the stock r56 dyno's with about the same whp as the jcw and more torque. The important numbers are not the listed hp from the manufacter but the actual hp numbers when the cars are put on the dyno.

I have never seen a stock jcw in any form dyno anywhere near 200hp and 190tq. Show me a jcw r53 engine that provides that much power and I will eat my words.

https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...ad.php?t=95278

https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...ad.php?t=96586

it's all about asthetics... numbers have proven stock for stock the r56 engine is at the very minimum an equal performer.

and for the record... I will beat this horse until I'm 100% sure it's been dead for a few weeks. Why? I'm bored and have nothing else to talk about. Some one has to play devils advocate.

 

The R56 results you link to are approximately 170 hp, not 200. 200 tq though.

Actually:

Ryephile: 170 hp / 200 tq
Alta: 167 hp / 202 tq

Either way, I have no idea where your expectation of 200 whp from a JCW is necessary to be on a par!

 

the jcw cars dyno right around 170whp in stock trim.

p.s. I hope you guys are having as much fun in this thread as I am. We gotta love these r56 vs r53 threads. I mean after the r56 becomes accepted as a true mini bretheren they wont be any where near as much fun or as heated.

:P

 

That wasn't my point though - you somehow made reference to 200hp. Unless you're getting confused about wheel hp vs crank hp, I have no idea why 200 even entered the picture when discussing the JCW...Speaking for myself, I do fully accept the R56 as a MINI. I do like it. I may not like some of the changes, but I do like others, and it's still a MINI. It's all about personal preferences and what matters to each individual owner!

 

yeah the boss was hounding me and I had to hit submit before re-reading.

here is some info from ryephile.
http://www.michiganmini.org/forum/in...p?topic=1478.0

 

You do understand that at the altitude Denver sits at, a supercharged engine will ALWAYS make less HP than a Turbocharged engine. Turbochargers allow a constant level of HP because the variation in boost allows the engine to make up for any losses the altitude would normally cause.

A supercharged engine boosts 15 lbs of boost all day every day. The pulley size can't be changed on the fly to add boost to compensate for air density.

These are basic aviation principals, and the reason why piston engined aircraft can't make it up past much more than 12-14k feet without the use of a turbocharger. It doesn't make any more power with the turbo (Usually only 10 HP or so) it just allows the engine to compensate for air density changes and produce CONSISTANT power.

A turbocharged car makes almost the same HP at 6k feet as it does at sea level. As noted in that thread, at the altitude Denver sits at, the GP would be making approximatly 20% less HP than a turbocharged car. This brings the 217 BHP down to only 173 (Making the comparision much more fair).

Also, as noted by other people in the thread, torque will ALWAYS give the impression of speed. Torque gets the car started, HP keeps it going. There's a reason why Ford F450 engines aren't used as race engines .

 

Very interesting read... also confirms my "butt dyno" belief that the stock R56 loses power at the high end.

I would have liked to see the same testing done with a 2005/2006 stock MCS as well, since the 2004 had both more conservative gearing and also a few less HP, stock.

Still, the link you included doesn't explain why you stated 200hp when referring to what the JCW can't do. Neither can the stock R56, if we're talking about whp in both cases. Care to revise that portion of your original statement?

 

good comments and info but I still have never seen a jcw car dyno any where near 200whp.

as for the 200whp number i slipped with for the r56. yeah i meant to put 170 but the boss started yelling at me for forum whoring and not working so i couldn't re-read before hitting submit. So this is my offical retraction of said claimed whp rating of the r56 from 200 to 170.

 

On a DynoJet dyno I wouldn't doubt optimistic numbers like that. I've seen DynoJet's show 20% differences between their plots and DynoDynamics/Mustang plots. Until I see a plot from a more accurate Dyno those numbers mean nothing to me .

A GP on a DynoDynamics pulled 180 hp with no modifications.

