| Author |
Message |
    
Bud
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 05:06 pm: | 
|
thanx,
but marcel @ bikehospital build the engine,
the credit should go to him
the only thing i did, was putting the little black bolt back to getter again  |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 05:26 pm: |
|
Wonder if a drummer exhaust would nose you over the 100hp mark?!?! Great looking chart!
|
Gambafreak
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 04:07 pm: |
|
We did a little test yesterday. The purpose was to compare a stock ECM to a Race ECM and check the air/fuel ratio while cruising at moderate speed and with a small load . Just like we ride most of the time.
As we suspected the mixture was much to lean with the stock ECM, the mixture with the Race ECM was correct under these conditions.
We also made some full runs with both ECM’s. To me the results of these runs were surprising, but I am not an expert. This was the first time I’ve been near to a Dyno.
The blue lines are the stock ECM, the red the race ECM.
The bike is an almost stock X1, year 2000. The exhaust is a Buell race system and the air filter is a RRC Big Airblow (German made force winder with a much bigger filter, and I suspect longer and wider).
 |
Used_96_s1
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 08:02 pm: |
|
......... and I'd probably lose the Thunderslide gimmick.
Hey Aaron, are you saying the synth slide is a crock?
Should I pull mine out? Save the spring?
If I put the metal slide back in, should I drill the vacuum hole out? What size?
Thanks, Ken} |
Benm2
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 01:31 pm: |
|
Just got a call from the shop dyno-ing my M2. 90 hp, on the nose. I'll get the chart this afternoon.
2000 M2
N4 cams
Stock rejetted carb
Race air cleaner
Supertrapp on stock header
stock ignition module
Mild porting
0.025" off head, 0.025 head gasket
The owner said the graph looked "real smooth", I'll get to see it in person tonight, hopefully I'll be able to post.
Ben |
Benm2
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 05:08 pm: |
|
 |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 05:26 pm: |
|
Nice torque curve. It really kicks in at 5 grand too. |
Benm2
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 02:41 pm: |
|
The owner of the shop was real excited about it. He hasn't tuned many buells, and has a 1200 drag bike in his shop that makes 96hp. He rode it back to my house behind me (when you're the owner of the local biker shop for 30 years, the local cops don't bother you much when you ride a bike with no lights & a bellypan). He was having a lot of fun on it.
While driving back to the shop, he was telling me what we could do next for more power ( I could FEEL my wallet getting lighter).
To me, it looks to be running out of breath up top. Without touching the motor internals, would a mikuni & a race header bring it up to 95-97 hp? |
Aaron
| | Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 10:53 pm: |
|
Dan Norlin and I rode our bikes up to the Grand Opening shindig at Thunder Mountain HD today (yes, Dan rode his AHDRA Hot Street bike), to enter the dyno shootout. Dan won by a mile, I was a distant second with this result:
This is my well-worn '99 M2. Nice to see their dyno reads about the same as mine.
NRHS/Axtell 1250 kit, NRHS Stage 3 XB heads, Red SHift 585's, Mikuni HSR45, NRHS/Force exhaust, Crane HI-4E ignition, yadda-yadda. Air cleaner was on the bike (Frontier). Pump gas.
3rd and 4th place ended up being motors we built at NRHS, too, belonging to Bill Beets and Mel Ortner. So we had a good sweep.
Got to listen to Erik and the Thunderbolts, they were sure having a good time.
Good day overall, didn't even mind the torrential downpour on the way home.
(Message edited by aaron on September 25, 2004) |
Court
| | Posted on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 11:57 am: |
|
>>>Dan won by a mile, I was a distant second with this result:
Utoh.....I see a project in the making. But, for whatever solace it provides, if this guys bike is making more horsepower than your M-2, he may be approaching the "too much power" zone!
Scarey...
Court |
57sporty
| | Posted on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 09:46 pm: |
|
Aaron,
How much power did Dan's bike put out and what is his setup. I my X1 Nallin setup is the hoot and is putting down some good power.
