Author |
Message |
Blackflash
| Posted on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 04:04 pm: |
|
Your welcome too home builders |
Redscuell
| Posted on Tuesday, February 02, 2010 - 12:54 am: |
|
My original (2nd prototype) 'third pipe' modification to the oem muffler has worked best of the 4 prototypes I've had built. When used with my intake stacks, power rose by ~12 hp across the midrange, and torque by ~10 lb/ft across the midrange and overall; peak torque arrives well below 7,000 rpm. Very useful improvements for us street riders. Noise increase is quite pleasant; sound meter measurements show no dB(A) increase over the oem; perhaps because the increased 'thump' is in the base range. The "third pipe" modification can be done by your local muffler shop for less than $100, using a hole saw, mandrel bent tubing of 1-3/4" o.d., and a mig welder. |
Blackflash
| Posted on Tuesday, February 02, 2010 - 10:15 pm: |
|
Good post red and good info too.Do you have a afr chart?Was this all done with a stock ecu? |
Redscuell
| Posted on Wednesday, February 03, 2010 - 08:43 pm: |
|
Done with the stock ecu, ecmspy and Dave's software -- and lots of $$ for the dyno tuner to "do it, then prove it". AFR charts can be had; in the meantime, I'm recalling that fueling was adjusted to around 13:1 across all the various throttle openings from 10% to 100%. |
T_man
| Posted on Wednesday, February 10, 2010 - 08:05 am: |
|
Red - would you not agree that most of those gains are attributable to getting the fuelling correct as opposed to the mutant pipe and less restrictive filter? From what I've seen - it seems most gains come from curing the overly lean condition as the stock exhaust is pretty good right out of the factory. |
Blackflash
| Posted on Wednesday, February 10, 2010 - 02:16 pm: |
|
you are correct |
Easyrider
| Posted on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 02:29 am: |
|
Red, Do you have a graph with a WOT run, with and without intake stacks and fuell added?. I like to see the difference with the stacks. And can you show me the results SAE corrected. |
Tbenson
| Posted on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 09:21 am: |
|
Easyrider how dare you, I thought you hated "Dyno Demands"? LOL! |
Easyrider
| Posted on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 09:37 am: |
|
I just did (-: |
Tbenson
| Posted on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 09:48 am: |
|
Just joking Easyrider! I too would like to know if the intake stacks improve performance? |
Easyrider
| Posted on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 10:17 am: |
|
Me too, I would like to know how many and what sizes they tested with the results of every test. Saves me a lot of work to start with |
Tbenson
| Posted on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 10:40 am: |
|
http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/messages/290 431/497977.html |
Redscuell
| Posted on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 07:09 pm: |
|
"Red - would you not agree that most of those gains are attributable to getting the fuelling correct as opposed to the mutant pipe and less restrictive filter? " Absolutely not. The SOTP increase with the Third Pipe is the only reason I took the bike to the dyno. And that was with the 'mutant' flash that came with the bike. Since then, the baseline was established with the stock muffler and the latest flash; the combination of which is not lean (per the dyno). And it's quite illogical to suggest that removing an exhaust restriction, which leans out the map, which requires enriching the map to take advantage of the reduced exhaust restriction, which leads to a large (IMHO) power increase, is "entirely attributable to curing the lean condition". Otherwise curing the new lean condition would only put the bike's output back where it was. And it was a smarter man than either of us, who makes his living improving intake flows, who said "the improvement is not so much a compliment to my skills, as it is a condemnation of the original design". |
Dannybuell
| Posted on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 07:45 pm: |
|
I want some of those intake stacks dannybuell |
|