The Greatest Tuner of all Time Vs. The Rest

What if we took the greatest tuner of all time (Brabus), a record holder for the world's fastest SUV, Sedan, and Station Wagon, and we put it up against the rest such as Renntech, Carlsson, AMG, Dinan...etc. Who do you guys prefer?

if you put em up against the rest, i would have to take the rest... only b/c renntech has sick fast cars, and amg has a great total package (and you can get it from the dealer)
carllson has some kickass wheels... so i like them...
but i dont think that any of them are greatest of the great...
it is tough to decide who i want to modify my top o the line luxo killer... ya knowwhat i mean?
but i would choose the rest, as that means that you can mix and match...

ps...
you are big on brabus, huh?
:licker:

I am a Brabus fan only because they hold 3 records in 3 different categories for the fastest SUV, Sedan, and Station Wagon. Renntech is sweet too. The SL7.4 is one of the best tuned cars they made. As for Carlsson, they have kick ass interiors. Take a look at the "car interiors" forum for some picks I posted of the Carlsson C RS. Overall, they are all great in their own sense but I would pick Brabus as my tuner! :)

cool... i gotcha... i was just afraid that you were one of those biased s.o.b.s that only knows about one thing...
i agree with you, but i want a car that is great all around, not just top speed.... andi am sure that brabus is good all around, but so are the others... ya know?

Check into www.theoldone.com, read some of their articles, and then come back to me and tell me that you honestly believe Brabus be "The Greatest Tuner of all Time."

TOO.com (aka Endyn Energy Dynamics) unquestionably gets my vote for best tuner of all time.

My second place vote, by the way, would go to John Lingenfelter.

JD@adf,

That site had nothing to do with Brabus. What are you getting at? Brabus is a great Mercedes tuner and their accomplishments prove that even more.

what i think he was saying is that you are only going for a merc tuner. he is looking at other tuners, all around.
and you never specified what type of tuner for what kind of car. there are better tuners out there. no offense or anything.
but you seem to only be looking the merc direction

and if you are going to base why brabus is the best on a top speed...
what about RUF?
or some other tuners that have fastass cars, lingenfelter already mentioned?
or any viper tuner? hennessey?
look at what you are going against...

B
R
A
B
U
S

Nuff said!

you arent even considering the other tuners that have been mentioned here...
like the RUF, or hennessey, or lingenfelter...
and if you wanted a really fast suv or wagon, buy a tahoe, or a caprice wagon, and put a 700 cubic in big block in it...
that would make a fast car... faster than brabus...
you arent opening your eyes here...

Wait a tick. Do you guys think that the best tuner is the one who makes the car go the fastest? Sure I'll take speed but I want an S-class so I can have a living room on wheels not a rocket sled. Speed is great but remeber all of the other factors like, styling, performance, handling, safety and luxury ameneties. I think the best S-class is the Carlsson. I saw a thing on Speedvision with it and I love that car. It dosen't have a V12 and it works just fine for me. Also how do you class a tuner? AMG makes actual production models for Mercedes. I guess it's like a joint agreement to tune them. Then if we were doing that, my vote would go to BMW Motorsport which actually performs magic on the cars.

Originally posted by flylwsi
you arent even considering the other tuners that have been mentioned here...
like the RUF, or hennessey, or lingenfelter...
and if you wanted a really fast suv or wagon, buy a tahoe, or a caprice wagon, and put a 700 cubic in big block in it...
that would make a fast car... faster than brabus...
you arent opening your eyes here...

Are you joking man? Tahoe? Caprice? You can put a 700 cubic in both those cars but that doesn't mean they'll be the fastest. Plus on top of that, you'd want all the luxury that Brabus has to offer. All the other tuners mentioned such as Ruf or Hennessey are only focused on speed, while Brabus, Renntech, Carlsson, M-Power, etc. give you the performance and the luxury in one complete package! So when it comes down to it, you have to ask yourself which is more important, luxury, speed, or both? Then you'll open your eyes and see that the answer is clear...BRABUS!

