Stock Mini Cooper S dyno results

This a local guy who's name is Ryan and from what I've read he's a guru with these cars and very well respected in the Mini community. He picked up his car in Cleveland about a week ago and has already dyno'd the car. He's also added some H&R springs and 18" ASA AR1's to it and dyno'd the car with them on, so take that into consideration when you check this out....BONE STOCK, LOOK AT THE TORQUE:drool:


Ryan is currently working on his own exhaust system since there really aren't any out yet and yes, they are expensive, demand is there, but not like an EVO or an STi where everyone want a cut of the mod money. I wonder how much more is in there with a simple, put together cat-back and CAI:shrug:

Im impressed with those numbers.

Not impressed. Still looks like a clown car

If I could swing the costs, I would consider it. My only issue is the fact it is wrong wheel drive.

My cousin has a Mini Cooper S and I have to admit, even though they do look like a clown car, it is easily one of the most fun cars that I have ever driven. And probably the best front wheel drive car that I have ever been in. They are quick and will handle like no other.....and plus its a 6 speed.

Which MCS is this? the old supercharged one or the New Turbocharged one?

monkey_matt said:

Which MCS is this? the old supercharged one or the New Turbocharged one?

Click to expand...

New 07 turbo


Yeah, I watched a mini cooper annihilate all at a track event! It was modded, yes, but it was still a street car!

I understand the "clown car" comments for sure, its a small car for sure, although a bit larger than the previous R53 but thats all relative:laugh: I actually had to go back there today to get my plate from the Crossfire and decided to take it for a 2nd test drive and I still can't get over how this thing pulls, even in 5th gear there's no need to downshift when passing and the steering, it makes you do things you wouldn't normally do, like take turnarounds at pretty fast speeds:laugh: I even got the car washed while I was out, seriously Now I hope this latest "fix" ties me over for another month when I finally get my car and experience this thing day in, day out!


BTW Steeda, you can't argue the numbers and that's a stock one w/o alot of miles or a single mod done to it. Its also a 1.6L w/ a VERY small turbo and its putting down that kinda of torque:shocked:

Direct injection correct?

Klasse Act said:

BTW Steeda, you can't argue the numbers and that's a stock one w/o alot of miles or a single mod done to it. Its also a 1.6L w/ a VERY small turbo and its putting down that kinda of torque:shocked:

Click to expand...

And a DSM puts out 215 ft-lbs of tourque for a 2.0 with a smallish turbo on an almost 20 year old designed engine. Granted the numbers you listed are to the wheels and the DSM numbers are to the crank...but they are very close neverless. Not that impressed with the engine power but I do hear they handle like a go-kart...guess that explains the size.

Looks like a stock turbo car w/ lots of low end torque dropping off quickly in the higher RPM's.

elraido said:

And a DSM puts out 215 ft-lbs of tourque for a 2.0 with a smallish turbo on an almost 20 year old designed engine. Granted the numbers you listed are to the wheels and the DSM numbers are to the crank...but they are very close neverless. Not that impressed with the engine power but I do hear they handle like a go-kart...guess that explains the size.

Click to expand...

IT'S 4/10TH's OF A LITER LESS!!!!!! Give me a break. Not bad at all. What are body weights of the 2 cars? Doubt the DSM was 2700 lbs.

DSM post FTL

See.. stock turbo dyno sheet... stupid upper RPM's.



I know the sheets a little confusing because there's boost, torque and HP.

todras said:

IT'S 4/10TH's OF A LITER LESS!!!!!! Give me a break. Not bad at all. What are body weights of the 2 cars? Doubt the DSM was 2700 lbs.

Click to expand...

2550 lbs for a 1G. It might be 4/10ths of a liter less but like I said it is almost 20 years newer in design.
Some places also say 2800 for a 1G....so it is way under 3000 to say the least.

Id drive one.. To bad the Dash is ugly as hell..

Honestly, i sat in one the other day and it made me so mad, WHY IS THE SPEEDO SO BIG?? and why is it in the center.. just stupid.

