RS2 makes 150lbft for almost entire rev range and 190bhp on standard engine :)

[Chip-mk1]

I remember someone on here recently (laine I think it was) saying that he hadnt seen an RS2 making 150lbft so I thought this graph might interest him and others.

I was down at MWMsport earlier today and they'd just got back from Surrey Rolling Road where they had been mapping a Trophy with an RS2 on it.

Ignore the lower lines, thats just the graph that was from when they started mapping it (was on an RS Tuner map before IIRC), the higher line for each is the finished result.

Pretty epic I reckon, not just cause it makes 190bhp, but far more importantly because it makes 150lbft from 3Krpm to almost 6.5Krpm

Just goes to show how important the mapping is, the MWM map has pulled an extra 12lbft or more all the way from 2.5K to 7.5K, thats almost 10% for the entire rev band of the engine

Bet its an absolute little rocket ship now, fantastic torque at ANY rpm you choose to bury your foot!

 

[mx1_champ]

people are to obsessed with bhp figures.. its the torque you need.

great improvement.. good job !

 

[Scrooge]

Actually quite a decent torque figure, I'd be well happy with that.

 

[Chip-mk1]

people are to obsessed with bhp figures.. its the torque you need.

great improvement.. good job !

Well its a bit of both really, if you are still making good torque at high rpm then by definition it translates to good power as well of course as one is a function of the other.

The key thing is the spread of torque through the portion of the rev range, especially in the portion of the rev range that you are personally likely to be driving in.

And in the case of this map, it really doesnt matter where you drive it, rev it to 7500rpm on track and its pulling hard, but plant your foot at 3k on a dual carriageway and its just awesome for all of it!


Compare it to something like the nasty peaky graph that ktec put up for their 438cams for example, and although that does make more peak torque briefly it only does so for a very narrow 1500rpm window between 5K and 6.5K, and the RS2 beats it for torque everywhere else for the entire rev range right from barely moving upto 7.5K, and the difference in smoothness between the graphs is astranomical, the 438 one looks like a map of the himalayas where as this is just absolutely perfectly level for almost the entire rev range.

Its not just a level torque spread "for an f4r" it just is incredible for any N/A engine, I cant actually remember ever seeing any 4 cylinder engine with a torque curve as impressively shaped as that in my nearly 2 decades of being into modified cars!

 

[James105]

Thats an awesome looking graph! Saving that for future use!

 

[aucky]

It really is fantastic for day to day driving.
The torque just whooshes you along, no need to drop a gear, ever.

 

[VR46-G@Z]

That looks Identical to my old Alfa gtv 3.0 v6 dyno graph minus a bit of overall power of course, this Trophy must drive fantastically well!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Chip-mk1]

Thats an awesome looking graph! Saving that for future use!

Yeah good idea, the next time you are on a date and the girl asks you about what the pinacle is that its possible to achieve in terms of perfect harmony between the cams the headflow and the intake on a 4 cylinder engine to get a smooth delivery through the whole rev range it'll be perfect for the job, LOL

Seriously though, it really is textbook torque delivery


Oh and just to clear up any confusion, it did have a decat and an aftermarket exhaust, I just meant "standard engine" in terms of the actual engine itself not the exhaust system, although im sure 99% would have realised that anyway!

 

[Martin_172]

people get too hung up on peak power figures, that is an awesome torque curve, if you can call it a curve! more like a line!

 

[Chip-mk1]

people get too hung up on peak power figures, that is an awesome torque curve, if you can call it a curve! more like a line!

Indeed, its a "curve" you can reproduce with a ruler!
If it was on an old school dyno plotter like back in the olden days when I first started tuning cars and I saw a curve like that I would have assumed that the motor for the Y axis controlling the pen was sticking, LOL

 

[BluRS]

Well its a bit of both really, if you are still making good torque at high rpm then by definition it translates to good power as well of course as one is a function of the other.

