Chipping a normal motor will make no difference...

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Maybe Mike meant Naturally Aspirated Fuel Injected engine? LOL! I doubt it though. The Supercharged mini is obviously going to benefit from remapping though.

[Mike Edwards 0]

My comment on the Mini One was more to do with the suspicion that Marketing had decreed a level of engine performance to seperate it from the Cooper.

 

As they hve the same engine perhaps its not all that surprising.

[G100extreme 0]

an increase of a little over 8bhp even though the temperature was more than 10 degrees centigrade warmer

 

I've always found that when the air temp goes up (on a fuel injected car) the power drops. More space between all the air molecules means less molecules of air to burn for a measured volume of charge (hot air is less dense, which is why hot air balloons work). This usually means less power...

 

Heard of an intercooler? its to get around that problem.

 

:)

 

frank

[Mike Edwards 0]

Yes - that was my point.

 

Even though the temperature was over 10 degrees hotter there was an at-the-wheel increase of just over 8bhp.

[Mike Edwards 0]

Oh - and the Mini One is normally aspirated.

 

But chipping it gives Cooper-like performance (also normally aspirated)suggesting that the difference is purely due to model seperation by Marketing types.

 

Cooper S is supercharged - most sellers of remaps seem to be claiming a 5% increase with no other changes.

 

Matching it to a 15% smaller pulley seems to up this to >20% (about 200bhp calculated at the flywheel).

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Are you going all Mini on us Mike?

[Mike Edwards 0]

Still planning to keep the VR6 to fiddle with.

 

But there is a LOT that you can do to a Mini - and as they're common as muck you don't feel as if you're destroying something unique.

 

I'm planning that this years resolution will be to restrain myself from killing anyone who "Chav's" a Corrado*... :mad:

 

*Note: I'm not including L450 KBW in that list, but I've seen several in the last year where both the car and owner deserve to be :onfire: !

[beavis 0]

There is plenty of power to be unleashed in the cooper 's'. Ours ran 192bhp on the rolllers at Stealth on stock pulley with only one or two little mods. Old BMW leave the adjustment on the vacume opperated boost return valve slightly open so boost does not exceed 9psi. Slight tweeking increses peak boost to 11psi. Small pulley and remap going on in the new year, hopfully hit the 200bhp mark easierly. We have got a couple of heads we gonna have a play with as well, see what gains can be achived in that area.

The intercoolers on them are actually very efficent. Pre intercooler temps temp peak as high as 120'c out of the eaton, g laders peak aboout 60-70'c in comparison, post intercooler temps peak about 40'c which is pretty impressive considering the size and location of the intercooler.

LOL.. ye you have less of a contience cutting the mini's about rather than old classics. Ours has just covered over 40k in 16months, we have highlighted quite a few week points in this time, suspention being the most pronounced, the razor sharp tail end happy handling has slowly digressed to dull understeer.. :(

[G100extreme 0]

On the subjecto of charge cooling to increase usable oxygen to burn...

 

I've been playing with one of those peltier (TEC) cooling devices- put 12V in, and you basically get cold out- no moving parts. I wonder how efficient it would be to get a stack of them, bolted to a large headsink, after the intercooler, and then chill down the air to really cold, like -10 or something... The specific heat capacity of air is fairly low, so i don't think the power demand would be that high- only a marginal load on the alternator (and I guess you could switch on only for WOT).

If the density of the air could be increased by only say 10%, that would probably give an extra 10% more power... without doing the maths (similar to what they do on military aircraf jets engines).

 

Ok, so at 6000 RPM at WOT, assuming no losses on a 4 cyl 2L engine, that would be 6000/60 is 100 per sec. For 4 stroke 100/2 =50 cylinder sucks per sec. Each cyl is 0.5L gives 50 X 0.5 is 25 litres of air a second (or X 60 1.5 cubic metres of air a minute.... Anyone know the specific heat capacity of air at normal pressure...? :lol:

Thoughts anyone?

 

-f

[PhatVR6 0]

so how do AMD get 270 BHP out of the R32 with a remap then?

[Mike Edwards 0]

Advance the timing and smooth out the fuelling curve to ensure it never runs lean?

