| Author | Message | ||
     Lsr_Bbs |
Reading your notes on the other page on the comparisons...you know one other thing I've noticed w/ my carb setup over any CV harley is that my X1 feels like a mikuni setup...that throttle is *sensative*. Haven't really come up w/ a reason why, any thoughts? Neil Garretson X0.5 | ||
| Lsr_Bbs |
Last one, I swear...I've always wondered this... Would running a bike on the dyno as you would on the street work? That is, to see a/f values under various load conditions (instead of the WOT). Always thought that would be interesting cause I've frequently seen situations where you jet for max power, then ride on the street for a while, and have to jet around flat spots, or the like. Neil Garretson X0.5 | ||
| Aaron |
I would've loved to include the CV44 in that comparison, but couldn't justify spending $300 to satisfy my curiousity. You may be able to learn something about part throttle operation on the dyno with the a/f monitor, I haven't tried it. I imagine a brake type dyno would be a whole bunch better, though, since you can't vary the load on an inertia dyno. | ||
| Jmartz |
neil: For some reason on my bike I suspect the velocity/vacuum through the carb at turnover is lower than it needs to be to properly suck fuel so consequently it is harder to start and in the process sometimes you hear these loud blows out the pipe. Maybe your starting is better because you have the stock cams. I have played with the jetting to try to correct a midrange lean condition (the most annoying thing in the world). Raising the needle has helped but not completely eliminated it. The present state of tune I feel is as good as the carb can be tuned, at least by my me. Midrange problems are sporadic, sometimes absent. One thing is clear though, when the throttle is open even partially and the engine's (and bike's as well) speed is increasing the carb does a fantastic job. Partial bore openings followed by WOT produce more speed than WOT from the get go. | ||
| Jmartz |
Neil: Can you describe the way your 44 is set up? | ||
| V2win |
 | ||
| V2win |
 | ||
| Racinswifty |
Just a question: How hard is it to change to carburated set up on a x1? What do i do? Does it eliminate computer set up? How much money will it cost? I like flatslides carbs, been working on them all my life. Seems the fuel injection set up is harder to change the fuel delivery than a carb. Should have brought a M2! | ||
| Jmartz |
Racin: Let's see, you'll need a manifold and carb ($400), then you will have to acquire a spark module (programmable $300), might need throttle cables and pulg the return on the petcock. You may also want to remove the the 02 sensor and insert a plug. Am I forgetting something? Ah, yes an air cleaner like the CF ham can will set you back $275 but those can be found on the internet from time to time for less than that. There will surely be some wirimg issues. | ||
| Rempss |
Check out the X1 files, page 1 under fuel injection heading. A listing of parts used. Does not say if its a hard job or not. What FI problems are you having? The race ECM takes care of most mods, exhaust & air cleaner. The PCIII will offer more adjustability, the PCIII does not offste the sensors to "trick" the ECM it just adds/subtracts fuel. I have Nallin Stage 2 heads / Force type aircleaner / Force exhaust / Nallin 1250 kit; the race ECM with the PCIII allows for a lot of adjustmnent. Not much riding yet, but runs smoother without any coughing/sputtering. I have had the FI components apart & seems like most problems must be user induced - wiring or sensors, the setup is really quite simple. Jeff | ||
| Lsr_Bbs |
X1 Carb Conversion See the above for a mostly complete listing...whenever I get some time, I'll finish the page. The only thing that's really changed is I'm now using a modified aeroquip bulkhead fitting for the tank fitting w/ a custom pingle inline petcock. Your looking at $700-1000 depending on carb and ignition choices. It's not hard, but it's also not a straight bolton (aircleaner back plate must be hacked up to clear the carb top, fab brackets for enricher and VOES, etc...). Jmartz, I'll have to check my notes to see what my carb settings are...I've gone through so many iterations since I did this, I can never remember...you should see my notebook...Dr. Frankenstein would be proud! Neil Garretson X0.5 | ||
| Racinswifty |
rempss: where is that website of X1 files? Been looking for it but no avail.Help! Racinswifty | ||
| Rempss |
http://www.saintjohn.nbcc.nb.ca/Marriott/x1/ Seems to be down right now. Does that a lot. Jeff | ||
| Racinswifty |
Thanks! It is down.....I'll wait | ||
| Lsr_Bbs |