Steve |
Aaron
| | Posted on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 10:57 pm: |
|
Steve ... glad you like your X1. Dan races his S1 in AHDRA and we're kinda reluctant to talk about the power or the exact setup. I can tell you it's 83 cubic inches, a configuration chosen due to his class rules which impose an 8lb per cubic inch minimum weight. It has some STD heads we did up for him, but per the rules, they have stock port heights and use a stock manifold flange. That's about all I'm willing to divulge publicly on the motor setup. Power? Let's just say "well north of 130hp" and leave it at that |
Nrhs
| | Posted on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 10:09 am: |
|
1995 Buell S2 |
Tripper
| | Posted on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 10:24 am: |
|
Foul on Aaron! Bringing bad tasting beer to the party! no wait, I mean...
The heading of this thread states "... WITH LISTING OF MODIFICATIONS. So what is this, just your average S2? |
Josh_
| | Posted on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 10:44 am: |
|
Looks pretty average to me, I mean that's only about 140HP over stock right?
 |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 11:19 am: |
|
Where is that "jaw drop" emoticon? |
Bluzm2
| | Posted on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 02:07 pm: |
|
This one?
Jeez only 140+ ft lbs at 7400 RPM?
Something must be wrong with that motor...
Aaron, that is truly impressive!
Question, what causes the "bumpy" curves?
Is it wheel slip? Just curious.
What kind of juice are you feeding that beast? Wow!
Brad |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 03:09 pm: |
|
JP4? |
Rick_a
| | Posted on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 03:20 pm: |
|
Stout. |
Timbo
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 12:15 am: |
|
 |
Nrhs
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 09:04 am: |
|
We got this result a few days ago and thought y'all might like it. More info soon, got work to do first.
Brad, it's just hopping a little bit, no big deal. |
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 01:52 pm: |
|
Wow. I wonder, at what point are the steering head or forks at risk of breaking/deforming during a dyno run of that beast? If you aren't doing it already, you might want to start restraining that torque monster via hard points on the frame. |
Firemanjim
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 01:57 pm: |
|
DROOL!!!!!!! |
Henrik
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 02:04 pm: |
|
I'd stuff half of that in my S2 and be *very* happy. Congratulations.
Henrik |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 02:17 pm: |
|
A 106 HP Thumper |
Henrik
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 02:49 pm: |
|
well, I really was thinking of spreading it over 2 cylinders, but hey ...
Henrik |
Buell_zen
| | Posted on Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 11:50 am: |
|
2003 XB9S with 2200 miles
XB12 airbox, Drummer, K&E filter and stock ECM.
Real wheel corrected:
78.3 HP 62.4 ft lbs
Adding Race ECM:
80.3 HP 64.3 ft lbs
The curves are similar to the ones posted at the drummer site. http://kdfab.com/v-web/portal/cms/modules.php?name=gallery
Without the Race ECM the dip in the torque curve from 4000 to 5000 rpm is a bit deeper. I don't have a scanner so I can't post the charts. |
Aaron
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 07:24 pm: |
|
That chart above is for the RR bodied LSR bike. Not the biggest chart I generated by any means, but I chose it because the nitrous wasn't really evident
Frame distortion? I dunno, that S2 chassis is a pretty stout design. I did have some issues last year with cylinder distortion at these power levels, making head bolts snap off. Went back to Axtell and those problems went away.
In general, last year ('03) was something of a disaster ... we basically followed conventional thinking and pushed the motor farther, and we succeeded in getting some big power, but unfortunately, we stepped off the reliability cliff in the process. The motor broke several times during development and sure enough, it did the same at the salt flats.
So for this year I did a complete re-think. My good friend Jon Amo, who together with his brother Joe probably have more experience than anyone running nitrous at Bonneville, were really helpful, and set my thinking off in a new direction. I ended up totally reconfiguring the motor. Obviously I don't want to say a whole lot, but it worked.
One thing I did that I'll mention was just a whole ton of experimenting with the nitrous this year, much more than I've ever done, just trying to get my arms around the bottle pressure and fuel pressure and jetting and timing relationships. That was really helpful, and the results ended up contradicting a bunch of the conventional wisdom. Moral of the story, if a tech support guy at a nitrous company tells you point blank "that won't work!", take it with a lake bed of salt. They have very little experience or knowledge of what does or doesn't work at Bonneville.