The key thing is the spread of torque through the portion of the rev range, especially in the portion of the rev range that you are personally likely to be driving in.

And in the case of this map, it really doesnt matter where you drive it, rev it to 7500rpm on track and its pulling hard, but plant your foot at 3k on a dual carriageway and its just awesome for all of it!


Compare it to something like the nasty peaky graph that ktec put up for their 438cams for example, and although that does make more peak torque briefly it only does so for a very narrow 1500rpm window between 5K and 6.5K, and the RS2 beats it for torque everywhere else for the entire rev range right from barely moving upto 7.5K, and the difference in smoothness between the graphs is astranomical, the 438 one looks like a map of the himalayas where as this is just absolutely perfectly level for almost the entire rev range.

Its not just a level torque spread "for an f4r" it just is incredible for any N/A engine, I cant actually remember ever seeing any 4 cylinder engine with a torque curve as impressively shaped as that in my nearly 2 decades of being into modified cars!

Hi Chip,

Let me take this opportunity to say hello to everybody on the forum-I am a new member. I am from Bulgaria and own a 2004 RS Clio 182 Cup(completely stock). Needless to say, I love my car! Having owned and modified some VAG front-wheel drive turbo cars for almost 7 years, I can appreciate the Renault Sport out of the box brilliant package-handling, strong brakes (fade a bit too quick, need better pads), flexible engine with very good instant power delivery (should drive a v-tech around town to appreciate it).

Agree 120% with you on the beautiful, flat torque curve!!! I noticed that a few months ago reading about the RS2 manifold and I have known since then that this is my mod! I have never seen a normally aspirated engine with such power delivery either! This is epic indeed! Comparable to the new M5 560 hp turbo engine graph, which by the way utilizes a very sophisticated turbo technology.

Shame on all RS2 haters to bash a good product. The fit and finish is superb as well!!!

I would also like to thank James Stone also for answering all my questions!

 

[markhinton]

I'd love to have a go in that, a very useable amount of power there by the looks!

 

[JakeyCUK]

just out of interest, if someone took their car in for a dyno, and it came out at about 20bhp less than it did when it left the showroom, does that necessarily mean its going to be slower on say a 0-60 etc
I remember watching top gear when Hammond got his actualy car done and it had lost alot of horses over the years but he said it still seemed like a rocket

 

[Chip-mk1]

just out of interest, if someone took their car in for a dyno, and it came out at about 20bhp less than it did when it left the showroom, does that necessarily mean its going to be slower on say a 0-60 etc
I remember watching top gear when Hammond got his actualy car done and it had lost alot of horses over the years but he said it still seemed like a rocket

Well if you make the assumption it genuinely has 20bhp less, rather than perhaps not trusting the particular dyno (there are some really innacurate rubbish out there) then yes absolutely it will translate to a loss in performance if its lost power.

In this case, the dyno was done at surrey rolling road, which is arguably the most reputable in the uk as they are completely independant (ie they have no vested interest in any tuner so no reason to frig the results) and they use the very latest in dyno dynamics rolling road which is an extremely well respected rolling road to begin with.
If on a set of rollers like that your car is down on power/torque then its going to perform worse too. So in the case of the car this thread is about, it would be very safe to assume it will perform a hell of a lot better than a standard car now

 

[Laine_16v]

Actually quite a decent torque figure, I'd be well happy with that.

Congrats to the RS2 manifold for finally cracking the standard torque figure :quiet:

Are people still forgetting the large chunk of mid range torque the RS2 removes over the stock cast manifold?

 

[markhinton]

Congrats to the RS2 manifold for finally cracking the standard torque figure :quiet:

Are people still forgetting the large chunk of mid range torque the RS2 removes over the stock cast manifold?

I think the point in hand is that it's now a lot more useable with an RS2, and besides, how long did peak torque occur on the standard inlet? Literally a few rpm going off dyno prints I've seen, how useable is that?

