well it sure seemed longer than one-tenth of a second, even the SA riding shotgun noticed, I would venture to say half a second. However, all that low-end torque sure showed itself when I put into 6th at about 30 mph, on a slight uphill, and the car accellerated quite nicely. And those seats....

 

Some of that has to do with our altitude, but I tend to agree with Rye - there is very little lag.

As to the testing, I controlled all parameters as best I could - that included doing runs with the cars several times, and the data was consistent. I also swapped wheels and tires to test the R53 - I think I stated that above. There were plenty of controls in place, and I think the data I have is VERY accurate.

As soon as I have an '05 or later I plan to test it with the R56 as well - should give us some great numbers to play with!

Gotta get back to work - I will go back over the thread and make sure I answered all of the questions later.

Hope that helps!
Randy

 

For all practical purposes, the R56 MCS has basically no turbo lag, and an amazingly low boost threshold. I'm totally impressed. For the people accustomed to supercharged and naturally aspirated engines, of course they're going to notice that fraction of a second delay between their foot going to the floor and full boost, but in turbo-world, the R56 has "no" lag. If you want lag, try driving an Evo 8 with a GT42R and no NOS, not only does that have mega lag [as in many seconds] but a high boost threshold too [upwards of 5,000 RPM until boost kicks in]. It's all relative; but the fact of the matter is the R56's little turbo trounces the R53's blower in low-end torque.

Also , like Randy said, keep in mind that at elevation the turbo will have more lag due to the thin air. There isn't any lag issue or concern or even perceived down here at sea level.

Cheers,
Ryan

 

Here you and I are in total agreement, and my 6th gear @30 mph test going uphill confirmed this. No way could I get my S to do that at such low rpms. Methinks R56 is a true "3rd gear" car--keep it third, all day long.

Another thing I noticed is that R56 seemed almost too refined.... maybe whines and burbles and rattles and squeaks have become such an integral part of my R53 motoring experience that anything different is a shock

 

I had a chance to drive my 07' S w/ (1400 miles on the OD) on a 60 mile loop in remote & hilly N.Texas. The same section of roads I have driven on over the years in most of my former "glory cars", E46 M3 SMG Dinan S, Boxster and my 2 former MCS JCWorks+ cars among a few. Sections that allow for fast approach sweepers w/ entry speeds of 90mph & exit speeds 120+ MPH. Many challenging turns & open sections of 4000ft.straights for flat out driving.
Basically the new Turbo w/ sport suspension is surprisingly fast & is by my reckoning faster than my 2xWorks cars in the same sections. Particulary at WOT 2nd-4th the car is a little beast. Even w/ 17" R90's& D.9000 RF's it hangs in like a prize fighter. I just sold my very tweaked Audi A3 DSG w/ extensive APR mods & AM. suspension (290+ft torque) and the new Mini blew those times away.
-I am impressed to the point of not believing how well sorted & powerful the new Turbo Mini is.
-Not to disparage the excellent Supercharged S, I spent a lot of time & money on both of my former MCS, but the new S is simply several grades ahead in school. I am very glad I waited & even happier to discover the hidden car within the car. Yes it's refined but get out where it can be pushed & it's a jaw dropper!!! The motor is glorious.
PS. I do not endorse racing or speeding on public roads & not to make excuses, these are very remote roads w/ long sight lines & no mid-day traffic, even farm vehicles.

 

Wait until you see the dyno results! I don't know how MINI got away with posting the 170 or so they did for power in this car.

I will scan the sheet, but the consistent numbers from our car, with nothing at all done to it, on a day that I spent tuning two very modified R53s, are as follows:

209 hp
238 lb/ft



These are at the wheels numbers, and can be replicated. All runs were done in fourth gear. The car was at operating temp, but other than that and A/F ratio, I can't know what was going on! The R56 won't let me look at its OBDII data (gotta figure that one out). The dyno is a DynoJet, which is optimistic, but still! I have rarely seen a car highly modified make those numbers in the R53 world.

For comparison, the two cars I tuned were both highly modified. The first was a car with our intake, 15% SC pulley, 2% crank pulley, GRS intercooler, JCW injectors, WMS head/cam, ported Milltek header and cat-back, and custom tuned Unichip. The highest run of the day was 210hp and 176 lb/ft of torque (and that was data logged with decent IAT and coolant temps). The next was a JCW with Alta intake, Alta big top mount (not DFIC), Unichip and JCW exhaust with the resonator removed. This car with the custom tune was able to make 196 hp and 166 lb/ft of torque at operating temp for coolant and IAT.

I will try to scan the sheet so it can be viewed. Even if we apply a 12% correction factor for driveline loss, this is a 235 horsepower car, stock!!!! I didn't believe it either, but the numbers are what they are, and I have witnesses .

More to follow...

 

Ok, now I want one

Nik

 

Ya know Randy when I drive my stock 05 S it feels like a 160-170 hp car, but when I drove the Schomp demo it just felt so much more powerful. Mike @Schomp claims a bone-stock 07 S will outrun and outperform anything previously made by MINI, and any mod thru Stage II.

If your numbers are correct, i'm beginning to believe him. But that's quite a dif, 170 vs 235, and at altitude as well. Keep us posted. JB

 

holy carp randy!! *fall off chair*
I'm an optimist and r56 owner myself and those numbers seem unreal.

So there is no confusion - you are talking about a bone stock R56 correct?

