When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
The 45mm I used before had a 50x42mm turbine and choked at anything over about 20.5 psi as I recall. Not sure if your 50 will be slower than the 47. If I remember the GTD specs right your 50 mm inducer and exducer are both larger, but I think the GTD compressor is cast not machined billet. It’s surprising how much weight you can save on a 5 axis as compared to casting. Weighing both compressor wheels will give you a better idea.
Very cool. So my 50mm compressor might be lighter than the 47mm compressor... I'll make sure to weight both of the compressors before I install the new turbo.
At 23psi I do get some compression surge -- I run on MAP B, I believe that's 21psi, it runs perfect there -- I wonder if I could combat that with a better flowing (bigger diameter) recirc valve? Or maybe even going with an external waste gate setup? I'm not sure what turbine is on the 47mm, I want to say its a 9 blade 44.5mm, same diameter as the 50mm turbo's turbine.
Do you have a dyno of your current setup of 291whp?
Well damn. I'm sorry to report AWD_Rally that the ALL4 and 6MT differentials are not compatible. The ALL4 diff has the rear drive PTO gear on the small end of the diff. So that's no bueno. Attached is one of my dyno's from February. One of our customers is just finishing a build using our 50mm so hopefully I can update with that later. Looking forward to seeing your results as well.
Well damn. I'm sorry to report AWD_Rally that the ALL4 and 6MT differentials are not compatible. The ALL4 diff has the rear drive PTO gear on the small end of the diff. So that's no bueno. Attached is one of my dyno's from February. One of our customers is just finishing a build using our 50mm so hopefully I can update with that later. Looking forward to seeing your results as well.
Oh darn, oh well. Thanks for checking. I'm looking forward to hearing more about your customers build.
man great wealth of knowledge love it. i know you covered exhaust on the car, i have a 2.5" custom pipe from my CNT DP with MF res all the way to the muffler, but my muffler is still from 2009 cooper S. great sound but not sure if it is giving me the optimum performance. will you all please chime in as to what muffler will provide the best results to my setup please. i am on stage 2 Manic.
thanks
Ben
I don't believe the muffler will do much more than just alter the sound. It's so far back in the system than the level of restriction would be negligible. If you're downpipe is catless and you only have a resonator, you should have as much performance gain as possible without doing a straight pipe from turbo to rear bumper.
Thanks. yes mine is catless and the performance is great, thank you for your reply. the reason i asked is getting a 2.5" pipe to 2.25" inlet of muffler had me thinking if i should replace it.
Ben
If you like the sound of it and are happy with the performance I'd leave it. Performance returns on the exhaust are nowhere near the return you get going catless. I personally ran Magnaflow on Tigger (2.5") as well as on Vlad (3.0"). Earlier this week however I removed the 18" Magnaflow on Vlad and installed a 16" Thermal R&D muffler. I'm finally happy with the exhaust tone now.
I've been reading this thread for a very long time and very impressed with detailed observation and testing for the N18 engine. Too bad you decided to let it go and still glad that you're still with MINI.
I've just acquired a 2011 N18 R56 and currently in the process of upgrading it. Among the things that I've considered is to fabricate a tuned long tube turbo header for the car. The reason behind it is to utilize the scavenging effect in the cylinders to reduce carbon build up and at the same time hoping to squeeze little bit power from it. I've been using online calculator for N/A but with higher VE (143% if estimation is right) reflecting turbocharge engine and it comes out with an estimation of 1 3/8" primary with 29" long tube for peak torque at 4450rpm. Need some advise whether this will work specially on the carbon build up issues. Was quoted $800 inclusive of decat downpipe.
My main goal is to achieve around 230-250 hopefully on the wheels while maintaining stock 13psi boost which made me think, a "N/A" kind of tuning should do the trick. Not really a bang for buck but for reliability peace of mind specially from where I came from, I'm totally OK with it.
That's the direction I'm going as well, equal length exhaust manifold. I haven't been quoted yet, $800 sounds like a great deal for a custom turbo manifold. I'll also be attaching a 50mm turbo to it.
HI've just acquired a 2011 N18 R56 and currently in the process of upgrading it. Among the things that I've considered is to fabricate a tuned long tube turbo header for the car. The reason behind it is to utilize the scavenging effect in the cylinders to reduce carbon build up and at the same time hoping to squeeze little bit power from it. I've been using online calculator for N/A but with higher VE (143% if estimation is right) reflecting turbocharge engine and it comes out with an estimation of 1 3/8" primary with 29" long tube for peak torque at 4450rpm. Need some advise whether this will work specially on the carbon build up issues. Was quoted $800 inclusive of decat downpipe.