EDIT: but I'm happy with my standard RSTuner'd car, although if someone gave me £1500 and said "spend it on your Clio" I'd say thanks very much, and go buy an RS2.

 

[Chip-mk1]

Its a standard torque figure!!

FLOL @ you not even understanding the difference between a broad torque curve and a narrow one to think the torque curve on this car is anything like a standard one.
The standard cars peak figure might get close for a few hundred rpm but everywhere else the RS2 absolutely annihilates it!

Standard torque figure is a peak of 147lbft (although most seem to make a bit less than that just like most dont make 172PS either) and more importantly the standard figure is for only a very small portion of the rev range, this one is a peak of 153lbft but then far more importantly a whopping 150lbft held for almost the entire rev range.

Seems weird that you spend so long banging on about wanting good torque and then not see the value of a setup that makes the torque curve so much broader like this.
TBH before I thought you had a genuine interest but now it just seems like you've got a been in your bonnet that you just dont like the RS2 and you arent going to let silly little things like the facts stand in the way of you thinking that, LOL

 

[Chip-mk1]

Are people still forgetting the large chunk of mid range torque the RS2 removes over the stock cast manifold?

It doesnt, at all, not for one single RPM, this car outperforms the standard intake at every single point in the rev range.
Not much point you trying to compare the graphs of two completely different engines one of which outperformed the other by 20bhp before the changes were made. Thats the least scientific test in the world, lol

What your graph does clearly show though ironically, is that in the case of the car with the lower torque output (which also had lower torque output before the RS2 was fitted) is that the RS2 has extended that output at both ends of the rev range, its a much nicer curve than the wobbly horrid line of the higher torque output car.
Yes some engines make more torque than others in the first place but the RS2 takes whatever torque you have and then increases it slightly and gives you it over the WHOLE rev range.

 

[Laine_16v]

Oh look another graph RS2 vs Stock 172 cup, im still failing to see this "broad range" of torque the RS2 seems to anihilate the stock manifold with?

All the RS2 does is remove a massive chunk of mid range torque which people seem to w**k over because its "so flat and consistent", and add a small amount of power top end. I could do this all day loing...

 

[Sir_Dave]

When compared to my graph (also at SRR), which is for a fairly standard, healthy Trophy, the torque is held at peak for much longer, & the power keeps coming after 6k. Seems good enough to me.

Im sure someone can overlay it.

 

[Chip-mk1]

Oh look another graph RS2 vs Stock 172 cup, im still failing to see this "broad range" of torque the RS2 seems to anihilate the stock manifold with?

All the RS2 does is remove a massive chunk of mid range torque which people seem to w**k over because its "so flat and consistent", and add a small amount of power top end. I could do this all day loing...

TBH whoever mapped that RS2 doesnt really look like they did a very good job of it, either because they didnt know how to, or cause they simply didnt want to. I dont think its very relevant to start blaming the hardware that the mapper didnt do a good job.


Tell you what, we'll have this discussion again in a few weeks when my mrs car goes on the dyno with an RS2 fitted?

It was a perfectly normal 169bhp typical clio engine on matched inlets (so only at best a few bhp up on its true standard figure) to start with and we took a rolling road printout at surrey RR before we swapped over, so once we have it back there we will then have a completely indepedant evaluation of the real before and after figures on the same car at the same independant dyno, would you agree thats a fairer basis for comparison than taking the car to a different clio tuner who has a vested interest in flogging people other products instead of the RS2 so has commerical reasons that they want the RS2 to underperform which is I believe the case with the "comparison" graph you have put up there?

 

[Chip-mk1]

When compared to my graph (also at SRR), which is for a fairly standard, healthy Trophy, the torque is held at peak for much longer, & the power keeps coming after 6k. Seems good enough to me.

Im sure someone can overlay it.

