I think the off topic branch you are on at the moment when you started banging on about Seat's which are good for going shopping in on a thread about a carbon fibre intake manifold for clios?
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.
RS2 makes 150lbft for almost entire rev range and 190bhp on standard engine :)
I think the off topic branch you are on at the moment when you started banging on about Seat's which are good for going shopping in on a thread about a carbon fibre intake manifold for clios?
Power to weight also considered I don't think there would even be LOADS in it on a straight. By the time his VAG gets over the lag the Clio should have a good edge on it..
Most of the VAG range weigh about the same as the Titanic, also handle the same tbh.
I lasted in the VAG scene all of 6 months after selling my 182 I was literally that bored of it. Was dangerous for the shifts I worked falling asleep in such a comfy car FTL..
Feel a lot more connected to the road driving my 172 cup then I ever did driving a VAG.
Mate of mine has got a Leon Cupra K1 which is running 300bhp and he gets pissed off because my Clio can keep up with it.
On my private road of course.
Anyway back to the original topic of the thread..
Most of the VAG range weigh about the same as the Titanic, also handle the same tbh.
I lasted in the VAG scene all of 6 months after selling my 182 I was literally that bored of it. Was dangerous for the shifts I worked falling asleep in such a comfy car FTL..
Feel a lot more connected to the road driving my 172 cup then I ever did driving a VAG.
Mate of mine has got a Leon Cupra K1 which is running 300bhp and he gets pissed off because my Clio can keep up with it.
On my private road of course.
Anyway back to the original topic of the thread..
Speed limit is 70 anyway, so irrelevant for a road car what it does over 100 IMHO
Was just talking to James and charlie has dug out the before graph for -J-
Thats standard car compared to rs2/decat/exhaust/remap
Quite a difference, I assumed his was going to be one of those freaky standard cars that make big numbers, but it was not particuarly going by that!
25lbft gains for a big chunk of the rev range, 25bhp or so extra, and not one single rpm anywhere it didnt make good gains in both torque and power.
Certainly impressive!
Thats standard car compared to rs2/decat/exhaust/remap
Quite a difference, I assumed his was going to be one of those freaky standard cars that make big numbers, but it was not particuarly going by that!
25lbft gains for a big chunk of the rev range, 25bhp or so extra, and not one single rpm anywhere it didnt make good gains in both torque and power.
Certainly impressive!
Was just talking to James and charlie has dug out the before graph for -J-
Thats standard car compared to rs2/decat/exhaust/remap
Quite a difference, I assumed his was going to be one of those freaky standard cars that make big numbers, but it was not particuarly going by that!
25lbft gains for a big chunk of the rev range, 25bhp or so extra, and not one single rpm anywhere it didnt make good gains in both torque and power.
Certainly impressive!
Would a 172 typically be looking at the same sort of outcome? 190's+
or are all these tests on 182's?
Cheers,
Aydon
Was just talking to James and charlie has dug out the before graph for -J-
Thats standard car compared to rs2/decat/exhaust/remap
Quite a difference, I assumed his was going to be one of those freaky standard cars that make big numbers, but it was not particuarly going by that!
25lbft gains for a big chunk of the rev range, 25bhp or so extra, and not one single rpm anywhere it didnt make good gains in both torque and power.
Certainly impressive!
Result, glad Charlie found it for James, nice to see the standard car vs the RS2 over laid
Will have to get a copy sorted when I finally get the mapping sorted!
Was just talking to James and charlie has dug out the before graph for -J-
Thats standard car compared to rs2/decat/exhaust/remap
Quite a difference, I assumed his was going to be one of those freaky standard cars that make big numbers, but it was not particuarly going by that!
25lbft gains for a big chunk of the rev range, 25bhp or so extra, and not one single rpm anywhere it didnt make good gains in both torque and power.
Certainly impressive!
It is impressive - but it's completely useless without a graph with just the decat, exhaust and remap as well so you can see just how much difference the RS2 made
It is impressive - but it's completely useless without a graph with just the decat, exhaust and remap as well so you can see just how much difference the RS2 made
Well its not useless, it shows people what they will get from their standard car potentially if they go for the same mods. Perfectly valid before and after test for the whole setup of decat/rs2/remap.
