My buddy and I drove the R53 towards Flagstaff this morning as planned, however we stopped short and turned back adjacent to (nearly dry right now) Lake Mary. As reported on local and national news, a wildfire just a few miles north of Flagstaff started yesterday morning, sparked by a homeless camper who reportedly was burning toilet paper placed under a rock and left to smolder overnight then attempted to put that out with his sleeping bag next morning. Two more area fires sparked by dry lightning are now burning near that with strong winds resulting in evacuations with no residential structures reported so far. It was too early for lunch, so we turned back and enjoyed a nice kung pao chicken meal at our favorite Asian restaurant in our own town.



I drove to the turnaround spot (*) and my buddy drove back for 155 total miles. From roll-out, the engine felt smoother, even with ECU adaptations just starting and with immediate part and full throttle response at all rpms and elevations up to 7475' noted on Garmin GPS display. Pops and bangs were subdued as hoped. I/we are convinced the cost and effort for the injectors and tune were well worth it. Calculated mileage on my Android tablet displayed from OBDLink dongle showed 37.7 mpg when I rolled into the garage, noting I reset the trip odometer yesterday when refueling but forgot to do same with the onboard computer for fuel consumption.

(*) Turnaround spot was ~ 6875' elev, so I checked boost with ign key on / engine off as I did at home, which shows direct correlation to the chart I snagged off the internet recently. By that, -2.5 psi at home 5000' elev and -3.3 psi shown at that higher elevation. That chart is attached below for reference.

Edit 15June: Checked actual trip fuel consumption today which was just 28 MPG. Unsure how the app calculates that consumption drawn from ECU data, however not accurate this time. I'll continue monitoring while continuing to use the integrated On Board Computer trip data.

 

That is beautiful country! I often miss the arid landscape.
Too bad you had to cut your trip short but it sounds (as Adrian pointed out to me): "The the ECU will need time to adapt and you will then see the improvements/gain"
Sounds as if your pretty happy thus far (?)...

I had mine tuned the day after you. Filled up with a fresh tank of 93 and have put 105 mi on it so far. I've often stated that my Mini runs great - but even after a mere 100+ mi (after the tune), I can feel a definite difference in throttle response.
I have a pre-facelift ECU. I asked if it was possible for a 210hp tune with my mods. Although, I never received a direct answer -; It doesn't matter = The engine definitely feels more powerful and responsive.
Now, if I can just keep my foot out of it...we'll see how it does on fuel consumption

Looking forward to your further insight and evaluation!

EDIT: BTW - Congratulations on the diminished rice krispy sounding exhaust. I know it's part of a complete balance breakfast; but since when is it beneficial to the health of a Mini?

 

^^^ Yes, definitely pleased!

In my driving report yesterday afternoon, I totally forgot one aspect within total objectives was also resolved, i.e., the starting report. I just now came in from washing yesterday's road bugs and the entire car with foam cannon. As with each time since Adrian tuned it, it starts on first try rather than 2-3 typically and idles smoothly right away. First time ever doing that in the year that I've owned it and likely first time since modded back in early 2006. Yes, I'm pleased!

 

Had I known that kind of fuel mileage was attainable with an R53 I would not have even considered an R50! But it also begs the question, how efficient could an R50 be made with tuning...?

 

37 mpg with a R53 is really good. In line with the R56S. I seem to recall the R53 with the factory tune was about 30 mpg.

Our ‘04 R50 with the CVT was never that good. Early on (1st year, maybe) it would get about 35 mpg on the highway. Then it dropped to the low 30s. No idea why. Gas mileage has never been its strong suit. The R56S was always far better.

 

Unsure that displayed fuel consumption was correct, since I hadn't entered tank capacity nor started trip calculations on the OBD app. I'll top off again today and determine actual MPG the old fashion way - manually. Update to follow...

Edit: OK, so the OBD app's display of calculated fuel consumption was way off. Full top-off as last time resulted in actual consumption of just 28 MPG. Post #301 has also been edited accordingly. Owners of R50 & R56 need not be jealous!

 

Ever since my tune was completed, my MPG calculation has been off by 8-10 as well where before it was always within 1mpg at every fill up. I reached out to Adrian, and he said an adjustment could be made to the tune to get it closer to actual. It's on my list of things to do, but I haven't got to it yet.

