ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
ah ok, i see.
so with internal work the 197 could get to 240ish as well, obviously with similar levels of work to what it would take to get a 182 to that level, but it can be done.
wonder what would be more reliable. TBs and the work to get to 240 or the RSport kit to get to 250bhp on single throttle body.
hmm
so with internal work the 197 could get to 240ish as well, obviously with similar levels of work to what it would take to get a 182 to that level, but it can be done.
wonder what would be more reliable. TBs and the work to get to 240 or the RSport kit to get to 250bhp on single throttle body.
hmm
172 - 249bhp @ the wheels
bear in mind that the RSport kit wont make that power on anyone other than their own RR (just as Clio's never make book figures) and those are simply peak numbers you are looking at. I dont know why people insist on comparing headline figures of standard inlet cars to ones on ITB's, the car on throttles will be night and day quicker due to more available torque and power everywhere.
172 - 249bhp @ the wheels
You obviously understand the benefit of ITB's, sadly most people here only look at the peak numbers. Sorry if you thought that was aimed at you, I was simply generalising lol.
If you want the ITB's then I would say do it. Don't listen to the nay sayers b**ch about cost vs performance blah blah blah, because they are only going off peak numbers and what their mates or some outspoken tech waffling engineer tells them to think and say. In other words be careful who you take advice from on here mate.
If you want the ITB's then I would say do it. Don't listen to the nay sayers b**ch about cost vs performance blah blah blah, because they are only going off peak numbers and what their mates or some outspoken tech waffling engineer tells them to think and say. In other words be careful who you take advice from on here mate.
oh always mate lol.
i have come from the 106 / saxo community where people posted up slagging tuning companies because they only got an extra 30bhp from throttle bodies. the fact it was 30bhp from most places in the rev range was ignored lol.
i would be interested in seeing some graphs of the throttle bodies on the 197. its sad lol but i really dont like the idea of the curved inlet (even though a mate has built a race fiesta engine that is very succesful and has the same design).
I like the idea of forward pointing bodies, again, in the world of the 106 where the bodies point backwards because the inlet is at the rear, and it was always an issue, it seems silly to diliberately point them that way. If thats best for pulse, tuning, mid range etc then fair enough its what i need, but just want convincing with some numerics first haha
i have come from the 106 / saxo community where people posted up slagging tuning companies because they only got an extra 30bhp from throttle bodies. the fact it was 30bhp from most places in the rev range was ignored lol.
i would be interested in seeing some graphs of the throttle bodies on the 197. its sad lol but i really dont like the idea of the curved inlet (even though a mate has built a race fiesta engine that is very succesful and has the same design).
I like the idea of forward pointing bodies, again, in the world of the 106 where the bodies point backwards because the inlet is at the rear, and it was always an issue, it seems silly to diliberately point them that way. If thats best for pulse, tuning, mid range etc then fair enough its what i need, but just want convincing with some numerics first haha
raw striker
i dont have the test graphs as they where done on our old dyno which we dont really have access to anymore.
i am not guessing at what i am telling you..its very clear..if you put forward facing bodies on your 197 you have so little room that you will have to fit sf bodies wit 40mm trumpets on air socks and even then it doesn't really fit and will completely kill both power and torque! it will make less than the standard inlet everywhere.
but if you want to do it then please feel free to waste your money.
oh p.s you realize that there is currently no manifold available for itb's on the 197 head don't you?
i am not guessing at what i am telling you..its very clear..if you put forward facing bodies on your 197 you have so little room that you will have to fit sf bodies wit 40mm trumpets on air socks and even then it doesn't really fit and will completely kill both power and torque! it will make less than the standard inlet everywhere.
but if you want to do it then please feel free to waste your money.
oh p.s you realize that there is currently no manifold available for itb's on the 197 head don't you?
http://www.boggbros.co.uk/ will sort you a mani 
The very fact you think that RSport test on a rolling road speaks volumes. RSport don't even have a rolling road. They're a parts supplier for CC and FR2.0 components/parts/spares. Regardless of that an OEM/Serious engine developer would never use a rolling road for engine development at this level.
The F4R 8XX engine upgrade kits are developed and supplied by RST in France with development taking place at both RST and at their development partners (Oreca) site at MC.
Cheers
M
At work so can't see the pic. Is it a 197 fred?
Deltav, please don't misunderstand me. I am not doubting your figures or saying I could do it better I just know from experience that there are companies out there that "invent" special setups that differ from the norm in order to sell more units not always to getbest performance. Moving the rad, getting a manifold made are not things that put me off. I imagine getting a one off manifold made would be cheaper than a custom carbon airbox as per the up and over setup. My point was if up and over gave good gains it would be fine for me. If there is no real info on gains etc etc then it's still open field for what I go for.
Deltav, please don't misunderstand me. I am not doubting your figures or saying I could do it better I just know from experience that there are companies out there that "invent" special setups that differ from the norm in order to sell more units not always to getbest performance. Moving the rad, getting a manifold made are not things that put me off. I imagine getting a one off manifold made would be cheaper than a custom carbon airbox as per the up and over setup. My point was if up and over gave good gains it would be fine for me. If there is no real info on gains etc etc then it's still open field for what I go for.