My main goal is to achieve around 230-250 hopefully on the wheels while maintaining stock 13psi boost which made me think, a "N/A" kind of tuning should do the trick. Not really a bang for buck but for reliability peace of mind specially from where I came from, I'm totally OK with it.
1) The stock boost is not 13 Lbs. 2) The carbon build up is on the N14 not the N18.3) The Twin-Turbo manifold REDUCES the scavenging effect that causes a lean (dangerous) condition.4) Sounds like you are trying to blow up your motor.
Tune the car. Manic Stage 2 with supporting mods. Contact Mario Palza.
Originally Posted by Gearheadaddy
1) The stock boost is not 13 Lbs. 2) The carbon build up is on the N14 not the N18.3) The Twin-Turbo manifold REDUCES the scavenging effect that causes a lean (dangerous) condition.4) Sounds like you are trying to blow up your motor.
Among the things that I've considered is to fabricate a tuned long tube turbo header for the car. The reason behind it is to utilize the scavenging effect in the cylinders to reduce carbon build up and at the same time hoping to squeeze little bit power from it. I've been using online calculator for N/A but with higher VE (143% if estimation is right) reflecting turbocharge engine and it comes out with an estimation of 1 3/8" primary with 29" long tube for peak torque at 4450rpm. Need some advise whether this will work specially on the carbon build up issues. Was quoted $800 inclusive of decat downpipe.
My main goal is to achieve around 230-250 hopefully on the wheels while maintaining stock 13psi boost which made me think, a "N/A" kind of tuning should do the trick. Not really a bang for buck but for reliability peace of mind specially from where I came from, I'm totally OK with it.
Hi krycheck8,
It's great to see people trying to push the envelope. A tuned equal length header makes sense from a performance perspective if running a turbo with a T2 or T25 turbine housing. Tube length should be kept as short as possible though or you will induce a lazy response. Remember a turbo is powered by heat and pressure, both of which decrease with longer runners. On a K03 hybrid I'd stick with the factory manifold primarily because of the size of the cross section of the K03 turbine inlet. I write custom tunes for BMW/Mini, MB, Audi, etc. in addition to being a Manic dealer and tuning the vanos will make a much larger difference than a header will on a K03.
A custom header will also not make much difference in carbon accumulation on the intake valves, and the N18 most definitely still suffers from this problem. I spent 6 hours decoking a customers N18 because it was so baked on. After walnut blasting twice I had to resort to solvents to get it all off.
The factory manifold ports are about an 1/8th of an inch larger all the way around than the ports in the head. The step helps create reflected pulses to reduce back pressure into the cylinder. So if you do go with an EFR or GTX turbo don't make the mistake of matching the ports. Also, remember that the single biggest source of back pressure is the spud (i.e. turbo itself) stuck in the exhaust and applying N/A style tuning is not always applicable.
Most carbon accumulation occurs during cruise. At this point there is no boost and the intake cam is advanced for EGR and to help with tip in translation if needed. During this load and overlap phase the pressure in the cylinder is higher than that in the intake so there will be some exhaust gas reversion into the intake path. This and valve seal leakage after shut down are the single greatest contributors to carbon accumulation.
While it is possible via tuning on the N18 to increase intake cam lift from 9mm to 9.9mm, its still not going to be enough to get you to 250whp on 1 bar of boost. Sorry as that's probably not what you want to hear but I've tried arguing with the laws of physics a time or two and haven't won yet.
Last edited by Tigger2011; 01-24-2018 at 06:44 PM.
Most carbon accumulation occurs during cruise. At this point there is no boost and the intake cam is advanced for EGR and to help with tip in translation if needed. During this load and overlap phase the pressure in the cylinder is higher than that in the intake so there will be some exhaust gas reversion into the intake path. This and valve seal leakage after shut down are the single greatest contributors to carbon accumulation.
This where my concern on carbon accumulation comes from. Being a 10.5:1 engine, the off boost throttle response and performance is good during normal drive causing boost is not fully utilize. Other than that I realized from boost reading coming off my Ultragauge indicates that the intake manifold has a very weak vacuum which indicate a low flow across the intake valve causing it not able to flush the carbon soot away. Besides, I'm trying to equalized each cylinder as well for more reliable power. Based on your feedback, I might get disappointing results and now I'll need to make a decision to give it a try for curiosity sake which might ended up laughing or go at the corner crying.
