Dynojet numbers are going to consistantly be 8-12% higher than any other dyno, that's just how they are. Helix threw the R56 on their Mustang dyno and got 160 whp, which isn't anything to cry over (Put's the car at right under 180 bhp). These cars are not making 200 bhp from the factory.

I agree with PGT, the only way to compare the two cars is with real world timing over distances, comparing HP is pointless

 

Here's a copy of the Helix Dyno I referenced

 

Not faster than mine, but I will start getting nervous when you get down pipe and ECU tune.

 

At the rate Munich is going it'll be a year before they figure out how to make any more power out of the R56 without blowing it up.

 

Hey Mario check this link.

https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...d.php?t=101395

I think a little ECU tuning and the downpipe should help allot.

 

And, conversely, any idea what caused the torque to drop between 2600 and 3400?

Theo

 

Looked at the first graph and was amazed. And then looked at Helix's and was assuaged. When does all the bickering about the fallibility of dynos begin?

Anyways, I'll be content with an R53 that'll be faster (however defined) than the majority of R56s out there. Not everyone will be driving around with a 300whp modded R56, even if it'll be that much easier to attain.

 

Sorry to say it is not mine. Stole the pic off some German Mini site. Pics of my mine replace it by the week-end. Won't look quiet as good, bbut close(for now... )

 

I will have to dig out some of the VAGCOM charts from my VWVortex days when we were looking at the same thing on the 02 GTI engine when chipped.

I'm not an engineer but what was found was that by switching out a component (N75 valve I think) with a slightly different one from another VW/Audi vehicle it was possible to almost eliminate the drop.

I believe the valve may have controlled the boost bypass valve opening and closing and the stock one was too slow so when you exceeded the 18PSI boost level set by the modified ECU it bleeds off the excess boost by opening a valve and then closing it when boost dropped back to 18PSI.
Problem was by the time it read the boost level being normal and closed the valve it had bled off too much boost and you ended up with a dip that you could definitely feel and see on the charts.

Kind of like a how a thermostat works in that when you get to your upper limit it turns off the heat and when you hit your lower limit it turns it back on again. Stock valve gave too big a swing wheras one from an Audi reacted a lot quicker.

Hope this makes sense

 

Yes! And should make a lot of sense (cents) for an aftermarket parts supplier.

Theo

 

Now all is nice and dandy - but I am installing the JCW gear shift indicator (yes - I know - I know - a toy...). The JCW GSI is made of 11 LEDs out of which the mid-5 should be basically in the "best torque" interval. Let's assume that I want to keep the yellow region into the best torque interval - and that I would like the JCW GSI to point me to shift gears when there is a drop in the torque. (there are 6 DIP switches that allow me to set up the range and the middle of the indicator).

What would you set it up - according to the dyno measurements? To have the car "geared up optimally" at 4200 and to change gears at ... let's say - 4750? Is it too high? Is it too low?

I mean - the curves are all nice and pretty -- but how would that reflect in your day by day (or speedy) driving? Would you keep the car in the low 4000 rpms?

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thank you - MMM

 

I would suggest that shifting above 4500-5000 would be a waste of time unless one was on a track and it was easier to stay in a gear than shift. For me, only 1 hr in the car 2 mo ago, there was a distinct falloff in accel at WOT over 4700 or so.

Let your buttmeter be your guide!

Mark

 

How did the Dynapack numbers compare to those on the Dynojet? I'm just wondering as my MINI has been dynoed on LDG's Dynapack already. Thanks!

BD

 

Hey my car bone stock with I think 600 miles on it! :-)

 

dynos should only be used as a baseline. the R56 is faster than my R53

 

The Dynapack showed less peak torque but more peak horsepower than these Dynojet numbers. The Dynapack session was when the car was barely broken in.

The stock plot is the dotted line. The solid line was after we took all the exhaust off and ran it with a 3" dump tube straight off the turbo.



And again for comparison:



--Dan
Mach V
FastMINI.net

 

Wow the difference between the stock Dynapack run and the stock Dynojet run is astounding. My datalogging [MAF, MAP, etc] correlates very closely with the Dynojet torque curve, and the Dynapack torque curve seems to be askew.