RAOC Proving Day 2 - Confirmed 30/11/07

All of the GTAs that have been timed are not producing more than my 21 Turbo even with or without Stand alone the most this going to do is optimise the standard specification.

Again I beg to differ

How much have you spent on stand alone and mapping ......let me see Exhaust £350 my exhaust £150 Standalone £450 my chip £100 Your Turbo £ 400 - 700 my turbo came with car, your chargecooler £500 -600 My intercoolers standard came with car.
Induction kit £100 Mine Standard came with car airfilter £50 or sixty my airfilter 10 notes second hand oh I got a £2.50 bleed Valve I produced 212 BHP so after all your outlay on bolt on goodies how much extra power did you make over me Oh and I have not mentioned mapping time LOL

Lee my car cost £1000 pound ok I put a new engine in from Reno but its standard and I you cant get one built cheaper than you could buy one from Renault so thats £2200 + £265 = £2465

Your non standard parts come to at my approximation about £2,250 + £3000 for the car

My car came to £215 more than your bolt ons plus the cost of your car, my car overall with new engine and only 13 to 18 BHP less yours (so far ) has cost you twice as much not including at least a grands worth of rolling road to be added to get how much more for over twice the money is your car twice as quick? ...........

............No it isnt so bang for bucks twice as nice and nobody wants to nick it either

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder Thats why I bought a GTA too 21 Turbo Reigns Supreme quickest shed money can buy

Si21 and i love it for that reason

Ok Lee so you dont have a charge cooler PMSL me and my big mouth but thats still nearly half the cost

It's that age old argument - what do you actually want from your car? If I were after pure performance and handling, I could have bought a hell of a Skyline for the money I spent on the Venturi...

Each to their own... just like Chris being "mad" to buy that 610 engine.

why did they p1ss arround bolting a turbo to a 172/182 lump..... seems a bit silly when there is an F4RT just sitting there already which will do the same job

Because the F4RT engine is not even near the same spec.

The 182 engine has far better inlet manifold, stronger pistons, better flowing head, better profile camshafts, bigger throttle body that the F4RT Megane engine.

On the turbo conversion it also has a proper tubular manifold versus the cast small flow on on the F4RT, and the turbo is a much higher spec versus the small blower on the F4RT.

His engine is only 1.8L, Yours is 2.0. His makes 320bhp at a bar, yours makes 240odd at a bar. Thats 60bhp difference.

So...thats...why.

All of the GTAs that have been timed are not producing more than my 21 Turbo even with or without Stand alone the most this going to do is optimise the standard specification.

Again I beg to differ

How much have you spent on stand alone and mapping ......let me see Exhaust £350 my exhaust £150 Standalone £450 my chip £100 Your Turbo £ 400 - 700 my turbo came with car, your chargecooler £500 -600 My intercoolers standard came with car.
Induction kit £100 Mine Standard came with car airfilter £50 or sixty my airfilter 10 notes second hand oh I got a £2.50 bleed Valve I produced 212 BHP so after all your outlay on bolt on goodies how much extra power did you make over me Oh and I have not mentioned mapping time LOL

Lee my car cost £1000 pound ok I put a new engine in from Reno but its standard and I you cant get one built cheaper than you could buy one from Renault so thats £2200 + £265 = £2465

Your non standard parts come to at my approximation about £2,250 + £3000 for the car

My car came to £215 more than your bolt ons plus the cost of your car, my car overall with new engine and only 13 to 18 BHP less yours (so far ) has cost you twice as much not including at least a grands worth of rolling road to be added to get how much more for over twice the money is your car twice as quick? ...........

............No it isnt so bang for bucks twice as nice and nobody wants to nick it either

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder Thats why I bought a GTA too 21 Turbo Reigns Supreme quickest shed money can buy

Si21 and i love it for that reason

Ok Lee so you dont have a charge cooler PMSL me and my big mouth but thats still nearly half the cost

:lol:

I wasn't running the Adaptronic .............I have no CC .............The exhaust is secondhand and on loan ..............the intake was £40 .I have spent £80 on RR time to test the rebuild .

What it does have is a lot of my time and effort into rebuilding the engine and spending the little money I have wisely

The only mod it has is a 60trim comp wheel and a bleed valve .............
Total outlay incl engine rebuild is under a grand ................

I know i'm going off subject here, but would anyone like to see some video footage?

Keith

Nah

Post it up then

Its not built for quarter miles (whatever that means) Its simply a nicely put together car, with a decent engine.

Handling and 1/4 mile not possible Simon..?

