JMS INTAKE OR RS TUNER?

[RB182CUP-FF]

As above i'm not sure what to go for so would like second opinion on this?

 

[172Ben]

Rs tuner, then just buy a PH1 or V6 box from Renault.

Done

 

[TimR26]

Hardly comparable and I don't think Fastchip are supplying the RS Tuner for Clio Mk2 any more.

Are you talking about the V6 airbox or RS2 manifold?

 

[172lover]

Hardly comparable and I don't think Fastchip are supplying the RS Tuner for Clio Mk2 any more.

Are you talking about the V6 airbox or RS2 manifold?

I seen in a thread saying there selling them again,

I'll go look for it...

 

[Laine_16v]

RS Tuner, you'll most likely get better results than the RS2 lol

 

[Chip-mk1]

I really like the way the RS2 delivers power.

Standard engine other than rs2/decat/exhaust/remap

Its a nice increase through pretty much the whole rev range.

I like the sound they make too TBH, not that such things are massively important in the grand scheme of things.

Quite a lot of money, but you see why when you look at the number of parts involved in making the kit and the quality of those parts.

Its vital to get the right map onto it with the RS2, if not you wont get the right results at all, like lots of throttle bodied cars that I've seen people put on the rollers and fail to make the numbers, its just cause they arent mapped properly normally (or wrong cam timing of course with these particular engines)

 

[Laine_16v]

Enjoy your 145 ftlb's!

 

[Chris205]

Yeah but chip the average results for the RS2 seem to lie at around 180-185bhp, there has only been a couple that reached 190bhp. IMO you're better off with cams, its cheaper if you're already getting your cambelt done and get same results if not better than RS2

 

[Laine_16v]

Yeah but chip the average results for the RS2 seem to lie at around 180-185bhp, there has only been a couple that reached 190bhp. IMO you're better off with cams, its cheaper if you're already getting your cambelt done and get same results if not better than RS2

Someone will be along shortly to say that was due to a missaligned throttle body :banghead:

 

[Chip-mk1]

Yeah but chip the average results for the RS2 seem to lie at around 180-185bhp, there has only been a couple that reached 190bhp. IMO you're better off with cams, its cheaper if you're already getting your cambelt done and get same results if not better than RS2

If you are getting your cambelt done anyway then cams make quite a lot of sense at that time, but bare in mind you need to factor in the cost of a remap still like the RS2 and unlike the RS2 you dont have something that you can remove easily to get your money back, in fact if you had to pay a specialist to remove the cams and refit standard ones you'd probably not even break even for their labour charge to do so when you sold th secondhand cams.

So even if you can write a lot of the fitting cost off as you are having your belt done anyway, you'll never see the money back from the cams.


For most people who dont do their own cambelts but are happy to fit an inlet the costs are likely to be:
Rs2 + fit themself and have mapped = 1500
Remove it to sell themself = 0
Have map put back to standard = 50 quid
Sell RS2 secondhand = 900

So I reckon you are looking at a loss of 550 in total to buy an RS2, drive it around for a year or two then put the car back to standard which tends to be how they sell best.

Cams on the other hand, you are looking at very similar initial cost, but bascially you will get nothing back at all as like Ive said the cost of having them professionally removed will cancel out their secondhand value.

 

[Chip-mk1]

Enjoy your 145 ftlb's!

The main thing to enjoy is the fact that unlike the standard car the power doesnt die off as soon and doesnt have a big hole under 5k, so it means its very easy to keep on the boil where as the standard car you find on a lot of corners if you go through in 3rd you're below where the torque is, and in 2nd you're just about to fall off the top of where the power is.

7500rpm on tap with the extended torque at both the top end and in the midrange from the RS2 is a massive improvement on how the car drives, especially on track, and that matters far more to me than a torque figure to chat about on the internet TBH.

If you personally cant find a use for an extra 10% more torque at the top end of the rev range compared to just a remapped standard car then thats upto you, but personally I can. So I am very sure that I will indeed enjoy it, in fact even now before Ive remapped it I quite enjoy the difference even though its only half what it will be when I have mapped it.


The standard F4R just has too narrow of genuinely useful torque IMHO, the RS2 fixes that problem, it doesnt suddenly make it a turbo car with huge torque, but it does make it a lot better car to use on track.

 

[cliotoris]

The main thing to enjoy is the fact that unlike the standard car the power doesnt die off as soon and doesnt have a big hole under 5k,

Caused by the leaner fueling on WOT to meet emissions regulations. A remap will sort this.

It's a shame you failed to do research prior to your purchase as for a small amount of money, you could have opted for a throttle bodies outfit releasing a great deal more power across the board which is far superior both on the road and on track

 

[Chip-mk1]

Caused by the leaner fueling on WOT to meet emissions regulations. A remap will sort this.

LOL @ that, while thats possibly true to a small extent with regards to the bottom end lack of torque, its of NO relevence at all at the top end of the rev range, there are no emissions regs at all which govern emissions at 7Krpm on a year 2002 car, either when it was sold new, or now.

