JCW Anyone dyno their stock JCW?
#1
09-03-2015, 09:05 PM
#2
09-04-2015, 06:37 AM
Former Vendor
Chassis dynos are fickle tools. They are excellent at measuring differences in torque output on same-day, same-car tests, but because of calibration variances and settings, getting absolute numbers is difficult. If used correctly, they can show close-to-factory horsepower outputs, but a drive train loss estimation is employed. When we calibrate our MD-250 dyno, we actually use accepted drivetrain loss calculations and then set the dyno parameters to reflect the stated factory output of cars.
#3
09-04-2015, 07:00 AM
Eric, Good post as always. 
Put a different way, the only careful way to get repeatable numbers is to use the engine in an engine dyno cell where all aspects (coolant, ambient air, etc.) are very tightly controlled. Even then, the accuracy comes down to the calibration, which will always have a tolerance. OEM's and their development partners will have very accurately calibrated engine dyno's, and as a rule most fly-by-night aftermarket shops will barely be able to afford hand-me-down dynos that haven't been calibrated in years. That doesn't mean they won't be accurate, but there's rarely an opportunity to prove it one way or another.
In the aftermarket on an engine with a known BSFC, you can fairly accurately calculate the power based on the amount of fuel being injected vs. Lambda, however OEM ECU's don't simply output injection pulsewidth data over OBDII. That's where standalone ECU's like Megasquirt and AEM start to show their value, but neither of them are applicable for the very advanced F56 powertrain. We can however make inferences based on MAF and Lambda, so there's still hope for datalog-backed dyno figures.
I just passed 1200 miles on my JCW. Now that it's well beyond it's primary break-in, I'm planning on taking my JCW to a local Dynapack in the next few weeks. It's the same dyno I've measured many of my recent cars on, so there will be good comparisons across platforms. Please be patient, you can be sure I'll post the dyno and datalogging when I do it.
Put a different way, the only careful way to get repeatable numbers is to use the engine in an engine dyno cell where all aspects (coolant, ambient air, etc.) are very tightly controlled. Even then, the accuracy comes down to the calibration, which will always have a tolerance. OEM's and their development partners will have very accurately calibrated engine dyno's, and as a rule most fly-by-night aftermarket shops will barely be able to afford hand-me-down dynos that haven't been calibrated in years. That doesn't mean they won't be accurate, but there's rarely an opportunity to prove it one way or another.
In the aftermarket on an engine with a known BSFC, you can fairly accurately calculate the power based on the amount of fuel being injected vs. Lambda, however OEM ECU's don't simply output injection pulsewidth data over OBDII. That's where standalone ECU's like Megasquirt and AEM start to show their value, but neither of them are applicable for the very advanced F56 powertrain. We can however make inferences based on MAF and Lambda, so there's still hope for datalog-backed dyno figures.
I just passed 1200 miles on my JCW. Now that it's well beyond it's primary break-in, I'm planning on taking my JCW to a local Dynapack in the next few weeks. It's the same dyno I've measured many of my recent cars on, so there will be good comparisons across platforms. Please be patient, you can be sure I'll post the dyno and datalogging when I do it.
#4
09-04-2015, 07:40 AM
Eric, Good post as always.
Put a different way, the only careful way to get repeatable numbers is to use the engine in an engine dyno cell where all aspects (coolant, ambient air, etc.) are very tightly controlled. Even then, the accuracy comes down to the calibration, which will always have a tolerance. OEM's and their development partners will have very accurately calibrated engine dyno's, and as a rule most fly-by-night aftermarket shops will barely be able to afford hand-me-down dynos that haven't been calibrated in years. That doesn't mean they won't be accurate, but there's rarely an opportunity to prove it one way or another.