Im sure Andy Cooke pulled an 11.5 out of the bag, oh and happened to hold the lap record at Curborough sprint course too

In have spent some time at Avon and the Pod and have seen some cars where the front track is almost doubled and I was wondering if this car was one of those, with the wheels sticking out by 10" each side if so does it go round corners? Does it still handle with that lump in the front?

In all honesty though put a big capacity engine in any small car it gonna shift.With as much power as a modern 4 WD japanese mobile its gotta shift what ever way you look at it. Well done to the guy for shoe horning it in to that size bay.Yes its extremely rapid, i am not trying to take any credit away.

Most cars get set up for what ever disapline they are doing different tyres different suspension rates and settings and different settings wet or dry.
so this car could well be set up for quarter mile and not really handle. Lets face it the 1.9 pug 205 was quicker than the 1.6, but it was a well known fact that for handling the 1.6 was preferred.

So does that lump at the front spoil the handling, maybe not if it holds course record at Curboro' or maybe its just si quick in a straight line it does not need to handle?

I was just wondering to what lengths the constructor went to to make it pull 11 seconds for the 1/4 and if there were any trade offs for getting that time .

@the end of the day you put a powerful enough engine in any car that ways nothing it gone shift. In all honesty lets see how quick a 5 is with power plant that Reno gave it???

My 21 is a great reliable road car, I just happen to think I should drive it like stole it. Its got nothing special done to it less than some of the more modified GTA's. At the end of the day terminal speed at the Qtr mile being similar to bigger engined turbo charged vehicles who are rear wheel drive purpose built sports cars just shows how dam quick my car is once it has grip and with 0.2 cd MORE than a GTA

Zorst filter and Chip AND ONLY 4 psi not a racing car does that make. So to take a formula1 of a Renault 5 and go see I told you so is not impressive in my book. Bring a road going 5 down with modest mods and lets see. A R5 with a reliable 170BHP (Guestimated) LOL and see what times that does ........???? in the real world I would be interested to see.

All of the GTAs that have been timed are not producing more than my 21 Turbo even with or without Stand alone the most this going to do is optimise the standard specification.

We have yet to see a PRV in a GTA in turbo format with proper engine mods liners, pistons heads cams or any kind of improved manifolding.

The Venturis have the Modern answer how ever cost a fortune to maintain and rebuild and thats if you can get hold of one. But at the end makes massive twin turbo'd power.

Again to dump a big turbo'd engined into a Renault roller skate and then go look at what a 5 can do by comparison makes me larf

I am not disputing the fact that the 5 is quick but you dont compare a touring car with a purpose built single seater do you?

Dave man Keep the Colchester Massive real innit All the cars are just tweeked road cars with the exception of Andy Holts road spider.

Si21:lol:

To cover the points..

Even if you run larger wheels on the front of a FWD car, they are no wider than 205/215. So narrower than anything else everyone else is running..

Does the car handle with the 172 engine in the front? Well a Clio 16v handles well with it, a 172 handles well with it....hold on, im sure these two cars were mentioned as two of the best handling hot hatches of all time...

3. 1,8 16v is hardly big capacity. It is well done, when you consider only something this side of a McLaren F1 is going to beat it down the 1/4 mile, and last time I looked that was 6 litre V12...

4. The car has the engine, with a normal gearbox with a modified Volvo 440 clutch, running on Adaptronic Management, all mapped by himself. Runs like a normal road car.

Would you like to see a Renault 5 with the original 1.4 pushrod engine and carburettor do an 11.4 second quarter mile?

http://www.rtoc.org/library/fileroot%5C ... QKPKZQ.wmv


Your 21 'tuned' isnt as quick as even a standard Renault 5 Turbo, so lets stop there....

The Venturi's are not the modern answer. They still have the same flawed engine, but you do whats best with what you've got.

You do compare a touring car with a single seater, if they are lined up at a drag strip to go head to head with eachother. You don't win any prizes for saying 'oh I lost, but I have this old engine, so Im better, or I have more weight, what do you expect.' Racing is racing, no excuses.

All of the GTAs that have been timed are not producing more than my 21 Turbo even with or without Stand alone the most this going to do is optimise the standard specification.

So, you have more power than the GTA's, but your car is slower....

Unless I read the figures wrong?

[BIG_MVS]

All of the GTAs that have been timed are not producing more than my 21 Turbo even with or without Stand alone the most this going to do is optimise the standard specification.

So, you have more power than the GTA's, but your car is slower....

