Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


citro last won the day on January 19 2018

citro had the most liked content!

About citro

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 10/13/1980

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

74 profile views
  1. citro

    Cylinder heads

    I also advise you to read my post on page 7 on that matter
  2. citro

    Cylinder heads

    I think you should take a look at this thread: http://www.minitorque.com/forum/f24/tpr2-vs-tpr2r-180066/index4.html
  3. Hi,BigBoSS. I honestly don't think you'll get that kind of numbers from a TVS or from a Sprintex. I guess that for you to have 330 Hp on a realistic dyno, you would have to have an 8000 RPM rev limit, fully balanced engine, and all the planets aligned. 300 Hp seems more plausible... again, in a realistic dyno. And you seem to want a reliable setup, so, the harder you push, the less reliable it will be. But if you buy the "350 reliable Hp you can trash all day" talk, then you're a believer Yes, you can tune a turbo car with boost by gear, etc, but that implies a standalone ECU, so, it's one more thing you have to consider. And unless you plan on putting slicks on the car, or wider tyres than the 205 OEM, you will have traction problems above that Hp rating. And this is already considering you have a good suspension. Hi, Sean. Back when I put the Sprintex, there was no TVS yet. I only have one example of a TVS car here in Portugal, so, not enough to draw a definitive conclusion. What I can tell you is, for my liking and application, I prefer the Sprintex. But don't forget that I don't track my car, this is my daily driver and the only car I own. So, for longevity and reliability issues, I'm probably not the best tester you could have. I'd say that, despite being more efficient than the M45, both also have heat issues and are rpm limited.
  4. Thanks, BigBoSS. Regarding the ICs, yeah, that would be ideal, but trust me, there was already a lot of work and hours for those numbers and tests to appear, so, most likely, other than any occasional data I might be able to gather without too much of an hassle, I don't see that happening. In what regards the Turbo vs TVS, it's as Blacky put it, it's two totally different things. For big HP numbers you can only go turbo. You do have to see how much of that power you tyres can diggest as well. The TVS or the Sprintex maintain the supercharger character, giving it a little bit more than the M45. I have this video of a Sprintex car with a 60mm pulley pulling. See if that helps: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1YUvfjCXGaeUiomXKC5SRDUCrFnz-w5Gd
  5. Stock crank size and 60mm pulley. But those values were uphill at WOT in 5th gear, so, it's not that sort of boost he sees in a third gear pull in a straight line, for instance, those values should me more in line with what you see on the charts above. Thought I should clarify that
  6. Thanks, mate. I think a FMIC would be similar to the chargecooler data, with slightly better IATs and slightly less boost. As for the belt slippage on the TVS, I can't tell for sure, to be honest, whereas on the GRS I have no doubts, as the boost drops abruptly after its peak. Especially on the 3rd to 5th gear pull, there's no way we can miss it
  7. So, first of all, I want to make some introductory notes which, while being obvious for some, might be of great value to others, who aren’t so technically inclined, or just simply haven’t had it explained this way. The Mini Cooper S R53, because of the way the intercooler sits on top of an already very tight and supercharged engine, once tuned, starts struggling with heat. While the coolant temperature is easy to address, installing a lower temperature thermostat, for instance, the Intake Air Temperature (from now on referred to as IAT) not so much. The Mini Cooper S R53 is not like the Mini Cooper S R56, in which you can “easily†get 70 ft-lb from a tune. The easiest way to notice a bump in performance on a Mini Cooper S is to install a reduction pulley on the supercharger (which is about the only mechanical way, along with the enlarged crank pulley, that you have to add more boost) and increase the rev limiter. But each of these mods will, in turn, demand more from the supercharger and take it beyond its optimal working range. Why? Because it will spin the supercharger faster, thus generating more heat. For you to have an idea, with the stock pulley and rev limit, at 6950 RPM, the supercharger is spinning at 14749 RPM. With a 17% reduction pulley installed, the supercharger will be spinning at 