 

My car with a 15%, Intake, Exhaust, MTH (Which hurt more than helped) and Header dynoed 192 on a DynoDynamics. ThumperMCS in AZ Dynoed on the same type of dyno at altitude and dynoed 204 whp, with the same mods I have (One-Ball instead of Invidia).

 

even tho those numbers are stronger then i would have expected. Those still aren't stock jcw cars. figure you've added 10-15hp in mods. Which would still put a stock jcw car right in line with a stock r56 all be it the jcw has less tq.

I've seen and heard jcw cars race r56 cars. 3/5 the stock r56 took the jcw. John Monk can verify as it was his jcw with a 2% crank pully and a few other goodies vs a stock r56.

 

prime-drk-

even with your new fancy steering wheel?

 

sexy steering wheel and all. Long story short. If i could transplant that r56 engine into my car. I'd be in my own personal mini utopia. Maybe the jesus head or turbo only would fix that.

 

Drive all 3, and decide which one is right for you. Its the only way.

But whatever you do, make it a manual.

 

FYI Here's a much more realistic dynoplot off Helix's Mustang Dyno. I think you'll find the results arn't quite as ridiculous when you don't have insane SAE correction factors and notoriously inaccurate dyno's . Still good numbers for a stock car, and much more inline with what they should be based on the factory published engine output of 170 bhp.

 

That's a ground in reality there. Nice dyno post. There by chance a dyno of a stock jcw or gp from that same dyno?

 

Eric at Helix would have more info on that, i'll see what I can dig up in the mean time on my own. Most of the dyno's i've seen of the JCW cars have been right around 170 whp as you said. The GP has been dynoing at 180ish. I've seen stock MCS's dyno at 155-160. It's hard to tell, these motors vary widely from the factory.

After doing some tinkering, we think we've discovered that my factory cam timing was off by 7 degrees . Not only that, but several critical bolts on the engine were/are missing. Bad week at the factory I guess .

We were trying to isolate another issue when we discovered the problem. My car threw down a 15% leakdown, and we were immediatly like . What on earth! After taking half of the engine apart and resetting the cam properly, by, matching up the timing marks on the cam timing chain and gear with the marks on the crank, i'm down to 6% (4-8% is fairly normal). You never can tell with those crazy Brits!

 

This is on a Dynojet, hence the high readings...


Couldn't really find anything else that was truely a Stock JCW car with no additional modifications.

 

Oh, look at that... in the recent tradition of armchair racing ... Dynojet results from R56 vs. JCW (different locations, different days, etc etc):

R56: 170 HP, 200 TQ
JCW: 187 HP, 165 TQ

So, as expected (to me), the R56 had more torque and the JCW had more HP. The choice of a very small turbo in the R56 means it definitely has the low-end grunt, but it doesn't hold strong through the top end... whereas the JCW keeps building. The opposite of what you'd normally expect from a Turbo vs Super comparison, but these are completely different engines and designs...

Still, what is truly needed is a same day, same dyno, bone stock vs bone stock comparison in order to put the issue 100% at rest.

 

I will try to make a print-out of a stock JCW car and a R56 when im in the shop tomorrow.

 

Nice

 

dang this thread is getting sawheet. Good posts guys, this some solid mythbusting action right here.

 

LOL - maybe we'll get you eating your words yet...

Should be interesting!

 

heck yeah. This has been the most fun thread I've participated in on nam in recent memory. Good thing too things are starting to get boring around here. Again thanks for the posts guys.

I'd love nothing more then to see an r53 engine kick an r56's butt. I mean... it will be a good 3-5 years before I get myself into one of those buggies.

Again hope no one takes any of this personally, getting proven wrong with solid info would be great!

And yes Edge, I'd love to eat my words. But only with a cheeze burger, a beer and a big dragon sitting over my shoulder watching.

 

After doing more reading it may be a good 2-3 years before we see anything more than basic bolt on mods for the R56 .

https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...ad.php?t=98630

Randy at M7 has basically said these engines are running as best as they can from the factory, and it's going to take a lot of time, and money to squeeze more than another few ponies out of them...

Post #14.