In the aftermarket on an engine with a known BSFC, you can fairly accurately calculate the power based on the amount of fuel being injected vs. Lambda, however OEM ECU's don't simply output injection pulsewidth data over OBDII. That's where standalone ECU's like Megasquirt and AEM start to show their value, but neither of them are applicable for the very advanced F56 powertrain. We can however make inferences based on MAF and Lambda, so there's still hope for datalog-backed dyno figures.
I just passed 1200 miles on my JCW. Now that it's well beyond it's primary break-in, I'm planning on taking my JCW to a local Dynapack in the next few weeks. It's the same dyno I've measured many of my recent cars on, so there will be good comparisons across platforms. Please be patient, you can be sure I'll post the dyno and datalogging when I do it.
Put a different way, the only careful way to get repeatable numbers is to use the engine in an engine dyno cell where all aspects (coolant, ambient air, etc.) are very tightly controlled. Even then, the accuracy comes down to the calibration, which will always have a tolerance. OEM's and their development partners will have very accurately calibrated engine dyno's, and as a rule most fly-by-night aftermarket shops will barely be able to afford hand-me-down dynos that haven't been calibrated in years. That doesn't mean they won't be accurate, but there's rarely an opportunity to prove it one way or another.
In the aftermarket on an engine with a known BSFC, you can fairly accurately calculate the power based on the amount of fuel being injected vs. Lambda, however OEM ECU's don't simply output injection pulsewidth data over OBDII. That's where standalone ECU's like Megasquirt and AEM start to show their value, but neither of them are applicable for the very advanced F56 powertrain. We can however make inferences based on MAF and Lambda, so there's still hope for datalog-backed dyno figures.
I just passed 1200 miles on my JCW. Now that it's well beyond it's primary break-in, I'm planning on taking my JCW to a local Dynapack in the next few weeks. It's the same dyno I've measured many of my recent cars on, so there will be good comparisons across platforms. Please be patient, you can be sure I'll post the dyno and datalogging when I do it.
I've read a few threads where JCW kits have been added to MCS cars with Dyno numbers after three or four runs showing HP to be at or near the published JCW HP level.
Assuming those dyno numbers to be factual on an MCS with the JCW kit, (kit only having exhaust and a control module remap not the other extras included in the JCW motor), one would believe the base JCW HP factory numbers are considerately under-rated from the factory. Some manufacturers have been known to be very conservative with published HP ratings.
Again, thanks for the information and the upcoming results.
#5
09-04-2015, 08:26 AM
It's somewhat more common recently for OEM's to publish their numbers either strictly SAE J1349 or a seemingly vague conservative figures where the intent is to achieve advertised power even in unusual circumstances [e.g. top of Pikes Peak] to avoid any potential class-action lawsuits of the engine producing less-than-advertised power. The side effect is the engines generally make lots more power anywhere near standard temp and pressure.
#7
09-04-2015, 07:40 PM
Trending Topics
#9
11-08-2015, 07:29 PM
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We had a factory F56 JCW at our dyno day yesterday and it exceeded the published numbers
Details here:
http://www.motoringfun.com/2015/11/0...dyno-day-2015/
Details here:
http://www.motoringfun.com/2015/11/0...dyno-day-2015/
#10
11-08-2015, 07:41 PM
Well the factory F56 JCW had more horsepower when compared to the Cooper S with JCW tuning kit, but the NM Engineering power module definitely took the power to a whole other level, eclipsing the factory JCW for sure! I am working on some comparison graphs from the raw data and will be posting them later this week.
#12
11-09-2015, 03:46 AM
Fabulous information mct. Thank very much. A shame no one showed up with an F56 MCS with the MINI installed JCW tuning kit only, just to see if the $2800 they charge is going to give a significant boost in power over the stock numbers for an MCS (which are quite impressive in their own right).
Quite honestly, My MCS auto (in sport mode) with the shift lever moved into the S/M position (but not shifted as a manual) is very quick w/ the more aggressive shift points using that selection. A stock JCW or your car would have to be a real neck snapper.
