Just took my car into the Dyno after installing the Nm engineering power module as well as the k&n intake.

Running on the high setting with 93 octane gas

204whp 232ftlbs tq at wheels.

Thoughts?

Also I might want to add that it's like 90° out here in Texas.
Also my intake ambient temperature was like 150°F

Also need to add my new car to my list of many coopers for my signature

 

Thats pretty good with the NM module in real world. Pretty close to the stock with JCW tuning kit:

http://www.motoringfile.com/2015/09/...cw-tuning-kit/


69-2026TTK ? K&N

 

That's the one yes

 

Yes, very good numbers.

Here's another link with more comparisons.

http://www.motoringfun.com/2015/11/0...dyno-day-2015/

You said you had the module set to high, yes? Numbers are more in line with the module set on low no? Which is advertised to add approx 20HP+ to the base figure on low setting w/ 91 octane and about 40HP with 100 octane on high.

Other dynos show a stock MCS to produce around 188-189 WHP, so adding 20 puts you about where the low setting should be using the NM or about where an MCS would be with $2K JCW Tuning kit installed.

Still very good result for the money spent. I have the JCW Tuner kit and my car has very good street performance compared to a stock MCS (not saying that a stock MCS was a slouch)

 

You're comparing apples and oranges Dennis. The 189 is HP at the crank while his dyno numbers are at the wheel. If you figure ~12% loss in the drive train you're looking at ~231 at the crank vs 204 at the wheels. That's ~40 horses.

 

Nope, BMW has under quoted these enginses, and there have been 2 or 3 dyno runs I have seen in this forum with whp figures around 190 on completely stock MCS.

 

Yes, exactly what I was referring to. Dyno runs I've seen have shown the actual WHP to be very close to what MINI has listed as Crank HP (188-189HP) w/ the crank HP to actually be a bit over 210 as recorded on a Dyno

Published Numbers:
Crank Horsepower: 189 bhp
Crank Torque: 207 ft-lbs

Dyno Peak Numbers:
Wheel Horsepower: 189.22 whp
Wheel Torque: 207.86 ft-lbs
Crank Horsepower: 211.93 bhp
Crank Torque: 232.80 ft-lbs

Article with dyno results for a stock MCS w/ the JCW tuning kit only (no MN power module)

Published numbers:
F56 Cooper S with John Cooper Works Tuning Kit:
210bhp and 300nm (221 ft/lbs) of torque


Dyno Numbers for the above:

Horsepower: 206.53 whp
Torque: 236.99 ft-lbs


Compares favorably to the NM power module by the OP. But begs to question the high vs. low setting (20 hp vs. 40 hp gains)


http://www.motoringfun.com/2015/08/2...ults/#more-807

 

Yea, that one just came out not to long ago.

 

I have two f series MINI's. I now have 2 NM modules and a burger stage 1. Long story longer I purchased the second NM module since I was convinced my first unit was malfunctioning. I could have returned it but I was too lazy, and I found a second NM module locally for $150.

The perceived issue I was having is that the first NM on "high" setting with 93 octane was reaching lower peak numbers than on the "low" setting. Said more simply, high setting was underperforming compared to low setting. It should be the other way around. On high, the max boost PSI was around 13-14. This was tested on both MINI's and then with both power modules. On low I could achieve upwards of 16lbs consistently with both modules across two different vehicles.

Now boost pressure is the not the whole picture I am aware. So I started looking at timing, and on the "high" setting the ECU is pulling a great deal of timing, more than on low setting. Weird. So I then figured, maybe its the gas? So I went to the local track in the area and purchased a tank of 100 octane. Slightly better results on both settings, however the NM modules still performed better on low settings.

I called Jerry at NM and talked to him, offering him data logs, in all fairness, however he did not really seem engaged on the matter other than to say he had heard this from another MINI owner.

Any how, back to the beginning. I also have a burger stage 1 box. While visually it is not as nicely put together the data logs show much higher and more consistent boost levels. The timing does not appear to get pulled as much and the AFR measured is more in line with what you would expect.

All of this is to say, I am not surprised that the high setting pulled the numbers from the dyno as shown above. I would wager that on low setting the OP might of had higher numbers. There are a ton of other factors though, elevation, air temp, humidity ect. Also I would highly recommend the berger stage 1 over the NM module.

 

Very interesting. This would explain the numbers reported being more in line with the low setting expectations. (still good numbers for the money spent to be sure).

Other guys have reported worse performance with module set to high (than low) however, the two instance have been with cars with the JCW Tuner kit installed in addition the NM module. Assumption being timing and other functions were being dialed back (when NM was set to high) by the computer due to the extra boosts being added by the factory kit.

I have not seen a dyno report where the same stock car was run with the NM set to high and then to low. Would be interesting for sure.

