| Author |
Message |
    
X1glider
| | Posted on Monday, July 22, 2002 - 01:55 pm: | 
|
Well, I'm finally back in the USA an just got my 95" big pig back from the dyno guy. Bah! Seems like another one of those expensive lessons. I'm not the first nor will I be the last. I spend my precious time and hard earned money on more displacement, headwork, more aggressive cams, etc, etc, etc only to find out it really wasn't worth all I put into it. I thought I picked a great combo of parts but it's probably my fault for being conservative by going with the CV44 and 9.5:1 cr because I need the bike to be highly reliable and well set up for high mileage touring. I was guessing that the 10.5:1 cr might give me detonation problems and leave me strander somewhere. It just really pisses me off that the above chart of Ralph's 88 incher (his bike, man, his bike!) has a much nicer and wider curve even tho our peak torque is about the same. Ralph? You suck! Seems the only things I got out of the deal is an overly rich condition and therefore a dip in the curve right where I cruise. But I am now able to breathe a little higher up and according to the dyno in a 5th gear roll on, can top out at 158 if given enough room. 130 club, no problem!
So, Aaron, thanks for the analysis of the A/F reading. Seems the jetting I had chosen was on the money. So you think the problem is my pipes? Using an educated guess, I told the dyno guy to remove the tunable baffle to increase scaveging thinking this would lean out that spot. It did but it really screwed up the rest of the curve. Increasing the baffle had the same results except for the A/F being richer. We just decided that was as good as it gets. Maybe I should have converted it to FI! Another lesson learned.
Jealous in Houston! |
Aaron
| | Posted on Monday, July 22, 2002 - 02:57 pm: |
|
Well, as R.D. so succintly put it one time, "Exhaust systems have a profound effect on an engine." He couldn't be more right.
FI? Bah humbug. Addressing the richness caused by a reversion is treating the symptom.
Perhaps you should consider a whole different system. There are systems out there that diffuse such that they pull over a broad range, as opposed to focusing on one rpm range and sacrificing others.
The problem is getting the data.
Speedvision did a huge test awhile back and published all the curves. The differences in how the same bike ran with various commercially available systems were astounding. Perhaps those results are still on their web site. |
Ralph
| | Posted on Monday, July 22, 2002 - 06:49 pm: |
|
Oops, that would be Red Shift 567s. Didn't mean to short the cams by .004.
Bob, sorry to hear your 95" didn't keep up with expectations. My 88 was put together at Axtells and they know what works. Ron has a heck of a package for twin cams. I know for a fact his pulls like two pissed off bull elephants. I don't think that 110 lbs of torque at 3500 is something to sneeze about in any case.
bighairyralph |
Buellzebub
| | Posted on Monday, July 22, 2002 - 09:04 pm: |
|
Hey Ralph!
hows that 88 S1 ride? did you do any pulls with a S1 race header on it?
also a retraction on my above Dyno post, Blake is correct, the eddy current circuit is in addition to the inertia drum.
S1's rule |
Blake
| | Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 04:05 am: |
|
Here's an interesting comparison of 100+RWHP Buells...
In case you cannot read the chart legend...
Thick blue line is Aaron's Ramanator '99 M2
Thick red line is Blake's Nallinized '97 M2
Thick green line is Kevin Hearn's Nallinized '02 M2
Thick purple line is Dan Norlin's Nallinized '98 S1W
Thin blue and red lines are the stockish runs from Aaron's and Blake's M2's, respectively.
Sure would be interesting to see what a Mikuni or a CV44 would do for my torque curve above 5K rpm. |
Leeaw
| | Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 08:36 am: |
|
Blake,
It would be interesting to know what the difference in bolt-on's is. It would give me a better understanding of what certain parts can really do. |
Gcpoland
| | Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 11:01 am: |
|
Blake
Would you like to borrow a Mikuni to test with?
Gary |
Snowdave
| | Posted on Monday, July 29, 2002 - 12:36 pm: |
|
Aaron
Have you ever raced your M2? I just bought an M2 prepped for the track and the rule of thumb is minor mods for reliability sake. I am just wondering how reliable your M2 would be at the track in it's current state. I also wonder because your bike makes about 20HP more than the race bike I am getting and the only major differences I see are cams (SE536) and heads. My heads are fully prepped (Ported, Titanium valves, bronze valve guides with no seals, pro-stock springs), but something still doesn't add up. I am not sure of the guys name who did the heads, but I believe he is an H-D speed guy in Michigan that Henry Duga recommended so I expect that the work is first rate. I will know more when I get the bike in a week or so and the first thing I will do is run to the dyno so I can post some numbers, but I just wondered if you had any thoughts on the differences.
Thanks |
Aaron
| | Posted on Monday, July 29, 2002 - 12:52 pm: |
|
No, my M2 just sees street duty.
There is definitely some creative, out-of-the-box thinking in the preparation of these heads. I can't really say too much. Cycle-Rama has done a lot of R&D on head work, though, and it shows.
The 585 Red Shifts are a fair bit more cam than you SE .536's, too. These heads were prepped with the 585's in mind, it's a package deal.
Good luck with your new race bike! |
Sarodude
| | Posted on Monday, July 29, 2002 - 01:33 pm: |
|
Aaron-
Would it be a fair guess that Cycle-Rama doesn't necesssarily buy into the Bigger is Better philosophy?
