sharkster

Well that was on low boost. I put down 550rwhp with that.... Interesting numbers tho!

BuddyG

Here:

http://www.europeancarweb.com/features/0404ec_titans06/

and here:

http://www.europeancarweb.com/featur...ans/index.html

BuddyG

We had trouble on the 1/4 run with the hose coming off again! I think we could have run a high 10 if everything stayed together. We had just completed this car without any testing time so we were having serious teething problems! Oh well!

Bill S.

When I drove my Ruf with Ben and his CGT, we both felt that the aerodynamics of the CGT seemed to slow it down at high speeds. As we went faster (150+), it seemed his car started to slow down. I recall one of the US mags also showed this when comparing it with an Enzo and Ford GT.

BTW, those very fast 1/4-mile times are a results of excellent (and Porsche-killing!) launches off the line. The 60 to 130 time, as TB993TT pointed out, is not as impressive. I've seen time slips for the Ruf Turbo R with a slip-clutch 3000 RPM launch with 128 MPH trap speed at 11.8 seconds. That's probably with a 0-60 of 4 seconds or more!

Jean

Alex, I checked a few 996s on that "bible" that TB posted with around 530-550BHP, I think they are GT2s but I know your car is lightweight too (unless I am mistaken), and they all run around 7 seconds 62-124mph, make it 7.8 seconds 60-130mph, about 0.4 seconds faster than your times, after my earlier post (previous page) and now these numbers, would you consider a remote possibility that the US 550RWHP equate in fact to 550FWHP or less in those European dynos? Who is right or wrong is not really important. My previous post gives a few more examples. Can I consider you at least a 1/2 convert since you have european blood ?

Bill, I don't know much about RUF cars, just wondering if the RUF R Turbo is faster than the CTR2?

CTR2: 520BHP, 3100 lbs, Qmile 11.6 s@ 124mph, 0-62 of 3.6s.=> 62-124mph in 8 sec.
R Turbo:490BHP, 3400 lbs., Qmile 11.8sec.@128mph, 0-60 in 4sec.=>60-128mph in 7.8sec.
which equates to 62-124mph in 7.3sec. or so--That is 0.7 seconds faster than the CTR2 which has less weight and more hp than the R Turbo. The trap speed of the R Turbo is also quite higher than the CTR2.

Both cars will be in 4th gear as well, so gear change does not have an impact. I am not sure if what I am trying to say above makes sense, but I am a bit confused.

I am giving up this mental mast.. for now, I need an aspirin.

Woodster

sidenote, If you look at FVD-USA.com website they sell 993tt power kits, The 490 hp kit consists
of Turbos, programming, 5 bar fuel pressure regulator, and is use in conjunction with 100 cell
cats. their 525 hp kit has all of the above and camshafts/lifters ect. the 550 hp kit also has
intercoolers, 3.8 ltr cylinders and pistons, and oil cooler. This is what TB and Jean are saying,
it is not easy to get over 500 reliable horsepower out of these 993 tt (meaning just turbos and
programming). My opinion is that they are correct. My opinion is also that 490 hp kit (sort of
like what I have, if you will (stage 2 hybrids + protomotive 560 software, 100 cell cats, polished
headers, etc--no internal changes), is very fast and if you do cams + 3.8 ltr kit you are now in
a different league like JJB and some of the RUF products (LAT's CTR2). == extremely fast cars!
Marty K.

Bill S.

Jean, I've rode in a CTR2 and it was noticeably slower then my Turbo R. HOWEVER, that was a version from Ruf that used single plugs and single injectors on 91 octane. Ruf made several different versions of the CTR2. Road & Track magazine tested a 1997 version in the US with 91 octane BUT with twin plugs and twin injectors. Here's what they got from a relatively soft launch:

1/4-mile: 11.4 @ 135 MPH
0-60: 3.6 seconds

That implies a 60 to 130 comfortable below 8 seconds (It's only a guess on what it really is). And that's with a 1-2, 2-3 and 3-4 shift!

Ruf prefers not to use twin plugs, which limits the performance here in the US. Here's what a leading Ruf expert told me about the CTR2:

"I don't know about twin-injectors, but almost all CTR2s were originally set up with TAG and twin plugs. In late 1997, Ruf came out with an engine upgrade that bumped the hp from 520 to 580 and the torque went up as well and better yet, peak torque was at a lower rpm. This upgrade did involved swapping out TAG for Bosch and Twin-plug to single.

Was it significanly more powerful? It is a bit subjective, but the short answer for me is Yes. For normal street stuff, the 520 set up was more than adequate and certainly very thrilling. I am not even sure most would feel the difference, but at the track, the lap time improvement was big..."

In summary, the 993 TT and, to a lesser extent, the 996 TT engine are very susceptible to octane rating. In Germany, where good gas is easily found, this is not a big issue. In the US, however, it is and twin-plug is essential.

This behavior will make small-displacement high-performance turbo cars in the US extinct unless expensive ignition and injection systems are employed with new head and piston designs.

Woodster

LAT's CTR2 is 580 HP version as is Steve Beddor's and "the silver one"
currently for sale in Minnesota.
MK

LAT

As the owner of a black single plug 580 version, I am happy to report that I have found a simple solution to the fuel octane challenge. I purchased a 45 gal drum of VP 103 and mixed it 25/75 with 91 and get an effective 94+. The motor appears to like blend.