Originally posted by Porsche

Wait a tick. Do you guys think that the best tuner is the one who makes the car go the fastest? Sure I'll take speed but I want an S-class so I can have a living room on wheels not a rocket sled. Speed is great but remeber all of the other factors like, styling, performance, handling, safety and luxury ameneties. I think the best S-class is the Carlsson. I saw a thing on Speedvision with it and I love that car. It dosen't have a V12 and it works just fine for me. Also how do you class a tuner? AMG makes actual production models for Mercedes. I guess it's like a joint agreement to tune them. Then if we were doing that, my vote would go to BMW Motorsport which actually performs magic on the cars.


I agree with you there. Speed is one thing, but having speed coupled with luxury is another. I also love the S-Class (new and previous generation). Nothing better than a Renntech S60 or Brabus S7.3s to give a Viper or a Porsche a good beating! :D

My sig says it all!:cool:

BUT IF U WANT LUXO AMMENTITIES TOO I'LL SAY RENNtech KICKS ASS.

Just to clarify my position here, what I am referring to is what I think is the best engine tuner around. Endyn, to me, is the best tuner, because of the work they do in taking an already high quality engine design, and improving it to make them more powerful and efficient (think 23:1 static compression ratio). And the fact that they don't rely on conventional displacement-favoring engineering approaches to ameliorate their engines helps solidify them as the greatest tuner of all time in my book.

this is the first time i've looked at this in awhile...

wow. damn. all those surprised words.

a 700ci big block tahoe wouldnt be faster than a BRABUS car?
do you watch the nhra at all?
and luxury? i know for a fact that you could build a tahoe to outhandle your brabus cars, and outdo the interior and be faster, and most likely be cheaper...
and, the cars you mention as porsche and viper beaters... wow... they cost more too, and they arent stock... spend the same cash on a viper and see who wins. put that cash into a porsche. see who wins. you are comparing tuner apples to stock oranges there.

no offense, but you have not even considered what i said. you are now officially too stuck on one thing to see... 700 ci could push out about 800hp, conservatively, and if geared right, for a long haul, could easily top a brabus top speed...

as for a tuner... i am still a RUF fan, and HENNESSEY also... and lingenfelter... ENDYN i am not all that familiar with, and i am sure they need mentioning here also... and im sure that they could make something better than brabus...

but please, look at what i am saying, instead of saying,
"no god, you dint create the earth, BRABUS did..."

ahem... we all got into a bit of a side issue, didn't we? tuners are not about preserving the delicate balance that manufacturers hold so dearly about their finished products. Look at cars that we've all seen in previews for the fast and the furious, which is coming out this weekend. Do those cars look like their tuners gave a rats ass about balance? You better believe that their drivers will be having this same conversation sometime in the movie, about who has the hotter car, cubic inches vs forced induction of the japanese iron... Tuning is about actually removing the balance, making the car extreme, don't u think? If balance being preserved is how we all are going to measure tuning, than the car that shows the greatest measurable improvements over stock without ever being assumed to be a tuned car is the best tuned car, something factory backed and subtle, probably an Audi S8. However, if you come back to the reality of why people try to yank max hp out of their civics and benzes, you realize that subtlety really isn't the point. No question, hennessey is the best viper tuner, and lingenfelter does the best vettes. They both dabble in each others' fields, but hennessey offers no better than 500 hp from a vette, and lingenfelter offers no better than 550 for a viper, while Lingenfelter offers 650 hp in the form of a stage II turbo package for the vette as the current top option, and hennessey has a 800 hp kit for the viper. Both melt tires, but they're really apples and oranges. So BRABUS, stop screaming out BRABUS at the end of every reply like it somehow cements your argument. Its just silly. don't just say, "nah, it aint like that,"--- provide real rebuttal for when someone starts talking about tahoes.... later
dan

dan, sorry to post my feelings on a publicly accessible forum like this.. but I love you man!!! :D :D

P.S. For an easy, safe response, just tell me "you're not getting my Bud Light, Johnny."

you're not getting my Bud Light, Johnny

LOL, Bud light. Americans and there 4% LOL. You speak the truth about balance & tuners. Hartage has put the M5 V8 in the M3 and another tuner put a V8 in an SLK (Yes I know!). It's about making the car's performance and luxury better not pulling a 50/50 weight balance.

