Meb,
I am glad you got that worked out!

 

Thank, I appreciate the response, and, your ear.

 

Some rumors never die. Where's the data? Your logic is sound but in reality you're WAY OFF. The 19% isn't THAT much smaller than the 15%. Overall boost levels aren't THAT much higher. The key is more boost and more boost earlier. There are hundreds of 19% out there - and the data has been logged. The intake temps for a 19% ARE NOT significantly greater than the 15%. An intercooler is definitely NOT necessary unless your MINI is a pure track car. Of course someone selling the intercooler is going to tell you otherwise. Also, the data presented on MINI intercoolers thus far has been woefully inadequate and the stock intercooler has NOT been proven too small for the job. And who says the 19% doesn't make power throughout the driving spectrum? The only thing the 19% suffers IN REAL-LIFE DRIVING CONDITIONS is enough fuel at the top end - the stock injectors are maxed out. It makes more power than the 15% everywhere. There are graphs and dyno charts posted all over the place in the last year and a half. See for yourself. I'd love to see the chart that shows the 19% not making power throughout the range. I guess I'll be waiting a while for that one...

Are we really talking about 13 gallons of gas versus NONE? You were comparing a 1/4 tank to a full tank. So that difference is actually less than 10 gallons which equates to under 60lbs. Of course you noticed 60lbs of spinning weight! Unsprung weight has 10 times the effect as the weight of the rest of the car! So back to the 60lbs of fuel - don't forget YOU'RE in the car also! So let's take a 2600lb MINI, add a driver (I'm 190) for a total of 2790lbs. 60lbs of fuel (the difference versus a full tank and less than 1/4 tank) is 2.2% There's no way you'll notice that in a 200hp+ car. That's 1/2-1/3 of the weight that ONE passenger adds! 60lbs is less than my dog weighs! Now if you put 800lbs of people weight and 50+lbs of luggage (like I have) - THEN you'll notice quite a difference in power. Even two passengers you'll notice. But 60lbs? No way. That's why it drives me nuts when someone says they bought exhaust A over B b/c it saved 10lbs. Now if you're taking the seats out and trying to cut every pound you can fine. But if that's the only weight savings you make - then forget it.

Finally something we agree on! And yes, the JCW is definitely shy on torque. Why b/c it only uses a 15% pulley! So you're actually agreeing that the 19% would fair better after all!

BTW, I can't believe the garbage you had to go through to get your JCW kit done right. That's a shame - I'm glad you got it worked out. :smile:

Sorry for the rant guys, Peace.

 

Well I'm glad I worked it out too, thanks for the support Greatgro.

The fuel load is noticable to me and has been in every car I've driven - track or road. But, we will perhaps never agree and that's okay. It is both subjective and objective, measurable but sort of meaningless over-all, I'll admit. The point I was making is that I did feel the car was lethargic and I pointed to that as one possible reason, among a few.

Although I was far from eloquent, following sound physics is my choice. Choice is powerful, yes? Okay then, my choice is based upon my assumptions. These include taking a path that is designed to remove heat while increasing air density. I will likely drive this car for 200,000 miles and track it a few times a season. I am more comfortable seeking this path as I believe this is a more durable - thermally efficient - way to produce more power. I am drawn to the potential ease with which a 19% pulley has been advertised to produce power, however. But, I prefer to live with the limitations built into the car and not aggrevate them. Randy Webb does have the data and from the perspective of efficient physics, I believe the data. My mind might be changed if someone were to put the data comparing a 15% vs a 19% pulley in front me. But until an honest and accurate comparison is offered up, conservative physics will be my path. I really didn't require Randy for the choice and perhaps should have left him out of the discussion.

