| Author | Message | ||
     Moosestang |
I'm confused...you're saying stock makes the most power? I think he's saying stock made more power than the race ecm + K&N filter. I'm under the impression that AFV's do affect WOT. | ||
| Mountainstorm |
So what's the prognosis Doctor? Is the K&N hurting or helping? I have heard the stock filter breathes pretty well so if it is better I'm putting it right back in. | ||
| Freight_dog |
Its like "Mythbusters" and Justa is Adam. We need a Jamie. j/k...  BUSTED! | ||
| D_adams |
This is what I've suspected but never actually dyno'd to prove out. The K&N is costing power up top. It's impossible to tell from that chart, but I see a dip at 9k rpm, and I'd almost bet $$ that it was the K&N filter only run. Any way you can post just that run by itself? | ||
| Easyrider |
The nice thing is, if you adjust the fuel, the K&N will be the winner over stock. | ||
| Blake |
"BUT the fixed WOT maps are just that.. i don;t understand why so many people think the system can learn..it doesn't unless its in Closed loop (using o2 sensors) and that is only for idel and cruising. WOT maps are just that..maps preprogrammed." The AFV, which is a result of closed loop learning, also factors the open loop mapping. For instance, if you are up at altitude on a warm day and the AFV adjusts to 0.85, then that same factor is applied to the fuel mapping when you whack the throttle wide open. | ||
| Blake |
If you can email the dynojet data files to me, I'll post the plots in nice clear color here. Blake at badweatherbikers daht kom | ||
| Xelerator |
EBR Statement: "The brand of air filter is your choice. We find not enough of a difference between either for the 1125 . The stock filter media is quite good, where as the K&N can be cleaned and reused. Your choice. Our race bikes have always used the stock filter, this includes the AMA sportbikes." | ||
| Rockstarblast1 |
I'm rly confused hope thoes were all stock runs... | ||
| Easyrider |
Xelerator, Here is the difference:  More info: http://www.twinmotorcycles.nl/artikelen.asp?aid=53 (Message edited by easyrider on February 11, 2010) | ||
| Thefleshrocket |
A couple of initial impressions: I'm willing to bet that the numbers with the EBR ECM would have been different had the ECM been installed on the bike and then had the bike ridden for a while so it could set its AFVs. I don't think there is really any way to change out parts while on the dyno and expect to get reliable performance numbers since the ECM won't have a chance to learn and modify the AFVs. (No, I am not suggesting that Justa4banger go redo his dyno runs! LOL) Considering that the engine, when equipped with the EBR ECM, posted the highest horsepower and torque with the K&N and the airbox cover removed suggests that the engine can definitely benefit from more flow on the intake side. That the numbers wtih the EBR ECM were lower than the numbers with the stock ECM just implies that the EBR ECM needed time to learn the AFVs to work with the increase airflow. Looking at the air/fuel ratio plots, it looks like the dyno operator let off the throttle some time between 10,250 and 10,750 (roughly) during each run, as the AFR goes full lean. How could the bike still be making power all the way up to 11,000 if the throttle was release sooner? I realize that there is some inertia, but I'd think that it would drop off a lot quicker. | ||
| Thefleshrocket |
Xelerator, according to that EBR statement, one would assume that there is no extra power to be had from a K&N compared to the stock air filter. (Considering how meticulous race teams are about finding every last bit of extra power or every ounce that could be saved, I couldn't imaging the AMA race team passing up a K&N filter even if it only picked up a couple tenths of a horsepower compared to stock.) But if that is the case, why would EBR offer a "different" (I use quotes because who knows how different it truly is without actually checking the map) tune in the ECM it sells if there is no tangible performance improvement with the K&N? Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the idea of saving $50 and keeping the stock air filter when I buy an exhaust and EBR ECM, but I also figure if I'm gonna have to replace the air filter at some point anyway, I might as well switch to a K&N at that point. And if I might have to send the EBR ECM back to EBR for an updated flash (even if it only costs $25), I might as well just get the K&N at the same time as the ECM and exhaust and not have to worry about sending it off later. Decisions, decisions.  (Message edited by thefleshrocket on February 11, 2010) | ||
| Thefleshrocket |
Easyrider, were those stock vs. K&N runs done back to back, or was the bike ridden around to give the ECM a chance to adjust the AFR between dyno runs? | ||