[G60JAY 0]

So what about the mk3 16v golf that was released with 150hp as stardard but produced 170hp+ with just a chip change.I heard the engine was limited to not compete with the vr6 golf which had 174hp. :?:

[G100extreme 0]

So what about the mk3 16v golf that was released with 150hp as stardard but produced 170hp+ with just a chip change.I heard the engine was limited to not compete with the vr6 golf which had 174hp. :?:

 

I hadn't heard about this... Is this true? Or did they just up the RPM to get the extra, or was it across the band? What is the difference mechanically?

 

The basic 16V is a superb engine, which is why the 2L block is used in so many variations. If it is possible to get 170+ out of the standard normally aspirated engine, then with a G60, the power available would be obscene. I mean with such a lightweight engine, with all that power... Hang on didn't VW make a golf with that spec... :) but like only about 75 cars or something- worth quite a bit now...

 

G60Jay, what are you running? A VR6 4motion system (chipped?)?

 

-f

[davidwort 0]

The basic 16V is a superb engine, which is why the 2L block is used in so many variations. If it is possible to get 170+ out of the standard normally aspirated engine, then with a G60, the power available would be obscene.

 

 

well, although the 4cyl VW/audi bottom end is pretty much bullet proof the 16v head is not a masterpiece for performance, although it is generally acknowledged that you can get 170bhp from an ABF (mk3 16v) quite easily without wild cams or major headwork. I think the minor improvements over the 6A/9A Corrado/Passat/Audi 80 2.0 16v plus the fully electronic fuel injection does produce a good improvement.

 

The golf G60 Limited was an 1800 16v with a G60, but only 210bhp, difficult to get the G60 charger to last very long at the higher revs it needs to spin to get more power than that and the charger is just not really big enough for larger engines.

 

David.

[G100extreme 0]

The basic 16V is a superb engine, which is why the 2L block is used in so many variations. If it is possible to get 170+ out of the standard normally aspirated engine, then with a G60, the power available would be obscene.

 

 

well, although the 4cyl VW/audi bottom end is pretty much bullet proof the 16v head is not a masterpiece for performance, although it is generally acknowledged that you can get 170bhp from an ABF (mk3 16v) quite easily without wild cams or major headwork. I think the minor improvements over the 6A/9A Corrado/Passat/Audi 80 2.0 16v plus the fully electronic fuel injection does produce a good improvement.

 

The golf G60 Limited was an 1800 16v with a G60, but only 210bhp, difficult to get the G60 charger to last very long at the higher revs it needs to spin to get more power than that and the charger is just not really big enough for larger engines.

 

David.

 

I guess that's why you'd need a G100 or similar :D

 

-frank

PS, I wonder what is the theoretical limit you could get out of a standard 2L block before it went pop... Anyone done any experiments with dynos out there? Perhaps 10kRPM and 500HP? Mmmm that would be interesting... You need 4WD and some very high gearing...

[G60JAY 0]

I hadn't heard about this... Is this true? Or did they just up the RPM to get the extra, or was it across the band? What is the difference mechanically?

 

The power increase would have most probably meant a increase in the rpm but from what i heard there was a increase throughout the band aswell.

[Mike Edwards 0]

The turbocharged BMW Formula 1 engine of the 1980s was a 1.5l engine - based on a standard production block - that made 1200bhp in qualifying trim.

 

Apparently until they got the power output up past 700-800bhp the only modifications the block required were opening up the oilways...

[G100extreme 0]

The turbocharged BMW Formula 1 engine of the 1980s was a 1.5l engine - based on a standard production block - that made 1200bhp in qualifying trim.

 

Apparently until they got the power output up past 700-800bhp the only modifications the block required were opening up the oilways...

 

Ah yes those were the days.... That was when an engine had to produce power. The best we ever managed from a 1.5L N/A (Fiat engine) was about 200... but with lots of mods (and lots of blown headgaskets). And that was at about 7500RPM. Those old 1.5 F1 engines used to rev up to about 25k didn't they. It was the old problem of having too large a combustion chamber for the burn time available. Micheal May from Jaguar solved that one back in the 80's. Smaller chambers, higher compression with the chmaber just under the exhaust valves. Mind you I guess its obvious really- thats why you now get 2.5L V8s. Smaller pots, lower burn time, higher revs, more power... Half a litre cylinders are now considered too large to burn quickly/completely at 6000 RPM. I guess the old aero style engines with twin plugs is possible. I never studied what happens when two flame fronts "collide"... Actually there's that new style plug that has gas jets built in, to distribute the flame more evenly. Dunno much about them though.