To be an analysis of just the RS2 versus a standard inlet and the other mods though you are correct, but trouble is with that, even if James decided to do the test you are saying then you would then get people saying "but what if the remap on the rs2 was better than the one on the standard inlet" etc as any remap done for one wouldnt be suitable for the other, they have different requirements.
Oh I know - I just like stirring the pot lol
Ive seen quite a few examples of the rs2 and of remapped standard inlets etc and IME the best people can really expect from :
Remap / decat / standard inlet
Is a torque curve that starts low, builds to around 160lbft but is only there for literally a thousand rpm or so, and then tails off, and a peak of around 180bhp
On the rs2 they can expect:
150lbft from the floor right up till amost the limiter, and a peak of around 190bhp
so if you look at peak torque the standard inlet wins, if you look at a useful torque spread the rs2 wins, if you look at peak power the rs2 wins.
They are quite different in how they react, the standard inlet is very very good at around the 5-6 region, but its massively compromised everywhere else in order to achieve this narrow peak torque improvement. The RS2 by comparison does the whole rev range well, but doesnt have one little section it does superbly like the standard inlet.
Amazing how different to drive the cars are from just the one change, and various people will prefer one versus the other.
Remap / decat / standard inlet
Is a torque curve that starts low, builds to around 160lbft but is only there for literally a thousand rpm or so, and then tails off, and a peak of around 180bhp
On the rs2 they can expect:
150lbft from the floor right up till amost the limiter, and a peak of around 190bhp
so if you look at peak torque the standard inlet wins, if you look at a useful torque spread the rs2 wins, if you look at peak power the rs2 wins.
They are quite different in how they react, the standard inlet is very very good at around the 5-6 region, but its massively compromised everywhere else in order to achieve this narrow peak torque improvement. The RS2 by comparison does the whole rev range well, but doesnt have one little section it does superbly like the standard inlet.
Amazing how different to drive the cars are from just the one change, and various people will prefer one versus the other.
Have you mapped your car with the RS2 yet Chip?
All about torque spread!
Shame clios dont have that type of delivery with ITB's....
Shame clios dont have that type of delivery with ITB's....
Yes but just on the road mate, not been near rollers, been too busy with Porkies TBH.
Trouble is we did the before run at surrey rolling road, and getting back there isnt trivial with the car being my mrs daily driver down in somerset, its a long way to go just for a power run.
Also it seems less urgent as feedback now that there is a proper before and after for -J-, especially as unlike his car we had matched inlets to begin with.
Evo 5 RS
thats just the size of the engine though really. No replacement for displacement.
He isnt talking about the numbers, he is talking about the delivery.
So 100bhp but with a flat torque curve would still fit that for example.
As for Clio with ITBs, if you had a long enough trumpet length it shouldnt be a problem making a pretty flat torque curve (or just use an rs2, lol), that BMW engine isnt making much power per liter so easier to keep the torque curve flat than on a cammed up typical ITB car etc.
A big long smooth torque curve looks nice - but how does it help on a track car when you never drop below 5k?
Personally I'm happier with this
Loads more torque/power above 5k. As for below it - well who cares if you're driving around at 3 or 4k then you're not really going fast anyway lol
Personally I'm happier with this
Loads more torque/power above 5k. As for below it - well who cares if you're driving around at 3 or 4k then you're not really going fast anyway lol
All about torque spread!
Shame clios dont have that type of delivery with ITB's....
Is that the ATW figure?
Shame mine doesn't stay around 300 across the rev range.
A big long smooth torque curve looks nice - but how does it help on a track car when you never drop below 5k?
Personally I'm happier with this
Loads more torque/power above 5k. As for below it - well who cares if you're driving around at 3 or 4k then you're not really going fast anyway lol
Agreed for a pure trackday car, nothing under 5K matters at all.
On the road though 3-4K is where you are likely to spend a lot of your time.
Dont forget though, in the case of the RS2, it does hold on very well to the torque at the top end where you really want it on track too, at 7K for example, there is only half a dozen lbft between your car and the trophy this thread was about.
I dont think anyone would argue that for an out and out pure track car with cost not an issue that ITBs arent a better solution than an RS2 though, if that is the argument you are trying to have. I certainly would never say that personally.
Only reason i went from ITBs to a single plenum on my williams engine was to allow it into local road rallies, not because I thought I would gain power at the top end.