It's a shame you failed to do research prior to your purchase

Sounds like its you who hasnt done much research if you think there are regulations effecting the way the power drops off at the top of the rev range on a F4R!

as for a small amount of money, you could have opted to a throttle body outfit releasing a great deal more power across the board which is far superior both on the road and on track

Its double the money and far more hassle as it means moving to aftermarket management and the dashboard lighting up like a xmas tree etc.

The RS2 was a doddle to fit, gives good gains, and is easy to put back to standard and get most of the money back, not the case at all with ITB's

We've got a couple of other cars on ITB's and countless others Ive remapped for other people or driven that belong to other people, so im well aware of their benefits, but they dont suit what we want for this particular car.

 

[cliotoris]

I mentioned nothing in regards to torque drop off. Buy cheap, buy twice. ITB's or false economy by producing less torque for 2,000rpm for £1500. My standard 172, no remap, cat on, standard in every sense of the word produced 172 / 158. I appreciate the power at the top maybe worth something whilst on track but it certainly isn't worth the £1,500 by the time you've had it mapped by a reputable specialist.

I dont see why it's difficult to remove the itbs and running gear in the future, it's far from rocket science. No problems with the dash lights with the KTR kit either for around £2,000.

 

[Chip-mk1]

I mentioned nothing in regards to torque drop off. Buy cheap, buy twice. ITB's or false economy by producing less torque for 2,000rpm for £1500. My standard 172, no remap, cat on, standard in every sense of the word produced 172 / 158. I appreciate the power at the top maybe worth something whilst on track but it certainly isn't worth the £1,500 by the time you've had it mapped by a reputable specialist.

Wont have cost us anything like that much finished, but I agree with your figures for people who have to pay for the mapping etc.

I dont see why it's difficult to remove the itbs and running gear in the future, it's far from rocket science. No problems with the dash lights with the KTR kit either for around £2,000.

More like 2500 on the phase 2 IIRC, which as I said is double what an RS2 costs, and its far more than just a couple of hours to fit like the RS2.

Fine for some people, but not what we were after on the mrs daily driver.

 

[cliotoris]

I just don't really see the benefit. Spend £1500 and have it producing less power, but holds onto it for slightly longer. It's pretty poor and I'm sure there's sections of the track where the standard inlet would see an advantage over the lower torque too

 

[Jamesstone]

I'll put this one up for the RS2 Haters

My good friend Sir dave's trophy - Remap, BTB cat-back, RS inlets, PMS aircon delete Kit & V6 airbox (Standard Inlet manifold)

So that's how many ftlb's laine, Oh yes 150 - for erm 200 rpm

At 2,500rpm its making under 120ftbs! Just in case you were un-sure

Then an RS2 car with the aircon still present -

At the end of the day this is all irrelevant as every car performs on different levels so you can never compare unless there's a before & after on the same rollers & on the same day, there was even a graph posted of a Catcam 438 car that produced under 190bhp :quiet: thought they all did 195+???


Dave hope you don't mind me using your graph

 

[Jaff.]

that is an impressive torque graph!

dont understand the haters tbh. surely its peoples perogative wether they want to fit an RS2 or not?

 

[Chip-mk1]

I just don't really see the benefit. Spend £1500 and have it producing less power, but holds onto it for slightly longer. It's pretty poor and I'm sure there's sections of the track where the standard inlet would see an advantage over the lower torque too

Not sure who you got your rs2 info off but they obviously dent have a clue.

There is nowhere in the rev range at all on our car that feels worse than before.
It's better in sone places and much better in others but still has the road manners of the standard car.

There is NO downside to it (unlike bodies) that I can tell from driving it, it's just a better car to drive with the rs2 than it was without.
Is it worth the cost? That's subjective I guess but to me yes it is.
Still all the refinement and quiet cruising of the standard car day to day but that bit quicker when driven in anger.

 

[RSTuning]

The RS2 isnt for number chasers but all the ones we have mapped have acheived the same end result of a totally flat torque curve, clean pull all the way to the limiter and a really good throttle response.

 

[Chris205]

Paul when are you back open? Need to get the dci in for diagnostics



On another note, I wish the RS2 would work well with cams i.e break the 200 Bhp barrier but sadly it doesnt seem it does.

I'm going for 421's when I get my cambelt done, I dont actually need the belt done but the dephaser is a bit noisy and I'm binning the Air-Con so makes sense to get everything done at once.

Anyone tried 421's + RS2?

 

[Chip-mk1]

Paul when are you back open? Need to get the dci in for diagnostics



On another note, I wish the RS2 would work well with cams i.e break the 200 Bhp barrier but sadly it doesnt seem it does.

I'm going for 421's when I get my cambelt done, I dont actually need the belt done but the dephaser is a bit noisy and I'm binning the Air-Con so makes sense to get everything done at once.

Anyone tried 421's + RS2?

