The quest for 520hp: Cargraphic / RS-Tuning / RUF

[Bill S.]

Originally Posted by DRPM

To Bill S

"You can see the turbo mods in the photos".....which photos are you referring to please?

http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforum...ing-ruf-6.html

[phelix]

Originally Posted by vhanzon

What's the european equivalent of 94 R+M/2?

99

[TB993tt]

Originally Posted by Greg H.

Here's the FVD Stage 3 dyno numbers. Interesting that this says 525PS and the US website says 525 hp. Gotta wonder if they know there is a difference. Maybe someone can compare all the options in this thread? I have to work today.



Greg H.

Just an IMO about FVD....

Yes they have built some good fast engines in the past, specifically when he (H. Brombacher) sub contracts a proper tuning guru to do the job properly but from what I have gathered over the years he sells components and "an ECU" to go with the components which may or may not have been specifically tested with those specific components.

An anecdote I heard many years ago I think from someone on here was when he flew in to the US to "fix" an underperforming customer's car and he had "a suitcase" full of 993tt ECU motronic boxes. He proceeded to test each box on said underperforming car. The owner rode shotgun and was scared sh!tless by his reckless fast driving from which he (H.B) deemed which ECU "suited" the car best...... this put me off FVD for engine stuff however I have bought many parts off them over the years, they are a good parts supplier.

I would take any dyno sheets from their web site with a pinch of salt for the 993tt - a clue (as has been alluded to in this thread) is the requirement of their Motorsport intercooler to go to 550PS, an intercooler which didn't cool better than stock when I tested it, but of course it will be different now, new cores etc....caveat emptor

[vhanzon]

Originally Posted by TB993tt

Just an IMO about FVD....

Yes they have built some good fast engines in the past, specifically when he (H. Brombacher) sub contracts a proper tuning guru to do the job properly but from what I have gathered over the years he sells components and "an ECU" to go with the components which may or may not have been specifically tested with those specific components.

An anecdote I heard many years ago I think from someone on here was when he flew in to the US to "fix" an underperforming customer's car and he had "a suitcase" full of 993tt ECU motronic boxes. He proceeded to test each box on said underperforming car. The owner rode shotgun and was scared sh!tless by his reckless fast driving from which he (H.B) deemed which ECU "suited" the car best...... this put me off FVD for engine stuff however I have bought many parts off them over the years, they are a good parts supplier.

I would take any dyno sheets from their web site with a pinch of salt for the 993tt - a clue (as has been alluded to in this thread) is the requirement of their Motorsport intercooler to go to 550PS, an intercooler which didn't cool better than stock when I tested it, but of course it will be different now, new cores etc....caveat emptor

Very interesting.. Do you have any experiance with Sportec or SHK-racetec?

I just briefly browsed through the kits offered by Sportec. No prices are stated but I bet they are pretty expensive, being based in Switzerland and all. The kit seems very nice though, the available info is pretty straight forward. Just curious if you have similar stories with these two tuners as well .

Originally Posted by Greg H.

Maybe someone can compare all the options in this thread?

Greg H.

Here you go (not in the same graph though, that would be much nicer). Geez I realise by looking at the graphs we really need to plot all this data into the same graph !

In the following order:

1. FVD 525PS

2. RS-Tuning 520PS and RUF TurboR (490hk)

3. CG 520PS

4. *Bonus* RUF TurboR 520hk! (Dyno sheet aquired during initial conversationns. Turns out this kit is discontinued. FWIW, the kit is based on the 996-turbos. My take is that it is the CTR2 kit). Happy to contribute



[/quote]

[Jean]

A lot of great data has been shared in this thread. If I was to share my opinion, some tuners have succeeded better in offering more balanced kits, meaning delivering somewhat earlier torque curves, containing heat better by matching the proper turbos to the tuning and running them within maximum efficiency curves as long as possible, and having responsive engines, etc.. The trade-offs will always remain, smaller turbos will spool faster and deliver better torque earlier, and larger turbos will deliver higher peak torque numbers because they can run higher boost levels, albeit with little bit more delay.. For street daily usage smaller hybrids will do wonders in terms of drivability, on the track or sustained loaded runs, larger turbos will keep HP up there longer.