Thats at the wheels Chip, 322bhp at the flywheel from a 3.2 straight 6 with ITB's as standard.
I'm sure you do drop below 5k when on a trackday, i'd actually be amazed to see a car do any circuit other than a drag strip where you'll be above 5k all day long.
It does indeed help as you have much more of a rev range to use rather than having to shift a million gears for corners to be quick. Having that much low down torque and power will save you at least a gearchange and still be on the 'boil' leaving the corner with a shed load more rpm to play with without having to change up a gear.
Indeed at the wheels Tim. Here's the flywheel power graph, not that it makes a lot of difference as we all know wheel horsepower is far better to talk about then pub figure flywheel results!
Nick
Last edited:
after reading some of this thread is it save to say that that RS2 inlet is a better investment than throttle bodies?....as im stuck between what to choice
RS2'd Trophy
I also think one of the biggest selling points of the RS2 is that they regain all the cruise control etc, no slam panel removal/ grill modifying, can be used on std management and is fractionally cheaper. This is what made me go for the RS2 over ITB's as there awesome for an out&out race car but for a daily I think its better, the torque makes the car very manageable dispite loosing a bit at the top relative to the ITB's
Also remember that isnt the area below the graph relative to the overall performance of the car in mm3? therefore the RS2 out performs the Std inlet hands down!
Im sure chip will confirm this as I am no means a mapping god!
Also remember that isnt the area below the graph relative to the overall performance of the car in mm3? therefore the RS2 out performs the Std inlet hands down!
Im sure chip will confirm this as I am no means a mapping god!
Indeed mate, only 100bhp per litre, which is the utter minimum you're going to get out of an F4R on bodies with a half decent setup. And TBH for an Evo M3 thats actually quite good, most fall short of the 321bhp book figure and hence are under 100bhp specific output. I mapped a really mild cammed one this week and that did 212bhp for example, easy to get more, although the F4R is a pretty piss poor engine for ultimate power potential TBH, the valve area is rubbish.
Generally only if you dont know the track or something goes wrong TBH.I definitely dont ever go under that in my mk1 clio (172 gearbox) round combe for example.If you do go under that, its not going to be for very long.
If you are any good on track, there really is no need to be using the low end of the rev range, thats what a gearbox is for. Even if driving an M3 on track (which like you say has a good torque spread) I wont dip under 5K at all generally.
When dealing with a dyno dynamics the flywheel is just a straight multiplication of wheels anyway, so doesnt really make much difference which you compare if its cars with the same transmission etc.Indeed at the wheels Tim. Here's the flywheel power graph, not that it makes a lot of difference as we all know wheel horsepower is far better to talk about then pub figure flywheel results!
Evo 5 RS
I'm not talking about numbers either. When have you ever seen a 4 pot on ITBS with a flat torque curve. Least not like that
I dont think that is the case at all TBH, both will hold their value reasonably well, the only thing that might make the RS2 a better option is if you arent confident fitting the bodies yourself, the rs2 is a simpler instalation, and if you have a phase 2 car it means not having to mess around changing the throttle pedal etc which does make it all a lot harder on the bodies. Still not rocket science though, and if you dont mind spending the extra time to fit and remove bodies you shouldnt lose too much on them compared to an RS2.
Disagree with you there Chip, you may well think your going quicker on a track (i'm talking about corners obviously) but using all that high rpm throughout the whole track isnt always the quickest/smooth. I'm sure they'll be plenty of racers on here that will vouch for that, the Burpspeed chaps for instance will use the low-mid end of 4th at Paddock hill bend and low-mid end of 3rd for druids say for an example and this is definately quicker than using 3rd and 2nd at limiter rpms.
Anyways all i'm saying is that a good torque spread means you can be equally as quick around a circuit as a car thats peaky powered, hence why i'm all for the RS-2...
Yes mate, all the time, common as muck.
One of the most commonly converted to throttle bodies engines ever is the C20XE vauxhall engine, Ive got one on bodies myself currently in fact, and working for Total Vauxhall mag I obviously see them all the time.
Wheels plot:
Sir_Dave
ClioSport Trader
Nice graph
I agree though, there are many times on track where low/mid revs in 3rd are used instead of bouncing off the limiter in 2nd.
At this point, where smoothness is key, more torque is very useful
