182cup & 172 racecar
I've seen a mouse on stilts, if that helps. 
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.
Congrats to DanPl6 on cracking 200bhp (rs2 + 197 cams)
- Status
Even I could make a Dyno say what figures I wanted.
I always laugh at people spending Ks with a tuning company and then being happy because it made XXXbhp. They're hardly going to tell you it made 10bhp after ploughing 5k into it.
I'm just not into pub figures mate that's all but the frustration of the engine would annoy me.
Youre right no need to mention turbo'd cars. Just sometimes you feel you need to remind people that there are 100x better cars to tune when they are spending thousands of pounds trying to hunt figures and gains of 30bhp.
anyway, can you actually explain Laine's graph, comparing the two you actually get much better torque gains throughout the rev range with cams so its hard to justify spending the extra thousand on this manifold for inferior gains.
Ph1 172 & Clio DCi
That's exactly why I use Surrey Rolling Road.
They have no interest whatsoever in fudging the figures as they are no way linked to me. I just show up, pay my money and they dyno the car! Charlie literally couldn't give 2 hoots what the figure is.
They also have a Dyno Dynamics rolling road which are also very respected.
I'm guessing an RS2 stops cruise control from working though, and cams wouldn't?
Just curiosity here.
Just curiosity here.
Ph1 172 & Clio DCi
I have a standard inlet laying round and a set of 438's. I'm temped to get an overlay graph with my engine on the same Dyno to end this for good.
OK, MWM thread is closed, so ill post here, direct comparison GT Cams package vs MWM's graph. (£1000 fitted + £300 map) vs RS2 + 197 cams £1000 RS2 + £300 map + £150 cams
Whats better value? (green = RS2 gains, red = RS2 loses). No ive not cheated the green line either.
I think thats a really good comparison laine and it shows clearly that each has their own point where they are better.
I think its probably slightly unfair comparison to compare a car from the dyno of the people who mapped it, against another car on a totally indepedant dyno, so Im sure you are sensible enough to realise that (especially given that Mikes wasnt even properly mapped he just put it on out of interest half finished to get a figure before taking it off) if you were to use a more level test (ie both fully mapped and on the same dyno) the two areas would be a lot nearer to being the same size (although I think the cams would still slightly win as it happens)
As mentioned before though, if you want to rev a car hard on track as you are coming out of a bend and dont want to upset the balance of the car by dipping the clutch its very obvious that the RS2 gaining where the standard engine suffers so poorly at the top end is going to give a nicer drive than a set of cams that instead improve it at the point its already good to drive anyway.
Two very different ways to skin a cat, and IMHO no clear winner between the two, each are suited to different driving styles and uses, I have driven cammed with standard inlet and RS2 with 197 cams both a lot, and to my personal preference the RS2 wins, especially on track, but I am sure others will have the opposite preference.
What I dont understand at all is why people into cams on this forum all seem to be so massively blinkered and totally unable to appreciate anything else, here is the graph from my Ph1, and yet I still thoroughly enjoy driving our RS2 car, yet if I was of the same mentality as you and that yeecup r****d I apparently shouldnt be able to still enjoy driving a really tractable engine that goes pretty well at any point in the rev range I choose to put my foot down.
The thing is with ENJOYING driving a car, its as much about how the power is delivered as it is about how much there is, you two banging on about peak torque figures continually make it sound like that is all that matters, but the opposite is true IME, the thing that makes an engine fun to drive is when you put your foot down and it goes and then just pulls and pulls, not build in a crescendo and then tail off again, the extra midrange just ends up making the top end feel very dead by comparison, Id sooner have 140lbft and keep it, than have 160lbt one second and then be down at 125lbft the next.
Ph1 172 & Clio DCi
Poopensharten
ClioSport Club Member
Golf R
Christ, 7 pages!
Whilst i can appreciate the workmanship i feel as though 1*2's arent appreciated out of the box enough!
Good going all the same.
Whilst i can appreciate the workmanship i feel as though 1*2's arent appreciated out of the box enough!
Good going all the same.
Lesleys car has an RS2 and we have retrofitted 182 cruise control to it now as well, works perfectly together.
Laine, as you are good with photoshop, can you do me a favour please?
Will you take your car before and after 438 cams and do the same "here is where it gained" comparison, and then do the same with Mikes car before and after the RS2 and the cams?
I think that might make for very interesting reading?
Will you take your car before and after 438 cams and do the same "here is where it gained" comparison, and then do the same with Mikes car before and after the RS2 and the cams?
I think that might make for very interesting reading?
Ah, great. If and when I get a 1*2 I'd probably end up looking to get a bit more grunt without losing any of the practicality so that's handy to know, cheers.
I can try tommorow, id be happy to. I know where this is going though, i remember seeing the direct comparison screenshot on their dyno computer between my stock car dynod about 2 months previous vs 438's and map. the gains were pretty much... not there, i was dissapointed, literally talking 1-2ft lb's tops (peak gain of 3ft lb). I'll be the first to admit that was a big waste of my cash.
Dont think Mikes posted his graph before his cams were fitted?
Main reason initially was to save weight TBH mate, the standard inlet isnt terrible in the first place performance wise but my god thats a lot of weight to have forward of the front axle!.
Laine, the reason I want you to do it, is partly to balance out what I feel is an unfair comparison you have done one way with an unfair comparison the other way, so that when the RS2 and 197 cams on those two particular examples makes about five times the gains in area that the 438s have done, I can point out to you that you shouldnt be comparing such different cars to start with, as that time you will agree with me, and yet when it suits the argument you are trying to put forward you will happily compare two totally different cars on different dynos one of which is independent of the not fully mapped car that went on and one of which is owned by the person mapping it!
