| Author |
Message |
    
Boulderbiker
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 12:07 pm: | 
|
Hey Aaron, couple questions about break-in. When you guys finish an engine what do you guys reccomend for a break-in, and what kinds of oil to use for which mileage periods? |
Tres_wright
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 07:25 pm: |
|
I'm curious to get some feedback from you guys on this dyno report. This is a 2000 X-1 that I recently bought, it came with all the original paperwork including this dyno slip from 2 years ago. The mod's are listed on the bottom of the sheet, but basically it has a Force Streetfighter exhaust, Force Sidewinder intake, race ECM and Power Commander 3 on board. I don't believe there's been any internal work done. So do these number look about right for the given mod's? All I have to compare it to is my modded 1200 Sporty, and the butt dyno tells me it pulls way harder than the Sporty  Thanks guys!
 |
Tres_wright
| | Posted on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 12:07 am: |
|
I've read through most of the archives here to get a better feel for reading these dyno results. It seems the "good" charts have a nice, flat torque line which obviously mine does not. It sounds like this quote from Aaron sums it up: "If the torque falls off at high rpm, it means your cyl fill is falling off." So it sounds like my X could benefit from a cam swap and perhaps some head work? It also seems like mine is making power later than most of the charts I've seen here. Things don't pick up until close to 4k. Not sure what that might be, perhaps the Power Commander settings? |
Aaron
| | Posted on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 09:26 am: |
|
Tres, that chart is done in portrait mode, which makes it look taller and narrower. Focusing more on the numbers than the shape, it looks pretty typical for your mods. Not that it couldn't benefit from a little work, mind you , but I don't see anything I'd call "wrong". It'd be nice to have an a/f plot.
|
Tres_wright
| | Posted on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 10:49 am: |
|
Thanks Aaron, I appreciate you having a look at it!
This was done in Washington and now the bike is with me here in Texas, so I want to run it again to see if there's any difference due to environment. I'll make sure to get an a/f plot too.
I will do some mod's on it now or later, it's inevitable So the plot will give me a baseline for comparison too. |
Tres_wright
| | Posted on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 11:32 am: |
|
Aaron, I took the slip and transposed the numbers onto one of your previously posted charts using Photoshop and see what you're talking about, the curves look a lot different! Excuse the jaggy lines, it's kind of hard to freehand with a mouse
 |
Court
| | Posted on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 04:33 pm: |
|
>>>>in Texas, so I want to run it again to see if there's any difference due to environment.
Please let us know the results.
I know, and have personally witness, the havoc Texas extols on Buell riders, I'd be curious to see how the Lone Star State effects the bike. I hope they fare better then the riders.....this, admittedly, is based on a sample the includes Blake, Road Thing and Keith and may, therefore, be statistically difficult to extrapolate from.
 |
Tres_wright
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 12:14 am: |
|
Bwaaahaaa! Well I can't comment on your control sample since I don't know them, but if they're anything like the loons I ride with then I'm afraid there may indeed be a "Texas effect" involved  |
Spike
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 05:54 pm: |
|
Dyno'ed my XB12R again today. I posted here on October 14th (12 days after I took delivery) with the results of my first dyno run. I plan on installing a Drummer over the weekend so I just wanted to get a rough idea what the bike was putting out now that is has some miles on it. The bike currently has ~2600 miles on it. The only mods to the bike are the K&N filter and the intake snorkel removed- basically the intake side of the factory race kit. The bike has the stock ECM and exhaust. In 4th gear it put down 89.9hp. In 5th gear it put down 92.4hp. Both runs were done with the dyno operator sitting on the bike and about 40psi in the rear tire. We didn't have a consistent RPM pickup so the torque reading is a bit erratic. The air/fuel ratio started around 15:1 on the low end and gradually moved to 14:1. That's a little more lean than I'd like it, but probably due to the air cleaner setup and stock ECM. In any case, I'm happy with the numbers. Between the air cleaner setup and the extra ~1600 miles the bike has picked up nearly 3hp. I plan on dynoing the bike again next week after I have the drummer installed.
Mike L. |
Baybueller
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 12:15 pm: |
|
Aaron, you posted an XB9 dyno on 9/8/03. Very impressive torque improvement! Is that with slip on muffler only or full header setup? Thanks, Robert |
Tripper
| | Posted on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 08:28 pm: |
|
How did we do it before these dyno's made it simple?