True. 'Course that icing on the cake 50/50 weight distribution doesn't hurt either. However, cars can handle quite well without it. I'm amazed at how nicely my Acura handles despite its 64/36 weight split on a FWD platform (and that's without an LSD!). It can be done.

Hi all

For my money, Carlo Abarth was the greatest tuner of all time. What he managed to do with Fiats, Simcas and the odd Alfa Romeo, Porsche and Ferrari was unbelievable.

How does 103.9 bhp/litre sound, from a naturally-aspirated car from 1963?

Shameless plug:
Full specs here:
http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/id/?id=20592
More Abarths here:
http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/?man=2

Ciao ;-)

Wow. Now that is pretty impressive. Is there something that is hidden from the scope of the facts provided? I didn't think anyone was anywhere near that output at that time. I mean 1963 was pretty much before even 1 bhp per cubic inch (at least for most manufacturers).

Originally posted by JD@af
Wow. Now that is pretty impressive. Is there something that is hidden from the scope of the facts provided? I didn't think anyone was anywhere near that output at that time. I mean 1963 was pretty much before even 1 bhp per cubic inch (at least for most manufacturers).

Not really JD... Although 1 bhp/cu in was considered pretty good at the time, many firms (especially the Italians) had had twin cam heads and small displacement high-output engines for a few decades by then. Basically Carlo Abarth took a standard Fiat OHV engine, added his own twin cam heads, better carbs (webers), better exhausts (his own too) and tweaked the sucker (not sure of the details), making full use of his brilliant intuitive tuning skills. Certainly the man was a genius though ;-)

Ciao

Zak

55 Chevy was the first American car to have 1hp/ci.

hp/l is pretty meaningless really though.

i agree considering the viper has only 40ish / liter

True, true. I'm always impressed by high horsepower per liter engines, but I know that in the "real world," without displacement limiting restrictions (as are found in many classes of racing), what really counts is the horsepower to weight ratio, and total area under the torque curve as shown on a dyno.

With all due respect guys, you aren't thinking like engineers. Here are just a few examples of why engine efficiency (of which just one measurement is bhp/litre) is a really impoirtant factor:
- smaller-displacent engines are likely to be lighter, meaning essential weight savings
- smaller-displacement engines will be able to rev more freely (generally speaking)
- smaller-displacement engines would be smaller in size - more compact (again, generally speaking), meaning better design options, especially in terms of engine position and overall size (affects balance and therefore handling)
- generally speaking, more fuel-efficient
- some countries impose tax penalties on higher-displacement engines

jsut to think of a few reasons why it can be an important measurement.

on the same small motor note...
did you know then, that the viper v10 was developed as a perfectly smooth i5 that was doubled up? it sounds like a small car motor when it revs, sounds more engineered for lack of a better word... smooth
it is also a smooth running motor... and does not have a low redline... so that falls into the engineered category....


and, if we are talking tuners, they also know that hp/l is a nice number, but the power to weight is most important.. .that is why they use lighter stronger components throughout their cars...
we dont need to think like engineers, that is what the car co is for...
but when you talk hp/l, dont forget that the s2k has 120 / liter, but only 175 tq total... and that is at a heady 7500rpm...

so driveability is boring in that car below vtec....
so a car should really be able to perform all over the tach...

which is what alot of bigger motors, i6 v8 etc, do

tq is what moves you, and if you dont got it, it doesnt matter what kinda hp you put down...

Can't argue with your points here. And I did think of them, in my defense, but I chose to ignore them for this argument. I personally am a huge fan of small, light engines using forced induction or other means to aid in cylinder filling, create high cylinder pressures, etc. to make power over the "cubic inches" method. And of course, a smaller overall combustion area (combining all quench areas of the particular engine) means better fuel economy.