14749 RPMs at 5761 RPM, so, almost 1200 RPM down the rev range. At 7500 RPM, with the 17% reduction pulley, the supercharger will be spinning at 19200 RPM, which is 30% more than with the stock pulley at the stock rev limit (6950 RPM). We all know that manufacturers build stuff with tolerances, but 30% will always be 30%, and the supercharger’s flow chart/efficiency map are not merely indicative. The stock IC copes well with the original stock pulley and rev limiter, but it just can’t cope with a reduction pulley and higher rev limits, because it starts dealing not only with its own inefficiency, but with the supercharger’s as well. And why is this added heat so prejudicial? Well, not all air is equal... when you crank up the boost you will be generating more air, but because of the way the air is compressed, the air will present less density, thus the need to cool it down to increase density. Think of density as the air’s quality. That’s why in a colder day/night, the car responds better than in a warmer day/night... the air density is better. So, now that we understand that with more heat comes more responsibility, it’s time to address the variable we can address... the intercooler! We have different intercooler systems (Top-mount; Chargecooler; and Front-Mount) available to our Mini Cooper S R53, each with their advantages and disadvantages. I don’t want to go to great lengths exploring all the different solutions between the 3 types of available systems, so I’ll focus on the more generic ones and sum it up like this: Top-mount: Advantages: Easy installation; Maintenance free; Plug and Play Disadvantages: Worse in keeping intake temperatures down Front-mount: Advantages: Good at keeping intake temperatures down Disadvantages: Loss of boost due to piping re-routing. Not plug and play; many require A/C removal. Chargecooler: Advantages: Good at keeping intake temperatures down Disadvantages: Not plug and play; Adds the weight of the water from the circuit; the electric water pump; external reservoir and the radiator; May lose a little bit of boost when compared to some top-mounts. I decided to do this review because I was going crazy with the fact that there was no data available on the Pro-Alloy Top-Mount intercooler, which had a unique design and, from my understanding, all it needed to perform quite well. Thing is, not only we had no data, as there was some kind of criticism in the air regarding fitting, but without being very objective about it... how it fails, why it fails, etc... So, I came to the conclusion that, in this particular case, if I wanted data, I would have to collect it myself. And if I wanted to know exactly what was going on with the fitting, I’d be better speaking directly to the source. And this was when I decided to get in touch with Pro-Alloy. So, I sent them an e-mail, providing some background on myself, the questions I had and what I had to propose: A discount in return of a complete review of their intercooler. And, although my main objective had always been the Pro-Alloy, I also sent a similar e-mail to another company, proposing the exact same thing, while letting them both know of this fact. The other company’s reply made me laugh, as I had been quite thorough in my explanation, and they simply pointed me to a site where I could see the result of their IC on a dyno, it was like: Dude, this is all you will ever need to know about our IC. I didn’t even bother replying. And then, when I was starting to lose hope, Pro-Alloy answered... Regarding the fitment issues they had, this is what Chris Hazell wrote me: So, contrary to the other company, they did take the time to read my whole e-mail, found it to be a very interesting approach, and treated me with due respect (things that I do value). So, after discussing all the details, and making sure we were on the same page, we were good to go. Oh, one aspect I must highlight is that I told him I would compare their IC to as many others as I could, but that in no way I would alter the data in their favor. So, whatever their IC would show, would be exactly what I’d be showing in the review. And to this, he also replied with no hesitation, telling me that that was precisely what they were after, showing the utmost confidence in their product, which, in turn, gave me the confidence to keep their product. Almost all of the tests (only the Airtec wasn’t) were made in my private road, in the exact same places. The aim of the tests was to try and replicate real life situations with which one can easily relate to and even compare, if curiosity arises... so, the tests consisted in: A 3rd