Well, that explains my 0-60 times. 4 runs, average 5.7 seconds. About what our SRT4 was doing.

I'll bring mine to the dyno asap.

BS? No way, DS would make more sense, if there were any changes. My guess is that it will stay in GS until the SEB/SAC decides to move all of the Cooper Ss to DS. They probably don't want MINIs in 4 classes with a chance to win 3.

Per

 

Per: 5.7s 0-60 is pretty hot! Thanks for posting your results!

 

Yea, the trick is to allow just enough wheelspin to keep the revs up. I tested using our Vericom VC2000, but the results are similar on more average g-meters like the Escort G-timer. All four runs were under 6 seconds, dry conditions, 75 degrees, 1/4 tank of gas.

 

:-O

<falls to floor... twitches slightly... gets back up>

OK... phew! Now I want one.

BTW, I wonder what the new JCW Kit (the cheap one that was just released) would do to these numbers?!

If the kit is supposed to add 17hp (as advertised) then could we expect 209+17 = 226hp from that kit?

Either way, I am on the wagon now... I want one!

<stubbles off muttering like Yosemite Sam 'fraga laga 235lbft daganabit!'>

~RM2K5

 

[quote=RallyMINI2005;1419153<stubbles off muttering like Yosemite Sam 'fraga laga 235lbft daganabit!'>[/quote]



dean.

 

I know we have the results from Helix, but has there been any dyno runs done over in Europe with result that we can compare? These numbers seem insane, and if true, the R56 Cooper S will get a lot of attention from the tuner community.

 

Well I am one of the witness!! I watched as this car pulled 209 at the wheel. My car, a 2004 JCW was on the dyno only 5 minutes before the R56. The only thing I can say is it really dosnt matter what the SAE correction is, you can see what are R53 pulled with the SAE correction and then see what the R56 pulled with the same correction, The R56 was 209 at the wheel and 70 more foot pounds of torgue than are R53 did. There are some small corrections in the list of mods that my JCW had but it really dosnt matter. It was a great day with Randy and cant wait for Vegas!

 

Interesting...

How about doing the same dyno test with a 2005+ MCS (Revised gearing) either stock, pullied, JCW? How about a GP?

 

For accurate dyno information about the 2007 Mini and many other cars see: http://www.rri.se/popup/performanceg...p?ChartsID=690
Then explore their site in detail.
If you are serious about dynos consider a Dynapack. (Lucky Dog Garage owns the four wheel drive model.) I have access to two of them and when a customer really wants to get serious we use a SuperFlow engine dyno.

 

Randy, probably you have seen these '07 R56 MCS vs '06 MCS (Both stock) dyno test results from the other thread:

https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...79#post1419279

These dyno results for the R56 seem to contradict your findings of 209HP/238 Pounds feet of torque at the wheel in your own stock R56.

You did say that at altitude the turbocharger appears to work at a greater (I would say incredibly high) degree of efficiency. So if I am understanding correctly, if you drive a R56 at 4,000-6,000 ft elevation you will automatically obtain a 22% gain in horsepower and 34% gain in torque respectively (Over stated figures)?

That is simply amazing! Why bother spending another $2K on a stage 1 JCW kit if the car already performs up to that level right out of the box.

I am not casting doubt over your tests, but something doesn't jive here. In the RRI dyno test results, their stock R56 MCS posted numbers very close to factory specs.

Last question.... What kind of gas you used in both test cars?

Very interesting indeed. Keep it coming.

 

Could've fooled me.

 

Thank you for your advertisement Don; we'll call you, don't call us.

 

All three cars were using standard 91 octane fuel.

 

I've kind of got to agree with nextmoon/frankinmiami/c4 here, something seems off...

considering:

• it seems like someone would have reported dynoing a 200 HP stock R56 MCS before now.
• R56 with JCW stage 1 (intake, exhaust, ECU) is rated at 192bhp and torque 184lbf-ft
• Rumors continue that MINI is having issues getting beyond 200 HP with the 1.6L and the current turbo. Word is they are strongly considering boring out to 1.8L to get the full JCW kit up to 230 HP.

I'd love it to be true that MINI was grossly underrating the R56 MCS, but something seems off.

This does make me wish I was back in Denver though to be a witness to the R56 development with Randy and ficcion though (insert flashback to late 2002 and early 2003 here).

 

It's just the correction factor. You just can use it for turbos. It's like giving it a 20% advantage when it already has a 20% advantage.

What is significant is that the R56 at this altitude is stronger than those modded R53s. There should be no question about that.

 

I feel the explaination is in the elevation of Denver versus the SAE standard; the turbo is running at the same boost is would at sea level, which means the SAE correction factor taking into account the elevation is not relevant anymore. That's my take on it, and it would explain the very high numbers Randy and his dyno are seeing for just the R56.

 

I just posted our dyno numbers on our project car page. They're a little more in line with what I would expect.

Per

 

Not sure if this needs more explaining but why not beat the horse more...

For example (all numbers made up and at the wheel):

At sea level the R56 has 160 HP
At sea level the modded R53 has 210 HP

At altitude the R56 still has 160 HP uncorrected
At altitude the modded R53 has 160HP uncorrected

The R56 doesn't need correcting because it's HP is the same at those altitudes. The R53s is not, so SAE says apply their correction factors and you will get a sea level number of 210HP.

So while Randy's numbers are 100% valid to compare at his altitude, the R56 is like a 210HP sea level R53 at a mile altitude, they can't be used for a general reference, unless you never leave Denver.

 

That sounds correct to me inomis. Now we need Randy to post the uncorrected dyno data to confirm our theory.

 

Thank you Ryan.

 

Question for Randy/Ryan:

Can supercharged engines compensate for power loss at alttitude?

 

C4 I noticed that when I took my 05 S to the top of Mt Evans (14,110 ft, highest paved road in the US) W of Denver last year I did not notice any huge loss of power, it just whined and pulled its way to the top (other vehicles were getting in the way tho.) Unlike my Toyota PU, which really struggles, esp. above 13,000 feet. JB

 

C4: No, supercharged and naturally aspirated engines cannot compensate for elevation change. The supercharged can't because the blower is on a fixed Pressure Ratio, meaning it can only compress so much based on the atmospheric pressure. Naturally aspirated engines can only suck in as much as there is atmospheric pressure [ignoring special intake manifolds that have a supercharging effect for sake of the point]. Turbocharged setups however can be controlled by the ECU to always output a certain torque level, no matter the atmospheric conditions. This would make elevation correction moot for a turbo engine.

HTH,
Ryan

 

Good observations about the turbo still able to produce the same hp at altitude..

now if we could make the turbo think it is at altitude when in fact it is at sea level.....

 

Simple, just add wings to your R56 and it will take off...