But as much as I love high revvers, I can't help but note that for daily driving, flat torque curves are just simply more convenient.. and most four cylinders can't offer this the way the big boys can (VW/Audi is a notable exception with their VGT/VNT (Variable Geometry Turbo/Variable Nozzle Turbo) turbo systems, that provide maximum torque below 2,000 rpms, and maintain torque production well up into the 4,000-rpm range). Yes, weight savings is an obvious advantage to smaller engines, but if the weight can be saved, while keeping the car balanced in relation to the drive wheels, that's what important, rather than using a lighter engine, much as a lighter engine will aid in this. The particular areas of weight reduction are not as important; if you have a light, well-balanced car, it is just a series of details to specify each area where the weight was reduced. But let me reinforce that your points are more than legit.

flylwsi

The S2000 actually only has 153 lb.-ft. of torque (from Honda's web site):
http://www.honda2001.com/models/s2000/features.html

Originally posted by zak
With all due respect guys, you aren't thinking like engineers. Here are just a few examples of why engine efficiency (of which just one measurement is bhp/litre) is a really impoirtant factor:
- smaller-displacent engines are likely to be lighter, meaning essential weight savings
- smaller-displacement engines will be able to rev more freely (generally speaking)
- smaller-displacement engines would be smaller in size - more compact (again, generally speaking), meaning better design options, especially in terms of engine position and overall size (affects balance and therefore handling)
- generally speaking, more fuel-efficient
- some countries impose tax penalties on higher-displacement engines

jsut to think of a few reasons why it can be an important measurement.

I just typed up a response but got an error when posting and it disappeared. :mad:
The general gist of the post was thus:

Smaller displacement engines are often no more smaller in size than a 'large' small block V8, once they have their forced induction equipment fitted. They are also no longer, and the V8 can be set far back enough to give good balance. (Thats not including the FWD mechanicals that also add weight to most 4 cylinder powered cars) Cars with I6 engines like the Supra are more likely to be inbalanced due to the extra cylinders added to the length. The Supra engine is no more compact (and I'm pretty sure its heavier) than, say,a 4.6 Mustang V8. With the V8 having the advantage of less length.

Many cars that have V8s donated often end up handling better than when they started.

Compare the Honda S2000 engine to that of the Corvette. They get similar fuel economy. If you want to get HP out of a small engine you have to rev, and that drinks fuel.

I wish Chris V from CF was here. He has explained this stuff in great detail many times. He'd also tell you that many of the larger dicplacement engines are in fact very efficient.

Hi all

Just thought I'd not let this one slide ;-)

Yes, torque is important. No arguments there. However, this thread was about the best tuner. For my money, that is/waas Carlo Abarth. For him to have extracted the power he did from the engines he started from was incredible. His cars won their index of performance in just about every race they entered, often beating cars with higher displacement engines. They could drive rings around just about any other car on the road at the time. In 1964, a 1600 cc (that's 97 cu in!) was producing 154 bhp, and reached speeds of 220 km/h (137 mph). Most of these cars were homologated for raod use too, so they weren't just stripped-out pared-down racers. He didn't only tweak the engine though, he improved just about every aspect of those cars.

And, fwiw, the Viper redlines at 6000 rpm. Not particularly high ;-)
Remember too that all high-performance cars, especially racing cars, have the characteristics of high-revving, high power and relatively low torque engines.

In closing, this is a fairly decent article on why both torque and horsepower are useful:
http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html

Ciao

Zak ;-)

Originally posted by BRABUS
...world's fastest SUV...

What a crappy thing to be. As soon as you turn, you're rollin'...

Good stuff, zak. I'll be sure to check out that article later. As for your point about the Viper V10 (redline equals 6,000 rpm), I was thinking it, but I didn't want to say it.

thanks on the tq number....

on the the worlds fastest suv thing... hell... if you are gonna go fast, you are gonna be low... i dont think that it is gonna roll... take the bmw x5 le mans... the one that has the v12 lmp motor in it.. the one that just set a new record at the nurburgring...

that shiet aint rollin over...
if you are gonna go fst in an suv, you arent gonna roll... that all has to do with suspension there... fat sway bars, stiff springs... bigggg tires...
as long as the center of gravity is low and the body roll is minimal.. hell, i wouldnt worry too much about that...

since i just thought of this, i dont know if he really counts as a tuner, but john moss from chevy is a guy i admire...
he does all the wild ass over the top concept cars and the insanely built street cars they have out... kinda like svt at ford...
he has done alot of conceptual imaging for chevy, giving ideas as to what is coming up...

