RSC - Blown V8 Vantage - Order yours Now
Discussion
RSC have done the last few tweeks on there V8 Vantage Blower conversion.
Looking like should exceed the numbers or the V12V fairly comfortably. So should be as good if not better than a V12V it does not have the whopping great lump in the front.
This will be rolled out worldwide and I here deposits next week will start to be taken from next week.
[This is nothing to do with those Paramount people in Slough!] - this is done properly.
If you are brave enough contact http://www.rsctuning.com/ or Stuart Dickinson (PH Profile name) on here.
You lot are truely Sad - christ just bringing you some information that many might find of interest.
If you do not know that this is out there how could you maybe look into it.
Ha it ain't my Company!!!! Can't help / inform some people!
maybe it might offend those that this will be faster and sweeter handling the the V12!
If you do not know that this is out there how could you maybe look into it.
Ha it ain't my Company!!!! Can't help / inform some people!
maybe it might offend those that this will be faster and sweeter handling the the V12!
And Vantages NEED this conversion as Pretty slow in std form (having a many a ride in mates) and the one that was Blown by the Burks at Paramount that could not do the conversion correctly and took mate car off him for 2 whole years and b
ksed it it (not back to std and they could not even do that right).
RSC have it sorted (it is breaking into the ECU - that alos controls the rest of the cars function not just a separate engine ecu - that would have made it alot easier). RSC say that have it cracked, and US punters would not stand for it unless it was Right.
ksed it it (not back to std and they could not even do that right).RSC have it sorted (it is breaking into the ECU - that alos controls the rest of the cars function not just a separate engine ecu - that would have made it alot easier). RSC say that have it cracked, and US punters would not stand for it unless it was Right.
For what this all costs, would it not be easier to just get a V12V?
I don't understand how anyone can call a Vantage slow. I know it's not up there with the Ferraris/Lamborghinis, but it isn't in the same market as those. A 4.7 V8V in no means feels slow, and I imagine the new S improves that even more.
Also those wheels...
Just why...
I don't understand how anyone can call a Vantage slow. I know it's not up there with the Ferraris/Lamborghinis, but it isn't in the same market as those. A 4.7 V8V in no means feels slow, and I imagine the new S improves that even more.
Also those wheels...
Just why...
George H said:
For what this all costs, would it not be easier to just get a V12V?
I don't understand how anyone can call a Vantage slow. I know it's not up there with the Ferraris/Lamborghinis, but it isn't in the same market as those. A 4.7 V8V in no means feels slow, and I imagine the new S improves that even more.
Also those wheels... Just why...
Forgetthe wheels that is nothing to do with the SC coneversion - US punter like alot of Bling - so what.I don't understand how anyone can call a Vantage slow. I know it's not up there with the Ferraris/Lamborghinis, but it isn't in the same market as those. A 4.7 V8V in no means feels slow, and I imagine the new S improves that even more.
Also those wheels...
Just why...Have you see my profile, mate had his Vantage when I had my TVR with a 6 litre Chevy in it and yep it was slow in comparison, made a nice noise, but did not feel like it was going much. HUGE weight (1.7ish tons) hauled by a high reving 4.3 with not exactly massive torque felt slow.
He has a S3 Audi and that thing was as fast if not fast (easily faster on twisties) bar running it all out at the top end (i.e. license loosing zone).
It needed 400kg less weight or a shed load more power and torq from new at the weight they are.
4.7 might be a bit better but it ain't gonna run an RSC V8 or V12 close.
The b
ksed up Paramount one made 530bhp and sounded like Armegeddon (made my old toy seem quite!).Pwer to weight is / was PANTS.
michael gould said:
put it on my list Mr Jockman
1. Poor People.2. Gap Finance.
3. Any other Finance.
4. Ready-made bow ties.
5. Germans.
6. Tracked Cars.
7. AM Sat Nav.
8. Divorce.
9. 007 Plates.
10. Apologising.
11. Over-revving engines.
12. Mingers.
13. Blind old Gits.
14. Fatties.
15. Salesmen.
16. Bloody Peasants.
17. Jaguars.
18. Turbo Chargers on Astons
I think Yeti posted something similar to this about Sarah Maynard and the mods locked the topic until he complained.
I see nothing wrong in it as long at the OP has no connection to the firm in question and he's clearly stated that he does not.
