| Author |
Message |
    
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 05:31 pm: | 
|
I've never heard of any stock XB12 falling short of 80 SAE RWHP on a dynojet dynamometer. Most run between 85 and 95 rwhp. Even the folks at Motorcycle Consumer News found over 80 RWHP and they stopped the run at like 6400 rpm I think. |
Eor
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 06:45 pm: |
|
Okay...I stand corrected on the RWHP figure, but I believe I'll stand my ground on the wildly optimistic MPG Buell uses on their spec sheet.  |
Aeholton
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 10:22 pm: |
|
The altitude here on the west coast of FL is less than 40 ft. above sea level. I don't think it is a low reading dyno, either. My business partner took his somewhat modified ZRX1200R and pulled a 143hp 85 ft-lb reading right after me. I think a lot of the readings Cycle World, Motorcyclist, and other magazines get are optimistic.
As for the the actual #, I'm not too concerned. Seat of the pants, the Uly has plenty of power for me. I just wanted some sort of base line before installing race kit that I have on order. |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 11:10 pm: |
|
I'll back you up on that mpg issue Ozark man.  That ain't just a Buell issue though. All vehicle manufacturers follow the same prescribed test regimen and so fall into the optimistic range in reported mileage, as their test drivers of course drive for optimium mileage within the contraints of the test regimen. Motorcycles without large fairings prove to be most off, especially if the rider is large and out of control.  |
Chadhargis
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 10:25 am: |
|
I've never understood why some manfacturers (Buell included) rate the engine by crank horsepower. Who cares what it makes in the crank. I'm not making ice cream with it...it's in a motorcycle. They should show what it makes at the rear tire. |
Eor
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 12:02 pm: |
|
It has to do with testing standards, I believe....[SAE?]. |
Aeholton
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 12:25 pm: |
|
From the Dynojet help file:
Dynojet’s WinPEP (Performance Evaluation Program for Windows 95) software uses the SAE’s latest correction formula (June 1990). This formula assumes a mechanical efficiency of 85% and is much more accurate than earlier formulas at extreme conditions. The formula used is:
CF= 1.18 x (29.22/Bdo) x To+460 / 537) - 0.18
Where:
To = Intake air temperature in degrees F
Bdo = Dry ambient absolute barometric pressure
Uncorrected I was at 80.72hp / 72.62 ft-lbs. |
Jlnance
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 01:35 pm: |
|
I've never understood why some manfacturers (Buell included) rate the engine by crank horsepower.
Because the number is bigger.  Seriously. |
Chadhargis
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 01:57 pm: |
|
So, when are they going to start listing top speed tested in a vacuum? After all, who needs to account for aerodynamic drag? LOL! |
Aeholton
| | Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 08:18 pm: |
|
For those thinking my dyno numbers seemed low - I was looking back over Al Lighton's old posts in http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/messages/17143/164053.html?1134191408 and it appears my HP is in line with what he was getting in stock air box configuration. Actually my torque numbers were up slightly (maybe the Special Ops pipe?  ).
I've never heard of any stock XB12 falling short of 80 SAE RWHP on a dynojet dynamometer. Most run between 85 and 95 rwhp. Even the folks at Motorcycle Consumer News found over 80 RWHP and they stopped the run at like 6400 rpm I think.
Blake, you have now and if you look at the link to Al's posts, you have in the past. |
Thunderbox
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 08:58 pm: |
|
Well I did the Dyno today on the Uly. This is the figures: Max torque 70.2 ft-lbs. Max power 83.8 RWHP. Dead stock Mileage 3193 Kms. Oil HD 20W50 (825 kms on it) Fuel 90 Octane 10% ethanol Mohawk. That torque curve is unreal. 63 ft-lbs is the lowest from 2500 rpm to 6800 rpm. Flat as a board. Now I will put the Drummer on and do my next dyno. Stay tuned. |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 05:34 pm: |
|
TBox,
Was that dynojet SAE RWHP or other? |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 05:34 pm: |
|
Also, was that a 4th or 5th gear pull? |
Thunderbox
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 06:06 pm: |
|
Dynojet 150 to be precise. |
Thunderbox
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 06:08 pm: |
|
I am not sure if it was 4th or 5th I will ask them when I go and get the next pull done. |