James's old car made 201 on a set of C+B cams and the RS2, but it had a really horrible hole in the torque curve.
I personally think that more mapping might have been able to lessen the extent of the dip even on the standard ecu and that on aftermarket it would be possible to eliminate it.
By aftermarket in that context, I only mean to do the timing and fuelling, still leaving the standard ecu in to run the throttle body etc, so still relatively easy to revert to standard and no dash lights or needing to change the throttle pedal etc.

Here is the graph showing the 1000rpm or so hole in the torque curve:

 

[Jamesstone]

Paul when are you back open? Need to get the dci in for diagnostics



On another note, I wish the RS2 would work well with cams i.e break the 200 Bhp barrier but sadly it doesnt seem it does.

I'm going for 421's when I get my cambelt done, I dont actually need the belt done but the dephaser is a bit noisy and I'm binning the Air-Con so makes sense to get everything done at once.

Anyone tried 421's + RS2?

Testing shall begin shortly with Rikus automotive with there very positive results on very early testing with there semi-group N tool + RS2 - http://www.cliosport.net/forum/showthread.php?597835-Semi-GR-N-camshaft-locking-tool.

As soon as I know more I'll have details in the traders section

 

[Fletcher]

I'm going for 421's when I get my cambelt done, I dont actually need the belt done but the dephaser is a bit noisy and I'm binning the Air-Con so makes sense to get everything done at once.

I am doing pretty much the same. Another cambelt change is due soon, and I am also going to fit some 'agressive' cams amd ditch the air-con.

 

[RSTuning]

I personally think that more mapping might have been able to lessen the extent of the dip even on the standard ecu and that on aftermarket it would be possible to eliminate it.

Putting an anftermarket ECU would in no way change the dip, you can perfectly control the injection and spark with the stock unit. That dip is purely down to the VE.

 

[Chip-mk1]

Putting an anftermarket ECU would in no way change the dip, you can perfectly control the injection and spark with the stock unit. That dip is purely down to the VE.

It would allow you to swap from MAP as main load to TPS, and IME on hotter cams on a shared plenum you can get inaccuracies in map sensor readings from the inlet at some RPM points from all the pulses going on.
Also I'd want to try changing the cam timing TBH

Im positive that it doesnt have to have that sort of double peak on those cams and that inlet, and personally I'd be happy to lose some of the torque from 2500-4000 if I could trade it for a better curve from 4-5.

The problem is that to drive it started pulling nicely and felt strong at 3K ish, and then sort of faded away then came back in again, which felt horrible. I'd sooner it made less to begin with and built from lower.


By the way, not saying that you didnt do a good job on it with the time available and the hardware that was placed in front of you, I just think that with more time and with more freedom to alter the cam timing etc, and the extra control of TPS based management instead, that a smoother result could ultimately be had.

 

[RSTuning]

Yes but it does not need that in this instance. Whatever could be done on the standalone could be done on the stock unit. It's not like the fuelling will be going off on one, same with the spark.

Of course with more time more could be done but having aftermarket does not allow you to change the cam timing, it's either active or not on this version, nothing in between.

 

[RSTuning]

or do you mean manually timing the cams?

 

[Chip-mk1]

Yes but it does not need that in this instance. Whatever could be done on the standalone could be done on the stock unit.

If you can run the standard ecu with TPS as main load then thats cool, but personally I dont have a way to do that so stand by the fact that I would prefer to swap to aftermarket so that I can do so.
TPS is my preference as main load based on experience of mapping N/A cars on hot cams and a shared shared plenum and on both MAP and TPS and finding that I can get better results on TPS as it isnt effected the same way by inlet pulses.

 

[Chip-mk1]

or do you mean manually timing the cams?

Yes I meant manually timing the cams to find the best compromise of advanced and retarded position (as you cant change the distance between them as the dephasor will always move by only the same amount) to try and get rid of that dip.
I just dont like how cars drive when torque raises and drops, so my preference would be to try and find some extra torque in that dip even if I had to find 10lbft at 4500rpm at the expense of 20lbft at 3500rpm.

 

[RSTuning]

I think dialing the cams in would deal with this one but maybe lose a little top end.

 

[Chip-mk1]

I think dialing the cams in would deal with this one but maybe lose a little top end.

If you dial the cams in to suit it at 4500rpm then at least you have the option of using the other position at the top end, so you can run the advanced postition at 4500 and then r****d when the torque starts dropping off again at higher rpm.

But as with most things cam related trial and error is the only way to really know, things dont always follow what you might think they would even from experience on a similar setup the devil is always in the detail.

 

[Blue_Cuppy]

Thought JMS closed down?

 

[Chip-mk1]

Thought JMS closed down?

Yes Tom and James closed JMS down about six months ago, and James's new company Stone Automotive bought the rights from JMS to make the RS2, so they are now sold by Stone Automotive:

http://stone-automotive.com/index.php/clio-rs-products/clio-rs2-inlet