| Author |
Message |
    
T_man
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 - 06:33 pm: | 
|
Cafefun - I totally agree with you on the hard break-in method. I've done the same with a few of my big Suzuki's and they all turned out to be blisteringly fast. I've got a a question or two for you though;
1) What is the fastest pass you've run on your new CR and what elevation is the track you run at?
2) What is the elevation and correction factor from that dyno run?
Thanks! |
Cafefun
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 - 06:39 pm: |
|
Tman track was closed when I bought the Buell so it will be April before I can run it. For what it's worth I've been 9.14 at 153 on my zx 14 pump gas stock motor with bolt-ons and I'm no light weight. 218 unsuited. we are about 1000 feet above sea level here don't know the correction factor. |
T_man
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 - 06:48 pm: |
|
Holy sh*t man. Thats fast. Good on ya. I'm curious to hear about what you can do with your CR. The reason I asked about elevation is because of it has a tremendous effect on engine performance - dyno or otherwise. |
Cafefun
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 - 07:01 pm: |
|
Well most of the year when my track is open we race in about 2100 feet of air plus or minus some. in the heat of august I've seen it as high as 3400 ft. I have a weather station so I keep an eye on it pretty well. |
Cafefun
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 - 07:04 pm: |
|
Ya it is STD factor that's all any dynos I've ever been to use. |
Redscuell
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 - 07:21 pm: |
|
"Made 138.56HP and 74.41 for Torque bike is bone stock with 443 miles on it."
I agree with the other posters, that hp figures is VERY strong for a stocker; generally 128 or so is the norm. The torque figure is more 'normal'.
Look at us, wondering how the 1125 in stock form could be making so much LESS than claimed. Yes, I know (now) that claimed is at the flywheel. |
T_man
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 - 07:26 pm: |
|
Maybe Buell got it right with these new flashes? |
Ratbuell
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 - 07:31 pm: |
|
Seems 'bout right. New bike baseline on my 09 CR, 12 miles on the odometer, 95 degrees ambient, 29.79 barometer, 26% humidity, 132.76hp / 74.56 tq. M3PUS12z calibration. |
Redscuell
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 - 07:45 pm: |
|
My hp and tq numbers changed not at all between the 11Z and 12Z flashes; so I wouldn't expect a flash would be the answer. The power limitation is in the muffler, so I'd have to wonder how, when the typical 1125 in stock form produces 128 hp and 72 tq (many posts to that effect on Badweb), the increase was accomplished. |
Ratbuell
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 - 08:00 pm: |
|
Production variance / better degreed cams? Mine's all stock too....relatively early (10/08) build. |
T_man
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 - 08:25 pm: |
|
Red - the power limitation is NOT in the muffler as has been well documented by O-S-B tuners and many others. Furthermore, the fellas at Twinmotorcycles have conclusively shown that accurate fuel mapping IS the last word in maximum power. Therefore my friend, I'd wager to say that a new flash encompassing a better fuel map could in fact produce these higher dyno numbers. |
Cafefun
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 - 08:32 pm: |
|
I know most bikes we put on this dyno seem pretty much right on. won't say it's not off 2 or 3 hp one way or another but it's not off 10. |