What is faster is debatable, the difference is minimal most often in a 60-130 style run, however starting from a 20mph roll in 4th gear will be different.

The RUF R Turbo approach differs from others in that they chose to stick to smaller hybrid turbos for better low end response, however cleverly added different cams to give better breathability to the engine and increase the Hp potential by spending a substantial amount of time on the engine dyno optimizing the setup. Others chose to go K24 and no cams, peak torque and HP are similar to the R Turbo however the delivery is different. The K24/no cams setup will be cheaper, and will run cooler, but is slightly slower too from low RPMs given increased lag. You are within the sub-500bhp there, then you move to K24s + cams and to the next level of 500+ HP. Then you move to K24/26 hybrids or K26 +cams + twin plug and see 550HP+ , and then 3.8 for more, etc.. It is summarized in the table below.

Tuners are limited by the engine efficiency, they can maximize HP/Torque if they are experienced, but the limits are there. Those who choose to run more boost and timing to maximize the dyno numbers, end up loosing with increased heat, and real life acceleration suffers so does real HP and torque once on the road.

I had compiled a table long time ago with the different maximum thresholds that I observed based on different sources..I am sharing it below, it is only directional. Any tuner offering very different numbers to these will most likely be sharing numbers that are not repeatable in real life, only on dynos. The numbers below correspond to overboost levels, so the 1.4 and 1.5 bar shown are only through a limited RPM range, where maximum torque is produced, then the ECU pulls it back again as RPMs increase etc.. Fixed boost engines will deliver similar peak torque numbers as below as well, but obviously longevity will suffer.

[TB993tt]

Originally Posted by vhanzon

Very interesting.. Do you have any experiance with Sportec or SHK-racetec?

I just briefly browsed through the kits offered by Sportec. No prices are stated but I bet they are pretty expensive, being based in Switzerland and all. The kit seems very nice though, the available info is pretty straight forward. Just curious if you have similar stories with these two tuners as well .

I have bad stories about ALL tuners by the nature of what they do some people will fall out as expectations often differ.....

mw911 on here has an SHK jobbie tuned on the Sportec dyno on his bespoke narrowbodied 993tt engined beast, running around 570PS - it is a fast car.

Sportec are as expensive as the most expensive Euro tuners and do seem to undertake some ambitious projects, like the 8500rpm 997 turbo motors which they have developed at great cost. The Sportec dyno hp numbers are usually about +10% on real engine dyno numbers and the torque numbers are Bosch FLA standard fantasy stuff - all IMO

I have a pal who has been using Sportec for his 997tt and has spent a fortune over the last couple of years and he now realises he should just have gone to RS in the first place and spent the money in one hit and got what he really wanted and still hasn't got !

[TB993tt]

To try and keep the information accurate I must correct what I posted below. I believe the power/torque curves in the original post below are from a "520 kit" which has the RS EVO head sealing, the giveaway is the high torque number. 735NM requires around 1.3bar boost which would leak with standard 993tt head sealing.
The correct 520 curves for the CG kit 4 (without head sealing) are as below. You can see less peak torque at 695NM ~1.1/1.2bar and not quite as full a power curve below 5000rpm but still a full fat K24RS 521PS !!

Originally Posted by TB993tt

Ruf 490 actual numbers for the engine in the article vs RS Tuning 520hp single plug K24RS:

[Kevin]

Jean, can you review the "stock" K24 "check marks"? I think that the "stock" K24 is hard pressed to deliver 1.3bars.. I don't know if that check mark was a typo? Shouldn't it be moved down into the K24/26 Hybrid column>at 1.3bars? A square 500HP/500ft lbs is a tough order for "stock" K24's.. The limitation is the compressor wheel "NOT" the turbine side..

[mw911]

The table provided below by Jean is - in my opinion - very helpful for our purposes.

When analyzing the influence of different overboost settings and hardware configurations on max hp and torque output one should, however, have in mind that the older motronic in our cars does not directly measure actual boost levels but calculate these from other more indirect parameters. Target level for the motronic seems not to be a defined boost level at a given rpm but a defined amount on air/fuel that depends from e.g. air density.