All told, I did more than 40 dyno pulls on the bottle, and did about 10 passes down the salt flats, and the motor never broke.
The clutch was something of a challenge, too. That's a lot of torque for it to hold.
So now that it appears I'm on the right track, it's time to take it to the next level. I really think this bike can break 220 mph. |
Peter
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 03:17 am: |
|
Damn. That would be something!
A Buell going over 350 km/h..... 
Even better to do it in Australia |
Paulinoz
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 08:07 pm: |
|
As a popular game show host once said "Come on down" |
Aaron
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 08:10 pm: |
|
Can a person buy nitrous oxide there?
Doubt they'd let me bring my own on the plane |
Steveshakeshaft
| | Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 03:35 am: |
|
That's really impressive Aaron, 220mph??? How much bhp is it going to take to push through the air at that speed?
Steve.
steve_s@ukbeg.com
www.ukbeg.com |
Aaron
| | Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 08:39 am: |
|
Nearly 300. The trick isn't making 300hp, the trick is making it and having the engine live |
Blake
| | Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 09:22 am: |
|
And finding the traction at the rear contact patch to support it. |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 10:09 am: |
|
quote:The trick isn't making 300hp...
Sez you...  |
Bob_thompson
| | Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 02:24 pm: |
|
Aaron, do you think a smaller engine, say under 90 cu. in. at higher rpm's or a large, say 120+ cu. in. engine, at moderate rpm's, and geared properly, both on nitro or nitrous would produce more h.p. for Bonneville? I revert back to the 70's when the 200 mph club was entered with a partially faired HD on nitro with a moderate size engine riden by Warner Riley and sponsered by Lake Shore HD. Thanks for your input. Bob |
Aaron
| | Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 09:41 pm: |
|
If I understand the question, basically what you're asking is whether to make the power heavy on the torque or heavy on the rpm. They're weighted equally in the formula.
People certainly approach it differently, so keep in mind this is my view. At Bonneville, you're racing in a displacement class. So getting as much power as you can from a given engine size is the name of the game. That generally means spinning it up. Also keep in mind that torque is what breaks things. If you can make your power with rpm, and then get the rear wheel torque with correspondingly deeper gearing, you're ahead of the game IMO, you'll break less stuff. So I'd say that at least with a gas motor, build it for rpm, do everything you can to fill the cylinder at high rpm. Our S1, for example, power peaks at about 7800. It's relatively easy to control the valvetrain at those rpm's, at least in a race motor that doesn't need a long life, filling the cylinder is the challenge.
When you go to nitro or nitrous, though, the game changes a little. Now it becomes about thermal management, and managing the pressure (same thing) to put it at the right point and for the right duration. A bunch of things affect it. Get it wrong and things break, and you can get away with a hell of a lot more slop at this stuff when you're racing 1/4 mile at a time than you can at Bonneville and hence not everything the drag race guys are doing necessarily works at Bonneville.
One big difference between nitro and nitrous is that with nitrous, you're generally injecting a constant amount of nitrous and fuel regardless of the rpm, so you end up with a torque curve (which represents cylinder fill) like the one above, i.e. sloping down as rpm rises because cylinder fill is dropping. You don't want to kick it in at too low of an rpm, because the lower the rpm, the more cylinder fill and cylinder pressure and and heat and torque you get and that's what breaks things. You also don't want to use it at part throttle, which can be a problem at Bonneville where the traction is limited. Nitro, though, can be used at part throttle. In either case, though, pressure management is key.