 

^^^ At this point, thinking fuel consumption reading from the OBD app is the only error, assuming intended as average vs instant MPG. Since I hadn't reset the R53 trip meter when fueling before our test drive, the average displayed was over more miles and varied driving conditions plus combined with before/after 380cc injectors and ECU tune. That reading displayed ~ 27.5 MPG when I reset it this morning, so not far off from actual manual calculation for the recent 158 trip miles. Also, that drive consisted of elevation gain/loss varying between 5000 - 7500' elevation plus some occasional throttle bursts just cus. I wouldn't expect near optimal fuel consumption in those conditions. Viewing the OBD app display for LTFT now reflects positive value of prox 5, possibly indicating a somewhat lean condition in STFT carried over to LTFT related to elevation. Also noting I checked LTFT with my Foxwell 510e (corded) scanner which correlated readings from the OBD bluetooth app. From all that, thinking it's too soon to react but instead, better instead to continue driving and monitoring.

 

Sounds like the tune is a success on all fronts. Your already great car is now even better. Enjoy!

 

Stay tuned for another attempt for quieter exhaust. Rather than trying to squeeze a smaller round resonator where Milltek places that beneath the shifter box (with my resulting interference), I'm gonna move it back where the Milltek slip-fit pipe with 2-bolt flange is now. Tonight I ordered a Vibrant 1793 stainless bottle-style 2.5" in/out 4" dia by 18" OAL (14" bottle), which essentially is the same length as the Milltek pipe shown below and my best choice for that available space (thus chose the 4" vs 5" dia version).

If this works as hoped, an inexpensive solution ($75 Amazon) used in combo with existing exhaust components. Vibrant resonators have expanded ID stubs which slip fit over mating 2.5" tubing, thus allowing standard style clamps as used by Milltek and others. Installation should be simply cutting the Milltek pipe 2" +/- forward of the flange, clamping (or welding) the resonator on that, then slipping on and clamping the forward end where the Milltek pipe joins now. If parts arrive in time, hopefully done before heading out of town next week.

Edit: for those following this latest endeavor, it's a very good thing I'm not an inventor, 'cus my tendency is to "share" stuff even when premature to claim success before the concept is proven and "patent protected". Still premature at this point with Vibrant resonator not yet shipped, however the additional pic added shows what I started with initially, i.e., Milltek resonated which interferes with B&M's SSK box plus Milltek mid-pipe appearing suitable to accept the 4" OD x 18" bottle resonator. When I'm done, you can either applaud or laugh your ***** off...

 

OK, UPS delivered the Vibrant bottle resonator midday, so installed it this afternoon after Taco Tuesday lunch out with friends. Pics tell the story on fitment which in short - it does quite well. After removal of the Milltek mid pipe, I cut it off 2 3/8" behind the flange and slipped the resonator on first, followed by the shortened section which it did with very close tolerances - no leakage or rattles! My buddy and I then drove around town, including some hills and I claim success on taming both dBA and drone. Much more civilized now which should allow normal conversation driving up hills.

IMO, this is a worthwhile alternative solution for those looking for reduced noise for not much cost. The highly polished stainless resonator body even matches that of Milltek's rear muffler boxes. I don't like the style 2.5" clamp I bought, so will order t-bolt style like Milltek and others furnish with their kits.

Edit 15Oct2023: Removed the Vibrant resonator and replaced with a new unaltered Milltek MSM312 flange pipe. Having resolved the inadequate clearance between B&M SSK's extended enclosed box as shown and described later in this thread topic, subsequently replaced the Milltek non-res pipe with another Milltek res pipe installed at same time as OEM shifter assembly.











Showing replacement Vibrant low profile t-bolt style clamps

 

I'd love to hear this in person sometime. If you ever make it my way or going to be halfway to PHX sometimes. Let me know. Happy to meet up someplace to grab a beer/lunch whatever.

I like my Milltek non-res exhaust and header but I am wondering if I can tame it down a little and be just as happy.

 

This is all a perfect example of why giving advice on exhausts across the internet just doesn't work. I have a header and non-res Milltek as well, and I wouldn't characterize it as loud or with drone. The wife and I are able to chat just fine or listen to the radio at a comfortable level.

Not casting any stones here. Just all of us have different opinions on exhaust noise so what's loud to one may not be loud to another.

 

I stay out of the valley as much as possible (especially during summertime heat) but would otherwise enjoy doing that. There are few MINIs in my town of 16k, so not much opportunity to kick tires with other enthusiasts. Even doing valley 'cars & coffee' meets requires advance planning WRT event early start and driving time from here, so I miss out on those too.

I thought mine sounded plenty good until driving at highway speeds. Around here, its pretty much all mountain grades so the novelty quickly wore off. Agreed, noise is subjective. OTOH, both Milltek res pipes I subsequently sold to NAM forum members were for same reasons, i.e., their non-res being "too much of a good thing". Oh and BTW, my hearing is lousy!

