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.
Anyone tried the latest CB0M RON98 Sept 09 cal file ?
- Thread starter mortster
- Start date
nice one, let me know how you get on, just be wary of it requiring the firmware of the rstuner (vci) to be 1.78 or above (you can check the version through the about dialog box in rstuner software, with the rstuner device connected), i think it's because the cal is encrypted maybe.
Henk did mention waiting until software release 3.0, but i also have a vci with firmware 1.78 so it should be ok with v2.5
172 phII
nice one, let me know how you get on, just be wary of it requiring the firmware of the rstuner (vci) to be 1.78 or above (you can check the version through the about dialog box in rstuner software, with the rstuner device connected), i think it's because the cal is encrypted maybe.
Henk did mention waiting until software release 3.0, but i also have a vci with firmware 1.78 so it should be ok with v2.5
3.0 VCI firmware is required only for flashing megans, it will work fine with clio. This was confirmed to my by Hank via telephone conversation.
Mk2 1.2 Campus
So when the new software is out I can apply the new cal file as listed above?
Mk2 1.2 Campus
I'll hang on then
Henk is developing the RON98 cals now, he has said to me that the RON98 cal is better than the group N ones, even though people seem to think the group N is better ( i think it's the name that makes it sound better, but the ron98 are the more developed and maturer cals)
Bus w**ker
Errrm thought the group n was the .rst file and the RON98 the .cal? So the group n .rst rewrote the basic information on the ECU (including upping the rev limit) and the .cal reworked the fueling?
I'm just gonna run out now and throw the new .cal file on, but I am running the group n .rst (which oddly doesn't feature on fastchips any more) so I've no idea whether it will actually make any improvement or not or whether I should be dropping back to the stock .rst file and then throwing the new .cal on. Some support from Henk would be good TBH.
I'm just gonna run out now and throw the new .cal file on, but I am running the group n .rst (which oddly doesn't feature on fastchips any more) so I've no idea whether it will actually make any improvement or not or whether I should be dropping back to the stock .rst file and then throwing the new .cal on. Some support from Henk would be good TBH.
Bus w**ker
Ok cal went on nice and smoothly with no issues, took the car for a steady drive to get it up to temp and then took it for a quick blast, did a couple of runs for the PA too.
Did I notice a difference? No. Did I expect to? No. lol
TBH it's all a placebo effect without knowing what changes have been made to the .cal etc. Still revs to the higher limit too, but like I said previously I think that's more down to the .rst and not .cal; so there could be huge differences with someone running the stock CB0M .rst and the new RON98 .cal. It might show better mpg results on a long run or, hopefully, stop the f**king ICV kangaroo on cold start...but only time will tell.
Anyway here's some PA graphs, I don't personally put a great deal of faith in them...but they're pretty and some people take them as gospel.
Sept 09 v Feb 08 .cal on group N .rst
Sept 09 .cal on group N .rst v OE .cal and .rst
You may as well throw it on, as I can't see it having any adverse effects over the 08 one.
Sy
Did I notice a difference? No. Did I expect to? No. lol
TBH it's all a placebo effect without knowing what changes have been made to the .cal etc. Still revs to the higher limit too, but like I said previously I think that's more down to the .rst and not .cal; so there could be huge differences with someone running the stock CB0M .rst and the new RON98 .cal. It might show better mpg results on a long run or, hopefully, stop the f**king ICV kangaroo on cold start...but only time will tell.
Anyway here's some PA graphs, I don't personally put a great deal of faith in them...but they're pretty and some people take them as gospel.
Sept 09 v Feb 08 .cal on group N .rst
Sept 09 .cal on group N .rst v OE .cal and .rst
You may as well throw it on, as I can't see it having any adverse effects over the 08 one.
Sy
Bus w**ker
ITG panel filter in OEM airbox with Samco 90 degree silicone elbow.
K-tec stealth exhaust system with centre silencer and cat still in.
Errrm RS Tuner group N map and Sept 09 calibration.
PTFE inlet gaskets.
And that's about it engine wise, that I can think of. Matched inlets will be the next performance mod, when funds allow.
K-tec stealth exhaust system with centre silencer and cat still in.
Errrm RS Tuner group N map and Sept 09 calibration.
PTFE inlet gaskets.
And that's about it engine wise, that I can think of. Matched inlets will be the next performance mod, when funds allow.
'92 172, Lotus Elise
Clio 172
these cams need a custom map to run perfect
idle is about 960 upm the chassis is adjustable in height (FK Highsport) and is lowered about 2,5-3 inch
Bus w**ker
Thankfully I'm still on OE mounts...at the minute. But this morning was fairly painless, even though it's been colder than any day for months. No kangarooing up the street like a n00b and the idle wasn't as rough. Dunno if it will stay like that as I remember reading something about the ECU having to "learn" the start up procedure and idle...but personally I think that's b****cks and it is now sorted lol.that's what i want too!!!
pain with a solid engine mount
Give it a shot.
There is a big improvement with my cals, not only power wise but also warmup, idle, throttle response. Not all can be seen on a Dyno plot.
Off course it isn't a Turbo engine so be happy with a little extra.
FYI, it works better than most Dyno benches when used under the right circumstances. This has been verified by myself and several other users.
Track 172cup
so going by the graphs you've lost a cpl of bhp over OE and gained a bit of torque and a smoother power curve ?
i ran the PA on mine and then i got mine Dyno'd a few weeks later, i was surprised that the PA managed to get within about 3bhp of the dyno results, the graph was a lot smoother on the dyno but thats prob down to the real life road conditions ?
i ran the PA on mine and then i got mine Dyno'd a few weeks later, i was surprised that the PA managed to get within about 3bhp of the dyno results, the graph was a lot smoother on the dyno but thats prob down to the real life road conditions ?
Bus w**ker
And if you read what I said I can't have an expectation as there is no change log, an issue I've flagged with you before; so I've no idea what improvements have been made. But in my own experience I can tell no difference from a performance point of view between this cal and the Feb 08. But you'll also notice that I have said, just this morning, that cold start and idle appears to be improved.
If I tell you that I don't believe rolling roads/dynos either will that make you feel a bit better?
I also compared an OE cal on the OE .rst (for want of a better description) to the Sept 09 cal and group N .rst...like I said lol.
The exact same stretch of road was used at WOT in third for every graph I have, wouldn't make much sense to just pick random roads to try it out on as there would be no continuity. No it's not ideal as it's not perfectly flat, the conditions weren't exactly the same, the cars weight is a guesstimation, etc etc etc.
For me the graphs, or even a rolling road/dyno run, are pointless. They prove nothing to me and they don't actually tell me how the car really drives/performs. As long as the car drives better afterwards, which it does as previously said in countless other threads about RS Tuner, then I'm happy.
I've been confused on a similar point mate, i understood that the .rst as the complete software program would be responsible for controlling parameters such as rev limit etc, and the .cal was purely the config file, which controls the variables which the .rst file specifies.
Does anyone know if you use the standard A300 rst file, in combination with the latest RON98 cals whether the rev limit is still raised ?
Bus w**ker
No real formula, more a guess lol.
OE Kerb weight + me + full tank of fuel (roughly and no where near accurately 1litre = 1kg). 1200Kg was the figure I ended up at lol.
So do I need to revert back to the stock .rst instead of the group N? If I do, does the rev limit reduce back to the OE 6500rpm (ish what ever the OE limit is) or stay at the 7k+ figure?
Similar threads