-Saro |
Mikej
| | Posted on Monday, July 29, 2002 - 01:38 pm: |
|
Define your goal, then back work into the solution. |
Blake
| | Posted on Monday, July 29, 2002 - 01:44 pm: |
|
SnowDave,
This is purely conjecture on my part... Your M2 may have been prepped to race in the Buell Lightning series where peak power is limited to 95 RWHP. If so, I wouldn't be surprised if your M2 racer makes near 95 HP from 5,500 through 7,000 rpm. It might have some kind of intentional restriction in the intake path to accomplish that. If so, and if removed, you might find some significant hidden peak HP. Just an optimistic guess. |
Aaron
| | Posted on Monday, July 29, 2002 - 03:04 pm: |
|
Hmm, I better let Pammy speak for what C.R. does or doesn't believe in. I just know I'm VERY happy with the results. |
Pammy
| | Posted on Monday, July 29, 2002 - 05:32 pm: |
|
Wes LOVES a challenge...He got 143.5rwhp out of his 80ci. He just makes me nervous.... |
Snowdave
| | Posted on Monday, July 29, 2002 - 09:22 pm: |
|
Blake,
You are correct that the bike I bought was prepped for lightning as well as CCS. I can only hope that means there is plenty of hidden horsepower. With ~13:1 compression and 108 octane race gas I just couldn't see how all these parts added up to only 96.7hp. To see the whole engine description, check out the circuit racing section. |
Blake
| | Posted on Monday, July 29, 2002 - 11:52 pm: |
|
It could also be the cams. Low overlap would tend to choke the engine at high revs. Let us know what you find. And congrats on that bike, I saw it too late.  |
Sarodude
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 30, 2002 - 12:48 am: |
|
Pammy-
At what revs us that 143.5 hp? That's some serious shite!
-Saro too nosey for anyone's good |
Pammy
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 30, 2002 - 07:24 am: |
|
about 7200...It was a big twin as well. |
Xgecko
| | Posted on Friday, August 02, 2002 - 12:36 am: |
|
Aaron, Have you done any Dyno Testing of Irridium Plugs. I picked up a NGK Irridium for about the same price as a OEM plug and was wondering if all the hype is true. What I have seen is about a 2-4% increase in HP/Torque...at least that is what Denso says NGK doesn't they just say it uses power better. |
Sparky
| | Posted on Friday, August 02, 2002 - 12:57 am: |
|
Initial dyno run on completely stock XB9R at 2100 miles. First run done in 4th gear.
Next run 5th gear to calibrate speedo vs dyno mph at redline. Speedo reads ~135.
Sparky
96S1, 98S3, 03XB |
Henrik
| | Posted on Friday, August 02, 2002 - 10:37 am: |
|
Sparky: that's a sweet power curve you got there. Nice'n smooth throughout.
Looking forward to seeing the bike in person on the Salt.
Henrik |
Aaron
| | Posted on Friday, August 02, 2002 - 10:57 am: |
|
My guess is Buell really did their homework on the XB's exhaust system. They seem to have moved the reversion/dip lower in the rpm range where it matters less. |
José_Quiñones
| | Posted on Friday, August 02, 2002 - 12:13 pm: |
|
Aaron,
I think the dip is in the same place where the other bikes had it, at the RPM that it passes through the traps for the Drive by Sound Test, 3,410 rpm
 |
Aaron
| | Posted on Friday, August 02, 2002 - 01:07 pm: |
|
I guess I'm used to seeing a more pronounced dip, out in the middle of the powerband, from stock mufflers ... like the blue lines in this chart:
and this one ...
Part of what's going on is a change in perception, though ... the dip may have stayed in mostly the same place on the Firebolt, but the powerband has been moved up, so now the dip is in the low end of the powerband instead of the middle. |
José_Quiñones
| | Posted on Friday, August 02, 2002 - 05:56 pm: |
|
Yes, they minimized the dip considerably, but it's still there, and the reason is the EPA, that's all I was trying to point out.
Here's the pretty version of the stock vs race kit chart, courtesy of buell.com
 |
Aaron
| | Posted on Friday, August 02, 2002 - 06:03 pm: |
|
Why do you think the EPA is the reason? |
Xgecko
| | Posted on Friday, August 02, 2002 - 06:49 pm: |
|
NOISE |
Aaron
| | Posted on Friday, August 02, 2002 - 10:32 pm: |
|
So you're saying the bike makes less noise at a given rpm if you give it a little exhaust reversion and cause a torque dip? Why? I don't understand the reason.
And they needed to do that to make it pass EPA noise tests?
Where did you get this info? |
Blake
| | Posted on Saturday, August 03, 2002 - 02:06 am: |
|
Sparky's XB9R 4th gear pull
JQ,
I think the lower revs on the XB9R aren't of any consequence. From what I can see the XB9's don't have ANY torque dip in the operational rev range. At least not anything like what the stock 101 HP 1200's had.
Anyone notice our newest sponsor? I hear tell they have some pretty good performance parts for the XB9's.  |
José_Quiñones
| | Posted on Saturday, August 03, 2002 - 06:26 am: |
|
Exhaustive Measures, by Gary Valine, Battle2win, 1996
Power equals noise, if you want to be below 80db as the bike passes the noise trap, you have to detune it so it's making less power at the RPM the EPA wants, in this case, 3,410 rpm.
As the Technical Editor of Battle 2win, how about calling up Mr. Valine and maybe doing "Exhaustive Measures II" to see what has or has not changed since the original 1996 article and how Buell has developed the XB to pass the EPA drive by sound tests. It would be a very interesting article.
Blake,
Quote:I think the lower revs on the XB9R aren't of any consequence.
They sure are when you're breaking them in like the manual tell you to. |
|
»
Buell Dynamometer/Dyno Testing Archives »
Archive through August 03, 2002