Its hard to respect someone like you's opinion when you apply one rule to one thing when it suits you and another when it doesnt, at least with me I am always just purely interested in the actual facts and am happy to concede a point that doesnt suit me just cause its true as that is what I care about the most, things being accurate.
Ahh fair enough makes sense, it is quite a lump.
sbridgey
ClioSport Club Member
disco 4, 182, Meglio
This thread makes for interesting reading, my point of view is that both the cams and the RS2 are not really worth it for the cost vs performance gains.
I think the RS2 would be worth it for a relatively inexpensive race car and the cams are good if you are due a belt change but other than that i don't really see the point tbh, it just seems like a hell of a lot of money to spend.
All my opinion of course.
I think the RS2 would be worth it for a relatively inexpensive race car and the cams are good if you are due a belt change but other than that i don't really see the point tbh, it just seems like a hell of a lot of money to spend.
All my opinion of course.
That's what I like to hear.
This is way i'm starting to feel also. This may go off topic and I do apologise.
There's no doubting I love the RS2 as a product because of the way it 'transforms' the power delivery of the clio, but the cold hard fact is all this 'discussing' about what's better is pointless in terms of 'which/who's is faster'. You can have 10 horsepower difference between two same cars and in a straight drag race (the fairest way to compare two cars powers?) the car with the extra 10 horsepower will barely of pulled ahead of the other car.
The best thing for me IME is to buy things that'll get my money back on (and most of the time for me more!). Hence my future Racecar will run a standard inlet now, with a cheap homebrew induction kit, a cheap simple second hand exhaust system, and a few other parts that help tie these mods in which will also get my money back when I come to sell the car. The car may only make 180bhp, so unless I come up against a car of the same weight (unlikely) with 40+ bhp than mine, they wont be getting away from me in a hurry... Other cars may have better drivability than me (say a clio with a RS2 and me with a standard inlet) but because there's a million other things to factor in with racing, the likelihood is in the real world it'll make no difference.
I guess what i'm trying to say is unless your constantly racing someone etc to compare power between two similar cars, the way the car feels to drive is the only thing that you can experience every time you drive it. And that to me makes me happy and what modifying road/track cars is all about.
Nick
sbridgey
ClioSport Club Member
disco 4, 182, Meglio
Precisely, James proved this at Donnington this year, with only 175 bhp he drove a superb race and beat cars with more power than him, and for £1500 you can get a cracking suspension set up which I am sure will make more difference than slightly more power will.
I think i would go the same way as you making a race car and gradually build on it, keeping it nice and simple and most importantly, cheap.
182cup & 172 racecar
True, when testing at Mallory, I struggled to pass Petes Clio in a straight drag down the main straight.
172 Cup 181bp 165lbf
Thats the problem with comparing between different cars with the clio, its this stupid thing where they vary so much to begin with
Ive seen graphs from SRR for standard cars everywhere between 135lbft and 165lbft (which Im sure you will be aware of as its millerins freaky cup) so trying to compare mods from one of them to another would be pointless.
HAHAHA Millerin's Freaky Cup....Love it
172 Cup 181bp 165lbf
Hey laine, excuse the slight crudeness of the graph, but what do you think of the gains here, excuse the crudeness of the line Ive added but it is a reasonable copy from a standard car graph:
Whoop Whoop....My Freaky Cup
Ph1 172 & Clio DCi
Wow! This thread has exploded!
i didn't follow the whole discussion, all i can say is wow at the graph of Dan!
can't even call it a torgue curve, it's more a torgue flat
Mine even flater!
Interesting reading.
If this below is a typical result for the kit on a stock car as a bolt on / removable upgrade with a good calibration I think it delivers
I wonder if the inlet flows to match the stock engines requirements across the RPM range; alter the cams and your changing certain properties that should be matched with intake change? Just a theory....
If this below is a typical result for the kit on a stock car as a bolt on / removable upgrade with a good calibration I think it delivers
I wonder if the inlet flows to match the stock engines requirements across the RPM range; alter the cams and your changing certain properties that should be matched with intake change? Just a theory....
Just for comparison for those who are interested, standard 172cup run over laid with same car with RS2 on same rollers.
BMW 330ci sp/ 172Cup
Pingpong,
you make a valid point. When I was researching our inlet design a number of factors make up the ideal runner length for example. One of these factors was inlet cam duration. There are lots of other things to consider, some hard to measure/ascertain. I'm not saying that inlet X won't work when other components are, but it may no longer be optimised. How much this may impact the end results I don't know.
Spookly, the runner length figure I came up with (I based peak torque at 6k rpm) was identical(to the mm) to jenvey itb's with 90mm trumpets. In our rr printout you can see that max torque is bang on 6k. However, others have shown 120mm trumpets offer further advantages.
you make a valid point. When I was researching our inlet design a number of factors make up the ideal runner length for example. One of these factors was inlet cam duration. There are lots of other things to consider, some hard to measure/ascertain. I'm not saying that inlet X won't work when other components are, but it may no longer be optimised. How much this may impact the end results I don't know.
Spookly, the runner length figure I came up with (I based peak torque at 6k rpm) was identical(to the mm) to jenvey itb's with 90mm trumpets. In our rr printout you can see that max torque is bang on 6k. However, others have shown 120mm trumpets offer further advantages.
R5 gtt, R27 F1 team
Ph1 172 & Clio DCi
Na that ones mine! There's 2 other cars with this same spec that I'm waiting to get on the dyno as well. Hopefully soon the 200+ club will be flooded with lots of members.
I hope they do, shows very consistent results for the mods then.
Ph1 172 & Clio DCi
Ph1 172 & Clio DCi
You mean the RS2 and 197cams?
Yes it is all mapped into the standard ECU. There is nothing that can't be put back to standard.
- Status