 

Very good information Rob

 

Any drivability issues with the NM power module? I had a Burger Stage 1 and I had drivability issues from the beginning, along with multiple Drivetrain Malfunction warnings that had to be reset by the dealer. Even the upgrade I got only partially resolved them. When it got to the point where the engine noticeably lost power occasionally (like it going from Sport to Mid to Green with no change in the displayed mode), along with bucking under acceleration, I had no choice but to remove it. Now I see that Terry no longer sells the Stage 1, which never lost the "beta" tag. Unfortunately their "upgrade kit" is not easy to install, requiring wiring modifications; nor is it easy to remove. So I'm going to just use the factory tune and thus far I'm okay with that. I just never leave the Sport mode.

 

The new JB4 is now all plug and play

 

No drivability problems at all with the NM. The only indication you'll have is the extra power. I love mine.

 

Yes, the new JB4 is all P&P now, but...it is no longer easy to install and remove like the Stage 1 was, especially when you have to visit the dealer. That was a big selling point IMO. The NM Engineering F56 Power Module is still available, fortunately, and it is easy on/easy off. And it seems to work much better than the now defunct Burger Stage 1 Beta module day to day. I wish I had spent my $399. on the NM Power Module rather than the discontinued Burger unit.

 

We have definitely seen worse performance out of cars that run on the high setting when using 93 octane when compared to the low setting. One user even had an over boost fault take place when it was set on high. Say what you want, but if you are not using 100+ octane, you are NOT getting more performance and possibly doing more harm than good. Use data acquisition tools like DashCommand to record your timing and boost and you will see what is actually happening...

 

^^^ What he said! ^^^

 

I suspect that one of the reasons why lesser performance is coming from the HIGH setting is that the tune is, as mentioned above, for 100+ octane fuel. With 93 octane fuel I would suspect enough timing is being pulled in the HIGH setting to lower the performance to where it performs lower than the LOW setting. Makes perfect sense.

 

Would an e85 blend bring the octane up and be ok for the fuel lines motor etc

 

Vetsvette, you have the NM power module, right? Have you noticed any driveability issues? I just want to be sure that it performs more smoothly on a daily basis than the one I had been using.

 

No issues whatsoever. You don't even know it's there until you put your foot in it. To me it has a more consistent linear feel to the power band. I'm re-installing mine this afternoon at the same time I install my brand spankin' new AWE intake. I removed the module and ran the car with only the JCW tune during the break-in of my new motor.
I would recommend it without reservation.

 

If anyone wants to chip in on the Dyno run I'll do another baseline with the controller set to low. However it's cooler in Texas this week so we might get less heat soak than the 93 degree run. Also I do want to make one note. On one of the pulls the ecu did pull back and the Dyno read 150hp. All runs in 4th gear. The 150hp pull was the third run and the intake temperatures were very high.

I have noticed a lot of heat soak with the power module on high. Some intake temps reaching up to 150 F.

An inter cooler is in the plans as soon as I take care of the suspension and brakes.

But like I said in my previous question, in which I'm happy to take anyone's advice. Would doing an e85 ethanol 93 octane pump gas blend bring the octane up to the 100 level and how would the engine and fuel lines handle the blend. If anyone's done this let me know.

Thanks!

 

I'm having Helix install one of their new intercoolers at MOTD in May. As for brakes, I'm thinking of looking into a Wildwood set. I just don't want to have to change wheels again just to improve the brakes.

E85? This I know nothing about. To my knowledge it's not even available around here. I am considering water/meth injection down the road. Just waiting for a more P&P system for the F cars.

 

I don't think E85 would work. Please correct me if I'm wrong(haven't looked into E85 is quite some time) but over time it could wear the hoses, and as far as power, the injectors need to push a lot more fuel when using E85 to see any gains.

Edit: And to throw my 2 cents in, I've been running my NM for a couple months now. I've got no charts, but the ol' ButtDyno(tm) felt a difference when I first installed it. I had it on high, and NM said high is ok as long at you're not at a tack mashing on it for hours at a time. But after a while it seemed like the power wasn't consistent. Some days it'd feel lacking, and other days it felt great. Maybe it was the ECU compensating back from what the NM is doing? Either way, having the NM at all definitely makes a difference. I took it out for service just this week and it's pretty obvious. There were other signs too. For example, I wouldn't usually downshift from 6th to pass w/ the NM in, nor did the car ever tell me to(you know the little 6>5 readout it gives you on the speedo) but it does that now that it's out. I'm putting it back in today and I'll have that silly grin on my face, but I may keep it just at the low setting for now.

 

Mixing E85/Ethanol to pump gas should be okay on a stock/NM box equipped car. The car is designed to handle 10% ethanol content (E10) from the factory. I have personally done a E10 mix a couple of times for logging and no problem so far.
You could probably have more than E10 if you have proper hardwares and control over fueling such as a E85-specific flash or a JB4. I'm pretty sure the NM box does not have that ability. Tons of N54/N55 guys have been doing high E85 mix, some even straight E85 with proper fueling upgrades.

Anyway, from my experience, with similar temperature condition as the OP (95F ambient temp, 130F-ish IAT peak), I'm having better result with MMT-based octane booster than a 10% Ethanol mixed with AKI91 pump gas.