Eclou's 6.99 was not a dedicated run - it was part of his standing mile. You could probably shave a little bit more off if he did a dedicated run.

Just for reference, since most Ruf data is from overseas, eclou ran a 100-200 kph in an exceptional 6.4 seconds (and received a whopp'n tix for his troubles...no respect ) That is on par with the RT12's run to 300 kph in 24 seconds. To be fair, it was done on 50/50 race/pump fuel.



The best I've seen a Ruf 550 do is 7.0 seconds (not sure what fuel, no graph for confirmation.) Ruf's programing is pulled back for 93 octane...suggesting better performance can be obtained with race fuel.

Does anyone have trap times for comparison? I'd be happy to share.

 

Easy way to prove this would be a WOT run in a high gear. Assuming that the turbos are the same and not modified, times would only be based on programming and torque produced. You don't even need to break the speed limit to get the data. If you want to compare, I'd be happy to send you my performance box so you can log some data for us to compare.

 

^^^Bob, thanks.
You seem to have all the 997 Turbo's V Box data posted on the internet!

Have you seen much data of Stage 2 Turbo's 60-130 runs, by actual owners? It seems there have been very few published? (Anyone outside of eclou's run on high octane gas?) Is it because result has been null versus stock? Anyone please feels free to chime in and correct me as needed.

 

Ok I'll follow the gag order and stop discussing the specifics. Please be careful about hurting unfairly the reputation of a company by a single and unusual experience.

Now back to general discussion. The pretty graph that you see is from a specific car receiving what basically is a custom tune, at RUF.The program is then packaged and sold to use in other customers' cars.

AFAIK, the graph has some predictive value, but there are enough variations from car to car such that it is a leap of faith to assume your car will have the same dyno. Not the case at all. This is why nutty car people have custom, dyno-based tune (nutty=a complement!) .
It is also why the bottom line for comparison becomes:
1. Dyno on actual car with similar settings.
2. V Box data.
I didn't make up the "standards" for evidence (see bbywu's and Scott's posts).

 

You're asking the wrong question and making assumptions.

You are asking if Ruf's tune should run the same on all their customer's cars.

What you need to be asking is what was Ruf's dyno on their stock car.

The first question begs the question if all plug and play tunes need to be dynoed on each individual car to ensure proper tuning.

The latter question begs the question how much power Ruf produced over a stock unit.

I make the assumption that production cars and nearly identical. Which makes the former question useless. Are you telling me that you have dynos that show that two stock engines produce wildly different power levels? If not, then a plug and play tune should work well regardless of which car you plug it into. If you start adding and subtracting components, then you should assume that fine dyno tuning may produce more power. But for a simple exhaust+ECU, this is not the case.

Do you really need a dyno to prove that a plug and play tune is making the power the tuner claims? That is really the job of the tuner.

This is getting too esoteric.

 

^^^I don't know why any discussion with Ruf becomes so emotionally charged? You seem quite confused with the flow of the discussion, please let me clarify.

1. RUF is a fantastic company.
2. RUF tune is better than brand X, and this is true because the factory dyno is blah blah blah.
I have no problem with 1, but I HAVE TO call BS on 2. It is wrong on many levels.

You can't use the perfect pretty web site dyno and claims yours is the same. You DO NOT know that. The web site dyno is a custom tune, the curve is more than likely a "best of" run. Yours may be the same, or it may not.
No body claims "wild" variation, no body claims you must have a custom tune for any tune to work. I will state however, that a custom tune will llikely have more power than a pre-packaged tune, meaning yours could very possibly be less powerful.

For the purpose of comparison to brand X, it's wrong to rely on the web site dyno.
a. Different setttings, different brand dyno.
b. Different condition. Think about it for a second, something as fundamental as the cooling of the intercooler, a major determinant of power. How could you even use the graphs for comparing not knowing the difference in cooling effectiveness and methods between the 2 companies' dynos?

I don't have any problem with anyone happy with RUF; "I love RUF" is ok . But the moment one starts to make assertion, real dyno or V Box data must be produced, as simple as that.

 

Who's emotionally charged? You're the one who just can't let it go. I am not confused. I am simply stating that your position:

"the graph has some predictive value, but there are enough variations from car to car such that it is a leap of faith to assume your car will have the same dyno. Not the case at all."

is wrong, and for a simple ECU and exhaust,

"This is why nutty car people have custom, dyno-based tune (nutty=a complement!)"

is unnecessary. My argument has nothing to do with Ruf. In fact, I've made no comparisons whatsoever in this thread regarding Ruf's tune versus others.

 

^^^Says who? You, who have done hundreds of dyno? If you think you will find the perfect Ruf dyno curve in every Ruf car: I can't stop you. You are entitled to your opinion and your dream.