 

Feel free send me a DM with what city you are in. I don't mind making the drive. Yeah. Our heat sucks. I need to get my AC recharged as it seems struggling. First summer in PHX heat. I didn't have high expectations but I think it needs some refreshing. Not sure if the prior owner ever did that kind of work. It's been in CO for 90% of its life.

 

Great solution! Well done.

 

Message sent!

Thanks! Figured worth sharing for future search reference...

 

With the aftermarket CAI installed same time as other performance mods in 2006 being less than effective WRT the "cold air" aspect, I'm considering shopping for a pristine complete OEM JCW airbox. No interest in a faux clone, however being de-flapped might be appropriate since unsure mine is equipped with the OEM wiring connector for the JCW airbox harness. I also need to determine if M2's strut brace bar will clear that airbox which seems unlikely since both the ECU cover and aftermarket CAI "wall" had to be notched for clearance as shown below. The M2 bar must even be raised to remove the fuse box cover for access. I like the appearance and functionality of that brace bar but question why M2 designed it such that those modifications became necessary. Forum searches confirm the VIP and WMW (perhaps others) clear the JCW airbox lid but I'm not budgeting cost for a replacement strut brace on top of a used JCW airbox which aren't cheap.

Open to suggestions and comments...

 

I do not believe that the M2 strut brace will clear either the stock non-JCW airbox or the JCW airbox. I can confirm that the WMW strut brace (which is very well designed) will clear both. An M7 strut brace will also cover the JCW airbox.

 

Not sure why you think this CAI is less than effective WRT the "cold air" aspect. It seems that it should be pulling cold air from the base of the windshield. Other than it missing a seal at the top edge, it should be doing pretty good as a CAI. Am I not seeing something that would be letting hot air in?

 

If a suitable pristine JCW airbox cannot be located, then the Orranje alternative is a great option:

https://orranje.co.uk/shop-by-brand/...air-intake-kit

 

Thinking you're correct on the M2 brace, however I'll probably retain that as outlined below...

Just went out to further evaluate and take some fresh representative pics and now think you might well be correct. Read on...

Another option worth consideration, but...


As part of the CAI installation, the back wall was cut away to increase airflow from the cowl area. With that wall gone, seems some of the benefit of the JCW airbox would be diminished. Likewise similar with Orranje's clone, which instructs to drill a 3" hole in that missing back wall for the airbox intake port. I'm now thinking installing fresh OEM bulb-style sealing gasket material (or equivalent aftermarket) on the front facing CAI wall should help isolate engine bay heat from the induction stream. Also noting, no obvious "witness marks" on the hood insulation indicates the strut brace or CAI walls aren't pressing much if at all against that, although the leading edge of existing rubber seal shows crush deformation over time suggesting it is contacting hood insulation at that point. As such, improving the isolation sealing now seems far more practical than *** expense of a new airbox plus replacement strut brace bar required to clear all that.

Edit: OK, thanks to @Oldboy Speedwell, I'm now aware that my so-called "back wall", nay "partition" are available NOS replacements for both S and JCW airboxes and not big $$ either. With that known and factored, I'm not ruling out a JCW airbox, depending what pops up...

 

Seeing that big notch cut out of the ECU cover, I don’t think even a regular S airbox will filt with that strut bar. Might not matter if modified to be like a JCW with a cone filter, but it looks like you definitely wouldn’t be able to run a stock filter or K&N panel replacement without sealing the big hole that would need to be cut to clear the bar.

 

That strut bar was not designed for fitment to supercharged models ...

 

Agreed in total. IMO, the M2 design was poorly conceived then (noting mine was installed in early 2006) and now still. Still offered on their less than impressive website with inventory shown on hand, however the design has been changed somewhat (cost reduced with less adjustibility without turnbuckle ***** feature). I wouldn't have bought this product then or now, despite the obvious bling factor.

Searching the forum, I found your remarks with pictures 5+ yrs ago of the VIP Custom Parts brace. VIP's location is not far south of here, so I googled and deemed likely a cottage industry on a largish residential property. In any case, most R53 products (including that strut bar) "SOLD OUT" which seems a euphemism for discontinued. Also discussed in that topic was WMW's strut brace in which Way Cooper described their design objectives. At this point, theirs would probably be my choice if I go the JCW airbox route requiring a replacement (or no) strut brace.

OTOH, their website currently shows this with fitment including R53. Interestingly, no installed images or installation doc stating that modifications are required for use.