R56 More '07 Dyno Results
Thread Starter
|
Former Vendor
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,472
Likes: 2
From: Sterling, VA
More '07 Dyno Results
I previously posted my results of dynoing our shop '07 MCS on a Dynapack, but this time we used our own Dynojet.
These numbers are at the WHEELS, not at the crank. So that's quite a bit of power!
Here's a comparison of an '05 MCS on the same dyno. The runs were not made on the same exact day, so take it with a grain of salt. But it's an interesting comparison.
--Dan
Mach V
FastMINI.net
These numbers are at the WHEELS, not at the crank. So that's quite a bit of power!
Here's a comparison of an '05 MCS on the same dyno. The runs were not made on the same exact day, so take it with a grain of salt. But it's an interesting comparison.
--Dan
Mach V
FastMINI.net
Thread Starter
|
Former Vendor
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,472
Likes: 2
From: Sterling, VA
6th Gear
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,231
Likes: 0
From: RVA
Very interesting. Was the '05 stock, as well? I'm a little surprised to see that the torque curve is so lumpy (I figured it'd be flatter) and that the redline seems to be lower. The overall amount of torque sure looks nice, tho!
no, no they don't - not on their own. There's much more to the story than that (gearing, etc). Any car with torque down low will always feel faster - we need to see instrumented tests or timeslips to know for sure. I've had as many people say the 05/06 is faster as I've had say the '07 is.
Trending Topics
4th Gear
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
no, no they don't - not on their own. There's much more to the story than that (gearing, etc). Any car with torque down low will always feel faster - we need to see instrumented tests or timeslips to know for sure. I've had as many people say the 05/06 is faster as I've had say the '07 is.
Yep... torque feels fast, especially to those not experienced...
6th Gear
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,821
Likes: 1
From: Mililani,Hawaii
no, no they don't - not on their own. There's much more to the story than that (gearing, etc). Any car with torque down low will always feel faster - we need to see instrumented tests or timeslips to know for sure. I've had as many people say the 05/06 is faster as I've had say the '07 is.
I don't get why some people keeps saying it "feels" faster because of the torque.
Guess what? It IS faster. duh!
More torque = more speed. sheesh. you have little torque you go slow. you have more torque you go faster. What is so hard to comprehend?
Don't try to to bring up an example about a MAC truck having 1000lb/sft torque and being slower than a MINI either. Give that same MAC truck only 300lbs/ft torque and see how fast it goes.
you get several dyno graphs in front of you showing the r56 has more torque AND HP until almost 6k rpms and ya still want to argue it. get over it.
I'd love to see an 06 JCW dyno superimposed on that too. I think that would really upset some people - not the r56 camp either.
Last edited by MotorMouth; May 21, 2007 at 01:41 PM.
Thread Starter
|
Former Vendor
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,472
Likes: 2
From: Sterling, VA
Yes.
Me too. We talked about this in another thread, but basically the boost comes on and then is reduced by the ECU, then it comes back on. They all do it, it seems.
I was surprised by the way the redline works, too. The car just stops accelerating at that point. It doesn't rev cut -- it just reduces throttle or something. It's kind of odd.
--Dan
Mach V
FastMINI.net
I'm a little surprised to see that the torque curve is so lumpy (I figured it'd be flatter)
...and that the redline seems to be lower.
--Dan
Mach V
FastMINI.net
4th Gear
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
I read that the Society of Automotive Engineers[SAE] rewrote the proceedures for measuring HPand Torque to reflect real world conditions. In the past engines were tested "nude" with no AC and Power steering pumps etc. Hence HP/torque numbers were artifically high without the power sapping acsessories. This accounts for much of the descrepancy between 06 and 07 models.
you get several dyno graphs in front of you showing the r56 has more torque AND HP until almost 6k rpms and ya still want to argue it. get over it.
I'd love to see an 06 JCW dyno superimposed on that too. I think that would really upset some people - not the r56 camp either.
Nobody doubts the R56 is fast enough. Taking dyno plots and claiming it's quicker than ______ is pointless. Show me real word numbers please....back to back instrumented testing or 1/4 timeslips vs. the R53. They are much different character cars....neither is considered 'fast' in my book however.
2nd Gear
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
On the S2000... I own one, a 2005. I also own a 2007 Cooper S (and a Honda Accord, but we can guess that's not my fun car).
I can guarantee the cooper will beat the S2k off the line, only because I'm not willing to rev to vtech and drop the clutch on my car and the Cooper has a TON more low end torque. But I also know, that while the Cooper pulls very hard, the S2k pulls a LOT harder once you're in the power band, especially once you're in 2nd gear. Plus nothing like an 8200 RPM redline.
Anyway, they're both great cars. And neither one is a drag car. They are both amazing on the twisties.
If I wanted a 1/4 car or one that's fast in a straight line, there are lots of options for that. Great drivers cars for real roads? Not a whole lot of those, especially at moderate prices.
I can guarantee the cooper will beat the S2k off the line, only because I'm not willing to rev to vtech and drop the clutch on my car and the Cooper has a TON more low end torque. But I also know, that while the Cooper pulls very hard, the S2k pulls a LOT harder once you're in the power band, especially once you're in 2nd gear. Plus nothing like an 8200 RPM redline.
Anyway, they're both great cars. And neither one is a drag car. They are both amazing on the twisties.
If I wanted a 1/4 car or one that's fast in a straight line, there are lots of options for that. Great drivers cars for real roads? Not a whole lot of those, especially at moderate prices.
4th Gear
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
4th Gear
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
From: San Francisco, CA
I read that the Society of Automotive Engineers[SAE] rewrote the proceedures for measuring HPand Torque to reflect real world conditions. In the past engines were tested "nude" with no AC and Power steering pumps etc. Hence HP/torque numbers were artifically high without the power sapping acsessories. This accounts for much of the descrepancy between 06 and 07 models.
4th Gear
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Not to jack this thread... but that is a killer R56 in your SIG line... can you post some picts or a link to picts?
3rd Gear
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
From: Boston
How/why (besides blind automotive pride) would someone argue that a heavier R53 with less hp and less torque is faster than the R56. I can understand why the JCW and GP owners get all worked up at the suggestion that the R56 may be faster in a straight line (and I'd like to see some real numbers before I make any conclusions myself), but are people really arguing that the R53 is faster?
2nd Gear
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
From: socal
Not until these turbo cars...
Probably protecting the sales of R53 Minis... same thing with 335s hp rating
protecting sales of E46 M3s...
Then the following year then can increase the hp rating doing virtually
nothing to the car...
4th Gear
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
From: San Francisco, CA
The SRT-4 will toast the MCS in a drag race, not sure about the track but I would imagine that a course with long sweepers and fewer sharp turns would favor the SRT-4 while a tighter course, esp an auto-x, would belong to the Mini.
Last edited by ygblat; May 21, 2007 at 09:00 PM.