As both are so recently done at the same dyno, I would think that charlie can probably be asked nicely to put them on the same axis for a decent comparison, and its a fair one in that they are both same age trophy cars with same exhaust manifold and all that jazz, but even still its two different engines so not really a totally accurate comparison, I think that the before and after of our car will probably be the truely fair test

I'll have a go at overlaying this latest trophy rs2 onto that for now though as its the closest to an accurate independant comparison we have so far.

Back in a bit

 

[Laine_16v]

Yeah absolutely its a fairer comparison.

Tell you what ill do the same for mine with cams, work out the area between the two torque lines and see who gains more torque per £££ break it down and see who makes more where to

 

[Chip-mk1]

Dave, here you go mate, this is your very healthy 175bhp standard inlet trophy compared to the RS2 one from yesterday in terms of the torque curves, forgive the crudeness of my "overlay" but its within a couple of lbft of accurate everywhere so certainly more than good enough for a decent comparison

MASSIVE difference! And would be even more apparent how much better the RS2 is at the top end where its useful on trackdays etc if your graph went to 7500 as its very apparent that your car would have been dead in the water by then, probably down near 100ftlb judging by the curve its tailing off with.

 

[Chip-mk1]

Yeah absolutely its a fairer comparison.

Tell you what ill do the same for mine with cams, work out the area between the two torque lines and see who gains more torque per £££ break it down and see who makes more where to

Yes that sounds like an interesting comparison too, i'd like to see that.
Are you going to do any other mods at the same time as the cams though? like headwork or matched inlets or whatever, as if so then obviously factor in the cost of those too if you are comparing it as a whole package

We can also do it in terms of cost if you are able to fit cams yourself like say I would, or if you have to pay for them like a lot of people would.
I believe that the cams you have as package with a matched inlet fitted and mapped is 1500 quid or so? Which is a pretty direct cost comparison to an RS2 if people can fit themselves but not map, which is what most people on here would fall under the category of I would think as from what ive seen most people here could manage to swap inlets but wouldnt attempt cams?
We can price out each different option though.

In our case for example there is no mapping (i did it) or fitting (my mrs did it) cost at all for the RS2, so the total cost was only about a grand but that wont be comparable for a lot of other people, likewise if you fit your cams yourself then even including new belts etc which obviously you have to do too its probably only going to cost you about a grand including all the parts and a remap, but likewise thats not so relevent for other people who cant fit cams themselves.

So we can come up with a comparison for someone moderately useful with spanners, one for someone really useful with spanners and one for someone who wants a drive in and drive out conversion with no spanners needed

 

[MonkeyKnifeFight]

For potentially less than £1400 mapped i wouldnt be complaining at those figures.

 

[Laine_16v]

Again dont forget that Standard Trophy isnt mapped, which should unlock a chunk of lower rang torque.

Only fair compairson would be a mapped standard car, vs Mapped RS2

 

[batesey]

The price of RS2's is more than it looks, remember you need new engine mounts costing just over £200, £400 for mapping (rstuning leeds) and £1100 for the manifold depending on the extras you go for, i was really wanting one but im starting to wonder weather its worth it? its alot of money for the gain, these are the downsides of coming to a clio from previous turbo ownership

 

[Chip-mk1]

For potentially less than £1400 mapped i wouldnt be complaining at those figures.

If you dont go for the fancy looking anodising etc on the RS2, then its £1049 delivered according to the stone automotive website, its a very easy DIY fit so no real need to pay for fitting (no harder than fitting an exhaust and decat for example) and IIRC MWM charge 259 for the mapping if you dont want a rolling road printout.

So the total cost is £1318 for the actual parts and mapping if you can fit it yourself which im sure most people on here can, my mrs is reasonably handy with spanners but certainly no mechanic, and she found it very easy to fit.

 

[Sir_Dave]

Again dont forget that Standard Trophy isnt mapped, which should unlock a chunk of lower rang torque

It is, full engine spec is as follows:

JMS Map
V6 airbox & pipercross filter
'RS' (standard) inlets
Aircon delete
BTB exhaust

 

[MonkeyKnifeFight]

Unit is £1049 mapping is £299 according to Stone Automotive. I think its a perfectly valid option if your looking to alter the characteristics of your F4R.