They had that bike on display, that Warner Riley took over 200, at the Bub event. They did a hell of a good job, getting that bike to go that fast, my hat's off to them. |
Hutch
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 04:34 pm: |
|
nitro is a hole different game it burns way slower and air fuel raito is 1.6 to 1 and the more fuel you add the leaner it gets,all last season I was the fuel guy for a pro drag bike and learn a lot.timing was set at 55* advanceand the motor ever went passed 7000rpm.during a pass we would put as much fuel to the bike it could take and as it went down the track the ride would hit the lean outs as the load was going off the engine, it sounds funning but you take fuel way from the engine to keep it from going lean.nitor makes its own O2 as it burns ,so there is a funning rich and lean rich ,lean rich,lean that happdends as the engine is running. not at all like nitrous. |
Stefan_f
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 01:55 pm: |
|
XB9 Nitrous:
stock engine with a nitrous- and special air-intake-kit. The two graphs show stock and nitrous HP (PS) + torque (Nm) at the rearwheel.
Regards Stefan
 |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 06:46 am: |
|
Geesh. Where do mere mortals post dynos?
Anyway, here are the promised Dynos for an 05 XB9SX with and without the Race ECM.
This bike has the 12 airbox (stock on the 05 9's), cut down to only be a cover for the filter, a race filter, and a cut down snorkel. Everything else (including exhaust) is stock.
Stock ECM, Fuel Air Plot
Race ECM, Fuel Air Plot
Stock ECM, Horsepower
Race ECM, Horsepower
It was a good experience. F&S is obviously doing this as much for love and not for money, as the $70 they got from me for their 2 hours of work did not even cover their heat, much less the techs helping me. They knew their stuff as well, and were not afraid to challange assumptions I was making, and discuss reasons for performance in depth.
The owner even wandered by at one point, an older guy that still dirt track races and rebuilds motors, and was curious, asking to see the plots and asking what the bike was advertised as having.
The Dyno was sitting right beside 5 still crated XR-750 motors, so the ambiance was perfect as well 
I am happy with the dynos, the bike is a good solid runner and a very strong middleweight sporting twin. Just what I wanted. If I decide I can live with the extra noise and expense, I am set to drop in a drummer and pick up a little more performance.
I think the Race ECM with the stock exhaust picked up about 1 horse across the entire band, and maybe 3 horses at the top end, but nothing to get overly excited about. I think the Race unit will show better results with an updated exhaust. This is exactly what the guy at F&S running the Dyno told me would be the case, credit where credit is due.
The fuel air plots look better (AFAIK) on the race ECM, but neither seems so far off as to alarm me.
The interesting question would be to put my stock 05 ECM in an earlier 9, and see how *that* compares, which I think Glitch just might do.
So it is up to me now, a drummer or Buell Race can would both now be bolt on affairs if I decide I want to spend the money and make the extra noise. |
Tripper
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 10:11 am: |
|
Reep, set the SAE smoothing to the same values. Helps when comparing apples.
Go for the Ti exhaust. That would look so boss on an S, and the noise, omygod. Damn the expense! Your kids don't need Christmas presents this year. |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 08:48 pm: |
|
Unfortunately, my attempt to grab the files off the dyno failed. The software (winpep7) is a little kludgy, and it was the first time I have played with it.
They saved the files, so I should be able to sneak back there next time I am there and grab another copy of them.
No way I can afford the Ti exhaust, though I can't imagine a better looking exhaust for a CityX... talk about being inspired by a terminator movie. |
Tripper
| | Posted on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 09:27 am: |
|
Are they .drf files? You can then download the viewer from Dynojet. It worked well for me. |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 10:14 am: |
|
They are all one byte (one character) files  The '@' sign to be exact.
I tried to export to text, so I could play with them in excel, and must have done something wrong. |
Tripper
| | Posted on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 12:18 pm: |
|
oops. I thought you were a PC guru?
Ask then to send you the drf files and you can do anything to them just as if you were at the dyno, through the use of the viewer. It's alot of fun playing with the different combination of views. |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 02:47 pm: |
|
The problem *is* that I am a PC guru... I did what the windows API specifies should be done to export the files. Unfortunately, winpep did not follow the API, so I ended up with squat. I was already rushed, trying to get the files off the dyno while the tech was crawling around me unstrapping the bike.
