Audi S2 RSR

[Mcstiff]

Well no that's the whole point the orignal 3b engine had the paper gasket which gave a 9.3 compression later 93/94 ABY / AAN / ADU cars with the thicker metal one went to 9.0.

Aside from the MTM site saying 9.3, I agree with the theory

[Jamo]

i see but surely the motorsport cars ran metal gaskets?

swopping layers is common place on metal gaskets to achive different CR`s,

these have been available technology wise from the very late eighties and early ninetys.

with MTM`s finding in R&D they had availability to the technology and research in motorsport backing?

Ford Cosworth powered road cars all ran paper Reinz gaskets but WRC stuff ran multi layer metal gaskets in `92, technology was widely available and used at the time, im sure i saw pictures of the early development 25v heads that ran metal multilayer gaskets.

not pushing an argument, mearly voicing suggestions.

Dude Wtf has the motorsport cars and 25v got to do with a s2 3B converted engine?
3b engine equal paper gasket = 9.3 cr
Article states compression raised from 9 to 9.3 which is stock cr
There is no trick things they did unless the cr was higher than 9.3 or they had a car with a metal gasket and replaced it with paper!

[A80Avant]

im sorry for taking the discussion away from the question regarding how the CR went to 9.3:1 in the first place.

My comment only had to do with the fact that you can still run high compression and get good power results+benefits of low end power without sacrificing too much(or at all) depending on the setup.

ie, on a garrett turbo that once you pass the 2-2.2bar levels you are already off the most effective islands, there is no point having too low compression in order to run higher boost, as you are not taking advantage of the turbo's efficiency to produce those numbers. But if you are able to get the most out of a turbo at below or equal to 2bar then you have an engine that will be very efficient+ produce good hp. If it knocks above 2bar, then we dont care.

However, if you use a Holset,where the efficiency goes beyond 2bar and reaches 3bar, then sure, high compression/knock limited setup is not the way forward.

Therefore, when MTM was making this setup, and with the K26/27 at hand, which i presume, similar to the RS2 turbo, does not like being too long on the 2bar area, knew that they could get away with more CR and better results without having to go crazy on the boost.

i too believe there may be some magazine discrepency in the article, but i would assume that the car producing 400+hp would not be that bullet proof with a paper gasket. Maybe they skimmed the head whilst using a metal gasket, and therefore maintaing the 9.3:1... who knows?

[EspenW]

Very cool car, especially at the time.
They didn't boost it very hard, so the 485nm torque value isn't mind bending. Still, exeptionally quick 0-100kmh at 3.9s.
1471kg according to the test in Sport Auto Magazine.
100-200kmh in 10.3s, so a lot quicker than the 24.8s 100-200 time that they timed the standard S2 to.

[tajgreidotu]

Amazing car,

Just a comment: Ive always heard that running different front and rear tyres will kill our torsen....how did they solve it in the RSR??

[M_GORDON]

Amazing car,

Just a comment: Ive always heard that running different front and rear tyres will kill our torsen....how did they solve it in the RSR??

Anyway.
The Torsen don't crash

[andy10v]

Amazing car,

Just a comment: Ive always heard that running different front and rear tyres will kill our torsen....how did they solve it in the RSR??

Keep the diameter the same and you can run different widths.

[EspenW]

Keep the diameter the same and you can run different widths.

Different rolling diameter on the RSR. Same rim size: 17", but 92mm sidewall on the front (265/35) and 102mm (235/45) on the rear.

[Jamo]

This would be of interest to those asking http://www.s2forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6140

[quattrofrank]

8,5*17 front and 10*17 rear with the tyre dimension as mentioned

[saltinot]

from an old MTM brochure of mine.

[Mcstiff]

from an old MTM brochure of mine.

Nice!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[andy10v]

Different rolling diameter on the RSR. Same rim size: 17", but 92mm sidewall on the front (265/35) and 102mm (235/45) on the rear.

Woops, I asumed they had used tyres that would be almost the same, eg 265/35 and 235/40 is 0.3% different or 2mm different in diameter.

265/35 and 235/45

618mm v 644mm circumfence
829.3 v 795.9 revs per mile
4.2% difference

I cant remember the % allowed though???

[Sleeper_Avant]

Dude Wtf has the motorsport cars and 25v got to do with a s2 3B converted engine?
3b engine equal paper gasket = 9.3 cr
Article states compression raised from 9 to 9.3 which is stock cr
There is no trick things they did unless the cr was higher than 9.3 or they had a car with a metal gasket and replaced it with paper!

WTF?
why WTF?

i would have thaught that if metal gaskets were available they would use them, that doesnt sound stupid does it??

have you seen a thread that shows data/pics of an RSR 3B with the head off?

if they went to all the trouble of getting rid of the manifolds and turbo that were not up to the job, im sure they would have changed a £20 gasket since the head was off anyway!

like i said i wasnt starting an argument just being logical, am i wrong?

hugs x

[Error404]

Woops, I asumed they had used tyres that would be almost the same, eg 265/35 and 235/40 is 0.3% different or 2mm different in diameter.

265/35 and 235/45

618mm v 644mm circumfence
829.3 v 795.9 revs per mile
4.2% difference

I cant remember the % allowed though???

Again this debate is based around what some lazy hack wrote in a magazine. Its probably wrong - they are morons. You only need to read the BBC news site to see that most can't even spell!