gear pull in a straight line, from 2600 to 7200 RPM A 4th gear pull in a straight line, from 3150 to 7250 RPM A 3rd to 5th gear pull (from 2600 in 3rd gear until 6500 RMP in 5th gear) in a straight line, with a 30 second rest period, and a new pull, 2nd and 3rd gear, but now uphill All these logs were at WOT (Wide Open Throttle). Almost all of the logs (again, with the exception of the Airtec) were captured via my ByteTronik data logger, which captures data with 150ms intervals. What I couldn’t control: The weather. Relevant notes: The ICs I tested directly on my car were: Chargecooler (my previous setup); stock; and Pro-Alloy. I feel it’s important to highlight this as these are the more “apples to apples†comparison, although I do feel there is room for some extrapolations, based on the data collected from the other cars. But we’ll get there... My car has: A Sprintex supercharger with a 60mm pulley, a TPR-1 Cylinder head; a Newman cam (the first ones); Mynes V2 headers with tomcat and JCW catback; ByteTronik tune; The car with the GRS Motorsport IC has: Eaton M45 with a 17% reduction pulley; 1320 Catcam; TPR-2R Cylinder head; Janspeed de-cat headers with JCW catback; custom tune. The car with the Airtec IC has: Eaton M45 with an 18% reduction pulley; Worked cylinder head; Newman cam (ph2); Milltek de-cat headers; Milltek catback; custom tune. One of the cars with the GP IC has: Eaton TVS900 with 60mm pulley; Worked cylinder head; Newman cam (the first ones); OBX headers with tomcat; Direnza catback; custom tune. The other car with the GP IC (from which I only have data for the 3rd gear pull) had: Sprintex supercharger with 64mm pulley, TPR-2R cylinder head; 1320 Catcam; Mynes V2 headers with de-cat; JCW catback; ByteTronik tune. I focused on boost, IATs and, when possible (only on my car which has the Bytetronik software installed), on Air mass as well. So, enough chatter for now, let’s get down to the numbers and charts... 3rd gear pull, IATs 3rd gear pull, Boost 3rd gear pull summary 3rd gear pull summary in numbers 4th gear pull, IATs 4th gear pull, Boost 4th gear pull summary 4th gear pull summary in numbers 3rd gear to 5th gear pull, IATs 3rd gear to 5th gear pull, Boost 3rd gear to 5th gear pull summary 3rd gear to 5th gear pull summary in numbers 30 second recovery 30 second recovery in numbers 2nd and 3rd gear pull uphill after rest period 2nd and 3rd gear pull uphill after rest period in numbers My considerations and analysis: An IC, just as another component of the car you choose to change, should be well thought, so you know it will work its best in your given application. I can’t determine if a certain IC will be the best for your particular application, but I think I can give you a rough guide, based on my example. With the chargecooler, I had best IATs than with the Pro-Alloy, but I was also seeing roughly less 1.5-2 psi than I am seeing now with the Pro-Alloy. If I had a conservative pulley on the Sprintex, I could try and put an even smaller pulley on it and keep the chargecooler, but that’s not the case, as it’s already near its limit (reduction pulley wise). So, in order for me to win back some boost, once a smaller pulley wasn’t an option, I had to look elsewhere, hence I tried going with a different IC. Once I put the stock IC on in another situation, the boost came up, but the IATs were just too high, so I knew that would not be a valid option for me. With the Pro-Alloy, my honest expectations were to pick-up some boost (compared to the chargecooler setup), and that my IATs wouldn’t fall in the danger zone. And WOW, I was really surprised in the way the Pro-Alloy performed. It was a massive difference in average boost, and hell, I only lost 0.2 peak psi (in the lower gears) when compared to the stock IC! In the higher gears, I think the Pro-Alloy will see even more boost than the stock. And fortunately, not only the Pro-Alloy excels in terms of boost, but it also performs wonderfully in terms of keeping those IATs down! So, how does it compare to the others (GP; Airtec; stock; GRS and chargecooler)? Let’s see... The Airtec data is the only one I couldn’t capture with my ByteTronik data logger, or do the tests in the same place, as my friend lives 200 miles away (my own private road can only stretch so far ) His data was captured by other logging software, which is not as fast as the ByteTronik, so, not ideal, but it is what it is. For a fact, I might also add that my friend has now changed the Airtec for a GP IC and picked-up around 2 psi of boost, subsequently, seeing higher IATs as well. The Airtec seems good at controlling