This leads to e.g. substantial (0.2 to .0.3) higher boost levels on hot days since the motronic compensates (by increasing the boost) for less air density in the hot.

Therefore, when comparing the influence of boost levels and various hardware components on net hp output in the 993 turbo platform it should be understood that ambient temperature should kept roughly comparable in all measurements.

I also include a maha diagram of my k24/26 based setting (by SHK-racetec). As toby has mentioned, the sportec dyno (which is a bosch fla based with substantial air cooling) reads higher than the maha.

Michael

[JBL930]

MW, what engine work did you do for those numbers, head sealing, twin plug, rods etc?

[vhanzon]

Originally Posted by JBL930

MW, what engine work did you do for those numbers, head sealing, twin plug, rods etc?

Michael ("The crazy doctor" according to a reliable source) is my hero! And so is SHK-sportec :

http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforum...3tt-570ps.html

and

http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforum...o-pipes-2.html

[Jean]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Jean, can you review the "stock" K24 "check marks"? I think that the "stock" K24 is hard pressed to deliver 1.3bars.. I don't know if that check mark was a typo? Shouldn't it be moved down into the K24/26 Hybrid column>at 1.3bars? A square 500HP/500ft lbs is a tough order for "stock" K24's.. The limitation is the compressor wheel "NOT" the turbine side..

Kevin, I understand your point.

However if you notice this is a K24 + cams (and intake mods setup), breathes better than the non-cammed upgrade, just the same as the K16 + cams that makes RUF go to 490bhp instead of being limited to 460-470. I agree that 1.3 Bar is at the limit of the K24s, however with the improvement in efficiency due to the addition of cams and custom engine dyno tuning, they can run 525 lbs.ft at 1.25bar (rounded here to 1.3), within 65% compressor efficiency or slightly more.

mw911
I agree with you concerning boost tuning, just to clarify the numbers on the table only show what is the boost required to meet those HP and torque numbers and what those kits can deliver.

Great car you have.

[Basal Skull]

Originally Posted by Jean

Kevin, I understand your point.

However if you notice this is a K24 + cams (and intake mods setup), breathes better than the non-cammed upgrade, just the same as the K16 + cams that makes RUF go to 490bhp instead of being limited to 460-470. I agree that 1.3 Bar is at the limit of the K24s, however with the improvement in efficiency due to the addition of cams and custom engine dyno tuning, they can run 525 lbs.ft at 1.25bar (rounded here to 1.3), within 65% compressor efficiency or slightly more.

Jean, I think I understand how table works, quite a bit of information! Should there be another check somewhere for K24 hybrid/k26 with no cams (the cargraphic/rs 493ps kit?)

Ryojo

[vhanzon]

Ok, I've plotted all the data I could gather into excel charts. Starting off here are 4 charts for your amusement. I will be able to customize these and plot them against eachother to our liking. So far I have data from the following setups: RUF turboR, RS520 PS, RS533 PS (martyns car), FVF525PS, RUF 520PS and SHK-racetec 570PS. I was thinking about doing Sportec kits also and maybe plotting one or two of the FVD 490 etc kits against the CG 473 and CG 490 kits. For next time .

Just to clear things up a bit: The RUF TurboR data is taken from the article posted by Toby, It's the most reliable data I could find and it is actual dyno numbers. The RS 520PS data is coming directly from RS-T (dyno chart). The SHK data is from Alex here on the board and the FVD data is taken from their homepage (so don't know how actual those numbers are in reality). Sorry for the missing labels but I've stated the graphs in the correct order below.

All measurements are in HP (not PS) and NM. Enjoy

Chart 1 TQ figures batch 1
Chart 2 HP figures batch 1

Chart 3 TQ figures batch 2
Chart 4 HP figures batch 4


You might think it's strange that I threw SHK-racetec in the mix considering it's a very different setup with mechinal rockers etc. etc. but the fact of the matter is: These kits all cost about the same (24K euros) with the exception of the FVD 525 kit, which is a little bit cheaper. I'm going to format these graphs a little so that they will be easier to read. But this is just to give you an impression .

[LAT]

Viggo, would you like the graphs from my RS Tuning 531HP 800NM to compare as well. To show the benefit of the additional work and how it helps the low rpm power.