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

[Chip-mk1]

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.

I suspect you will find the burpspeed lads will be using the revs more now they have power up there on their latest engine. You dont EVER want to be hitting the rev limiter obviously, so sometimes you have to go for a higher gear to allow you to pull out of a bend without running out of revs before the wheel is straight enough for a gear change, but if you are in a car that works well at 7500rpm+, then the amount of time you spend under 5K is going to be very small or non existant, especially if you are talking track cars cause you should have a gearbox that sits close enough together to not have that problem.For example my ITB corsa I used to need to be under 5K on the 2nd chicane at combe as in 2nd gear I'd hit the limiter coming out, but in 3rd I was at only 4500rpm, so I have since changed my gearing so this doesnt happen anymore.

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...

If you are doing road rallies or similar where you dont have detailed prior knowledge of the corner then you always sit in a higher gear if in doubt, but on circuits its not normally such an issue.But I agree with you that the RS2 makes it a lot easier to drive a car fast without ending up in that horrible hole before the car comes up on the power that you get with a lot of setups, especially if you are talking standard rod bolts and hence not a high rev limit.I'd still take bodies for a pure track car, but the RS2 isnt a million miles off on track and is far nicer on the road. Thats exactly why we went for that for our 172 rather than bodies. Also for my mrs who has less track experience than me, so more likely to be in the wrong gear, it is a lot more forgiving than bodies. generally are, especially if talking about short ones like people want on a 172 to avoid bonnet pins etc on a daily.

 

[Chip-mk1]

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

Can you boys put a figure on the "low" rpm that you are referring to?

Cause to me low rpm is like 3K or below, and I can honestly say I am NEVER at 3k or below at a trackday unless im in the pits!
(assuming we are talking a 7500rpm or so petrol engine car not a derv, lol)

 

[Sir_Dave]

Can you boys put a figure on the "low" rpm that you are referring

At a guess, instead of being at 6k in 2nd, ud be at 4k in 3rd instead. To me, thats low on track. Mid is say 4.5-6.5, high 6.5k+

 

[Chip-mk1]

At a guess, instead of being at 6k in 2nd, ud be at 4k in 3rd instead. To me, thats low on track. Mid is say 4.5-6.5, high 6.5k+

If you are going to call 4K low rpm (even though its actually higher than 50% of max revs) then that explains a bit of the confusion with what you guys were saying about using "low" rpm, but im still of the opinion that if you are that low on track often in a car that pulls to 7.5 or 8K then you have your gearing wrong or just arent driving it very well.
In my mk1 clio I spend at least 90% of time over 5Krpm on track and on some tracks its 100% over that.

 

[Sir_Dave]

Im probably just not a very good driver then

 

[Nick172Cup]

Im probably just not a very good driver then

Lol me too and the person thats taught me pretty much everything so far even though he's a racer!

 

[Ollie82.]

LOL.

I can vouch for both of the chumps above.....both can pedal a car very well. And neither have blown up an engine....unless thats what grades a driver as good.
If so, both are crap.

 

[Chip-mk1]

Im probably just not a very good driver then

If you are at 4K a lot on track, its more likely to be the fault of the person who specced the gear ratios than the driver TBH if you know what you are doing and are still finding you have to do that.

Anyway, cant help but think this is wandering a bit off topic and im sure that we all agree that having a really good spread of torque is very forgiving on track, we perhaps just choose to use it a little less often.

Edit:
Feel free to jump in with me at my next trackday (combe on the 28th april) if you are about and you can tell me how I'd be quicker in a higher gear etc, lol

 

[Nick172Cup]

LOL Nice edit!

 

[w33 brl]

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.

well im not the best mechanically which pushes me more towards the RS but I do have a phase 2 and I'm not sure if I'm wanting to spend a extra 1k on bodies if there isn't much of a power increase

 

[Ollie82.]

Edit:
Feel free to jump in with me at my next trackday (combe on the 28th april) if you are about and you can tell me how I'd be quicker in a higher gear etc, lol

Maybe as a comparison you can then jump in with Dave or Nick at Snett or Donny (dates TBC) then you can see how poor they are at lower RPM

 

[Chip-mk1]

Maybe as a comparison you can then jump in with Dave or Nick at Snett or Donny (dates TBC) then you can see how poor they are at lower RPM

Sounds good, always up for jumping in for passenger rides

 

[Cup_Phil]

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.

Totally disagree - watch the burpspeed vids or any of mine. I rarely drop below 5k at brands or rockingham. I can't see me getting below 5k ever on Donington either.
Maybe at Anglesey on the hairpin - I was getting killed by my mates mx5 coming out the hairpin because the clio just had no low down power and I really didn't want to go round it in 1st and wheel spin my way out lol but that's just one corner on one track. Other than Cadwell I really can't see a UK track that you would ever drop below 5k on.