So, I'll challange you again Greatgro; what is the difference in inlet temps for a 19% vs a 15% pulley, across the driving spectrum? And by this, I don't mean across the rpm spectrum - powerband - as I think you responded. In theory, I have no argument with you when it comes to comparing outright power output under ideal conditions, the 19% wins. I am suspicious of most dyno graphs; it is very hard to duplicate procedures, many dynos are not calibrated correctly, the weather is a huge variable, and, the variety of dyno types makes any comparison difficult if not impossible. Anyhow, we don't drive under ideal conditions. So what happens when your car is stuck in traffic, when it's on full boost and any condition between? How long will the 19% provide that ideal power and what will the extra thermal stress do to the engine? The Alta Intercooler provides a 20-25 degree F drop in inlet temps - this info has been published by many folks not connected with Randy or Alta - it's pretty hard to mis-trust a pyrometer; they don't vary as much as a dyno. I guarantee that a 19% pulley will increase inlet temps. And not by only 4%. And, how much additional power/torque does the 19% provide? When will a 19% pulley hit that critical point at which power suffers because the inlet temps are so high that the engine retards timing to cool itself down? I ask this question not from the perspective of a one time dyno run under ideal conditions, but from theperspective of the most extreme conditions. The strength in any system is determined by its weakest link, determined by a worst case scenario. This a real concern to me. I submit that the extra heat produced, and, higher supercharger speed is not the way to build a long lasting, durable motor. But that's why choice is so powerfull. You get to build your motor the way you like, and I get to build my motor the way I like.

To my way of thinking you are taking a greater risk than I, also difficult, if not impossible to prove. You are okay playing a little closer to the Mini's tolerances, limitations. I am not, I don't know what they are, nor do you. But I know sound, if conservative, physics.

Ciao,

Michael

 

Well I can shed some light on this b/c I HAD a 15% for 15k miles and a 19% for 35k miles. The 19% blows the 15% away in torque. The difference torque-wise is huge - much bigger than any other mod. I also drove with each one through one summer each. I've also driven in bumper to bumper traffic many, many times. The summer heat robs power of course but I actually felt it much more with the 15%. To me, the 15% made the MCS great at the top end but low and mid range it was still lacking. There was just enough torque to get by. So under extreme conditions (traffic, heat, running the car hard) the 15% fell into the "it doesn't have enough torque zone" for me. On the other hand, even though the 19% probably lost a similar percentage of power, there was still enough torque to drive fast and enjoy the drive even with the auto A/C blasting on LO. The 15% is a dog on a 90 degree day with the A/C on. It bogs from a standstill and is slow to respond. The 19% doesn't show that type of degradation.
I can say for a fact, that in my 35k miles with a 19%, I have NEVER reached that point. And I've driven in all types of conditions and I ALWAYS use my A/C. I'm sure I would notice such a loss of power and I have not.
I agree. I don't mean to attack you - the 19% MAY not be for everyone. But I just hate the negative publicity and attacks it gets - most are unfounded and the ones that make sense haven't panned out that way. You're theories are solid. Randy's concerns were legitimate as well. One or two years ago they truly were legitimate concerns. But since that time, with both data testing and real-world testing, they haven't held up. I just want people out there who are on the fence to know that.

 

Well, perhaps I should do more research...maybe the intercooler AND the 19% pulley. Sounds like a compromise that might actually satisfy both sides of my brain. In fact...I'll keep you posted. Who carries the Helix 19% pulley?
There is a bit of a psi drop with the Alta intercooler, a minor concern. The smaller pulley will correct that.

Amazing what you can accomplish with vigorous, friendly conversation.

Ciao,

Michael

 

Michael,

Excellent reseach, my man, and well-developed points!

There may be some modest additional HP gains from a 17% but even then I'd be thinking about a larger intercooler/sprayer combo. And by investing big $$$ for that, the ROI just doesn't work for me.

FWIW,

Theo

 

Thanks Theo. It is amazing, when I look back at some of things I know and understand in life...in contrast to some of the things I don't know or understand. Some are glaring. And so, what is ROI?

Greatgro has reignited my interest in the 19% pulley. Initially I considered the 19%, then thought about the heat thing and all sorts of bad what-ifs. Now I'm considering the 19% pulley again, but only with a larger intercooler. Variables; 2005 JCW ECU, 2005 JCW injectors, and still, heat.

I have searched the site for info, but an 05 JCW with a larger intercooler, a 19% pulley any ECU work doesn't appear to exist. I may go first...what the hell, it's only metal.