Quite honestly, My MCS auto (in sport mode) with the shift lever moved into the S/M position (but not shifted as a manual) is very quick w/ the more aggressive shift points using that selection. A stock JCW or your car would have to be a real neck snapper.
#13
11-09-2015, 04:00 AM
One could extrapolate that that MCS with the better numbers than the stock 2016 JCW wouldn't fare so well with just the MINI installed JCW package ($24-2800 dealer installed).
Unfortunately there was no car tested with just that option installed. I'd imagine if there were, it would fall slightly above a stock MCS' numbers and considerably less than a factory 2016 JCW MCS results.
Would guess an F56 MCS w/ the just Berger module (no JCW dealer installed kit) would closely match the stock 2016 JCW numbers. Which for a $400 outlay is pretty amazing.
Great information.
#15
11-09-2015, 10:23 AM
Yes, forgot about that. Maybe add those results to the latest results. I completely forgot about those early results.
Clark Dyno'd at 231HP and 267Lb Ft torque
vs. 210 256 For a stock F56 MCS Auto
+21 Hp +11 Lb ft torque Gains with the $24-$2800 factory kit.
Big cash
Berger Mod is best bang for the buck IMO
Again thanks for sharing all this data with the community. Lets everyone know what we start with and what we can expect with upgrades and mods.
HUGE help
Clark Dyno'd at 231HP and 267Lb Ft torque
vs. 210 256 For a stock F56 MCS Auto
+21 Hp +11 Lb ft torque Gains with the $24-$2800 factory kit.
Big cash Berger Mod is best bang for the buck IMO
Again thanks for sharing all this data with the community. Lets everyone know what we start with and what we can expect with upgrades and mods.
HUGE help
#17
11-09-2015, 03:55 PM
Yes, forgot about that. Maybe add those results to the latest results. I completely forgot about those early results.
Clark Dyno'd at 231HP and 267Lb Ft torque
vs. 210 256 For a stock F56 MCS Auto
+21 Hp +11 Lb ft torque Gains with the $24-$2800 factory kit. Big cash
Berger Mod is best bang for the buck IMO
Again thanks for sharing all this data with the community. Lets everyone know what we start with and what we can expect with upgrades and mods.
HUGE help
Clark Dyno'd at 231HP and 267Lb Ft torque
vs. 210 256 For a stock F56 MCS Auto
+21 Hp +11 Lb ft torque Gains with the $24-$2800 factory kit.
Big cash Berger Mod is best bang for the buck IMO
Again thanks for sharing all this data with the community. Lets everyone know what we start with and what we can expect with upgrades and mods.
HUGE help
Here are some comparison graphs of the factory F56 JCW and the stock F56 and the F56 with JCW tuning kit...
http://www.motoringfun.com/2015/11/0...cw-tuning-kit/
#18
11-09-2015, 06:09 PM
Also - while the regular price on the kit does hit $2800 like you said, our local MINI dealer is doing the JCW kit for $560 off! Not too shabby of a price in my opinion:
http://www.motoringfun.com/2015/11/1...ro-tuning-kit/
http://www.motoringfun.com/2015/11/1...ro-tuning-kit/
#20
11-09-2015, 06:34 PM
You get the exhaust, JCW Pro software tune, JCW badge for rear of the car, JCW serial number badge for the engine cover. Chrome exhaust tips are the base option with a carbon fiber option available for more $$. If you already have a factory JCW, you don't get the software tune.
#21
11-09-2015, 06:35 PM
You get the exhaust, JCW Pro software tune, JCW badge for rear of the car, JCW serial number badge for the engine cover. Chrome exhaust tips are the base option with a carbon fiber option available for more $$. If you already have a factory JCW, you don't get the software tune.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
igzekyativ
MINIs & Minis for Sale
34
07-16-2020 12:54 PM
sabjcw
R50/R53 :: Hatch Talk (2002-2006)
4
08-14-2015 07:40 AM
Minibeagle
Stock Problems/Issues
6
08-13-2015 10:00 AM