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

This is very true
My ITB's (second hand) cost me £2k all in - so I'd always argue if you want a seriously quick Clio and can find a 2nd hand set of ITB's it's money better spent. But not if it's your daily drive
You end up with bonnet catches, no slam panel, a dashboard lit up like a christmas tree, no working computer for fuel economy etc...
I know if you get a Gen90 or one of the TDF ecu's you can keep most of it working - but that adds a serious chunk to the build cost
That's where the RS2 shines - you get a virtually standard OEM car with no MOT issues and a nice chunk of extra torque/bhp

The only thing that winds me up is, not necessarily this thread, the people who keep saying "RS2 gives 95% of the gains of ITB's and half the money"
They don't make 95% of the gains at all and they're definitely not half the money lol
They're just a very good solution for a road car where ITB's are a very good solution for a track car

 

[Cup_Phil]

Edit:
Feel free to jump in with me at my next trackday (combe on the 28th april) if you are about and you can tell me how I'd be quicker in a higher gear etc, lol

Is that the spring performance action day? I'm 90% gonna be down there for that in the Clio - would be nice to meet you

 

[Sir_Dave]

Maybe as a comparison you can then jump in with Dave or Nick at Snett or Donny (dates TBC) then you can see how poor they are at lower RPM

Maybe not such a great idea actually, i'll probably be in the new car, which apparently will be slow at anything other than 7k rpm.

Good brakes though iirc, pretty colour too.

Anyhows, back on topic - have you mapped your RS2 yet Chip?

 

[Chip-mk1]

Maybe not such a great idea actually, i'll probably be in the new car, which apparently will be slow at anything other than 7k rpm.

Good brakes though iirc, pretty colour too.

Anyhows, back on topic - have you mapped your RS2 yet Chip?

Whats the new car?

Yeah Ive mapped it on the road, but need to just get onto the rollers to check over, as I mentioned to Tim though really i'd like it to go back to surrey RR for that as thats where we got a before done, but as my mrs is using it as a daily in somerset at the moment its not massively convenient to get it over there so not sure when it will happen.

 

[Sir_Dave]

Whats the new car?

Clio Cup cheese gearbox edition.

Apparently Renault designed it so that if you dont use heel & toe for absolutely everything, the synchros explode.

Good point re: taking it back to SRR. No point getting pub figures from another rolling road.

 

[Chip-mk1]

Clio Cup cheese gearbox edition.

Apparently Renault designed it so that if you dont use heel & toe for absolutely everything, the synchros explode.

Good point re: taking it back to SRR. No point getting pub figures from another rolling road.

Lol @ cheese edition.

Yeah, same rollers is closest to a decent test you can get.

Like I said though, as -J- has already done it, it seems less of an issue now, we're both so much happier with how it drives now that TBH even if its only gained 5bhp we'd still want to keep it. Its just the way it is still hungry for more rpm right at the top of the rev range. Rod bolts next I think!

 

[Chip-mk1]

Is that the spring performance action day? I'm 90% gonna be down there for that in the Clio - would be nice to meet you

Yes, thats the one, Likewise mate

 

[Scoff]

Please remember guys that the torque curve from a chassis dyno relies heavily on the operators RPM synchronization (and hence tach accuracy) and the absence of wheel spin. Torque curves should be taken with a pinch of salt.

 

[Cup_Phil]

I'm not sure this thread is ever going to die LOL

 

[Chip-mk1]

Please remember guys that the torque curve from a chassis dyno relies heavily on the operators RPM synchronization (and hence tach accuracy) and the absence of wheel spin. Torque curves should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Not if its synced off a plug or off an injector.

In this case though, its clearly not an issue as you can tell from how far it revved that it was synced correctly, if it was synced to make the dyno think the engine was doing less rpm (ie to skew torque upwards) it wouldnt have still revved out to 7500rpm to match the revs the ecu was seeing.

 

[Scoff]

Hi Chip. I wasn't making reference to individual plots.

I could see that people were trying to overlay plots of different cars from different dyno's, some with different RPM limits. It was not possible for me to be sure that every one of those dyno plots was synchronized.

I'm not saying it for your benefit, but more for those that do not know how a chassis dyno typically arrives at it's torque figure.

Chris

 

[Chip-mk1]

Fair enough mate

 

[claim]

im not reading 20pages.

does the rs2 make a noticeable difference to the cars actually speed in the real world?

 

[Stunty]

Clue is in the thread title

 

[Aydon182]

yes

 

[Chip-mk1]

im not reading 20pages.

does the rs2 make a noticeable difference to the cars actually speed in the real world?

Depends which bit of the rev range you want to drive in most in the real world.
From 5-6k you might actually find it very slightly slower as that is where the standard inlet is optomised for but everywhere else it will be quicker.

 

[claim]

So it's faster when your pottering about but slower flat out down a straight?

Need a ride in a 1*2 with one fitted really

 

[Chip-mk1]

So it's faster when your pottering about but slower flat out down a straight?

Need a ride in a 1*2 with one fitted really

No cause after fitting if you want to go fast down a straight you will rev it to 7500rpm where you'll now have as much as 190bhp

 

[Silent_Scone]

Whatever way you look at it it's massively better than standard. The F4R is pretty gutless at low RPM

 

[Jonny1*2]

From experience, you can tell torque variation when accelerating. Flat spots/dips within the ranges. With the RS2 it will just pull and pull. Granted it's not great lbft figures, but it's there all the time which makes for a much more drivable engine.

 

[Chip-mk1]

Agreed on the standard inlet you feel the torque rise till 5500 or so then you feel it tail off again, on the rs2 though it's just smooth effortless delivery for the whole range.
completely changes the character of the engine.