Just sharing what I've in mind for the engine and we could discuss the topic for benefit of others. My plan is to have a low pressure ratio high flow turbocharger with low pressure drop across the entire engine. Reason being that I could run a lower temperature intake which allows to go for slightly more aggressive timing and lower fuel quality. FYI, we have RON95 as standard with premium fuel ranging from RON97-100 (easily available in city areas). I typically use RON95 and only use premium fuel during trackday or continuous high load duty. Mods that I've in mind will be revision to intake piping from airbox to intake manifold, old cone style JCW airbox, custom intercooler (thinking of Bell Intercoolers with bottom inlet/outlet, 2.5x18x7.1 core), equal long tube turbo manifold with tapered 3" downpipe, PnP head with polished combustion chamber and radius valve (a very tricky from what I read in this thread and will need some serious discussion with the porter), turbo to suit. Some supporting might follows like the ARP bolts and studs, exhaust if needed and might rebuild the engine for a more consistent clearances and balance (maybe waaaayyy tooo later)
Remap plan will be a custom tune focusing more on recalibration of the main fuel map to match with factory demand AFR (looks like this car has a full close loop system), timing adjust based on knock data (can't find it in Ultragauge on knock count unlike datalog of my old Bytetronik FA53 used in my former R53), recalibration of boost as per factory, linear throttle setup and some touch on the torque manager. The main idea for the remap is to reduce the intervention by the correction map
1) The stock boost is not 13 Lbs.
2) The carbon build up is on the N14 not the N18.
3) The Twin-Turbo manifold REDUCES the scavenging effect that causes a lean (dangerous) condition.
4) Sounds like you are trying to blow up your motor.
1. My bad. It should be 12psi or 0.8bar
2. Not sure about that. Read through it is still a problem but not as bad as N14
3. Care to elaborate? I'm aware that it'll makes the mixture leaner but at the same time realized that the ecu is running on closed loop all the time targeting specific AFR. Just not that sure on how much correction it can make. Will have it tune to correct the main fuel map to match with target AFR
4. You're scaring me
This is still in planning stage with execution maybe mid or end of this year.
Tune the car. Manic Stage 2 with supporting mods. Contact Mario Palza.
I'm located on the other side of Pacific pond and for remap, might have to go for Manic customize map via their local dealer. Very unfortunate that a full access remap is not available for R56 unlike R53 with Bytetronik (was an R53 owner).
Turbo charger selection…decisions decisions. First lets look at what bolt on solutions are available for our platform along with their specifications. Then we can figure out what those specs mean to us. All flow numbers listed below are at the 70% efficiency island on their respective compressor map. Many turbos can be and are pushed past that point. It is just generally not recommend as the lower the efficiency island the more heat is being transferred into the intake charge.
Owens Turbo
Compressor Inducer 44mm, Compressor Exducer 60mm
My apologies as I could find no published data on the turbine assembly nor a compressor map.
Turbo 101
A turbo charger in comprised of a compressor wheel that is attached to a turbine wheel via a shaft supported on bearings. The compressor as it's name implies is responsible for taking ambient air and compressing it creating boost. It is bolted to a shaft that is welded to the turbine wheel. The turbine wheel operates much like a water wheel in that it is turned by the exhaust gases leaving the engine. Pretty straight forward stuff so far. For the rest of this post I am going to leave off diverter valves, wastegates, waste gate controllers and complex custom installations like Garrett turbos.
As you can see ambient air is pulled into the compressor by the compressor inducer before being spun out into the compressor housing by the exducer. A larger inducer with the same size exducer will flow more air but be slightly slower to spool due to inertia. In addition a larger compressor exducer can generate a higher pressure ratio due to the higher speed of the blade tips. Too large of an exducer can also slow spool time due to inertia. On the exhaust side the exhaust gases first reach the turbine inducer generating torque on the turbine shaft before flowing through the exducer which raises shaft RPM. The same rules of inertia apply as a turbine inducer that is too large may be slow to spool and too large of a turbine exducer may fail to turn the compressor shaft at a sufficient RPM to reach target boost levels.
One way to cheat just a bit on turbines is to clip the turbine exducer. This is usually done from 5 to 15 degrees in 5 degree increments. By trimming the most curved part of the turbine blade you can increase airflow through the turbine. This is generally a good thing for the top end but can seriously hurt spool time in lower RPM's. The right way to do it is use a larger turbine wheel.
Normal turbine wheel.
Clipped turbine wheel.
In several Mini forums I have heard the same uninformed opinion regurgitated over and over. "Don't get a KO4 turbo. It will kill your bottom end responsiveness." Based on my own personal experience and data logging I have found the KO4 turbo's to spool to identical boost levels on the bottom end within 200 - 300 RPM of a KO3. Both utilize dual scroll turbine housings which increase responsiveness by separating out of phase exhaust pulses to prevent them from interfering with each other before they hit the turbine wheel and as such are very responsive. In addition the larger turbine resulted in lower exhaust temps and combined with the larger compressor it continued to produce high boost levels at high RPM long after a KO3 would have fallen flat on its face.
