Doug,

No hating on RUF. They make absolutely wonderful cars that are somewhat fast (although no faster than any other modified P-car making the same power).

If you read the thread, you'll see that the poster claimed the below:

I simply inferred from his post that he recently had his HP measured on a engine dyno and that it made 611 crank HP, 61 HP more than claimed.

Another member asked him to post his graph. No response. I asked him to post his graph 3 times after that. No response.

Since he hasn't replied to our requests, even though he has been on the forum numerous times since being asked, I've come to the conclusion that the information he posted is more than likely false. I'm not a big fan of BS, so I am probably a bit more aggressive with those that I believe are spreading it.

As far as me calling RUF myself, it's obviously not my responsibility to track down his dyno sheet. Since he is the one making the claims, it's up to him, and him alone, to back up his claims if he wants to maintain any credibility on the forum. If credibility is not important to him, than that's certainly his prerogative. But he has to expect to be called out when he doesn't provide proof to back up his statements.

 

Scott, my point is he probably got the info from Ruf when purchasing the car. I have seen this car in person, if Ruf says it produced x HP I would believe them.
Edit-Whoops I just saw the recent dyno part, my bad. But I would still tend to believe it based on the car.

 

All due respect, Doug...but just because they claimed it, doesn't make it true. They are RUF salesman, for goodness' sake.

They (RUF Autocentre) also apparently tell customers that due to RUF's torque curve, RUF cars are faster than US tuned cars are, which is completely laughable. The fastest RUF car you can buy (the RT-12) isn't even as fast as our mid-power 700 HP US tuned cars (based on TX Mile, 60-130 and 1/4 mile results). I think the salesman down there honestly have no earthly idea what they are talking about.

My point is that unless he can provide a dyno graph backing up his claim, he probably shouldn't say anything. It would be like me claiming that my car makes 1,000 HP since that's what my tuner told me when he sold me the car.

 

I am also very much interested in seeing a dyno plot of such a setup. I know Todd K. and Protomotive make excellent products-he and Protosport did an amazing job tuning my 993TT-but I'm wondering if he would really finalize a 7GT2 tune with that much power and torque with mere "bolt-ons" given the obvious threat to longevity of the rods at that torque level-or if the plan was also to rebuild the engine.

Given that you have repeatedly harrassed 911TurboS2 to prove his car's crank HP with an engine dyno plot, I politely ask-can you at minimum do same on this thread and publish the curves from the 7GT2 dyno you referenced?

 

No sweat. Here is the graph that was created during the inital tuning session (hence some of the strange lines)...and I just emailed a request to him to send me a final "cleaned-up" graph after tuning was complete.

I do have one question for you, Al. Does the fact that you've politely asked me to provide proof of my claim constitute "harrassment" as well? Or is that only the case if I'm the one doing the asking?

 

Laughable, I think not. In my case, I went from the, off the shelf GIAC tune on my 997TT to the Ruf 550 conversion. The TQ difference is there and very notable. This finding correlates with their published engine dyno plots, so I am very satisfied. And for the record, Ruf is a manufacturer, not a tuner just to be totally accurate.

 

Never heard of the term 'powerkit', but assuming you are just looking for some minor hp bolt-on mods, you can't go wrong with AWE. Quality is high, programming is ok (sometimes spotty support from GIAC via their dealers and no custom tuning option), but hp is lower than SPI, Proto or EVOMS with similar mods. Personally, if AWE dumped Garrett and went with another tuner, they would probably show better results. But just my opinion.

Since I assume you are in Chicago, I would go with SPI since he's the closest to you of any of the major 3 tuners and Tym's reputation/quality/results is flawless.

 

Torque is very decieving. My Z06 made 620+ rear-wheel torque at only 2800 rpm and averaged 650 rwtq through the entire powerband. More torque than any RUF car you can buy. It was the torque'iest' car I have ever driven, and it felt like the fastest thing on 4-wheels. Due to it's torque curve, it felt significantly faster than my GT2.

But...my GT2 is the faster car. I've already verified this.

The fact is, I have data from many RUF cars, including the RT-12, RUF 590, 550 and 520 and the cars are no faster than any other P-car at the same power levels. The fastest RUF car I have data for is the RT-12, and even that is not as fast as 700HP US tuned cars at the TX Mile, the dragstrip or in 60-130 competitions.

Once you sort throught the hype, all that remains are measurable, provable facts.

 

As far as I'm concerned engine dynos are the gold standard. It's beyond me why the tuners don't use them. Heck, we used an engine dyno on our 600 hp sb chevy in 1987, and that car ran 9.70s in the 1/4 in full NHRA Super Gas trim ( '55 Chevy ). Sadly, all the tuners rely on the chassis dyno for their numbers, which is ok I guess. I wish one of them would pony up for an engine dyno for their facility.
That said Ruf Rules!!!!!

 

Awe and GIAC are pretty good, but there are other options. Depends on how much you want to spend.

 

Protomotive has one (or 'had one'), but I think most people want chassis dyno numbers for comparative purposes.

........

 

Why is an engine dyno any better than a chassis one?

 

The engine dyno cuts out most of the variables and "correction factors".

 

True, but isn't the true indication of hp better articulated through acceleration tests? I guess an engine dyno is only necessary to get absolute figures of hp if that matters. Since there are correction factors, chassis dynos give more of a indication of true hp at the wheels.

 

A 997GT2 flashed by U.S killed RT12