Engine Drivetrain 2nd Gen S Most liked posts in thread: Stock MCS turbo working hard vs. JCW turbo hardly working

I would argue there is at least some rumblings in the R56 tuning world, haha.

My opinions (based on crawling the various forums) on tuning the R56 has gone from:

- "Leave the stock turbo on the MCS, there are ECU issues with tuning a JCW or Hybrid." (the ECU is expecting PSI to build, but larger turbo spool slower so it throws a code)

To (which I've seen a thread from Evolve showing dyno charts, etc., plus another UK tuner I respect states it is possible):

- "You can tune a JCW turbo on a stock MCS, because the spool up is not ~that~ much different, but don't go Hybrid."

And now I'm beginning to hear claims of:

- "You can tune a Hybrid on a stock MCS. But it's this big secret no one has documented."


So I at least believe a JCW can be successfully tuned on an MCS. I've not seen any proof of a MCS or JCW being tuned properly with a hybrid at this time.

The question on my mind is "what HP/TQ do I think is ~safe~ to give me 100k on my new motor and what's the ~safest~ way to get there?" (thus the question of the MCS turbo working harder or the JCW turbo working less)

I don't have research on what the MCS engine will handle long term. If some folks on this thread who've been in the game longer can comment on how much TQ the R56 can handle, I'd be very appreciative. I'd think you can tune to a peak torque #.

With my ~very~ limited knowledge, it just seems safer to run the JCW turbo at lower boost levels with a cooler intake charge vs. the MCS turbo at higher IATs to reach the same TQ/HP.

Here is what I have found for dyno sheets (yeah not very scientific, but what can ya do?):



The other thing on my mind is these catastrophic piston failures. Is it because tuners are pushing too far with tunes showing knock and problems from the start with a difficult ECU to handle, or is it the car is tuned properly, then add some good old carbon buildup on the intake valves over time and u have a recipe for knock & grenaded engine?

I would be fine with my engine lasting X% less over time, that's to be expected when pushing the engine more than stock, but the catastrophic failures are what I want to avoid. If I build a home-walnut blaster and I just blast carbon away every year, keep up on my OCIs, run an oil cooler, run some meth/water for cooling & cleaning only....

....then if tuned "properly" (out of my element, I assume tuned for best results but no knock, proper AFRs, etc.), you would avoid these nasty disfigured pistons, no?

 

Yeah I agree the model years would certainly help. Unfortunately I didn't pay attention at the time, I'll have to double back and see if folks mentioned.

 

Thanks Dave for the reply, that definitely helped.

Definitely... that's why I linked to the thread on the Nissan forum (10 psi on a big turbo and small turbo-How come one makes more power?!? : KA24E / KA24DE Forum) as it made logical sense to me.

But if you're saying the difference is miniscule (given the same constants/mods) because the turbos are so similarly sized even if folks are pushing the MCS turbo slightly out of their efficiency range, then I can see where you're coming from. Then it comes down to what the N14 MCS can safely handle for torque/hp and at this point I don't have a solid bearing on that, and perhaps there is no definitive. If there was a TQ/HP # to shoot for then that would help in selecting the MCS or JCW turbo as the MCS tops out at 215HP in its efficiency range from what I've read. (215hp on what dyno? Who knows)

Agreed on the IC, and I don't doubt the benefits of Meth, but I'm still dreading the install, maybe I'll get into it and it won't be that bad. Thus far I've completed all mods by myself so I'd like to continue that trend if possible. I agree on Howerton.

From what I've read the PSI is not the problem, it's the CFMs. A bigger turbo vs. a smaller turbo at the same PSI, will cram more air into the cylinders and with proper tuning will generate a bigger bang and thus more stress. I also know the N14 has a limit of somewhere around 20lbs due to a limit with the ECU going into protection mode so I'm wary of that. Another thought on the N14 puking was not only carbon buildup or high PSI, but boost spikes due to tuning difficulties. An idea I read about was to install a manual boost controller to bleed off PSI when needed before the ECU sees the spike and goes into limp mode and more importantly before the engine sees the extra boost.

Unfortunately I don't see any tuners coming around any time soon, so I may have to opt for dyno time and email logs. Not optimal, but better than canned I suppose. But I didn't know the Cobb was the only option for real time, thx for the tip.

Signature added, another good tip.

 

Evolve's Dyno graphs of their R56 MCS with JCW Turbo (no clue on longevity at that power, don't think I'll be headed to those heights):

evolve MINI R56 Cooper S - Page 36

 

I agree, building the block would be the thing to do. It's all a balance of mating desired power goals with the mods to support it (internal as well). I happen to love turbos (go figure haha. I've only owned one SCed car though).

But I can't help but think about the R56 reputation for blowing up a bit here.

Is it because...

- The engine is DI and leads to carbon which leads to knock which leads to extreme stress which the engine isn't designed for (especially when tuned and margin for extra stress is less).

or...

- The engine is already tuned from the factor to within an inch of what it can stand. (I have to doubt this. What manufacturer doesn't leave a little head room? Who knows)

or...

- The engine has an inherent design flaw (piston ring gap I keep reading about, not my area of expertise) and I've got a lemon no matter what.

or...

- The engine is not being tuned properly or being tuned too aggressively with knock and high AFRs from the get-go from Tuner X. (Granted the same talented tuners who successfully tune the R53 are tuning a more complicated engine, but the fundamentals of a "safe" tune are still there. Push the engine until the your parameters are unsafe, then back it off, no?)

Or maybe a combo of all bulelt points... I can take care of the carbon (yearly walnut blasting in my garage here we come!), and if you do your research you hope you pick a safe & reputable tune/tuner. It's the inherent design flaw and/or the engine already being high strung from the factory which I can't cover and I can't speak with authority on.

 

Was this when the JCW came as a tuning option back in 2008?

U.S. R56 MINI Cooper S owners finally get the JCW treatment - Autoblog

They noticed problems when they took a stock MCS and added the JCW treatment?

I wasn't in the MINI world back then, just trying to get my bearings or find articles to read up about this. thx.

 

I bought my R56 over the R53 because of the local availability of used cars that had the options I wanted, at the right price. That said this is a street car for me, and the bump in MPG was nice and I'm a fan or turbos.

I think if Carbon was not an issue, that helps A LOT. So I will be blasting mine yearly, can't hurt.

I think the torque coming on so quickly may be a factor as George says, unlike the R53 which builds. But kind of sucks to tune your torque happy R56 like an R53. Who ~doesn't~ want that torque down low and area under the graph? But it may take it's toll.

For the record I think 20+ PSI is over the top. Especially if you run a JCW or Hybrid turbo that is flow more CFMs for a given PSI.