 

[Silent_Scone]

It is a good bit of kit IMO and drivability will be vastly better than the standard engine! Which has absolutely no grunt low down what so ever. I think the price point is still something to be chin wagged over however it's definitely a great bit of kit for someone not looking to devour their loom or more to the point spend out on an aftermarket ECU

 

[.Mike]

I dont think my torque curves that far off the rs2, standard inlets, decatted standard exhaust and remapped to suit.

Total cost £325...

 

[Chip-mk1]

The price of RS2's is more than it looks, remember you need new engine mounts costing just over £200, £400 for mapping (rstuning leeds) and £1100 for the manifold depending on the extras you go for, i was really wanting one but im starting to wonder weather its worth it? its alot of money for the gain, these are the downsides of coming to a clio from previous turbo ownership

Mapping is £259 at MWM, manifold is £1049

I dont think its fair to factor in cost of fancy anodising etc when looking at it from the point of view of commparing performance with other mods as those are cosmetic mods not performance ones.

I think a lot of people tend to have the uprated mounts anyway (we wanted them just cause it gets tracked quite often) but yes they are needed if you dont have them.

 

[batesey]

If you dont go for the fancy looking anodising etc on the RS2, then its £1049 delivered according to the stone automotive website, its a very easy DIY fit so no real need to pay for fitting (no harder than fitting an exhaust and decat for example) and IIRC MWM charge 259 for the mapping if you dont want a rolling road printout.

So the total cost is £1318 for the actual parts and mapping if you can fit it yourself which im sure most people on here can, my mrs is reasonably handy with spanners but certainly no mechanic, and she found it very easy to fit.

What about engine mounts that James says arnt optional? plus for me MWM is further away than leeds so obviously will go to RStuning , shame they cant do the same price, Does anyone have standard engine mounts on their RS2'd clio?

 

[Sir_Dave]

Unit is £1049 mapping is £299 according to Stone Automotive. I think its a perfectly valid option if your looking to alter the characteristics of your F4R.

And when you change your mind, you can unbolt it all, reflash the ecu and sell it on for £800.

Bit harder to that with cams

Re: the mounts, you cant have standard ones - the manifold would foul the rad, etc.

 

[MonkeyKnifeFight]

A guy in Australia was running RS2 without mounts, not sure how that turned out.

 

[MonkeyKnifeFight]

And when you change your mind, you can unbolt it all, reflash the ecu and sell it on for £800.

Bit harder to that with cams

Same reason i ended up with the ITG great bit of kit and nice resale value.

 

[Chip-mk1]

I dont think my torque curves that far off the rs2, standard inlets, decatted standard exhaust and remapped to suit.

Total cost £325...

Problem with yours by comparison though is that if you change up at 6K you'll fall into that small torque hole you have at just over 4K, and if you try and hang on till over 7K to avoid that then you end up in the region that it just totally plummets at the end, so either way you would really struggle to keep it on the boil properly on track, where as the RS2 you can change early or late and still be right on the money for torque everywhere.

But for the money, thats a really healthy gain and definately a good first step on a standard car.
Yours looks a good one to begin with too it made more than ours did even on matched inlets.

 

[Chip-mk1]

And when you change your mind, you can unbolt it all, reflash the ecu and sell it on for £800.

Bit harder to that with cams

Yes with cams once they are fitted your money is gone really as to take them out if you have to pay a specialist like most people would costs as much as their secondhand resale value by the time you need a new belt (bit cowboy to re-use it!)

Actually that wold be an interesting thing to factor into the comparisons me and Laine will do, the cost of having the mods on there for a year or two and then minus what you get back when you sell the car on, we can do that based on different ability levels too, so including having to pay to have both removed or just doing yourself etc.