Ima2nr

I don't know how to post the dyno sheet... I've asked CA993twin to help me out here.... Steve? can you add the dyno sheet I emailed you?

I will post the next dyno sheet after the plugwires, plugs, MAF sensor, etc.

BTW- I had a torn boost hose during this dyno session... hopefully I can find some extra ponies after the tune up....

ca993twin

Kevin's dyno sheet is almost as outstanding as his avatar... however the dyno shet is some weird "tagged Microsoft Imaging Format" thing. Oh wait...via the magic of MS "Paint":

Jean

Ima2nr

Thanks for posting this.

I am guessing this is at the wheels. About 570 BHP, what were RUF thinking when they rated this engine at 490FWHP!?

Did they measure vaccum/boost?
Thanks.

Greg H.

570 hp with a torn turbo hose? Are these Rufs 3.8L? I thought the Turbo Rs were just cams, k16 hybrids and mapping.

Greg H.

red993tt

No not 3.8L

rinlv1

i thought the ruf raised the rpm limiter to 7200ish??? anyone know for sure??

leonsamonas

my limit with titanium rods is 7200rpm, 7000 with the standard 490 kit

Basal Skull

from the dyo and what Jean suggests, the Ruf turbo R 490 hp is at the wheels?

ca993twin

I just spoke with Ima2nr (Kevin), and he's been out of touch with his computer for a while... he asked me this afternoon if I was ever able to post his dyno charts. I'm sure he'll join this thread as soon as he's able. Let me add my understanding.... Kevin's car was a very early Ruf Turbo R. The Ruf 490 HP rating, while conservative, is rated at the flywheel, not at the wheels. We are all very interested in how his car is different than a standard 490HP Turbo R. I'm guessing that perhaps it got some special prototype enhancements that were later removed from their standard turbo R kit. When I compare his RWHP chart with the Ruf flywheel chart, I notice that the Ruf chart makes more HP (understandable, since its measured at the flywheel) the Kevin's up to about 5500 RPM, at that point, his RWHP actually catches up to the Ruf flywheel HP matching it at 6000 RPM and above.

Kevin also has some dyno "points" from when Ruf had his engine on the engine dyno. This will be very interesting to compare with the standard turbo R graph.

Hurry up Kevin, I want another peek at your avatar!

KPG

Jean... I guess inflated dyno numbers are OK on a 993 ...This a joke between Jean and I and not a reflection on this dyno run.. nice numbers BTW.Kevin

Ima2nr

i will post more this weekend, do you think my wife will be mad I have a picture of her A$$ as my avitar?

KPG- you can rib Jean all you like, but his car is still the Sh**. as Alois Ruf once said after being asked why RUF HP numbers were so LOW...."we have some strong horses here in Germany"


BTW- I am told that I might be able to "borrow a AX-22" if I will post the data on the 30-130mph runs... somebody help me out, I'd be glad to pay the shipping both ways, and any customary rental fee to boot. send me a PM if you can help.

More info will come SOON... the A/F was not logged on the base line dyno run, I will be more detailed as I get her back together... BTW- leak down numbers were all 2%-4% on all six holes! (39k miles on the clock)

ruffy

hehe,
there a couple of threads in OT.. if you post there.. you can be sure she'll be pissed

Jean

Ima2nr

I don't know if your wife will be pissed, but mine sure got pissed when she thought I was on some adult site (I assured her this forum is only kids' stuff ).

As far as the dyno chart is concerned, what I meant is the following...
RUF rates this kit at 490 Flywheel HP and despite what the myth goes about, I do think that this is what the kit is about, RUF does not understate their horses, they rate them properly, and that's the difference.

When you put a known output engine on a chassis dyno and you see that it has an output of 100HP more at the flywheel (RWHP 480+/0.85(est)= FWHP) than what the builder rated it, then guess what? Goes to prove once more how little reliable these dynos are, they are all over the place and completely not trustworthy.

I have seen stock K16 show 850NM of torque somewhere else on a forum, this is ridiculous.. Some things are definitely true, others are maybe true and the rest are DEFNITELY wrong, just like a pink elephant cannot fly except in kids (our ) dreams.
Once you do the changes and you put it back on the same dyno, I am afraid you will not have an accurate picture either, the margin of error is just too important and the interpretation of the variance in numbers can be skewed.

KPG

Of that I have no doubt Congrats,Kevin

ca993twin

Here is an unskilled attempt to post 3 overlaid dyno files for Kevin's new Ruf.
1. This is the original Ruf engine Dyno when the engine was new in 1996
2. This is the Ruf engine dyno after a "tune-up (???)" in 2000
3. This is Kevin's recent chassis dyno data.