Unless I read the figures wrong?

Simon, he's right you know, as much as I love the 21 what can't speak can't lie mate:

PERFORMANCE 0-60 (Best Run)

Alistair Stripp GTA Atmo 7.6s
Simon Taylor GTA Turbo 6.7s
Justin Black GTA Turbo 6.9s
Lee Crowston GTA Turbo DNR*
Tony Law GTA Le Mans 6.2s
Joe Salama A610 6.0s
Mark Garner Clio V6 6.9s
Simon Gamblen Renault 21 Turbo 7.3s
Paul Rombaut Renault 21 Turbo 7.5s
Steve Kentish Renault 21 Quadra 7.1s (6.8s boosted)

* 2nd Gear Failure

PERFORMANCE VMAX (Best Run)

Alistair Stripp GTA Atmo 136.2mph
Simon Taylor GTA Turbo 143.6mph
Justin Black GTA Turbo 143.9mph
Lee Crowston GTA Turbo 128.8mph
Tony Law GTA Le Mans 142.5mph
Joe Salama A610 153.1mph
Mark Garner Clio V6 135.4mph
Simon Gamblen Renault 21 Turbo 139.1mph
Paul Rombaut Renault 21 Turbo 126.5mph
Steve Kentish Renault 21 Quadra 135.4mph

And this was in the dry first time around so you can't blame lack of traction!!

By the way have you got that 2 gallon of unleaded out of your suit yet

It's that age old argument - what do you actually want from your car? If I were after pure performance and handling, I could have bought a hell of a Skyline for the money I spent on the Venturi...

Each to their own... just like Chris being "mad" to buy that 610 engine.

That is a valid question, but on the flip side, if someone said, I want 500bhp from a PRV and it will cost them 10k to do it, excluding that the box needs upgrading, and that the engine will hardly be reliable or run nicely (point in fact than none of the Venturi 500/600s that were raced ever came anywhere and regularly had failures) versus the fact for half the cost you could fit say another more modern engine and box, that can do that power with ease if not more, then thats when you have to look at things logically.

One of my friends/customer runs an MR2 Turbo, currently 600bhp, running borderline 11 second runs, he's now going for 800bhp.

In the R5 world, as the Renault boxes struggle with high torque, a popular conversion is fitting the VW 1.8T lump and gearbox, simply because the box can handle 400bhp with ease as standard.

Likewise, with a Renault Spider, dropping in a 3SGTE engine (MR2 Turbo) engine would be an amazing upgrade, due to the potential.

why did they p1ss arround bolting a turbo to a 172/182 lump..... seems a bit silly when there is an F4RT just sitting there already which will do the same job

Because the F4RT engine is not even near the same spec.

The 182 engine has far better inlet manifold, stronger pistons, better flowing head, better profile camshafts, bigger throttle body that the F4RT Megane engine.

On the turbo conversion it also has a proper tubular manifold versus the cast small flow on on the F4RT, and the turbo is a much higher spec versus the small blower on the F4RT.

His engine is only 1.8L, Yours is 2.0. His makes 320bhp at a bar, yours makes 240odd at a bar. Thats 60bhp difference.

So...thats...why.

bullocks as usual..... you never know what you're talking about do you dave my engine made over 260 bhp at 1 bar boost you didn't know because it's not in any books or on any website for you to quote from as usual.... we detuned it for drivability and to stop the massive amount of torque it made at 1 bar from shredding the gearbox, during the build we had factory support from Renault sport technologies in france ( the actual people who deveoped the engine and gearbox in the first place) not a bolt on bling monkey from down the road in chav land..... i'm not going to give true figures out as you might copy any phots photshop em and stick on your website saying you offer a 400 bhp conversion for a spider.....

and mine is standard...... if i uprated the the internals and the exhaust manifold to the same spec as the clio lump i'm sure we'd kick 320 bhp into oblivion.... it's only at it's first benchmark stage anyway

before you start criticising anymore ...... try building a car to shut us all up.... all we've seen from you in the last year was some real sheddy gta with a 21 lump in it what happened to that then?? you still working out how to fit that adaptronic ecu to it?

But ....................It's no longer the car it was .So saying it's the bestest whatever is b####ks .GET A KITCAR

Likewise, with a Renault Spider, dropping in a 3SGTE engine (MR2 Turbo) engine would be an amazing upgrade, due to the potential.

Go on then....... stop tallking bullocks and do it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkGDrV_2ehI

[BIG_MVS]

This is getting interesting I'll just pop and get another drink, carry on!