IATs but at the expense of losing you boost, so, as boost and IATs rise proportionally, it’s not directly comparable, i.e. it holds IATs better because it’s doing less boost, which leads me to believe that, probably, at similar boost levels, it wouldn’t cope as well as we are led to believe at a first glance when looking at the numbers. I know this is just speculation, but I don’t think I’m that far off, to be honest, at least, considering what I saw in my car with the three different setups (Chargecooler, stock and Pro-Alloy). The stock IC: Not much to say, really... basically, it’s great for boost alone, but it just can’t keep the IATs down. The chargecooler: Great at keeping IATs down, but it robs you boost, so, if you’re already at the limit of your pulley choice and don’t live in a very demanding climate/terrain, maybe you could do better with a Pro-Alloy TMIC. The GP IC: It’s also good for boost, but from what I could see, it can’t match the Pro-Alloy in terms of keeping the IATs down. If you look closely to the data, you will notice that there is only another car which is close in peak boost to mine with the Pro-Alloy, which is the car with the TVS900 and 60mm pulley. But, even that one, sees considerably less average boost than I do, so, mine, despite having more average boost in all the pulls, was able to keep lower IATs than the GP. We could argue it could be due to the Sprintex being more efficient than the TVS, but if you take a look at the “3rd gear pull summary in numbers†you will see that the other car that also has a GP IC, has a Sprintex with a 64mm pulley, thus seeing considerably less average boost than mine (15.17 psi vs. 16.37 on the Pro-Alloy), and yet, IATs rise 3 Celsius degrees more (21 Celsius degrees rise vs. 18 degrees rise on the Pro-Alloy). The GRS Motorsport version: As some of you might have noticed by the odd boost curves, my buddy had a problem in his car (and this is also one of the reasons why data logging is so important), we suspect that it was his tensioner that must have been very near the end of its life, as his belt snapped the week after we logged his car. But even though the boost loss he was seeing, which actually ends up being favorable to an IC on the account of what I’ve explained earlier (higher boost will see higher IATs), the GRS didn’t excel in any particular category. For the record, from older logs, his car was seeing around 15.6 psi of maximum boost. So, if the car wasn’t losing boost on the day we’ve logged it, the IATs would have been higher, for sure. He says it’s not uncommon to see 60-70 degrees Celsius when at WOT. My friend who bought me my Chargecooler, previously had a GRS Motorsport, and he also told me it was pretty common to reach those high temperatures... and this, with a still conservative 15% reduction pulley. He lives in a very demanding terrain, but now, with the chargecooler, I think the maximum he saw was 42 degrees Celsius. He is now thinking of going to a 17% pulley, as IATs wise, he has margin for it A little note on the Air mass data, which I find really interesting, as it gives you an idea on how your boost is being “eaten†by the engine... the more the better. You will see that the Chargecooler has the best ratio of produced Air mass vs. Boost, meaning that despite robbing you a little bit of boost, it is indeed very efficient at what it does, hell, in some cases, it almost manages to reach the stock IC Air mass values, with circa less 1 psi in average boost. But the Pro-Alloy is king in this value as well. Regarding one thing people often talk about, which is the recovery rate, I did try and replicate it with the 30 second rest period. Yes, the GP and the Stock ones excel at this, but they do get hotter than the other contenders, so, yeah, they do recover faster, but I’m really convinced that is mainly due to having more heat to recover from, at the first place. If you take a look at how fast the IATs rise, after pulling a 2nd and 3rd gear uphill once the rest period is over, in both cases, I think you will corroborate just that. Hope you guys have understood and enjoyed this review, and that this information can actually shed some light on the Pro-Alloy, as well as in some of the more popular solutions available out there. I want to thank Pro-Alloy, in the person of Chris Hazell, for sincerely trusting and valuing my work. I also want to thank all my friends that came to meet me in my own private road, as without them, it would not have been possible to conduct all the testing, data compilation and analysis, that, hopefully, will help the MINI community.
  8. citro

