What's everyone's thought on this compare?? Which engine is best? Overall performance?

 

The turbo should make better power once the bugs are sorted out of the new drivetrain. But, 2 cars with the same power, the smarter driver should take the R53 because it will make power in a linear fashion and be a lot more driveable. The turbo will be fighting lag for a bit.

 

+1 for R53. First, SC would have a linear power output like what hemiheaded said. Also, R53 has much better option to be modded and played with, the SC pulley is the first and best to think of. I Beleive and not sure, the R53 is lighter and maybe have less aero drage because the R56 face is wider.

On the other hand, the fact that the turbo does NOT load the engine with a pulley or so (unlike the SC), is another thing.

IMO, R53 have the biggest chances to win and be modded.

 

As a member of the $20k+ mod club, my vote goes to the R53.

I could have bought a lot of cars with $50 grand!

 

I don't know - looking at the horsepower/torque plots for the two cars, I think I'd give my eyeteeth for the R56 torque (much higher torque than the R53, and it reaches about 90% of peak torque by 1800 rpm.)

R56 development in the aftermarket is still in its early stages, but I believe that over time, we're going to discover that for any desired horsepower/torque goal, it's going to be easier and cheaper to reach that goal with the turbo engine.

(Still love my supercharged MINI, though!)

 

You've never driven Jan's 2.0 Stroker .

I think I'd rather have 220 lb-ft of torque from 2k-6k, and a peak of 260 lb-ft. That's on a motor that doesn't fall flat on it's face at 5k RPM's (I rev my motor out to 8k, Jan I think to 7600). I think the R53 has a lot more personality to it too. Without the supercharger, it just doesn't sound like a MINI!

 

The OP was just asking about the R53 JCW versus the R56 JCW, and those were the horsepower/torque curves I was talking about.

I've got no doubt that the most powerful MINIs on the road *today* are supercharged, but give the aftermarket five years to experiment/develop with the R56, and I still stand by my prediction.

EDIT - Oh, and for the original poster, check out this thread - five different MINIs (R50, R53, R53 JCW, R53 GP, and R56 'S'), all bone-stock, same dyno, same day. The results are enlightening.

 

I would like to add one thing. I know someone who's working on the ECU development in Mini plant. I'm quoting him here:

With the NEWER MINI's you'll have no chance of changing to a non factory specified parts, cuz all the ECU's are linked and talk to each other, and if one of them so much as changes a digit you wont even get the thing started!

As per him too, most or even all the aftermarket ECU changes done to the R56 are just "translators". This means that they neve touch the real ECU software, they have to hook other parts that interfere between the engine and the original ECU and translate orders and feedbacks.

This is one of my points for going to R53 over R56. I love R53, easier to mod, maintain, smaller size, and other simple things than the R56. I think. simplicity is the key to all peoples' love to R53.

PS:Even the look, yesterday a hyper blew R56 passed by me and my friend in my MCS. HE just said: MAN! Your's are much sexiers!

 

the R56 is lighter. and for what I have read, the R56 (non JCW) has the same power than the R53 JCW. the r56 JCW improves tq over the r56, so I don't know how the R53 will be the right choise.
and I have a R53, but I know the turbo engine give more power even at high revs, so we can drive between 5000 and 6900rpm with the R53 but never will reach the 200cv the R56 stock has.

then if you talk about mods.. pulley for the SC will give those +20cv. and ECU for the TC will give +/- 25cv. talking about first and cheap mods

 

? the r56 mcs has ~172hp, vs 210hp for the late version jcw r53. do you mean on the dyno and at the wheel they make the same amount of power? the r56 mcs is about as quick around the lap as a jcw r53

i for one strongly prefers the jcw r53, even tho i like the new stage 2 jcw a lot. mostly 'cuz i'm partial to r53's, not 'cuz of s/c vs. turbo. s/c is mechanically a bit simpler but it does put more load on the motor and is a bit heavier. the turbo is more elegant. has anyone put a bov on a mini yet?

 

Lots of misinformation in this thread guys. The R56 is insignificantly lighter than the R53. Something in the range of 20-30 lbs. With some lighter rims you've already made up for that...

While the R56 does dyno close to the 170 HP output it states (only 10-12 HP off from where most R53's are dynoing stock), most of the perceived increase in speed has to do with the way a turbo delivers power vs a SC.

A Supercharger delivers power from the start of the rev to redline. A Turbo will always have some type of delay (Doesn't matter if it makes peak power at 700 RPM's or 5k rpm's, the delay is just longer). It takes TIME to spool the turbines up so regardless of RPM, the perceived time that goes by from when the pedal is pushed and the car has power is always going to exist.

A turbo that spools off idle also by design will stop producing power higher in the rev range. This is why past 5k RPM's the R56 feels dead.

The R56 also develops a lot more peak torque than the R53 stock. Torque is HUGE for "Feeling Fast".

I'm not sure where you're reading that stock R53's are outpacing R56's on the track. On every track I've ever been on, suspension has been 30% with about 60% driver and 10% power. On a tight, twisty track it doesn't matter if you make 500 HP or 70 HP, suspension and driver skill are what matters.