Ideally you want to choose a turbo that is not only quick to spool but is also capable of flowing a sufficient volume of air to meet your HP target. Generally speaking 1.1 lb/min of airflow equals 10 HP and that is BHP or shaft horse power, not power at the wheel. Generally accepted loss figures for our drivetrain are 12% for manuals and 14% for automatics.
If your looking for something with a little more kick than the JCW turbo then either the JMTC S42HP or E45HP are good choices that still use the standard KO3 turbine. If your going to step up to the next level however you'll have to choose something using the KO4 turbine. Two great choices there are the Frankenturbo F21M and the JMTC E45R. The newest revision of the F21M with 44mm exducer will result in less back pressure and lower EGT's whereas the E45R flows slightly more according to the compressor map. If however you plan on throwing everything from soup to nuts in your engine build the GT Dominator looks impressive. I personally have no experience with this turbo so hopefully someone can chime in on real world performance.
For this build I will be utilizing the JM Turbo Cooper E45R turbo charger. Attached below is a comparison photo of the E45R next to a stock Cooper S turbo. Since this unit produces 35 lbs/min of air at 70% efficiency it should be sufficient to make 275 HP at the wheels in my auto without pushing it to 65% efficiency or resorting to water/meth injection.
I thought about including a section here on reading a compressor map but there are several places where that data can be found and they probably do a much better job of it than I would. I will however recommend one very good source of information and that is the book "Turbocharging Performance Handbook" by Jeff Hartman. It is a fantastic resource containing a great deal of real world information concerning turbo selection, trim values, turbine A/R's and formulas for calculating airflow requirements, intercooler effectiveness, pressure ratios, charge density, etc.. Any performance enthusiast who plans to upgrade a turbo should own it, or beg/borrow a copy. Just don't ask for mine.
Neither. Our K03 bolt pattern is specific to Mini. Use of a T3 or T4 turbine housing based turbo requires either an adapter plate or custom tubular manifold. Be aware the adapter plates commercially available are open so the advantage of a divided turbine housing is negated.
I think for a dedicated track car it makes sense although I'd still want to verify oil temps with a stand alone gauge first. My current Stage 3 is running the water temp at 190F and no issues. Once the new engine is built and the Stage X tune is dialed in I may very well change my point of view. But for now with only 25 lbs of boost and oil changes every 3000 miles it's not something I'm concerned about.
Oh, you two are on a subject that I am very interested in; that is water and oil temperatures. On my 2012 stock S my water temp run 218 to 222 and oil temp runs 220 to a little over 230 on the road. On the track water goes to 235 and oil goes to about 250. This is all read on a ScanGage off OBDII.
With you doing a built engine, how are you running 190 water temps and what are you seeing for oil temps? The reason I am asking is that I have thoughts of doing a modest tune (Maniac Stage I, maybe) and I am concerned that my oil and water temps will go up with the added load. I am hoping with your experience with building up these engines that you could shed some light on what you do about these fluid temps.
Hi Eddie,
The oil temps reported by scangauge are calculated instead of actual. We have no oil temp sensor only water temp and a low oil pressure switch. So the ecu uses a percentage above water temp and averaged load to calculate oil temp. Of course this presupposes a water/oil intercooler operating at design spec. As sludge and scale accumulate this will get further and further from reality.
Water temp is controlled by various maps and switches in the ecu. Thermostat duty cycle is calculated based on target temps, under hood temps, outside air temp, etc.. So there are two methods of accomplishing a lowered coolant temp. The easiest is to change a few lines so the water temp control subroutine thinks the air conditioning is always on max. Doing so lowers coolant temp targets to 85C. I've found dyno figures are better when the coolant temps are around 88-90C. So we alter the necessary maps to reach that target.
On a separate note the Manic Stage 1 does not lower coolant temp. The Stage 2 however lowers it to 85C.
As an interim solution to tuning you can use this product from Summit Racing. It really will lower your coolant temps 15 to 20 degrees. Please note the warning however in that this product is not to be used in freezing weather. It is a coolant only with various surfactants and corrosion inhibiters. It has zero anti-freeze in it but it's an awesome coolant. You'll need two gallons to do the job and have some distilled water handy for top up.
Tigger - thanks for the responses. I am not surprised that BMW wouldn’t measure actual oil temp. Doing that would require one more set of parts they would have to warranty and one more set of expenses against their profit margin (sorry for the rant).
it is interesting, though, that when the auxiliary water pump died the oil temperatures went up by a lot, but the water temps didn’t really change. They must cover that situation in their algorithm. That was the only way I was able to guess that the auxiliary pump had died was that the oil temperature went up dramatically.
I’ll probably stick with antifreeze given that I need it for 6 months of the year, although that stuff from Summit looks interesting. However, it would seem that the ECU coding might override the beneficial affect of this product as it will want to keep a specific engine temp. Just thinking out loud.
11-22-2017, 11:32 AM