I'll ask my sales guy to run back and email me the DRF files, thanks for telling me the extension, and for the pointer to the winpep software, that will be cool! |
Rick_a
| | Posted on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 11:36 am: |
|
I put my bike on the dyno yesterday and was very disappointed. It is running lean and I'm losing 9ft-lbs and 10 hp compared to last year. Hopefully with a rejet and some fiddling I'll be back to normal. The only changes I've made are cleaning the airfilter, raising the carb top (thunderslide), and putting an open end cap on the Supertrapp. Off the bottom it's a monster. The situation will be rectified! |
Craigster
| | Posted on Saturday, June 04, 2005 - 01:43 pm: |
|
Ingemar,
The only thing he has to do for your particular motorcycle is set up the wheel base so the tire is at the top of the drum.
Depending on dyno type he will either have to enter manual environment redings (temp, baro pressure, and humidity - sometimes requires a sling Psychrometer to enter wet and dry bulb readings)
If the dyno is new enough all the above will be measure automatically right at the start of each run. Ask if he has a built in weather station and if it takes the reading immediately before the run of if he has to enter the data manualy.
I like to make sure I do not sit on the bike while it is making a pull, but it really doesn't matter as long as if he stands during one run, he stands during the next. If he sits on the bike during every run that's OK too, but the power might be lower.
If he tests your bike in top gear it will make about 2-4% more power as there are two less gear interfaces (top gear is straight through the tranny shaft while 4th zig zags through the gears and dogs and spins two shafts)
Doesn't matter, so long as he tests in the smae gear every time.
Correction factors: I have a bunch of this stuff saved and alot of it is stolen from manufacturer's manuals, so If you search the web alot you will find alot of this out there....That said:
A variety of power correction factors exist. They are available from the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE, STP), the European Community (ECE), the German Industry Standards (DIN), the Japanese Industry Standards (JIS), the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), etc.
Engine Power -- This is the power at the crankshaft in the conditions prevailing on the day of the test. No corrections for atmospheric conditions are applied. If no ignition spark sensor is installed, engine rpm data will not be available and engine power will only be indicated as a function of wheel speed.
Corrected Engine Power -- This is the power which would be measured at the crankshaft when testing in average sea level conditions. Corrected engine power is the estimated engine power corrected for atmospheric conditions using the power correction factors outlined below.
Engine Torque -- This is the torque at the crankshaft in the conditions prevailing on the day of the test. Engine torque can only be calculated as a function of engine speed if the ignition pick-up is installed and produces a stable engine speed signal. Engine torque is then derived from engine power and engine speed. No corrections are applied.
Corrected Engine Torque -- This is the torque which would be measured at the crankshaft when testing in average sea level conditions. Corrected engine torque is the calculated engine torque corrected to standard atmospheric conditions using the power correction factors outlined above.
Wheel Torque -- This is the torque which the motorcycle puts to the ground in the conditions prevailing on the day of the test. Wheel torque is calculated from wheel power and roll speed. No corrections are applied.
Corrected Wheel Torque -- This is the torque which the motorcycle would put to the ground when tested in average sea level conditions. Corrected wheel torque is the calculated wheel torque corrected to standard atmospheric conditions using the power correction factors outlined above.
Types of correction and what they are:
SAE -- The SAE standard applied is a modified version of the SAE J1349 standard of June 1990. Power is corrected to reference conditions of 29.23 InHg (99 kPa) of dry air and 77 F (25°C). This SAE standard requires a correction for friction torque. Friction torque can be determined by measurements on special motoring dynamometers (which is only practical in research environments) or can be estimated. When estimates must be used, the SAE standard uses a default Mechanical Efficiency (ME) value of 85%. This is approximately correct at peak torque but not at other engine operating speeds. Some dynamometer systems use the SAE correction factor for atmospheric conditions but do not take mechanical efficiency into consideration at all (i.e. they assume a ME of 100%). Dynostar,SuperFlow and others uses a more sophisticated algorithm for calculating friction torque, based on a summary of thousands of friction power tests performed by the automotive industry. These proprietary algorithm estimate friction torque as a function of piston speed and engine displacement.