also... corvette related, i dont know if it is a full on greatest tuner position, but if you have heard of skunkwerkes, they are slicin tops off of vettes and making speedsters out of em... that is gutsy... so i respect them also... and hell, they just started doin zo6s... and they actually make em stiffer than stock... damn...

and one more vette crew...
mallett motorsports, which is in my hood... some of the most amazing all around bad c5 vettes around... and they are not inexpensive... and they have been on the cover of some serious mags...
hell, anyone that has a warehouse full of customer vettes waiting to be atuned... damn... and they have a white tile floor that is clean. that says alot...

that should be enuff fodder for the cannon here... serious tq monsters mentioned above...
i guess the only reason i am a tq fan is b/c i am so jealous of the way a vette in sixth can just step on it and disappear... whereas my lude has to rev up some more to find the power... but once i get up there... lookout...

i just looked at that, and damn, its long... sorry

Originally posted by Lizard King


I just typed up a response but got an error when posting and it disappeared. :mad:
The general gist of the post was thus:

Smaller displacement engines are often no more smaller in size than a 'large' small block V8, once they have their forced induction equipment fitted. They are also no longer, and the V8 can be set far back enough to give good balance. (Thats not including the FWD mechanicals that also add weight to most 4 cylinder powered cars) Cars with I6 engines like the Supra are more likely to be inbalanced due to the extra cylinders added to the length. The Supra engine is no more compact (and I'm pretty sure its heavier) than, say,a 4.6 Mustang V8. With the V8 having the advantage of less length.

Many cars that have V8s donated often end up handling better than when they started.

Compare the Honda S2000 engine to that of the Corvette. They get similar fuel economy. If you want to get HP out of a small engine you have to rev, and that drinks fuel.

I wish Chris V from CF was here. He has explained this stuff in great detail many times. He'd also tell you that many of the larger dicplacement engines are in fact very efficient.

Firstly, it's not a forced-induction car we're talking about here, it's a naturally aspirated engine, from 1963, giving 103.9 bhp/litre. Feel free to be unimpressed by that if you like, but for me it's hugely impressive. The engine in question is also a 4 cylinder, so no length disadvantage to a V8. A key factor when considering engine efficiency is bhp/litre, no two ways about that.

Yeah, that car you're talking about sounds sweet, and yes, I'm impressed. But I was talking about small engines in general

About the Viper, high redlines don't mean better cars/engines. Remember how much ass the Viper kicks in competition. High revs just cause more wear on an engine. Not that I don't like an engine to rev high. My favourite engine would be a Chevy or Ford 302 that revs to 9000rpm. The same engines as in the Boss and Z28 cars from the 60s. I get shivers thinking about how great they sound.

true on the hp/liter thing, but hey...
the viper, vette, camaro and mustang have something that little motors dont have... tq out the ass...
think about it... the hp doesnt matter till high end... what gets you off the line.. and flyin to the high end...

and i m not saying hp is not important,, but tq is it for accel runs and 1/4 mi etc...
just a thought there... that is what i was trying to say...

this discussion was had somewhere else...

it compared the hp/liter and the tq/liter of the s2k and the m3 and the ferrari 360... the highest hp was s2k, but highest tq was m3...
same thing i am trying to say

BMW Motorsport gets my vote.

- Reliable
- Handling upgrades are unparalleled
- Engine modifications
- External bodywork is always artfully executed


Are you kidding about the whole Brabus thing?

My vote is for the Japanese tuner Top Secret. They built a 1000+hp Skyline GT-R and a 1000+hp Toyota Supra with a Skyline RB26DETT engine swap! I packed away the mag they were featured in but if I remember correctly those cars went to 150mph faster than most cars went to 60mph. Fuel ecomony wasn't that great though. :(

Hmm .. Greatest 'Tuner' eh? Brabus SUVs, huh?

Let's start with Fred Duesenberg, who's cars won a string of Indy victories, Grand Prix, hillclimb, you name it - what other manufacturer can claim to use Indy to pre-test their ROAD cars before delivery? Park any current tuner-car next to the mighty J model and see where the admiration falls.