ITB'd MK1
oh really? you never think to move the rad?
you ever think to read what has been said rather than be destructive? Picture still shows total induction length to be about half what is necessary.
Try it yourself. Oh no wait.....
172 - 249bhp @ the wheels
RSport are wicked, they made my car for me and it's 172bhp. They also made my other car that's 182bhp and they are both well fast. Think mine was Orca tuned though, so think you made a typo?
http://www.boggbros.co.uk/ will sort you a mani
Heard some very good things about them recently. And only down the road from me.
eh? the car in the picture makes a big chunk of power and hasn't got a long inlet
no need to **** me off danny!
172 - 249bhp @ the wheels
Tune in next week to see more of the same. If only my penis was a couple of inches longer I could suck it myself.
I love these "will never be settled" type debates :lolup:
I love these "will never be settled" type debates :lolup:
172 - 249bhp @ the wheels
wouldn't worry about specs, none of these are ever done on the same dyno. Get some test drives arranged with the people doing the conversions or put a thread up seeing if someone would be so kind as to take you out or better yet, let you drive one? People will argue about numbers all day, proof is in the driving
raw striker
the development 197 did indeed make it out of the workshop. the owner stills drives it everyday. we just dont really have any contact with him now as he turned out to be...how can i put this....a little difficult.
p.s no Fred i didn't think to move the rad....im just a spanner swinging monkey....i don't think at all. please teach me oh great master.
p.s no Fred i didn't think to move the rad....im just a spanner swinging monkey....i don't think at all. please teach me oh great master.
Nab I don't care for turbos. Na is the only way. Deltav just so I fully understand, what induction length do people get on the 182 engines? Does the 197 setup you developed give more induction length than a 182 setup? Just trying to understand whether even the 182 is a compromise as well. Sorry for all the questions.
raw striker
yes of course the 182 is a compromise 99% of the time every car is a compromise due to packaging issues. unfortunately that's the way of the world yes the 182 is similar, the best results are with running the longer 120mm air horns such as on gdi's black demo car, but again....to do this you are talking about a different rad and totally removing the front slam panel ect which is fine on a race or track car but 99% of people dont really want to part with the extra cash to do this or plain and simple they just dont like the look of it with no pannel there.
the 197 appears to be a little more sensative to induction length so running out the front just isnt really an option if you want the best results rather than just an expensive way of makig a nice induction noise. even with cutting through the plastic crash structure on the front of the car you will be nowhere near the optimum length plus i certanly woulndt want to be drastcally reducing the strength of that cross member, but thats down to you i guess.
im gussing that even with cutting through that member you would be nowhere over the length in this pic...which was well down on power compared to the up and over design.
but then of course you can go the other way and just go silly long
the thing to remember is just look at the legth of the standard runners on the cast inlet. you think there that long for a reason or not????
our test car was the optimum, and there isnt really anyway that i can see of doing it out the front other than cutting 4 big hole straight through your front bumper that is.
yes the 182 is similar, the best results are with running the longer 120mm air horns such as on gdi's black demo car, but again....to do this you are talking about a different rad and totally removing the front slam panel ect which is fine on a race or track car but 99% of people dont really want to part with the extra cash to do this or plain and simple they just dont like the look of it with no pannel there.the 197 appears to be a little more sensative to induction length so running out the front just isnt really an option if you want the best results rather than just an expensive way of makig a nice induction noise. even with cutting through the plastic crash structure on the front of the car you will be nowhere near the optimum length plus i certanly woulndt want to be drastcally reducing the strength of that cross member, but thats down to you i guess.
im gussing that even with cutting through that member you would be nowhere over the length in this pic...which was well down on power compared to the up and over design.
but then of course you can go the other way and just go silly long
the thing to remember is just look at the legth of the standard runners on the cast inlet. you think there that long for a reason or not????
our test car was the optimum, and there isnt really anyway that i can see of doing it out the front other than cutting 4 big hole straight through your front bumper that is.
ITB'd MK1
you'd think effort and thought had been put in instead of telling everyone you're great wouldn't you
ITB'd MK1
except for where the throttle plates are, ie very close to the valves, which is what gives the big respose inprovement. And the airbox has been designed with internal baffles rather than just being a plenum
ITB'd MK1
not aimed at you
a lot of "advice" from those who have never, and will never do anything like this themselves, but enjoy attempting to trample on the work of others.
raw striker
umm pass. lol. its at the stage where its all designed and proven and i have jigs made for all the inlet pipes ect, even have 10 pedal kits sat here. its just unfortuanatly another project that i havnt really had time to tie up all the loose ends on to get it to the point of being ready for sale as a fully turnkey kit. just been very very busy with some of our oe design work.
if you call omex and express interest then i may get given some time to finnish it off, its just one of those projects that has taken a slight back seat as the interest didnt really seem to be there compared to some of our other projects.
raw striker
someone asked this some time ago. ive not really looked into it tbh but packaging isnt such an issue on the 182 so you would probably find very small gains if any over just running the longer air horns out the front. dont forget if you fit a smaller rad on a 1x2 you can also run with a propper filter rather than socks. that will be worth a couple bhp as well.
Am I right in thinking you have to cut away at some of the front panels to get the longer horns in?
ITB'd MK1
Similar threads