| Xelerator |
Easyrider, according to your website, the blue run includes "a good fuel map", right? To compare apples and apples, I'd like to see a filter comparison with the same (good) fuel map. | ||
| Easyrider |
Thefleshrocket, I don't use learned AFV values, Because it is not working. The base map is not good, so I shut them off, and make the base map better. I made the run with the same bike and the same tune. Read the article (-: AND I don't know how EBR test, but in all casus you win at least 5 HP with the K&N filter. | ||
| Easyrider |
Xelerator, You need to trust me on this one (yes I know sometimes that is difficult in life) Both runs are in a adjusted situation. So stock Airfilter adjusted and K&N filter adjusted. I don't change everytime the text of a run takes me way too much time. | ||
| Syonyk |
A minor point to remember, those runs are at ~28.00inHg ambient - so around 2000ft. You'll have somewhat higher numbers at sea level, though the relative values for different runs should still be valid. ... I wish I had 28inHg. I'm at 24.53inHg here. | ||
| T_man |
Maybe this has been determined already but I'll ask it again anyways: What calibration did EBR set your ECM up for? a) The full gig cal. race ECM? b) The Slip-on cal. race ECM? i) o2's active or inactive? I'm curious what has actually been tested here. Thanks y'all. | ||
| Xelerator |
a) The full gig cal. race ECM? b) The Slip-on cal. race ECM? c) o2's active or inactive? d) Fuel/Octane? | ||
| Justa4banger |
JEEZ i hate martinis..... Ok i'm leaving in a few for the next dyno. FYI i drove about 75 miles yesterday with the EBRECM, HMF, K&N... AFV's stayed at 100 f/r... so nothing was added to compensate for. Next the idea that a WOT map will be globaly adjusted off of what these 2 O2 sensors read is kind of crazy. those O2 sensors just read the mix at cruise and adjust for it, if its lean or rich anywhere else, it does nothing... Now unless Buell ecms are something special i have never seen before in SD EFI.... they work in exactly the manner i described. also from riding yesterday, the bike feels the same as when i first put it in. its hasn't adapted (afv's 100/100) to make anything more or less.. YES these dyno plots show a loss with everything i did yesterday... I'm guessing since most slip ons lose trq anyways the computer is built to be ready for it... with the stock exhaust it chokes some air flow. either its a WAG for me... i didn;t expect LEAN LEAN conditions. my EBR ECM is for slipon, pump, and o2's on. off i go for last test. BLAKE thank you. i will et the run files and you can post them in the dyno section in Color, this guys doesn't have a color printer... | ||
| Xelerator |
4Banger, what "pump"-gas did you use? 93/Premium? | ||
| Xelerator |
That's a 3.4% HP gain, a well calibrated butt-dyno might feel the difference... "...you win at least 5 HP with the K&N filter" | ||
| Blake |
The adaptive fuel value (AFV) is a result of closed loop learning but the AFV factor is also applied to the open loop fuel mapping. Are you arguing otherwise? I'll look for the run files. Thanks. | ||
| T_man |
The bike has other sensors which will allow it to adapt to air density (predicated by elevation, pressure and temperature). If the ECM has a good base map thats all you need - no need for those pesky o2 sensors AT ALL - they will only screw your fuelling up. | ||
| Xelerator |
...and increase your gas mileage on road trips. "...o2 sensors - they will only screw your fuelling up." | ||
| T_man |
If your willing to sacrifice performance for fuel mileage - fill yer boots - I'll take my 1125R fat, fast & cool. Again, just my 2 cents. | ||
| Dsmcg |
Justa4banger, How did your bike feel while riding your 75 miles? DSMcG | ||
| Bigblock |
Please state or write specifically what you are testing. It seems to me so far, you have only posted dyno charts for stock, Kn and ecm, but none with the slip on exhaust yet? Your information is just not clear to me yet, and I suspect a lot if other people here are confused, too. Have you actually tested it with the exhaust yet? | ||
| Bigblock |
Looking at the graphs I see what you state to test, the statement you made about running with the HMF on yesterday is what , I believe is sowing my confusion. You installed the exhaust post testing yesterday to run it in and prepare for the next round of testing which will be with the slip on? If this is the case, I can only think it makes perfect sense there would be a small power loss, or no gain over stock, while running the stock muffler with the EBR ecm which is tuned for a non stock exhaust, regardless of filters, etc. | ||
| Bcrawf68 |
Sent you a few bucks to help cover your dyno runs. thanks for the updates. |