An R53 with a good set of coilovers will out handle any R56 on the road. Put the same coilovers on the R56 and you'll likely have the same effect. For all intents and purposes the cars chassis are completely identical save for a higher center of gravity on the R56. There are also a few minor weight differences that amount to basically the same thing as going on a diet for a week and wearing some lightweight clothes and shoes.

 

The ECU in the R56 has been fully unlocked and mapped. Your friend at MINI is mistaken. It's a fairly recent occurance, so it's possible he just has old information. But I don't even understand the part about the ECU's being linked and talking to each other. There's only one ECU in the car.

I own an R53 and R56, and love driving both of them, but if I could only keep one, it would be the R56. I had budgeted 10-12K to mod the R53, but then I got a chance to go out on the track in a R56 JCW Stage 1 car, and was instantly hooked.

My stock R56 made 210 ft/lbs of TQ, and I'm working with Waylen at WayMotorWorks to try and reach 225 ft/lbs (my goal, not his) while keeping the car fully STX legal.

 

I went from an '05 JCW to an '06 Porsche Cayman S to an '07 stage 1 JCW to a modded '05 MCS.I've learned it's not just about speed but feel and sound for the most driving pleasure IMO. I'm ordering an '08 JCW MCSC before the deadline so I can drive the supercharger as long as possible.I'm hoping the next generation gets the "go cart" feel back. The R56 is a great car but it lost the asthetics and "feel". The stage 2 will be even faster, but not as fun as the R52/53.

 

While a supercharger does deliver power immediately, it also has to overcome its parasitic loss before it starts adding power to the equation. Because it's still linear, people tend to not consider it when compared to the power jump when the turbo kicks in, but it's definitely still there. No such thing as a free lunch

 

I know it's still there, but parasitic losses aside, we're still making M45 cars with 300 BHP.

 

The R53 motos suck below about 3k RPM. The small turbo on the R56 minimizes lag, spools quick, but also chokes off the car at very high RPM. It's in the early stages of it's aftermarket evolution.

So with the R56 you get a bit of lag, but peak torque much lower than the R53. With the R53, you get no lag, but crappy torque till past 2500 RPM.

But to the original poster, it's really a personal preference kind of thing. Depending on where you look, the performance is similar. The feel is different. And that's where the decision lies.

Matt

 

Meh, I'd much rather have a bell shaped curve than a hill shaped one. Most of Jan's tuned cars are making 185+ wheel lb-ft of torque from 2500 - about 6k anyway.

 

Perhaps, but that has absolutely nothing to do with your original point. You were talking about lag

 

. . and cost (if that's a factor). An R56 factory JCW will run you almost $29k with no options -- and you'll want, at a minimum to get the JCW suspension (factory car comes out with Standard suspension -- not even Sport!!) -- so it'll add up fast.

By the way -- there seem to be 2 different discussions going on here.
1) comparing R53 JCW vs. R56 JCW
2) comparing potential of R53 (with aftermarket work like that being done by Jan) with potential modding of R56 to this point
-- this second discussion may be academic and of no use to the OP if he's not looking to do extensive modding with aftermarket headers and tuning

 

doesnt the R56 JCW make only 192Bhp? and the R53 makes 212 in JCW trim. Buck for buck, I'd buy a used R53 JCW and be under the base price of a new R56. Something was mentioned about torque, the turbo R56 has no lag from what I have test drove. Even though some people may say the supercharger whine is what makes a Mini, let us not forget that a few classics came turbo, not supercharged. Technically there, the supercharger would be making it sound less Mini.

 

when DimSport allows for hacking the R56....

Matt

 

Academic not to mention premature and pointless. With enough money you can make gobs of power out of a turd.

 

roaduscarnivorous I mean the R56's are between 195-205hp.
the R53 is between 160-165hp stock. so the difference is there.
if the jcw clamis 210 (at crank) then we can say the R56 and R53JCW are close in terms of power.

about the R53 below 3k.. so what? if you drive below 3k then you should buy another car.
you can have a lot of tq at 1800rpm, but tq is not all! it is the torque and the rpm, then you have the final power.
for street/city driving is great to have that tq delivery at low rpm, but that does not give you more power or better 0-60 time.
cars like the R53 or R56 give the best results from 3500-5000rpm, because like I said, the final power allways will be higher at higher rpms, then if you want acceleration, you wont drive at 2000rpms

 

Knowing Dimsport that may take a while.

I know Jan's been on their *** about getting it done.

I'm sort of concerned that everyone is going to be disappointed when it comes to just how much power you can squeeze out of the R56. Look at JCW, look how long it's taken them to make 205 or so wheel HP on the car, and that required a new transmission, new pistons, new head, cams, etc.

They basically reengineered the whole drivetrain to accommodate another 25-30 HP. It could mean problems for R56 folks who want to increase power without doing some of the things they did.

I've already heard things off the rumor mill about transmission failures and other issues related to power increases on the R56.

Only time will tell.

 

They already do, for some people.