    From Targa to Track Slave (Downunder)

    This might sound stupid and might have already been addressed, so if that's the case, I'm sorry, Blacky... but on the Sprintex, for the smaller pulleys, they say you must do the VGS mod to cope with the high boost. http://www.mini2.com/forum/first-generation-mini-tuning/85550-operation-vacuum-gain-system-vgs.html
  9. citro

    From Targa to Track Slave (Downunder)

    Thanks for clarifying things, Blacky. From what you tell me regarding pulley size, the "stock" pulley on the TVS looks similar to the Sprintex one, I'd say it should be around 69mm. On my car, with the sprintex oem pulley, I only saw around 13-14 psi, if my memory serves correctly. Then, with the 64mm, I was doing around 15-16 psi. And now, with the 60mm, around 17-18 psi. So, a 4-5mm (6.5%) decrease in size gives you around 2 psi increase. Whereas with the M45, to see the kind of boost I'm seeing with the Sprintex, I'd have to go to a 20% reduction pulley (52.5mm), give or take, as I was only seeing 16 psi with a 18% reduction pulley. So, for the pulley size you said you think Lee is using, it seems that the TVS is more similar to the M45 in this ratio %pulley reduction vs boost increase. I don't think this particularly helps you, but one never knows Regarding the ECU acting strangely past 17 psi, give or take, yeap, it's a known issue, the famous "I've installed a 17% pulley and now my car triggers the ASC/DSC and only goes away when I shut the engine down". A good tuner solves it, though. The strange thing about your boost issue is that your car's torque curves on the dyno are pretty much spot on, which is weird. Normally, when there is a problem related to boost, some oscillation is expected on a specific part of the RPM spectrum, especially, on a car that is supercharged. It's almost as if you were limited to 80% load, or something. On turbocharged engines, more variables come into play. But if we take a look at your torque figures, their quite respectable... circa 307nm with only 14.5 psi of boost is very, very good... so, I think your engine and supercharger combo are working like a charm! Keep it up, and do keep us posted.
  10. citro

    From Targa to Track Slave (Downunder)

    Thanks for taking the time to answer, man. So, you're still stuck at 14.5 psi, but you have a reduced pulley that should allow you to go further, is that it? Sorry if you've already mentioned it... do you know if you're using the same pulley size as Lee? I overlaid both your graphs, for the sake of comparison. It's not 100% acurate, as they were skewed and pictures were took from a computer screen, and they're from different dynos, etc... but it gives you a good idea. I think he's seeing around 19 psi. Your car's lines (green - Whp and red - Wtq) Lee's car's lines (orange - Whp and blue - Wtq)
  11. citro

    From Targa to Track Slave (Downunder)

    Hi, Blacky. What are your current engine mods? About your horsepower and torque numbers, are they measured at the wheels or at the engine? And what are the before and after lines comparing? Per the run ID info, I assume the higher numbers were already attained with a reduced pulley and E85 fuel, right? And last, but not least, what boost are you seeing, and what's the TVS900 original pulley size? Thanks in advance!
  12. citro

    HEAD SCRACTHER---Starting issue

    Oh, I see, mate, if it works better when you reset the ECU my previous tip doesn't make sense. Hope you can solve it soon. Good luck.
  13. citro

    HEAD SCRACTHER---Starting issue

    Do you notice this problem after doing a few miles with the car as well? A friend of mine had a similar problem, but it was due to the car being in the mechanic, and only being started to go back and forth in the shop, being shut off right after that. This caused the plugs to be filled with gasoline and the car would choke and wouldn't start. Sorry if it has nothing to do with this, but thought it was worth a shot Good luck, mate.
  14. citro

    Astro Hobo Slow Burner

    I think that's the way to go, considering practicality and reversibility easiness... unless you go crazy with the boost, I bet the one you chose will work just fine
  15. citro

    Astro Hobo Slow Burner

    That's a HUGE headache you got there