I see that many have added the 05 JCW kit. Has anyone dynoed a car before and after? Planning to....

My understanding is that the kit with NON-California grade fuel will put down very close to 210 @ the wheels!!! Any Canucks out there dynoing with Sunoco 94 or 100?

 

From what I've seen, without extreme cooling of the IC, there is no real way that a car with just the JCW will put out 210 at the crank, never mind the wheels. The # rated is crank HP, wheel HP is significantly less, GBMINI can attest to this, though I believe he did get close to 210 this month

 

Yeah, MINIMotor what you've said is entirely untrue. That would be saying that the JCW overperforms when in actuality it underperforms.

-mike

 

MINI would love to say they have a 235hp car.








...I wish it did.

 

Besides being quoted for the crank, the 210 figure is metric horsepower. The JCW site also rates the engine power as 154 kW which equates to 206.51740186 hp

 

Mini World mag does classic Minis just about every issue. They recently (past few months) did a JCW S and got 234.....

 

haha..

-mike

 

234 is so high it's laughable

 

 

Isn't that just around the corner for ya?

 

The pic says it all.

 

I believe (theoretically so) that the secret is the knock limit control in the Seimens ECU coupled with the long term fuel/spark trims. The ECU and archietecture is the same as most late model DCX products, which is hypersensitive to knock limits (and rightfully so with a hyper, supercharged motor for the general public).

I was enlightened that the JCW S kit is very much able to achieve bigger numbers on the correct blend of fuel. Topping the tank up with 100 (R+M/2) or euro-spec 98, reflashing the ECU to nullify the long term fuel/spark trims, would achieve higher numbers. MUCH higher numbers.

Has anyone recorded EGTs on the motor a peak power? It should be as close to 1760 as possible at the exhaust port for maximum power.

 

Hmmm..too bad standard gas is 91 here...

 

How TRUE is JCW 210 hp?
On a perfect day.....................maybe................Nah.. .....................Not even then.

 

For those with a desire for SPEED....california not applicable...

http://www.racegas.com/gt100locals/default.asp

The best one is the station in Canton, Michigan. It sprays 100 octane gas out of the overflow 10feet in the air as you fill up. It's a riot.

Last time I check, GT100 has $2.80 a gallon.

 

That's happens to be the same price as 91 here.

Actually, it's about 20 cents less.

I've got my eyes out for an EVO 8 at the moment for a future purchase. That's going to be my ticket to speed. Not for everyone, that's for sure.

 

In California, lots of 76 stations have 100 octane fuel, but it's not cheap. Something like $4-5/gallon. I used to fill up with it once in a while in my A4, and switch to some 100-octane software for my setup.

-mike

 

Someone was market a gallon jug of 100 octane "Kool Blu or something" that you could buy at autoparts stores in CA. Also, Autobacs is going to open a refueling station I believe since most Japanese Supercars require 98+ octane for peak performance.

 

I think that is 98+ octane by European standards, which equates to about 93-94 octane here stateside, I believe

 

We have a track near by if need be you can purchase 117 octane for you having nitrous boosted vehicle.

 

Isn't it normal to have about a 20% loss from crank to wheel? I've seem a dyno posting with JCW at 193 HP, which is only about 10%, but I have heard mostly in the 180 range.

 

The crank to wheel loss number is a favorite of dyno jockeys to skew results. Each vehicle and dyno is different and can vary pretty wide. An observed (estimated) parasitic run down test can be performed on most dynos to come up with a relative figure for a particular vehicle.

Most modern drivetrains are closer to 10%, with a few dipping just a hair below. With CAFE standards, the efficiency of the drivetrain is the foremost concern of the automakers. A viscous clutch AWD vehicle may experience about 15% parasitic loss, such as a WRX or STi.

Older muscle cars with automatic transmissions (TH400 or TF727 for example) may exhibit 20% loss like shown on Horsepower TV.

 

Two things about this:

1) Drivetrain loss on a MINI has been said to be between 12-14%? Something like that, not 20.

2) You did not see a JCW with 193whp. This post on GBMINI.net shows a typical dyno run for a JCW MCS (this is before the new upgrades, which add a small amount of hp). Ian's max appears to be 168.2whp, which is more appropriate for JCW. You probably saw a dyno which was compensating to crank hp, and thought it was displaying wheel hp. Note that some of the dynos shown in the link above display wheel hp and some display compensated crank hp, so don't get confused.

-mike

 

I saw an episode of sports car revolution where the owner..a race car driver had a pulley, ecu, and cai and dyno'd 175hp-dyno truth or dare. It was last weeks episode and I think it's a repeat.

 

One really bad thing about dyno'ing our MINI's is the fact that heat soak is SO bad. It is also VERY difficult to simulate actual airflow from the front of the car for the IC and then get the flow over the hood and through the windshield air intake vents. Not to mention keeping that radiator cool :-/

If you had 2 cars that you left overnight sitting on dyno's right next to each other and then ran them in the morning. You could get a comparison between those 2 cars. They still aren't applicable to other dynos when you get down to it. Also, the numbers you get won't mean much for on the road performance since there is way too much airflow to simulate with fans at most dyno shops.

Does the new JCW make 210hp? No. It's supposed to be around 207 in the US. Does it make that? No clue, I went with the '05 JCW since I use the car for weekday commutes not weekend fun. Widespread power gains = less revs = less wear & less fuel consumption.