You may want to rerun those numbers again to see if they are reproducable on a different day. They are absolutely amazing. Please post the graph asap!

I hope you are wearing your firemans suit!

 

Randy, I think there must have been a special "Randy Webb" option checked off that you didn't know about when you ordered the car...lol. These numbers are ridiculous. can't wait to hear more updates.

Amit

 

Interesting peak numbers Randy. I look forward seeing how my R56 does on the dyno. I wonder why the Helix13 dyno shows such different peak numbers?

By the way what were the AFRs you were seeing?
Thanks,
Cheers,
Ryan

 

Facinating numbers indeed. When I drove the '07 at sea level here in Virginia recently, I finished up, climbed out, and said...yep, I'm keepin' mine! It's possible I'm experiencing more power and speed, but with all the noise so subdued, perhaps mine just sounds faster?? Just a thought on that matter anyhow.

Randy, I can only imagine you'd see a somewhat similar delta in numbers for your first set of tests there between the '02 and an '06, strictly on the shorter gearing. I guess time will tell. Of course none of my thoughts explain the dyno numbers.

 

This was a bone stock R56 on a DynoJet. It was warm here today too! I used SAE correction, but that is what I have always used, and the R53 numbers I posted used the same correction. I know Helix posted uncorrected data, and it is a pessimistic (but plenty usable) Mustang dyno.

I will post the graphs tomorrow when I go back to the shop. I have to scan them in first.

The A/F ratio was right in the 13/1 area - leaner than the R53 runs. They didn't translate to the graph though. You'll see what I mean when I post it.

I plan to run the car again, and again, and again! I was blown off the seat too!

Amit - that's funny! My wife and I wondered the same thing, as it would be british of them to make a different set up! It is amazing, and anyone that has driven in it, or next to it, or tried to stay with it at a light (WMS does not condone street racing - we do all of our testing on a closed course with professional drivers) can attest to the speed of the car (so far, ficcion, MINIMAX and Nate have all witnessed the power).

Still more to come!

Randy

 

That is awesome! Mine is due to port on the 29th, as if I was not already anxious enough! Now I REALLY cant wait! :impatient

 

I thought we were talking about cars?



Minihune, know any place on the island with a dyno? I may have to go try it. I wasn't that interested until Randy posted those numbers, now I gotta know!

 

Quote:

209 hp
238 lb/ft

Reminds me of the stories about Detroit underating the HP on the muscle cars during the late 60's and early 70's for insurance purposes.

 

These numbers are off the scale compared to the dyno at Helix: https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...ad.php?t=93269
Somebody please interpret what the differences are.

 

Like I said, the differences are the dyno, the correction factor, obviously the car - just about every variable you could have is there.

The important thing to me is to have repeatable data to look at changes, not total numbers. I have never seen these kind of numbers from a MINI though. Only the Mule or a TK car has even come close.

Hope that helps!
Randy

PS - I promise to post the chart tomorrow! Hopefully my witnesses will be comfortably back in Salt Lake City too and vouch for me (both cars were from Utah that I did tunes on)!

 

Wow! Wished I wasn't at work today and could have come over for the dyno run.

There is no doubt the R56 is a monster, dyno or not. The converts will be quickly coming to the R56. We knew the number would be big! It will be fun to see how consistent it is from car to car. Mine gets to California on the 20th. (Darn MFSW!!!!!)

 

OK I want one, now

 

R53 G-Stock
R56 B-Stock??? Holy Shizl!

 

...and the responce from the GTI community:

 

I really want to believe those numbers but they seem ridiculously high.

Comparing it back to back to a known modded r53 so it seems like it could be possible is almost cruel =P

The one thing I know for sure is how it feels when I mash the go pedal. The numbers won't make a difference for that!

In the computer world people get bragging rights by the speed (hp) of their CPU.. What really matters is "does the game run smooth?"

 

I'm not familiar with the SAE dyno correction process but wouldn't you need to use different numbers for a turbo car? In other words won't the turbo car effectively change the altitude to sea level, at least until the turbo is maxed out? If you use sea level altitude correction numbers would that make the R56 closer to MINIs rating? Of course the advantage is still there for everyone running in the thin air.

Update:

This link seems to think that maybe would be better with the sea level correction numbers:
http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/ed..._technobabble/

Not criticising Randy, just trying to make sense of this.

 

For what it's worth; on my MM2urbo R53 I had a state of tune on I kept for a while, which was with a GT2871R at 13psig. The torque was in the mid 230's wLb-Ft SAE similar to what Randy posted. My R56 may be quick for a stock car, but it does NOT pull anywhere near as hard as my MM2urbo did at that level. I tuned MM2urbo to more torque than that, but I didn't drive around town with more than 230 wLb-Ft, it was too insane. Granted, my R56 is about 200 pounds heavier, but with a passenger MM2urbo would scare people even with 230 wLb-Ft.

I'm going to go on a limb here Randy and say you've run across an interesting exception in generic SAE correction. I think the turbo engine in the R56 is making more power per the elevation versus the R53, but correcting to SAE may no longer give accurate results with the R56. Can you get the uncorrected data from the dyno? I'd bet that it's pretty similar to the uncorrected data Helix13 got with krut's R56. I think elevation or even all atmospheric conditions may be compensated for by the R56's ECU...call it a hunch.

Cheers,
Ryan