Jmartz, Ok, short answer is: 50 slow jet. Stock needle w/ 1 washer shim(k or L, didn't right that down) 185 main jet ============= Long answer and some thoughts as I go back through all my notes. I got nearly perfect stoic in each circuit w/ a 48/185 and stock needle w/ 1 shim. It did provide great acceleration, smooth, linear power (by the seat of the pants). However, it did present some driveability issues at part throttle (I suspect that because each circuit was at stoich, the overlaps were lean) such as surging at low rpm/part throttle (2-3k range...in traffic stuff); exhibited a poor cold nature, and seemed to make more mechanical noise (???). I have a sneaky susupicion that these air cooled lumps must/need to be run slightly rich. With the 50, I *seem* to cure most (if not all) of my 2-3k surging but I still need to tweak as going from the slow to main jet isn't right...feels like a flat spot (which maybe due to the washer now making it too rich)...then goes good again. Next going to try w/o washer...then bump up to 190. I like to make 1 change at a time, and ride for a few days so that I can really get a sense of what it's doing. Much like I said w/ the dyno, my SOTP, a/f gauge, and stopwatch dyno got me close to max power, but some more work is needed to get the driveability. ========== What's your setup, out of curiosity? Neil Garretson X0.5 - w/ carb, but otherwise stock motor. | ||
| Lsr_Bbs |
Aaron, Have you played on the dyno to see how different pipes (or more specifically, differing discs) affect a/f and carburation??? More I think about some of my jetting issues, I wonder if it's an interaction w/ the pipe (as that's been the same setup since before the carb). Wanna project for the weekend? Neil Garretson X0.5 | ||
| Aaron |
Funny you should mention that. It's next on the list. I got one of them new Supertrapps. I'm *real* curious how it affects the shape of the a/f curve. Hopefully this weekend, I have some other things on my plate but if I can make time I'll run the test. | ||
| Jmartz |
Neil: Seems to me that your tuning is somewhere between spot on and smear off. Not unlike mine. Aaron: You have got to test the CV44 on Suzy's S1. That's the only way we enthusiast owners are ever going to be able to tune this bear of a carb. Jose | ||
| Aaron |
Send me one and I'll test it! But, as pointed out, I can't really do controlled load/part throttle stuff since it's not a brake dyno. Really WFO is the only thing it's good for. | ||
| Jmartz |
AAron: I will consider doing it during the dog days of summer when I put up the bike for 4 to 6 weeks or so. I assume you still have the SE manifold and the proper doughnut. Neil: 50 for a slow jet seems a bit rich. My carb came with a 48/220 and it put out black smoke when wacked from idle. I changed that to a 45/195 with the needle lifted a bit. Jose | ||
| Lsr_Bbs |
Aye, w/ a 220 I bet it did spit black smoke. My first thought was the same, that 50 would be rich (esp. given the nature of a CV carb, in that up to WOT it really wouldn't be any bigger than a CV40), until I really started thinking about it, and w/ the larger manifold, even a low rpm it will have more air going through it; so more jet is needed. We'll see after a full tank of gas on this setup and I look at the plugs and check the mileage (damn I'm anal retentive about data collection). I think that part of the reason that Aaron's dyno chart shows no difference w/ the 44 manifold is the Mikuni's still neck down to fit a regular 40 manifold...so they *might* flow a bit more due to design than a CV40, but can't make use of the extra volume from a 44 manifold. Remeber, the slow jet is really only affective up till about 3k...it's the part throttle jet (for the most part). That's the beauty and the pain of carbs, the overlapping circuits allow some fudge factor (i.e., a too rich jet will cover up a too lean needle - mostly). The stock settings are *WAY* too rich for anything close to a stock buell, but I think they're slow jet (like most HD carbs) is a tad lean. I will probably end up w/ 50/190 as the more I've ridden it, that flat spot is a lean spot (not rich) - as I tested yesterday by using the enricher...that's my little tuning trick, start jetting on the lean side and use the enricher to see if that improves an issue (sort a poor mans dial-a-jet). Neil Garretson X0.5 | ||
| Aaron |
