UrS4boy

Porsche had been building the Mercedes Benz 500E on contract to Daimler-Benz but the contract was running out. Audi wanted to up the ante on the S2 Avant but was busy developing the new (B5) A4 and A8 cars. Since Audi and Porsche had worked together before, e.g. Audi built Porsche's four-cylinder 924s and 944s at Audi's Neckarsulm plant, Audi gave Porsche the project to develop and build the RS2 from the S2 avant. The development started in early 93 with input from both Audi and Porsche engineers along the way.

Painted but not fully trimmed S2 avant bodies were trucked from Ingolstat to Zuffenhausen where Porsche added the Audi-built engine and the Porsche designed intake, exhaust, turbo, injectors, etc. as well as the Porsche-designed front and rear bumpers and real Porsche mirrors, signal/fog lights, wheels and brakes.

The production run was supposed to be 2200 cars by the end of the 1995 model year, of which 200 were to be right hand drive.

I have the original magazines from which the above details were taken.

gruppe5

I have seen, many times, the RS2 turbocharger installed onto the factory manifold without ill results. I believe that at the end of the day we are discussing exhaust gas temperature ( EGT ) I know that there is a certain range that you must keep your EGT's in or you will have problems, I know that you can meet and exceed that range with the stock K24 or just about any turbocharger for that matter, so I fail to see how a larger turbocharger on a factory manifold can be the sole reason that exhaust valves would burn, as in my experience the software and fueling i.e. tuning was responsible for EGT's. The move to a larger turbocharger should net increased flow with less pressure, which should equate to equal or less heat. Seeing how the exhaust wheel would be larger, that should also equate to less backpressure and less heat. More air and more fuel=bigger bang, but that is where tuning comes into play in knock, timing, and EGT in check, larger turbocharger does not allow you to significantly increase EGT if anything it should stay the same.

gruppe5

with stock components?? That is done daily, with software upgrades, well beyond 20 hp. I would be more inclined to believe that the RS2 manifold was a primary design deemed too inefficient for production because of the difficulty of attaching it. I know that the factory manifold supports RS2 level power and higher, even the 10v manifold does this long term without exhaust valve issues.

UrS4boy

You are not being logical. But we can't seem to convince you otherwise, so we will just wait for your data using the stock EM with whatever turbo you think is appropriate.

UrS4boy

prolonged periods? I could have a GT3076 on a stock EM and drive it like a granny and never have any issues with anything, including valves. Its when you start to drive your car on the twisties in 3rd gear, giving it lots of pedal coming out of the turns or on the track or driving in the mountains, up passes, that the EM starts to glow. Then you will know about EGT and the greater risk of problems.

gruppe5

to throw an insult into your post huh?? How am I not being logical?? By presenting a different view and drawing from past experiences?? I don't think that Tony at EPL had red baron tuned in 1/2 hour do you? I have seen plenty of dyno pulls were hardware has failed and from Haps own description his issue happened fairly quick. Meanwhile you don't seem to have any first hand experience either way. So now we have an account of burned exhaust valves with unknown condition of the valves before hand, unknown EGT, timing, ect... and the blame is falling on the stock exhaust manifold. I don't need convincing, I have a good grasp of what is possible, my aim is to either have confirmed accounts with suppoting data of an occurrence you and others have presented as fact OR put a POSSIBLE rumor to rest. All the while not being argumentive. BTW, I believe Marc took his car to Watkins Glen with that manifold.

UrS4boy

<center><img src="http://pictureposter.audiworld.com/15624/mtmexhaustmanifold.jpg"></center><p>NOT!!!

Why did Porsche and MTM both redesign the EM for more power and/or few problems? Obviously, they didn't have your superior engineering skills and knowledge.

UrS4boy

hand knowledge of burning valves because of running a larger turbo, etc. on an stock EM BECAUSE I was around 9 years ago when Hap made his discovery. When it came time for an upgrade, I sprang for the $$ for the RS2 EM.

Those who do not recall the past (history) are doomed to repeat it.

I keep saying, do what you want, put a big honking turbo on a stock EM. I don't give a hoot. Just don't come whining back here that you have problems down the road.

gruppe5

I believe that is is un-necessary to replace the factory manifold up to power levels of 400+ chp, I know that a new manifold is not needed for RS2 power levels. I base this on prior firsthand experience. You are basing your position on second-hand information from a vehicle with questionable software an unknown parameters ( nothing against you Hap ) and unknown prior condition as well. I can give three examples of vehicles with the 034 manifold that were driven plenty hard and didn't burn valves which, based on your reasoning, should have. Nate, Keith, and Marc. I could also throw in a Motorgeek lister that runs endurance races with his AAN w/ stock manifold, his claims of 450 hp but that is not first hand knowledge. Please, if you have actual proof then present it, but throwing out childish comments and rumors of failure do not help progress this discussion.

UrS4boy

Believe what you want. I will err on the side of caution, as will others.