Ciao,

Michael

 

Interesting thread ... glad you went from furious to (I think) happy, Michael. And hello again Theo - still enjoying the upgrade


The Return On Investment (ROI) of the JCW kit is primarily peace of mind because you have factory warranty - thus I cannot really understand wanting to replace parts of it, pulley or whatever, and risk voiding what you just bought.
Surely if you want aftermarket parts, you should just go aftermarket from day one - it definitely costs less than the JCW route?

 

Hi GBMini,

ROI...well, uhm...I feel stupid. Oh well Theo.

I realize the outward lack of logic; the car is part of my salary package. After looking at a few different cars, I chose the Mini Cooper. The company knows I am a car nut and agreed to include the JCW kit as part of the original purchase. Though the Mini is technically part of my salary, it still belongs to the company and they have to have some say when warranty issues arise; I 've played with every other car they've purchased...the folks in accounting get a little anxious about that kind of thing. So here we are. I thought I might be paying for the JCW kit, so I put a little money aside to play with, away from wife and children. Honestly, I should have my head examined as there are better places for this money as we all know - wife and children - and the JCW Mini is a hoot just the way it is. But then, none of this is really rational. It's just fun, yes?

The above also underscores my conservative appraoch regarding modifications. I will run up approximately 65K miles per year on this car. In three years it will be gone. I really need the car to work well every day. If the Mini were a weekend warrior, and mine, I would be a little more daring.

...all of this may point to why I didn't recognize ROI. I still want to improve midrange hp and torque. The IC and the 19% pulley may be the place to find a few horses, dunno. I need more time and more information. Time I have, so I'll wait a bit. But thanks for questioning my motives...they do need to be challanged on occasion.

Ciao,

Michael

 

My recommendation would be to fit a Miltek header to the JCW and enjoy, the car will breathe a lot better, sound better and drive better also, and this is from experience that the way my car is set, and even before the 210 upgrade to the original package I had 176HP at the front wheels on Helix dyno.

 

Has anyone been able to make a 19% pulley live at the track yet? The last thing I read was bout the classic minis winning a new/old mini challenge because every new Mini had a 19% pulley and they all DNF'd do to belt issues? Any thing new in this area or are the 19% still for on road use only? Now that is a term you don't hear too often LOL

Randy
www.m7tuning.com

 

I believe, based upon the above, that your actual experience may vary. I am gathering more performance info. The reliability factor is a variable and I don't think any of us can comment with certainty... Racing experiences will point to potential reliability strengths and weaknesses, however. And there is a potential area to keep watch on.

I'm suffering from analysis paralysis, so I'm in limp home mode - info gathering for now. That said, the above info is all true; each of us has a perspective that carries some truth, and at once, fear.

I'm looking at the 19% pulley, the larger air to air intercooler/sprayer and possibly the header. The last item is still stock S. The Miltek header may help some of that 19% pulley to pull power thru the engine a bit quicker.

What ever I do, I'll be sure to post here. There is a dyno very close by too.

Here is an odd-ball question. Has anyone experimented with venting the bonnet/hood as a way of pulling hot air out of the engine compartment?

 

Ian,



Theo

 

In addition to the point about the belt...

Another aspect to consider when reducing the diameter of the pulley is the additional speed at which the water pump will be turning. And, while the SC bearings may well cope with a 19% reduction, time will tell if the WP bearing(s) will be adversly affected.

I guess it's just a case of how risk-tolerant you are as an individual...

Theo

 

65k miles a year and 200k in 3 yrs is a heck of a lot of miles - almost twice the rate I put them on. Now your concerns are more valid. You COULD get a 19% and not spin your supercharger significantly more (there was another thread where I argued this point endlessly and don't want to do it again) since you MIGHT find yourself running to redline less and shifting 1k or more RPMs sooner like I do. I honestly believe that my supercharger and engine won't have significantly more wear than a 15% by 100k miles, but 200k miles is a different story. Most boosted cars don't last that long - not without some serious work somewhere along the way. That and considering you have the JCW kit with a warranty, maybe you should stay with the 15%. You've got a tough decision on your hands. Good luck with that! You've got a lot of thinking to do...:smile:

