How did you get to Taiwan from Ohio? Remember Ohio George and the ****** Gasser wars?

 

After RMW Dyno tune at Thunderhill today. 224.77hp. 242.34 lb-ft.

 

Awesome! Are you using the factory air intake system?

 

I'm using the JCW factory intake (the one from the JCW engine kit) with a cone filter insert.

 

You know, I am sorry. For some reason I never answered. That's pretty rare for me.

Anyway, I work for Corning, Inc. We make glass that people use to make LCD panels for laptops, TV's, smartphones, etc. Actually the progression would be Ohio > Illinois > New York State > Taiwan. I've spent about 5 out the last 7 years in Taiwan.

Yes, Ohio George Montgomery. Sad to say that of all the motorsports events that I have attended over about 50 years, I have never been to a drag race. I've seen lots on TV, but never in person. Other than that, motorcycles and airplanes, I've seen just about everything else in person.

 

Brianplee,

Other than the intake, was your drivetrain stock?

Todd

 

Most of the mods are listed in my signature, but I do also have Alta boost tubes installed. The exhaust is the factory JCW.

 

Comparing power results from chassis dynos is a bit of a subjective science. It can give only a general comparison. The most accurate way to make such comparisons is the same cars on the same dyno, operated by the same person on the same day.

Chassis dynos use a series of corrective formulas for temp, altitude humudity etc and vary by dyno brand. Lots of other variables come into play and there are little tricks operators can play to make a car report higher or lower. Common one is where on the rollers the car sits.

The dyno is a good tuning tool not a good comparison tool. One guy has great stock numbers maybe even better than yours. I bet if you ran your car right after his on the same dyno your numbers would be close.

My 98 Corvette has been dyno'd probably over a hundred times. It is highly modified and I don't use a MAF/MAP based tune. I have what we call a speed density tune. It is more responsive to part throttle inputs and is not tuned for a peak number but to provide a very predictable power curve at any given throttle position. The car is track prepared and predictable power application is the key. I often run the car on the track and street hooked up to my laptop running EFI Live. I can make adjustments as needed. The best thing is I am running an LS3 block stroker motor at 427 c.i. with cathedral port heads and 11:1 compression with an absolutely huge cam. Yet it will idle smoothly at 900 rpm and drives on the street like it was stock except for the sick amount of cam lope. Plus I still get 18mpg in the city and 30 mpg on the highway. hell I am at only 1500 rpm at 75 mph in 6th gear.

 

this is exactly why a dynapack is superior
ALL correction factors are on the front page so you can see exactly what it is set to. No rollers, low tire pressures or incorrectly strapped down to throw off the results. It's as close to an engine dyno as there is available as the dyno bolts directly to the hubs of the car. Trying to do "comparisons" with all of these other factors for product testing often give "false" assumptions. With all of these factors involved I would never believe a comparison without seeing it done on an engine dyno OR a dynapack.

 

Do you do all the tuning yourself? My corvette is not nearly as modified as yours; it does have a large cam but, I certainly do not get 18 mpg around town. Hell, I don't think it get 18 when it was in stock Z trim.

 

I average just over 18 mpg driving around burbs of west Houston. On the highway I get 30. The Corvette in stock tune is pig rich. When I put my first cam in my then stock motor and got it tuned my mileage actually improved over stock. The C5's got really good mileage stock. Yes I do the tuning myself now. I did that after a tuner in Dallas messed up the tune and resulted in my original motor to grenading. Figured if I was going to build a monster motor I might as well learn the art of running it to its full potential. A friend and I built the motor ourselves. The only thing I outsourced was having the heads ported by Tony Mamo at AFR. My next mod on it is probably going to be a Harrop ITB manifold. That should be a fun tuning challenge. Getting all 8 throttle bodies in sync and keeping it all in sync with the PCM is going to be nuts. I think the hardest part is actually deciding on the length of the runners and fabricating an airbox that provides even airflow to all 8 throttle bodies and fit under the stock hood.

 

Wait the factory 2009 JCW does not come with JCW Intake and JCW Rigid Intake Pipe? Does it come with oem MCS Intake?

 

Oddly, the Factory JCW came with the MCS intake.

 

But it does come with a rigid pipe

 

Yesterday my Fiancé and I drove up to Agile Automotive to get his Subaru tuned. While we were there they threw my 2010 JCW on the dyno for some baseline pulls. The car is completely stock. 198hp/199tq Not bad...

 

any one got a stage 1 dyno yet????

 

I met up with Jan at Swift in Norwich, CT last week. Great numbers at 242whp and 275 for torque. Mods are in my signature. Here is the dyno graph:

 

Steve: I was surprised at a couple of things about the graph results.
1. That the torque came didn't stay up there very long in the rpm range.
2. The opposite here, I'm use to horsepower coming on, then backing off.
Yours stay up there quite awhile.
But, very good numbers.

 

That is a very typical shape of a R56 dyno plot. It's just a bit higher than most.

Great numbers fish!

 

Impressive results . Seems like minimal engine mods to get that kind of Hp (~50% more than my stock S). What mod do you consider was the next best to the RMW tune?

 

Eddie,

IC and Turbo back exhaust or at least cat back.

For those results, you will need a factory JCW.

Everything else is ??? at best.

 

Only see an IC, CAI and boost tubes in Fish's signature...even for a factory JCW his numbers seem to be really good or maybe that is just what a JCW can be setup to do. I know, my S is at a disadvantage given the differences in the engine and turbo from the factory. Just looking for "best" mods. I know your opinion on this subject, just looking for someone else's.