MiniTorque.com banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
2003, R53 230bhp.
Joined
·
56 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
In my quest to create s "quicker" cooper S r53, I have so far added the following to my 70,000 mile 2003 R53.
20% reduced pulley
550 injectors
Stage 2 remap
Larger intercooler
Cold air intake
Pfc brake pads
Braided lines
New clutch
New Rainsport 5's
Hornet straight thru exhaust
Msd coil pack.
Dyno figures show 229 bhp and 199 ft/lbs.
Question is, what are my options available to reduce the 0-62 time, without spending £thousands?
Mid range is fantastic so want to leave that be. Its off the line i want to make improvments.
Thanks for your suggestions, no matter how "out there"!!
I dont track my car, its a daily driver, fast road.
 

·
Registered
2003, R53 230bhp.
Joined
·
56 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Agreed. However, unless you rev it to 5000 and slip the cluctch quickly, the car is very very sluggish off the line. Its got a standard cam but until everything picks up, its laboured. Light weight flywheel has been mentionned plus gear ratios and final drive changes. Trouble is, thats time and money.
I cant see re camming it will make much difference as i dont want to loose the excellent midrange torque. Always run it on shell ultra new ngk plugs, larger intercooler, so its not overheating or missing. You press the throttle with nofmal clutch slip and it borders on stalling. Could the 550 injectors be overfuelling the map. They were scalled in pre dyno. Im just wondering if 380cc injectors might be better as the 550cc are set as lean as they can be????
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,455 Posts
Where did you get it mapped?

20% is extreme to put it mildly, 17 or even 15 is enough to get the power you are getting.

A cam will not lose the mid-range and will add more to the top rev range as the standard cam struggles above about 5k.

It shouldn't be borderline stalling unless something is wrong, mine would spin the wheels at the drop of a hat pulling away with around 234 bhp without trying.
 

·
Registered
2003, R53 230bhp.
Joined
·
56 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Yeah, its almost like there isnt enough fuel or something. If i hold the throttle on 3000 it will fly off the line. But flooring it from idle is what takes the time for it to realise i want it to shift! A few seconds later, once its cleated 3000 it goes fine, reaching a touch under 70mph in 2nd.
 

·
Registered
2003, R53 230bhp.
Joined
·
56 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Where did you get it mapped?

20% is extreme to put it mildly, 17 or even 15 is enough to get the power you are getting.

A cam will not lose the mid-range and will add more to the top rev range as the standard cam struggles above about 5k.

It shouldn't be borderline stalling unless something is wrong, mine would spin the wheels at the drop of a hat pulling away with around 234 bhp without trying.
Map was done at Mapro developments in Portsmouth. I usually use Celtic Tuning but didnt have time to drive to Cornwall.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
In my quest to create s "quicker" cooper S r53, I have so far added the following to my 70,000 mile 2003 R53.
20% reduced pulley
550 injectors
Stage 2 remap
Larger intercooler
Cold air intake
Pfc brake pads
Braided lines
New clutch
New Rainsport 5's
Hornet straight thru exhaust
Msd coil pack.
Dyno figures show 229 bhp and 199 ft/lbs.
Question is, what are my options available to reduce the 0-62 time, without spending £thousands?
Mid range is fantastic so want to leave that be. Its off the line i want to make improvments.
Thanks for your suggestions, no matter how "out there"!!
I dont track my car, its a daily driver, fast road.
Impressive numbers but at the expense of fuel consumption and longevity, I'd have thought
 

·
Registered
2003, R53 230bhp.
Joined
·
56 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Absolutely, but when one modifies a car in the quest for performance, you expect this. I probably manage 24 mpg, but a fun 24 mpg!! To be honest, the car is a beauty with all the extras. I picked it up for £2650 with a brand new clutch assy and 67k on the clock. Not an expensive toy in the slightest. If it all went pop tomorrow, its not expensive to replace.
But i still want to go faster!!😆😆😆😆
Impressive numbers but at the expense of fuel consumption and longevity, I'd have thought
 

·
Registered
2005 R53
Joined
·
252 Posts
Check for vac leaks, plastic popes not pushed all the way in, fuel pump reference etc. as those all cause issues low rpm issues. It's probably not this but make sure it's not the ASC causing issues too, as it cuts in really aggressively pulling away (i never have it on for this reason, I can modulate my own right foot thanks!).

Even with the stock flywheel you shouldn't feel sluggish off the line.

catcam 469 only gains torque compared to stock, no losses anywhere.
 

·
Registered
2003, R53 230bhp.
Joined
·
56 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Check for vac leaks, plastic popes not pushed all the way in, fuel pump reference etc. as those all cause issues low rpm issues. It's probably not this but make sure it's not the ASC causing issues too, as it cuts in really aggressively pulling away (i never have it on for this reason, I can modulate my own right foot thanks!).

Even with the stock flywheel you shouldn't feel sluggish off the line.

catcam 469 only gains torque compared to stock, no losses anywhere.
Hi Carl. Yes, the ASC is an irritant!! I will check all connections as discussed. Cam change, yes, potentially, not a particularly hard or expensive job to do from what I have heard.
Probally worth a go for a bit of fun.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top