Although I'm sure the algorithms differ slightly, the "SAE corrected" power numbers indicated by Dynostar and SuperFlow system are thus more accurate estimates of engine power output under reference conditions than what other systems using no ME correction or using a fixed ME of 85% will provide.
STP -- The STP (also called STD) standard is another power correction standard determined by the SAE. This standard has been stable for a long time and is widely used in the performance industry. Power is corrected to reference conditions of 29.92 InHg (103.3 kPa) of dry air and 60 F (15.5°C). Because the reference conditions include higher pressure and cooler air than the SAE standard, these corrected power numbers will always be about 4 % higher than the SAE power numbers.
ECE -- The ECE standard is based on the European Directives. Power is corrected to reference conditions of 99 kPa (29.23 InHg) of dry air and 25°C (77 F). Friction torque is not taken into consideration at all.
In 1995, a new Directive (95/1/EEC) regarding test methods for motorcycles was published.
DIN -- The DIN standard is determined by the German automotive industry. Power is corrected to reference conditions of 101.3 kPa (29.33 InHg) of dry air and 20°C (68 F). With the advent of European legislation and standards, national standards such as the DIN (formerly widely used) are now less significant.
NOTE -- Power correction standards try to estimate what engine power would be under reference conditions. They cannot actually calculate exactly what power output would be. The greater the difference between the ambient conditions during the test and the reference conditions, the greater the error in the estimate. Most power correction standards include limits on their applicability. This limit is typically +/- 7%. This means if the correction factor is greater than (> 1.07 or less than (< 0.93, the corrected power numbers are not officially considered to be acceptable, and the test should be performed again under conditions which are closer to the reference conditions.
For private applications this is less of a problem, and the corrected power numbers are still the best basis for comparisons. However, please keep this into consideration when comparing test results obtained under considerably different test conditions.
Also...Power corrections are only valid for Wide Open Throttle (WOT) tests. You should disregard corrected power numbers for any test performed under partial throttle conditions.
There is at least one dynomanufacturer advertising that STP or STD is an uncorrected reading. This is actually not true. As you can see above STD is an accepted SAE correction method.
Superflow is a huge manufacturer of all types of dynos. The've been making a motorcycle specific dyno (Cycledyn) for more than a decade. They admit they missed the boat as they figured no one wanted a motorcycle chassis dyno
Dynojet- Made the 100,150 and 200 chassis inertia dynos. Later released the 250 with eddy current retarder. Very polpular in motor cycle dealers. Began their existance with motorcycle jet kits. Making motorcycle specific dynos for 15 years or so
Factory Pro dynos are actually Mustang Dynos. Mustang has been around forever making automotive dynos. they used to tout Higher inertia is better when they made the Tiger950id...Now they tout low inertia with their EC997 dyno. they need to pick a plan and stick with it.
Dynostar is a small division of TTE in Europe. They've been making everything from portable ABS test tracts to training and fault triggering equipment for the OEM auto manufacturers. Their automotive dynos have led to the Dynostar brand of Cycle specific dynos.
Hope that helps somewhat. |
Ingemar
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 01:00 am: |
|
2003 XB9R
Stock ECM
TFI
K&N filter
No airbox cover but a cone over the filter
Desnorkled
Drummer exhaust
The dip between 4000-5000 rpm will get less when I get the TFI dialed in properly. It's running too lean in that area.
(Message edited by glitch on September 06, 2005) |
Charley
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 02:03 pm: |
|
Igemar, still trying to dail in the TFI on the street?
what´s the deal going on a dyno and not tuning it? that´s where dyno´s are meant for. |
Ingemar
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 03:12 am: |
|
'cos he wanted 20 bucks for every run and he had no experience with a tfi!
I will get it on a dyno with AF meter after my holiday and have it tuned by someone who has experience tuning.
It's almost right now. Sneezed once today on the way to work. I was in 4th passing cars and splitting lanes. I was on and off the gas and when I wanted to accellerate a little more to get in front of a car it sneezed (backfire). Honestly I'm not sure why that happens. |
|
»
Buell Dynamometer/Dyno Testing Archives