This is my 1998 S1 with thunderstorm heads installed at 0 miles prior to delivery (no porting), stock bore, stock cams, never been opened since new, not even a rocker box has been off. Now at 34,000 miles. Forcewinder that has been ported to match the intake (that effort netted 5 HP, 2 years ago). I just converted from a Buell Race System (constantly cracking) and stock CV40, to a used West Tek exhaust system and Mikuni 42 I bought from Don (Fidel/Barney Fife) Casto. I expected the carb to be jetted lean since he is at 5000 and I am at 1100 feet MSL. To be truthful it felt very good by the seat of the pants. I was going to adjust the idle mixture because it was taking a long time to warm up, but otherwise I thought it was pretty close. Look at the A/F mixture of run 3. It pegged the sniffer (which reads to 18). Changed the the main jet to get close, picked a different needle to eliminate some slow speed variations, toned down the accelerator pump circuit, and here are the results.
|
Kaudette
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 03:24 pm: |
|
Well, finally got the dyno for the set-up I just put on the 12. I have to admit on the paper the difference does not seem that great however from the seat this things really pulls. Finally have the same impression as on the 9R with the race kit above 4500 - when things start to go in fast forward -only on the 12 this setup "stretches" the scenery even more - and from 3000 to redline.
Setup - Race ECM (thanks Daves!), K&N, HSA Double Race Pipe - will get pics shortly.
Finally I stop having dreams of an MV Agusta Brutalé (at least for now!) |
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 02:24 am: |
|
That's great Kaudette. A HUGE improvement to low and top ends. Don't you just love dyno operators who shut the test down before achieving peak power/ rev limit?
Dang, the 112.5 PS equates to 111 HP and the 12.6 m*kg equates to 91.1 FT*LB!
Is that tested at the rear wheel? And is it corrected? Wow, no matter, that's darn impressive. |
Shotgun
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 06, 2004 - 09:40 pm: |
|
2003 XB9R Back to back runs, max 85HP/68#Torque.
Nallin 10.5 kit, stage III heads, Force exhaust system, K&N filter, XB12 airbox cover, heavy duty O2 sensor, race ecm, Power Commander III.
I think the Power Commander still has the X1 program in it. Will check as soon as: A)the wife leaves on vacation so I can get the bike in the house next to the computer or B) I can borrow a laptop to use in the garage. Also downloaded the original X1 program and the Italian racing program from Power Commander's website. The glitch at the bottom end of this chart is hard to live with. From 3500 to 7500 the engine rocks. But the bottom end is stuttery, misses a lot, runs like crap. The new PowerCommanderUSB system allows you to download and program your own accelerator pump. Too bad it's not available for the III. |
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 06, 2004 - 10:32 pm: |
|
Shotgun,
I bet that with some expert dyno tuning you will do a LOT better than that. No A/F ratio? |
Xb9
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 06, 2004 - 10:45 pm: |
|
you aught to try the Farracci map that's been floating around.... |
Shotgun
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 12:26 am: |
|
Blake, Columbia is a PowerCommander service center, but the mechanic had no luck trying to tune out the glitch with tweaking the PowerCommander. And yeah, the dyno had been down for a couple of weeks and one of the problems was a faulty O2 unit. If it was my M2, I'd be looking to increase the size of my lo speed jet.
The Farracci map is available for anyone to download from PowerCommander's website. It is the only alternate map shared on their site, I'll give it a try but again is from 2002 X1's. Surely somebody has an XB map by now. |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 04:12 am: |
|
With no 02 sensor for measuring Air/Fuell, how did they expect to tune the thing?
Low speed looks okay. It's the lousy torque performance above 4,500 that strikes me as something that could be greatly improved. Have you seen the dyno results below?