 

Greatgro,

I am speculating, and perhaps this is a question too. I have another concern hidden in Theo's latest response regarding water pump speed. The speed of the pump may or may not affect the relaibilty of the water pump, but if I were a betting man I would say it will wear faster. When? Who knows. My bigger concern is the elevated coolant pressure; When a liquid is moved thru a given diameter of pipe, there is a point at which the velocity of the moving liquid begins to slow if the force becomes too high. And, lets say that the velocity is unobstructed for the sake of argument. The coolant might then move thru the radiator to quickly. This might not allow the coolant to cool sufficiently.

So, the velocity of the coolant with regard to psi loss is a concern, and, so is cooling. See, I would be inclined to design a supercharger pulley product with a modified water pump pulley too. I would want to be sure that the velocity doesn't exceed the limitations of the system, and, that coolant is being cooled properly. Speculation, sure...

 

I don't see this as a problem b/c there have been quite a number of 19% pulleys out this past summer and I have yet to hear of a MINI overheating due to a pulley. Also coolant temps have been logged with the 19% and apparently this isn't an issue. But again, good speculation on your part.

 

Has anyone been able to make a 19% pulley survive a track day? The only results I have heard of were from the classic/new mini event where the new minis were all equipped with 19% pulleys, Randy Webb's among them ,all failed to finish due to belt problems. With all the 19% pulleys out there someone must have survied a track event maby even one of the slower drivers perhaps? I wouldn't mind slipping a 19% on for a bit but I can not give up track reliability.

Randy
www.m7tuning.com

 

I believe the the waterpump is directly-driven from the SC turbine shaft. Thus, the rate of the WP shaft revolution is not independently adjustable since it is coupled to the SC turbine shaft.

Theo

 

Hello Theo,

I understand. I was idealizing; if I were an after market manufacturer playing with pulleys for this engine I would investigate a way to increase, or maintain, WP longevity when considering a smaller pulley. This may be very complicated, but perhaps not.

 

meb,



Theo

 

meb, I would back what "dkstone" suggested. From my own experience, and in talking with other JCW owners, the next step after the JCW install would be the Miltek header. It makes a noticeable difference, and I believe it completes the package.

From what I've gathered from Mike Cooper and articles read, for them to have added the header in the package, it would have required re-certification due to the different catylitic(?) converter.

 

Yea, this appears to be a no-brainer; it is the only stock S item left in the breathing, exhaling dept.

So, you folks out there with this header on a JCW+05 upgrade, where do you feel the extra oomph? Do you feel a loss of power anywhere? Some headers offer great peak hp at the expense of bottom end and mid range. I prefer not to hurt these two areas of the power band.


Ciao

 

"So what happens when your car is stuck in traffic, when it's on full boost and any condition between?"

How do you make full boost in traffic. One often overlooked fact about blowers is they have to spin to make boost. 15%-19% pulleys won't create any additional boost or heat while running at vacuum. Blower speed won't come into play until the upper end of the rev range. Therefore over drive pulleys do not affect daily driving unless you run it hard. Admitidly the Mini is a new area for new. So new in fact ours is waiting transport now. However I have extensive experience with the Ford Lightning which also uses an Eaton blower. The Eaton M112 on the Lightning has a max rpm of 14,500 per Eaton. Higher rpm according to Eaton add no additional performance and cause catostophic failure according to Eaton. After extensive testing we have found that spinning the blower in the 20,000-22,000 rpm range does indeed produce additional boost (14lbs vs 8 lbs @ 14,500). To date there has not been a single M112 failure attributed to high rpm. Granted the Lightning does come stock with an air/water I/C so that does help.

Summary, the amount of time the blower will actually spin at the increase rpm (15%-19% pulley) is minimal. For me the 19% will be added as soon as the Mini is broken in. I will run that until I have time to turn out a larger diameter crank pulley. Bottom line is the Eaton are very well built units. They are also very easy to rebuild if necessary. Just too bad they are not a twin screw instead of a roots type blower.

Long term I will work on adapting an Eaton M90 unless someone develops a twin screw setup.