The speedo is bigger for the nav system and yes, its big! Its true the power drops off in the upper rpm and I'm of the belief its in the tune because this guy Ryan posted that its not putting down the high boost upstairs, again, safety for the motor by BMW and ofcoarse because of the size of turbo. I'm sure a bigger housing would help out, but then again you can't run that much boost because of the cars 10:5:1 compression ratio. This car is unlike any turbo car I've ever driven because the power is there RIGHT NOW:shocked: Now about the DSM with 215 ft/lbs of torque at the crank, close isn't close, get that car on the dyno and see what it puts down. I have provided the proof, not a guess or speculation and besides, the motor isn't even broken in yet:shrug:


Todd, thank you

Actually the newer direct injection engines can handle significant boost pressures even with high compression ratios due to the drastic cooling effect that the direct injection has.

Hence the reason you can run 17psi or whatever the heck a MS3 runs with it's also 10ish:1 compression ration.

really good numbers

Here, I'll let this guy Ryan break it down...

Here, I'll let this guy Ryan break it down...

I thought I'd share my latest information regarding the turbo in the R56 MCS [model year 2007+] The turbo is a Borg Warner K03, which has a maximum flow rate of 22.4 lb/min of air, which is good for up to 200 HP. This matches very well with the stock configuration of the MINI's 1.6L and 172 HP. Coupled with the aggressive 10.5:1 static compression ratio and direct injection fueling, the K03 is able to spool quickly and provide an excellent torque shelf across most of the engine's RPM band.

At the upper RPM's, the ECU opens the wastegate more and tapers the boost level to maintain about 170 HP from 5000 RPM to 6500 RPM. What that boost goes to and from is still unclear [until it's properly datalogged], however what is more prevalent is the combination of the ultra high compression ratio, DI, and the boost level in which the K03 achieves its max flow rate. To put it simply, the stock engine/turbo configuration on the R56 MCS will not be able to support over 200 HP not only due to the limitation of the turbo itself, but also a large risk of piston damage from detonation. Since I suspect the ECU is at least as good at avoiding knock as the R53's excellent system, the R56 MCS will reach a proverbial glass ceiling of power. My initial calculations show that about 16 pounds of boost will be all the stock engine will handle with the stock turbo. This 16psig ceiling is due to the high compression ratio in conjunction with the direct injection. However, this also means that a larger, more efficient turbo pressurizing the engine at 16 pounds of boost will make more power.


To get over 200 HP, there is really only one option:

*A turbo swap to something that flows more air more efficiently at the same or lower boost levels [similar to what I discovered on my MM2 Turbo Project going from supercharger to mis-matched turbo, mis-matched turbo to well-matched turbo [very low efficiency to good efficiency to very good efficiency]. A comparable Garrett model to the Borg Warner K03 is the Garrett GT2052, a very tiny turbo, about 3 families down the scale from the unit I installed in MM2. The K03 is the same type of turbo used in VW's old and famous 1.8T engine, used in Mk4 GTI's. It's a respectable piece, with excellent spool characteristics, it's just that it can't make a ton of power. My initial instinct is to call for either the Garrett GT2554R or GT2560R. Both of these turbo's will get the R56 MCS engine into the 230 and 260 HP range respectively while keeping under 16 pounds of boost.


To get over 260 HP, there is yet again only one option:

*new pistons with lower compression! Lowering the compression allows much greater boost to be run [thus making much more power] while maintaining that we use "only" 93 octane pump gas, which is the only acceptable solution for most of us. Obviously, having new low-compression pistons implemented will be timely and expensive, as the engine block should come out and the whole rotating assembly balanced. A reasonable expectation for "low-compression" R56 MCS pistons could be somewhere around 9.0:1. This would allow us to run up to 22 pounds of boost [Big power = 350 HP+!] while only sacrificing a bit of the R56's newfound fantastic fuel economy. Of course, all this is assuming the R56's fuel system are up to the job, and we can hack into the ECU system and control or at least manipulate it to our needs.

Fun times ahead!
Cheers,
Ryan