Ph1 172 & Clio DCi
So your hole argument about the RS2 is solely based on the fact you personally don't want to rev a performance engine?
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
So your hole argument about the RS2 is solely based on the fact you personally don't want to rev a performance engine?
Hairs**
yeecup
ClioSport Club Member
mk8Fiesta ST,172 cup
My point is what makes it so good? Mapped with non standard cams it's not doing anything spectacular other than smooth the torque over the rev range. Cams alone give more torque. Why spend rs2 money? Probably why the number of people who run rs2's compared to cams, itb's etc are tiny. Otherwise if it was so good why hasn't everyone bought one?
yeecup
ClioSport Club Member
mk8Fiesta ST,172 cup
I do apologise my iPad auto spell is to blame. Troll
SJM'd197'dBTM'd 182
Well congrats to Dan, a good achievement and to all those involved, well done.
This thread has been an interesting read, lots can be learnt and lots can be burnt.
@ yeecup - you have made your point that you prefer cams, yet always you come back for more, and still cant accept that different people like to tune differently depending on their individual needs. And even I, and I admit my knowledge of engines is not amazing, can read the differences both the RS2 and cams can make. If you claim to have 20 years experience doing things, surely at some point someone else has had a different opinion
Could you also provide a source for the offer which you posted on the other page?
This thread has been an interesting read, lots can be learnt and lots can be burnt.
@ yeecup - you have made your point that you prefer cams, yet always you come back for more, and still cant accept that different people like to tune differently depending on their individual needs. And even I, and I admit my knowledge of engines is not amazing, can read the differences both the RS2 and cams can make. If you claim to have 20 years experience doing things, surely at some point someone else has had a different opinion
Could you also provide a source for the offer which you posted on the other page?
Ph1 172 & Clio DCi
A 172 is a good car! Why doesn't the entire world own one???
It's all down to application. If its a track car, I wouldn't recommend the RS2 to anyone. But for a road car, with occasional track use, I don't think there's a better spec than RS2/197.
Ill repeat this point for the 10th time this thread. The standard inlet is designed to work best between 5-6k. This is even proved in the graph you posted.
In a fast road car/ occasional track car that doesn't crack it.
Do something about it rather than just locking threads down. He's turned two good threads to s**t.
Ph1 172 & Clio DCi
Yeah I'm a bit confused to why my thread was locked! There clearly one trouble maker here.
There's a difference between 'banter' and just being plain stupid tbh. He's had his viewpoint as to why he doesn't like the product, but now he's just doing anything to provoke an argument and complete mess a good discussion on a product.
imprezaworks
ClioSport Club Member
Mk5 Golf GTI :)
What else can admin do tbf.
Ph1 172 & Clio DCi
He's also been supplied with pages and pages of hard FACTS as to why he is wrong.
He's expressed his opinion but doesn't need to do it multiple times in multiple threads and in the process ruin the discussion.
Back on topic, interested to see what results Tim gets on his Trophy.
I'll be adding cams to my RS2 at some point in the coming months. I'll be sure to link to this thread if its still open.
I think the best thing to do is experience an rs2'd car, then you will an informed opinion on both sides.
We can all sit here quoting RR graph after RR graph, but get out there and get a ride in one.
It doesn't make it a Ferrari beater, but it does improve the driving experience.
Oh just to state on your above post, one of the main reasons for the RS2 being an option compared to cams, is an hours work or so and an RS2'd car would be back to standard - if you want a more powerfull car, which you're able to return to standard (thus selling the car and selling the RS2 trying to recoup some of the modification costs) then it'sa good option - it's a lot harder to return a cammed car back to standard.
both the RS2 and cams have their ups and downs
imprezaworks
ClioSport Club Member
Mk5 Golf GTI :)
Simplify it dude, I'm thick lol
RS2 3000rpm - 7500rpm you get a steady 140lbft
Cams 3000rpm you got 155lbft 4000rpm drops to 145lbft 5000rpm 152 lbft 5,500rpm peaks at 164lbft 6,750lbft you got 150lbft then at 7000rpm you got 140lbft and dropping, I'm not feeding the troll but cams make better gains than the RS2.. Except from 7,000-8000rpm on rs2 is still 140lbft but obviously the limiters been raised. So explain to me how the RS2 is better? This is using micheal's rs2 chart and Fred's cams. Plus it's kinda scary to be revving to 8k without arp bolts, I'd rather make my power lower down and change gear at 7k , it's gotta be healthier for your engine surely..
Cams 3000rpm you got 155lbft 4000rpm drops to 145lbft 5000rpm 152 lbft 5,500rpm peaks at 164lbft 6,750lbft you got 150lbft then at 7000rpm you got 140lbft and dropping, I'm not feeding the troll but cams make better gains than the RS2.. Except from 7,000-8000rpm on rs2 is still 140lbft but obviously the limiters been raised. So explain to me how the RS2 is better? This is using micheal's rs2 chart and Fred's cams. Plus it's kinda scary to be revving to 8k without arp bolts, I'd rather make my power lower down and change gear at 7k , it's gotta be healthier for your engine surely..
182cup & 172 racecar
Both are good, one is easier to fit and return the car to standard if needed. The other needs a cam belt at the same time.
Ph1 172 & Clio DCi
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.
For a start that graph isn't on the same dyno!
Also it's not on the same car! We all know how much the figures differ on these engines.
As standard my car made a peak torque of 127lb and 168 Bhp.
There is no where my car has lost at all over standard.
Don't waste your breath Russ. This has been explained to him at least 3 times so far.
182cup & 172 racecar
Ph1 172 & Clio DCi
For a 145k shitter bog standard it's not great but its no where near the worst I've seen.
The engines differ massively.
I find it mental to think that it's such a massive celebration to gain 30bhp. It's got to be so frustrating!
I mean you change an airbox in some cars and get 30bhp!
So much money for so little gain. I know it's always been a bugbear for owners.
I mean you change an airbox in some cars and get 30bhp!
So much money for so little gain. I know it's always been a bugbear for owners.
Ph1 172 & Clio DCi
What dyno do you use? 30bhp for an airbox! What cars?
182cup & 172 racecar
You know what Gally means Mike.
172 cup
brilliant reading this thread through
Unless you are keeping the car forever, cams are dead money, the RS2 isnt, so I dont quite agree on the ease of wallet with cams TBH.
Ph1 172 & Clio DCi
I'm sorry mate! With the garbage people have already splattered around in this thread, its hard to know what to take literally and what to take as light humour.
F31 35d, Berlingo Na
Because French
Ph1 172 & Clio DCi
I'm guessing its something to do with the inlets manifolds as mine has restored good figures with the RS2.
182cup & 172 racecar
I know, it's been hard work hasn't it.
I've tried to keep out for fear of getting banned.
Some Nuclear reactors can see gains of a million bhp with a slight tweak here and there, doesnt seem very relevant either though, if you have a turbo car, you can increase the airflow into the engine simply by turning up the boost, on an N/A car you cant.
I fail to see why its been mentioned about 10 times now on this thread that turbo cars are easier to force air into, its so obvious it just doesnt need mentioning letting alone repeating again and again.
YES turbo cars are massively easier to tune, its been said lots of times, no one has disagreed with it at any point so there is no point having a totally one sided discussing saying the same thing over and over when there is no one disagreeing with it anyway.
We all know that giraffes are taller than mice, and that turbos are easier to get extra air into than N/A engines, neither of these things needs continually mentioning as if its news TBH unless someone comes along and says the opposite to need correcting.
- Status