There is nothing unnecessary about what I wrote. The point is that a custom dyno-based tune will likely have more power, and the best curve. Therefore, to make an assumption that you car will have the same dyno graph on a pre-packaged program is naive. It may or may not.

Stop and think for a second please and don't let the emotion get in the way: If say, every RUF car will have the same dyno curve, then everyone will have the same power and same acceleration time? No need to prove anything with V Box right? Use the numbers provided by Ruf as proof?

I will let it go if the non-sense that is "Ruf is better than brand X" stops.

 

I'm just shocked that people have been charged $100k+ on top of the cost of the car for a $1500 tune. For that kind of power, I'm assuming its still the stock turbochargers. Now that the public is becoming more knowledgeable about car tuning, many of these companies seemed to have been taking advantage of customer naiveness. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I'm wrong. What exactly is done to the RUF cars to warrant that price hike?

 

JP, I'm not sure where you're getting your facts, my 550 conversion was around $16K, but I think the prices are a bit higher now. Certainly not $100K unless you get into the really high HP stuff with new engine internals, turbos etc., then you will spend some serious money. It's all on their website you might want to take a look.
http://www.racperformance.com/index.aspx?id=997-turbo

 

LOL... I'm just a newbie looking for the truth ...just ignore the fact that I'm on my 3rd tuned 911, and that I've used two US tuners, and one german tuner.

You seem really fixated on Doug's comments that he prefers his Ruf tune over his GIAC tune. Your conversation with me has NOTHING to do with Ruf...unless you are fixated on my really cool avitar. I could care less which tune you and I have. Your discussion with me has NOTHING to do with Ruf. You can insert any tuner into the argument.

For a simple flash and exhaust, I think a specific dyno tune is a waste of time. If you want to start adding components outside of a plug and play kit, then there is clearly added value. I do not believe that a dyno tune for each individual car that gets a flash and exhaust will lead to greater "in the world" performance.

Think I'm wrong? Then I'll turn the tables. Why don't you show us your dyno after some tweaking on the Mustang...after you are done squeezing every last pony from your engine, then head to the track. Show me how an engine tweak with flash and exhaust on a dyno leads improved performance on the track. Show me a trap time, time slip, anything...and I'll yield.

 

Well considering the experience, I am surprised at your naive belief in that perfect Ruf curve on the web site.

Fixation? That's called staying true to the focus of the argument. My one and only point of discussion with Doug and you is: "If you are going to make a claim of A being more powerful than B, you'd better provide hard data, and hard data means actual dyno or V Box data."

You are all over the place with the argument now and I am finding myself repeating everything over and over. And being accused of "fixation."
No one is saying you need a dyno with a tune. No one is talking about added value, blah blah blah. (This is why I think you are all over the place.) The one and only point of discussion: If you are going to make a claim, please provide the hard data. How many times now has Scott/Diveextreme asked for the V Box data? I am not the only one here.

You want me to let it go yet you keep going. Now which way is it that you want me to go Bob? Gag order or more facts?

 

My issue with your statements are that you said "the graph has some predictive value, but there are enough variations from car to car such that it is a leap of faith to assume your car will have the same dyno. Not the case at all" and then "This is why nutty car people have custom, dyno-based tune." This suggests that you need a dyno based tune to ensure that the modifications for a chip and exhaust are matched for your individual car...an argument that I disagree with.

Don't drag me into your argument with Doug. I never said Ruf's tune was better/worse than anything else. Nor did I say anything about Ruf's dyno curve. Go back, take another look, read carefully.

Here's my hard data on why I like my tune...a vbox is not the only way to measure HP.

...and before you go demanding others put up data, shouldn't you pony up your own? You're the one claiming the advantages of a "custom dyno tune." If I am naive, show us what you are trapping at the strip or what your 60-130 is.

 

This whole exchange may then have been based on a misunderstanding. My only point was that you can't assume the Ruf's web site dyno curve to be representative of every Ruf car, since by definition that curve is a "best of" run in a custom tune car. I was not in any way referring to how good my car is or inferring that you need a dyno to have a working ECU tune.

At any rate, I have not once made any claim about my ECU tune being "more powerful" than others. I don't have any V Box data and therefore know full well to keep quiet. You even offered to lend me your V Box, knowing I don't have any data. So what on earth is that question about "ponying up" my data?

The one data I do have is the dyno, which I have "ponied" up a long time ago. I could be equally "funny" and ask you to "pony up" your dyno, knowing you don't have one, but I won't. The burden of proof is on the person making the statement, not me. I am an "innocent" observer. :-)
Statement: Ruf is more powerful than brand X in my car.
Proof: Ruf's dyno and brand X's dyno (or 60-130 times).

Gag order time or not? I think we've stolen enough of the thread.

 

I'm talking about the RT12 as it's priced anywhere from $250k-$335k for only 550-650 hp. That seems like quite a bit of coin for not so much power.