I have been experimenting with a RUF manual boost control vlave set to RUF specs. I say experimenting because for some reason I don't have it quite right yet. I get what appears to be a flatline or hesitation from 6000 rpm up in 3rd and 4th. I don't know if it is the engine management system is causing this or if is a shortage of fuel. I don't have any idea of what else it could be, any ideas would be appreciated. I have yet had the opportunity to ask RUF.

sharkster

No please don't stop.. this a really interesting discussion! All I really have however are Dynos on a dynojet and mustang dyno at 540-550rwhp running 1.2bar of boost (if I told you the story about my brakes coming on at 197mph on the dyno during the runs you'd laugh and never believe me). Although I ran 10s and have done many an 11.1 at various 125-128mph traps that's all old news from last year I'm getting my car back on Monday and I'll try some new tests out running high boost this time...

If you watch or have seen the video of my 10 second run you can hear the car spluttering and also hitting fuel cut down the track so although my 0-60 was good the later part of the run felt like the car fell on its ***... Clearly there's better yet to come. The car weighs in at 3260 pounds so yes it's a bit lighter.

Jean

Bill, thanks for the explanations.
It is interesting to find out that there are so many different versions of the same car, the downside is that it sounds like they were experimenting. This is not to mention that they also have different gearboxes for the same car, some CTR2 came with stock 993TT gearbox ratios, others came with RUF's excellent version of sequential, and others with stock gearbox with taller ratios.
It puzzles me that they went back to a single plug with the Motronic, knowing the benefit of twin plug for their biggest market, such as in LAT's version. Do you know if any of their cars is using pressure sensing? I know it was not succesful with the CTR Yellow bird, based on what TB has shared previously.
If there is one thing I do not especially like about RUF is their inconsistency in the performance of their cars and models. I can understand customization, but whenever a test is made, you always have to ask what is inside that specific car in the test.
To confirm this, comparing apples to apples, your R Turbo seems to be a much happier engine, and has substantially better times than the R Turbo mentioned in the quartermile above, and much better than the CTR2, whereas they all are on single plug engines (if I am not mistaken), run 91 octane, and the CTR2 is rated at 520BHP by RUF. I think you also have the same gearbox.
I think it is important to know at what boost level LAT's car is running during the test, I can't wait to get my car back from Germany, detuned and with the boost controller installed, and test the impact of boost levels on performance and post the different results.
Thanks for the clarification.

LAT

Jean,
you make a good point about the gearing. When I first bought the car and started becoming familiar with it I was puzzled at the gearing. It turns out to be very close to a stock 993TT, the small variation I get could be due to tire size.

It is certainly not a top speed box, I get 29.6 mph (GPS) per 1,000 in 6th, which translates into 202 mph at 6,800 not the 217 mph at 6,100 as in the R&T.

I prefer to think of this sort of variance as the typical customizing that a small manufacturer like RUF offers its customers rather than an inconsistency. In the North America where top speed is for the most part a moot point the tighter shorter gears from a 993TT may be a better choice.

If I tell my boost levels, I will have to blow up the board.

Okay you asked for it. I run my boost as specified by RUF. Set up in 5th gear starting at 3,000 rpm max of 1.2 bar down to 1.1 bar by 6,000 rpm. under full throttle. Yes I am travelling at about 150 mph at this point.

Jean

In your case I think it is tire size, which can have an impact of 10mph easy on top speed. I know my car at around 130mph in 4th, will give me 4 mph more than stock simply because I am on 315s. Your car uses 19". It can be easily calulated if you tell me your wheel tires sizes and profile.

RUF does put taller 6th gear in many of their cars. Othe CTR2 have completely different gear setups that I can share with you if you wish.
When I did an analysis of what the best combination of gears/tire sizes is for an acceleration run, RUF came always as having the best combo, by far. I tested more than 30 different combinations.. RUF gearbox choice and tire sizes on the same tested car always gave the best acceleration times, they are very good at that. Although "within gears" acceleration did not prove too good because of those compromises..

MOD500

Wow, this is a great thread.

As an aside, TB, as I have mentioned before, you should make it to v-max at Bruntingthorpe sometime. The cars there would make meaningful real world comparisons to your own uber 993 for sure. With the likes of various RUF's, and tweaked 993 / 996 turbos via different tuners there, plus various Ferrari, Ultima ( they are proper fast), etc, etc you can see who's numbers stack up. No need for hard launches if you don't wish also, many take it steady till the 180 degree bend on to the main straight and gun it in 2nd.

Videos here:

1) http://www.pistonheads.tv/clip435

Part of this film is me (yellow 993) against a new M5, the BMW is very quick on launch control as you can see!

2) www.sleepy-fish.com/sleepy/vmax_8.wmv

A big file showing lots of action.


Kind Regards


Martyn.

Edited to add: the speed day is in no way competitive, its just a great way to explore your car in a very safe, and friendly environment

TB993tt

Martyn
There are a few reasons why I don't want to get involved in this type of thing. The biggest being the slippery slope of competition - I am a sucker for it. The next thing would be racing seats, carbon body parts then Secan intercooler and pressure sensing
I know myself well enough to see what would happen - my car is my daily driver and I want to keep it that way