Same guy - he gave me a ton of feedback and anecdotes. I am 100% confident that whomever goes with the Ruf will be satisfied. From the tons of Evo S/C owners, I believe the same holds true for them.

I was going with Ruf for the same reasons Mr. Brennan did.

 

Yes - so far most of my mileage occurred on the drive back from Dallas...800 miles - left at 8am home at 7pm - maybe 400 additional miles since then - no problems and as I mentioned, I'm very satisfied with my choice. At RUF there is a red 997 3.6 with the conversion that I believe is a "company" car. Interestingly I saw there another 997S with the conversion - a twin to my car and only a two number difference on the VIN - quite a coincidence. I've had turbo charged diesels in high altitude locations and the difference in perfomance was very noticable - same for S/C cars at altitude - any extra help getting the thin air into the cylinder makes quite a difference. When I picked the car up, I was shocked at the change in performance especially at normal altitude. That "seat of the pants" boost diminshed as I climbed into Dnever but it is still very noticable.

 

zeitronix air fuel / boost gauge ? whats it cost?

 

you sure you weren't thinking of me?

 

would you be willing to put it on a dynojet dyno? RUF refuses to post any numbers or charts up. i think we'd all like to see what kind of performance this kit is putting down. you're the first non-RUF employee on the forum that has one

 

check out www.zeitronix.com

i think the gauge package with the sensors was around $500. i have been running it for about 1.5 years or so. i'm really happy with it. i really like to be able to check the car's engine parameters from time to time. not to mention the gauge makes it readily apparently if you should develop a boost leak before it becomes a major problem.

 

I wouldn't object strongly to doing that but I'm not really interested in the "numbers" - I've driven a lot of cars and have never been able to distinguish HP differences of 100 let alone 25. BTW, I have seen some charts - admittedly they came from RUF but there are some charts out there. Maybe as the year goes along (and the snow stops falling) I'll find someone here that will dyno it for me.

 

One more thing - I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to dyno results - I know temp can have an impact on results but would the altitude skew the results or does the equipment compensate for it?

 

the equipment will correct for your elevation, temps, humidity, etc.. you can have them print the results in either "corrected" or "uncorrected" numbers.

use a dynojet if you can. it is generally the more widely used setup and it would be easier to make comparisons.

i'm not really concerned with the specific numbers. it would be interesting to see what the horsepower and torque curves look like. although i must admit, i am curious as to what kind of peak HP this kit makes.

the whole dyno thing is pretty harmless for your car. it should only take an hour from start to finish to get in three runs (includes strapping it down, cool downs, etc..). keep us posted. you'll be the first to go public with it

 

I'll let you all know when I do this - probably won't be until the spring. There are two graphs on the Japan Ruf website under R Kompressor conversion - only for the 3.4l and 3.6l though.

 

If I do end up getting it done, I have already done a baseline run, so we'll have some numbers to compare stock vs. tuned.

 

 

i went to japan's ruf site. this is the first dyno chart i've seen. looks very torquey. however, considering this is crank HP, not very impressive numbers considering the expense. then again, ruf tends to underpromise and over deliver. i would like to see some real "wheel hp" numbers on a member's car.i would have to believe that they're much better than what they're advertising.

 

To my memory, dynojets are typically erroneous on the side of reporting too much horsepower - while the mustang dyno tend to err on the conservative side. That would seem to support the argument dynojets are more popular.

 

it doesn't really matter if it adds a little or takes some off. my point was that most people use the dynojet so even as impractical as it is to compare dyno readings... using the same type of dyno that most shops have at least closes a portion of the variable gap. when i did my "before" runs on a dynojet, they came out to about 272. that's pretty damn close if you ask me. porsche says my 3.6 should have about 275ish.