Speaking of Indy, how about Ak Miller, who along with Offenhauser later owned Indy for decades. His cars were so beautifully engineered even noted Mr E Bugatti paid Miller 'the ultimate compliment' by stealing his concepts.

Enzo Ferrari was so successful tuning pre-war Alfas that for 50 years his prancing-horse emblem has adorned some of the worlds most stunning and desirable cars, and one of that genesis leads the now corrupt F1 quest as I write.

Shelby turned appealing yet dud British vehicles (AC Ace & Ford GT 40) into such effective and beautiful racers they were either banned as being too dominant - GT 40 - or still copied today - Cobra.

As zak astutely pointed out, Arbarth was incredibly gifted, turning out winning machines with little resources. Then there's Matra, Cosworth, Porche, Alpine; all tuners of such talent their desirable products made it on to the street.

Not many will have heard of Australia's Phil Irving, who among his achievements engineered the lowly 1960s alloy Buick 215 V8 into the Repco Brabham engine, the last stock-block powerplant to win F1 (consecutive victories), authored the highly respected tuners-bible "Tuning for Speed" and also designed and engineered what was for many years the fastest production machine on 2 or 4 wheels, the fabulous Vincent Black Shadow.

The 215 Buick was a great engine, very light, far from being 'lowly'.

I also think you over simplified things with the GT40. It was made by Ford and based on a Lola. To say it was a British car, tuned by Shelby wouldn't be right, IMHO.

Good points though. Dusenburgs are just stunning. I'd like to know more about these Miller/Offenhauser cars though.

the other thing to note, since everyone has indirectly brought it up...
the greatest tuner of all time means alltime. i think BRABUS forgot that...
some of these tuners are older than all of us combined, and should be respected, if not seen as superior for what they did with such inferior technology... i love the new supertuners, but i also love the old stuff... that has been expressed in the doozy post... kudos on that... not many people even know what one of those beasts is... or has seen the sheer mass of one up close... amazing toys they were...

any pics of some work of the respective tuners ?

Ooops ... time to eat crow ... Lizard King, you're right, it wasn't Shelby American, but rather the nascent Kar Kraft that finally turned the GT-40 into a reliable winner.

As for the above being based on a Lola Mark 6 GT, please read the following excerpts and quotes from:

'retired Ford project engineer Bob Negstad, who was assigned to what would become the GT project in its earliest days...is adamant that the similarities between the Lola Mark 6 and the GT are largely coincidental - Lola was brought into the project, Negstad asserts, because Eric Broadley was a "brilliant fabricator". He ended up doing much of the construction and assembly work on the Ford GT prototype. But it was not in any way his creation. "Broadley was technically naive, a trial-&-error man" working in a "terribly obsolete building lit by a single 40-watt bulb". The attraction for Ford was not Broadley's design expertise, but rather his ability to quickly build what they wanted, plus the availability of a car of somewhat similar configuration (Lola) that could serve as a drivable test bed while Ford's own design was coming together'.

Regarding me saying that the B-O-P alloy V8 was lousy, I regretted that as soon as I posted. Of course it was the 1st all-alloy engine designed for high-production, also in the 1st production turbocar ('62 Olds Jetfire). But it was a dud, tales of core-shift and loose liners abound, and it took Rover to solve this by changing from pressure-cast to gravity-cast construction methods. Of trivial interest, Australia had in 1973 an enlarged 'raised block' 269 CID version of this engine (I own one).

Thanks for your corrections, and I'll try and hit the Duesy post (currently bereft) with something interesting...

You seem to know your stuff on the Buick V8. But I've heard that the engine was already good before Rover got it. Obviously it improved over the long time that Rover used it. I know that the turbo engine wasn't successful.

I'm glad someone finally mentioned his name and I have to agree is Carroll Shelby. He is one of the original tuners and probable the best know. What he did has allowed all of the tuners you have named and other like Saleen, Mallet, Rousch etc.., To even exist. So before you go off naming some other tuner as God remember the tuners from the Past like Shelby and some of the other named here.