NRHS Stage 3 head work
NRHS 1050 kit
Buell Race Kit exhaust
Dynojet Power Commander III
red: before tune-up, blue: after tune-up
That is from the NRHS dyno room.
|
Shotgun
| | Posted on Friday, April 09, 2004 - 11:09 pm: |
|
Finally got the PowerCommander plugged into my computer this afternoon and downloaded the map that was in the XB9 and compared it to the M803.12s map that is X1, Force exhaust, race ecm, K&N. They don't compare well. So I uploaded the X1 map to the bike and it runs much better. Tomorrow I'll try the Ferraci map. It takes more time to push my bike around to the bedroom window to hook up the cable than to download/compare/upload the maps. Still wish there was a simple way to program in an accelerator pump. The 60 to 80 mph roll-on in 5th is ok, at about 3.0 seconds, but it doesn't snap my head back as fast as it should. Same with take-off from zero. |
Shotgun
| | Posted on Saturday, April 10, 2004 - 07:42 pm: |
|
Tried the Ferraci map today. It is in the "submitted by riders" section of downloads at PowerCommander.com. Bike runs even better with it, though it was mapped for an X1 in 2002. Would love to see if the Ferraci map used in the NRHS dyno chart above is different and if it is available. |
Misato
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 05:30 pm: |
|
I got it somewhere..
found it
http://www.xb9s.com/map/
I felt a HUGE improvement over the map that nallin gave me.. thin air in CO??
I would think you should have much better HP that that with those mods |
Socoken
| | Posted on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 11:53 am: |
|
i just put some new cams in my M2 and have an appointment to get it dyno tuned next wednesday. what i would like is some feedback, more like guesses really, as to what anyone on here thinks my high numbers will be.
i will send the person closest on both torque and hp a fresh buell T-shirt from the dealer. sound fair? the winner will be the one with the smallest differences in their guesses of high hp and torque from the actual. Guesses should be carried out one place past the decimal point, meaning to include tenths of HP and tenths of ft/lbs.
results will be given in SAE, and the location is Lacrosse WI, approx. 700 feet above sea level. the forecast for next wednesday in Lax is mid fifties and a chance of rain.
(difference in HP)+(difference in torque)= score
guesses must also be given with RPM for respective torque and HP, to pick winner closest in the case of a tie of the above mentioned score.
2001 M2, V&H slipon, K&N in stock airbox, compufire ignition module, thunderslide carb kit in kehin cv 40, new plugs and wires, fresh oil change, and Andrews N8 Cams
Good luck!
Thanks
Ken
must have at least ten guesses to make contest valid (sorry, forgot to add this earlier)
edited by socoken on April 15, 2004 |
Mikej
| | Posted on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 12:05 pm: |
|
Before tuning:
92.5hp @ 6,500rpm
84.5 ft/lbs @ 4,900rpm
After tuning:
97.0hp @ 6,600rpm
85.0 ft/lbs @ 4,800rpm
|
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 01:16 pm: |
|
Before Tuning: (rear wheel, corrected)
78.0 HP, 70.0 ftLbs, 6500 RPM
After Tuning:
90.0 HP, 75.0 ftLbs, 6500 RPM
(note: If I wanted to be a smart ass, I would say 0HP and 0 FtLbs at 0 RPM and be exactly correct )
edited by reepicheep on April 15, 2004 |
Socoken
| | Posted on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 03:07 pm: |
|
actually, reep, you would have been exactly the loser had you guessed that, because i did say "high" numbers. |
Spike
| | Posted on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 11:28 pm: |
|
You didn't say what gear you'd be making the runs in.
4th gear:
86.5hp 6200rpm
73.5ft-lbs 4500rpm
5th gear:
89.5hp 6200rpm
75.5ft-lbs 4500rpm
I'll take an x-large please.
Mike L. |
Socoken
| | Posted on Sunday, April 18, 2004 - 11:47 pm: |
|
only a little over two days left and i still need 7 more guesses so i can justify buying someone a t-shirt. |
Socoken
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 01:43 pm: |
|
wow,
i expected way more than this. the bike gets strapped down tomorrow afternoon, so less than a day left to get your guesses in.
maybe this will make it easier: the bike was dyno tuned about two years ago with all the above mods, except the cams. with stock cams it made 84.7 RWHP. all that has changed since then is the cams. i didnt want to add this cause it might make it easier, but being as such with everyone except for three too scared to guess, i decided to add it. what can it hurt, throw some guesses out there.
thanks
Ken |
Josh_
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 02:11 pm: |
|
84.7HP 78ft/lbs |
Bluzm2
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 04:18 pm: |
|
89.6HP 81.9ft/lbs |
|
»
Buell Dynamometer/Dyno Testing Archives »
Archive through April 20, 2004