 

-f

[Big-ted 0]

On the subjecto of charge cooling to increase usable oxygen to burn...

 

I've been playing with one of those peltier (TEC) cooling devices- put 12V in, and you basically get cold out- no moving parts. I wonder how efficient it would be to get a stack of them, bolted to a large headsink, after the intercooler, and then chill down the air to really cold, like -10 or something... The specific heat capacity of air is fairly low, so i don't think the power demand would be that high- only a marginal load on the alternator (and I guess you could switch on only for WOT).

If the density of the air could be increased by only say 10%, that would probably give an extra 10% more power... without doing the maths (similar to what they do on military aircraf jets engines).

 

Ok, so at 6000 RPM at WOT, assuming no losses on a 4 cyl 2L engine, that would be 6000/60 is 100 per sec. For 4 stroke 100/2 =50 cylinder sucks per sec. Each cyl is 0.5L gives 50 X 0.5 is 25 litres of air a second (or X 60 1.5 cubic metres of air a minute.... Anyone know the specific heat capacity of air at normal pressure...? :lol:

Thoughts anyone?

 

-f

 

About 1.005kJ/kgK @20 degrees C (293K)

 

I'm doubtful wether this would work. Peltiers drain a pretty large amount of power. when used to cool cpu chips 300W is not uncommon. I suspect you'd need a pretty large device to cool the volume of air we're talking about here, to the point where the power drain renders your efforts pointless. I am surprised to hear they use them on aircraft though. Perhaps here the available power outputs make it more worthwhile, as the fractioanl power drain is almost negligeable?

 

It takes a (admittedly relatively small) Peltier about 30mins to temperature stabilise a diode laser to around 17C (so only around a +5C temperature gradient) in ambient conditions, so I don't think a system whereby you activate the Peltier only at WOT would be that effective either.

 

I dunno. Colling chips is very different to cooling engines!

[G100extreme 0]

On the subjecto of charge cooling to increase usable oxygen to burn...

 

I've been playing with one of those peltier (TEC) cooling devices- put 12V in, and you basically get cold out- no moving parts. I wonder how efficient it would be to get a stack of them, bolted to a large headsink, after the intercooler, and then chill down the air to really cold, like -10 or something... The specific heat capacity of air is fairly low, so i don't think the power demand would be that high- only a marginal load on the alternator (and I guess you could switch on only for WOT).

If the density of the air could be increased by only say 10%, that would probably give an extra 10% more power... without doing the maths (similar to what they do on military aircraf jets engines).

 

Ok, so at 6000 RPM at WOT, assuming no losses on a 4 cyl 2L engine, that would be 6000/60 is 100 per sec. For 4 stroke 100/2 =50 cylinder sucks per sec. Each cyl is 0.5L gives 50 X 0.5 is 25 litres of air a second (or X 60 1.5 cubic metres of air a minute.... Anyone know the specific heat capacity of air at normal pressure...? :lol:

Thoughts anyone?

 

-f

 

About 1.005kJ/kgK @20 degrees C (293K)

 

I'm doubtful wether this would work. Peltiers drain a pretty large amount of power. when used to cool cpu chips 300W is not uncommon. I suspect you'd need a pretty large device to cool the volume of air we're talking about here, to the point where the power drain renders your efforts pointless. I am surprised to hear they use them on aircraft though. Perhaps here the available power outputs make it more worthwhile, as the fractioanl power drain is almost negligeable?

 

It takes a (admittedly relatively small) Peltier about 30mins to temperature stabilise a diode laser to around 17C (so only around a +5C temperature gradient) in ambient conditions, so I don't think a system whereby you activate the Peltier only at WOT would be that effective either.

 

I dunno. Colling chips is very different to cooling engines!

 

Thnx big ted. So if the mass of 1L of air at ambient is about 1g, 1500L works out at 1.5kg. Mmmm, ok so I guess that is about 1500W per minute. Yup that wont work... and that's to drop the temp by just a single degree. Dropping it by say 30C would be lots... I guess using liquid nitrogen may be more effective... :shock:

 

I guess this shows how much energy is released when you burn all the fuel. Its only when you convert from HP to kW, you start to appreciate how much power it takes to move a car...

 

-frank