1st Gen R53 Cooper S Supercharged vs Turbo

:cornut: A WHINE'S WOOSH is to be a WOOSH.

Jason

 

Changed it a little.

I e-mailed Todd to see if we can come up with something, I just want one now. :lol:

 

Might want to try Clint at Defenders of Speed / American MINI Mates too. They do some badges. Also try Johngo of Mind the Curve, he made some badges for me for the MINI of the Month that came out great.

 

Put me down for one ! !

 

Originally I was looking at getting a 56 but for money reasons I changed to looking for 53. After reading this I'm felling like should have been looking for the 53 all along. Thanks for all the work every one

 

14mpg at the track?!?!?!

You got 14mpg at the track? What, were you using cruise control?:devil:

I'm lucky to get 14mpg on the way to the track...

 

How about "Pssst the whine wins"

 

The whine-rs a baby

 

Congrats, you are better than me? :thumbup:

 

Uh, no, didn't say that, was just kidding, hence the smilie at the end....

 

R53 vs. R56

Very interesting thread. Thanks for all the opinions.

RE: Mileage aspect. Sites discussing Turbo vs SC point to better mileage for turbo because the SC is a power parasite all the time. I average 26 MPG all the time, about 80% city driving 40 MPH or so when the RPMs are around 2K. But on open road, it only increases to about 30. I even get 25 MPG on club runs when WOT is more frequent such as coming out of corners etc.

I'm guessing that the parasitic losses of the SC are keeping the mileage down at higher speeds. Any other opinions?

2006 R52, 46K miles, 15% pulley, CAI, DOS copper intercooler, Alta inlet tube, Borla Street Catback, Pulstar Plugs, Amsoil 0-W30. Yes, I know, I need JCW 380s and RMW custom tune. Maybe next spring. Already talked to Jan on the phone.

 

:cornut: Just me and I'm not an automotive engineer but the parasitic effect is only part of the story. The super charger's rpm/boost is dependent on the crank shaft's rpm(and the super charger pulley) there by making the boost finite as the highest(engine) rpm is reached. The turbo charger's rpm is dependent on the gas volume/pressure produced in the combustion chamber which continuously increases as increased boost puts more and more air/pressure/volume into the combustion chamber(and there for into the turbo charger) and is a some what more infinite situation. Higher pressure/volume would create more efficient combustion not nessasarily needing an increase in fuel to achieve more power. Tubo charger rpm is more infinite while super charger rpm is more finite. This also,to me, explains why the super charged engine's torque falls off more rapidly than does the torque produced by the turbo charged engine.
Any way, that's what comes into my puny mind to explain the differences.

Jason

 

Nah, you guys are overthinking it, it's simpler than that. People with Superchargers drive their cars harder.:biggrin5:

 

The Turbo cars work best between 3,000 and 6,000 rpm. The SC cars work best between 3,500 and 7,000 rpm. The burn rate is higher at higher rpms, thus the reduced mileage at the track for the SC cars.

 

Stands to reason that if you are making more power at a higher RPM that you'll be burning more fuel.....

 

The 'power parasite' stuff is making it more complex than it is.

A supercharger is taking power from the engine, at all times, to turn the supercharger and compress the air passing through it.

A turbocharger is driven by energy in the exhaust gases which would otherwise by wasted out the tailpipe - so the energy to run the turbocharger and compress the air passing through it, is got for free.

That is a bit simplistic, but basically true. As with everything there are additional complications, but the fundamental difference in economy is down to how the intake air gets compressed.

 

That's pretty much what the websites discussing the pros and cons of SC vs. Turbo have also said.

Also, BMW and VW all do Turbo and not SC, even on the most costly models. They have figured out the software to control the infinite potential of Turbo which could destroy an engine if not properly controlled.

However, I am impressed with what has been said about the Sprintex SC, which apparently improves on the efficiency and reduces parasitic losses somewhat.

So, my goal is to continue driving the 1st Gen MCS, and try to mod it into the perfect street machine with maximum power without sacrificing smooth linear power and economy, while preserving sharp handling and special characteristics of the 1st Gen. Maybe down the road, a Sprintex will replace the M-45 Eaton with a good custom tune.

 

ask yourself how a twinscrew which is COMPRESSING air ALL THE TIME is more efficient than an eaton which isn't when they both are just cruising down the freeway? Which do you think is going to burn more fuel?

 

I've lost a little mpg with my everyday, just around town driving, I'm only getting 26.5 compared to the 27.8 I was seeing with my JCW/M45 combo, I haven't really road tripped with this pulley yet, but with the 69mm on the MOTD drive this year, it wasn't really that much different, I was getting between 30.5 & 31 if I stayed under 70mph, and 29 to 29.5 if I cruised between 70 & 75, so probably a loss of .5 to 1 mpg.

 

Both supercharger and turbo for the win!