Jose: okay, just let me know, assuming I have time in my schedule during your down time maybe we can put something together. Right now, the days are getting longer and we're starting to get some reasonably nice days, that's what's getting me off my butt and doing some of this work. The more I think about it, the more I think that mid-range richness is being caused by reversion. There *was* a gas fog coming out the carb in the mid-range, I wasn't looking because I stand on the other side of the bike during the pulls, but occasionally I'd notice the breeze blowing gas droplets over the gas tank during a pull. Betcha money it corresponds to that richness. I'll check again ... the muffler comparison will start with same-day baseline pulls on the stock muffler. Neil: I'm pretty sure the outlet of the Mikuni is a little larger that the CV40's on the i.d. anyway, I can measure when I get home. There's a small amount of overhang from the manifold when you shove one on, that disappears when you shove it on to the big manifold instead. But at least in my case, that overhang wasn't causing a big enough issue to show up on the dyno sheet. AW | ||
| Jmartz |
You guys have neglected to mention the fact that the SE manifold has machined port ends and that its fit to port is much better than the stock one, as is the transitional portion between carb and manifold. True nothing was seen on the the dyno but perhaps the stock setup on the test bike fit pretty good to begin with. On my motor the port to manifold fit was very poor with the manifold touching the head at 1 point and being 1/8 away at the opposite side 180 degrees away. The SE manifold fits perfectly around 85% of the circle. In a region of about 3/8 of an inch long the manifold dipped into the runner. I corrected this with my dremel. | ||
| Aaron |
That's a good point and you're right, the stock manifold did fit pretty good (once I pulled the overhanging rubber seal out of there many moons ago, something I've seen on more than one new bike). | ||
| Jmartz |
Aaron: We'll talk (for carb testing) when the time gets near. Before I got the carb Nallin had mentioned testing it and finding that it imporved mid range torque. This seemed odd to me since a bigger hole should trade midrange for top end. While I can't say I am completely satified with the functioning of this beast, when you feel the rush from the improved acceleration, I tend to forget how poorly it run otherwise. | ||
| Lsr_Bbs |
- Correct, totally forgot how bad the original fit (wonder if the FI throttle bodies are even worse than the carb manifolds). - Well I did some lunch-time testing and the 50 is the one. No part-throttle, low-rpm surging, runs clean and even helped w/ the cold-naturedness (which is no surprise, as that's a sign of lean). Going to try the 190 and 195 mains this weekend as it's still a touch lean. Jmartz, I'd give the 50 a shot and see. Was just looking at your profile and what you've done...at the very least your setup should breath the same (should be better) than mine and w/ the manifold and carb, I can't believe a 45 is enough (hell, that's standard CV40 on a sportster tune). Also just noticed your in Atlanta, I'm in Statesboro so at least it's not an altitude thing. What's the N65C needle? Is that a CV40 needle? You are aware that CV44 needles are shorter? All the CV44 needles end in K, L, M, or N. Neil Garretson X0.5 | ||
| Jmartz |
No Neil, I was not aware of that. You might have hit the nail on the head here. The midrange misbehavior I experience might very well have to do with the longer needle plugging up the emulsion tube ar full rest, hence my need to raise it with a washer. Better go buy a tuner's kit. jose | ||
| Lsr_Bbs |
I'm still using the stock needle (should be the "L" needle, right in the middle), at least give that a try before spending $60 on the kit. The jets won't be of much use; mains are from 200-240; slow 48, 50, 52; and the aforementioned needles (and similar to Aarons other needle findings, there is not a drastic change from needle to needle - at least on my a/f gauge). Out of curiosity, when you try one of the 44 needles, measure it against a regular 40 needle; I've always wondered how significance of a difference there is - The needles being shorter info is right from the instructions (either for the carb or tuners kit) and they say that slides and needles are not interchangeable. Good luck, let us know how it works out. Neil Garretson X0.5 | ||
| Lsr_Bbs |
One more tidbit...John Schnupp from the xl list has been doing some needle measurements and just got back to me on my CV44 needles. They are roughly 4mm shorter than standard CV40 needles. Big surprise as the CV44 has a 4mm bigger bore  Neil Garretson X0.5 | ||
| Dark_Ninja |
Here's a dumb question for anyone who knows the answer. When you take a carb'd bike that is running slightly lean from a high altitude (5,000 + feet) to a lower one (sub 500) will the "lean" condition be exaggerated by the change? If the answer is yes, then the next question is... Are you coming to MITM in April and would you be willing to help me adjust my carb? |