So - onto the car...
Those wheels? The red line on the door line crease from the strake to the rear. The decal on below the strake.
Not my cup of tea.
Now, a supercharger on a V8 lump is not a trivial exercise. I wonder how many millions of pounds Jaguar spent to get their 5.0 V8 supercharger all working within bounds of reliability?
I wonder how much RSC have spent?
And no, I have no connection to RSC or indeed any firm in the after market world. I do have a keen interest in engineering and I do wonder how this will run under extreme stress situations? How many development miles and how much testing has been done? Did they run at low altitude in extreme heat? High altitude in extreme heat? In a series of linked high G corners?
My point - anyone with a set of spanners can bolt kit onto a engine and say "it works". But has it been tested fully and engineered to work reliably?
I see nothing wrong in it as long at the OP has no connection to the firm in question and he's clearly stated that he does not.
So - onto the car...
Those wheels? The red line on the door line crease from the strake to the rear. The decal on below the strake.
Not my cup of tea.
Now, a supercharger on a V8 lump is not a trivial exercise. I wonder how many millions of pounds Jaguar spent to get their 5.0 V8 supercharger all working within bounds of reliability?
I wonder how much RSC have spent?
And no, I have no connection to RSC or indeed any firm in the after market world. I do have a keen interest in engineering and I do wonder how this will run under extreme stress situations? How many development miles and how much testing has been done? Did they run at low altitude in extreme heat? High altitude in extreme heat? In a series of linked high G corners?
My point - anyone with a set of spanners can bolt kit onto a engine and say "it works". But has it been tested fully and engineered to work reliably?
jellison said:
orgetthe wheels that is nothing to do with the SC coneversion - US punter like alot of Bling - so what.
Have you see my profile, mate had his Vantage when I had my TVR with a 6 litre Chevy in it and yep it was slow in comparison, made a nice noise, but did not feel like it was going much. HUGE weight (1.7ish tons) hauled by a high reving 4.3 with not exactly massive torque felt slow.
He has a S3 Audi and that thing was as fast if not fast (easily faster on twisties) bar running it all out at the top end (i.e. license loosing zone).
It needed 400kg less weight or a shed load more power and torq from new at the weight they are.
4.7 might be a bit better but it ain't gonna run an RSC V8 or V12 close.
The bksed up Paramount one made 530bhp and sounded like Armegeddon (made my old toy seem quite!).
Pwer to weight is / was PANTS.
Obviously if you compare it to a car like that it is going to be slow. But that TVR wouldn't offer the same in luxury / toys etc. Try comparing it to a car in the same class as it before declaring it slow. Have you see my profile, mate had his Vantage when I had my TVR with a 6 litre Chevy in it and yep it was slow in comparison, made a nice noise, but did not feel like it was going much. HUGE weight (1.7ish tons) hauled by a high reving 4.3 with not exactly massive torque felt slow.
He has a S3 Audi and that thing was as fast if not fast (easily faster on twisties) bar running it all out at the top end (i.e. license loosing zone).
It needed 400kg less weight or a shed load more power and torq from new at the weight they are.
4.7 might be a bit better but it ain't gonna run an RSC V8 or V12 close.
The b
ksed up Paramount one made 530bhp and sounded like Armegeddon (made my old toy seem quite!).Pwer to weight is / was PANTS.
It weighs 1.6 tons too, and does not need 400kg off it imo - it isn't a stripped out track toy, if you want one of those go see Porsche. 100-200kg would be plenty to remove from the car, and leave power where it is. All stripping that weight would do is bump up the price and reduce the general usability and GT side of the car. May I suggest to you the V8 Vantage N24 if you want a lightweight unusable car.
Driving fast does not equal driver enjoyment too, I don't think the V8V needs all the power you are suggesting, and if anyone thinks it does, go and buy a V12V.
John makes a valid point too, I would bet minimal testing has been carried out.
I really look forward to the DB9 kit
Edited by George H on Thursday 21st July 11:43
jellison said:
michael gould said:
an after thought turbo charger on an Aston Martin.....how bloody awful......put it on my list Mr Jockman
Does it say Turbo charger!!But many thanks for bringing this to our attention....im sure all V12V owners will be placing their "deposits" shortly
Gassing Station | Aston Martin | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff