| Author | Message | ||
     Sweetp411 |
I see a lot of Dyno info on a lot of threads. I'm just curious, anyone with a XB9 (R or S) with all the general mods that are available. For example, TFI, Race ECM, aftermarket exhaust, intake mods (open airbox, or 12 airbox cover, etc.). What kind of horsepower increases are you gentleman seeing on the 9's? I noticed one gentleman had an '03 9S with the Jardine, TFI and desnorkled and the whole nine yards, and the highest HP he showed on his Dyno was 86.9 BHP. I'm a little confused, because according to the MFG specs, says the 9S and 9R have 92BHP stock? I'm just wondering, what is the highest HP anyone on here has seen with all the mods on a 9S or 9R? I guess I'm just wondering why I spent all this $ on these aftermarket products for performance upgrade and havn't really heard any drastic changes on this site yet? I could be looking in all the wrong places as well  (Message edited by sweetp411 on April 28, 2005) | ||
| Kowpow225 |
I believe 92, as listed on Buell.com, was measured at the crank. | ||
| Lpd22 |
there are some xbs on the nallin web site that have around 110hp. | ||
| Sweetp411 |
110 HP out of 9's or 12's? what's this website? I'm just kind of wondering also, how much HP increase guys are getting out of all these mods? (Message edited by sweetp411 on April 28, 2005) | ||
| Lpd22 |
sweet- the web site is www.nallinracing.com once your on the page click on the dyno charts. they are getting 110 hp out of 9's but youll have to pay for it if you want that type of hp.  I have no clue about what hp increases were getting. I am taking my bike in soon(once the weather clears) for a dyno run. Ill post the charts after i get her dynoed. | ||
| Court |
I am mounting this on a XB9SX. If my calcs are correct I shuld be in the 27,000HP range. Torque could be a problem.  | ||
| Ted |
ya 92hp is measured at the crankshaft. (false advertising ?) 78hp is the norm at the wheel. so 87hp with the standard mod's is pretty good. | ||
| Metalstorm |
Court, after you mount that, I suggest getting much stiffer springs. And be sure to post dyno results. | ||
| Daves |
Court, if you change the velocity stack you'll get 27005 HP | ||
| Emscityx |
remind me not to tailgate you | ||
| Wyckedflesh |
noticed one gentleman had an '03 9S with the Jardine, TFI and desnorkled and the whole nine yards, and the highest HP he showed on his Dyno was 86.9 BHP. You need to know the baseline, what did the dyno read his bike at without the mods. Also something to think about, volumetric efficency can affect power output. How well are your rings and valves sealing? Just how fresh are your plugs and wires? How good is your gas? Tire pressure? Tire wear? How much does the operator weigh sitting on the bike compared to you? Air filter? All of this can affect your readings. Some dyno's are happy. some are grumpy. Some even read things in a totally different manner. So what you really need to do when looking at the dyno charts is look at the curves of the torque and HP runs, and compare the baseline to the final and measure the difference. It is something I have definately learned from this site in hte last year and a half. The final number is no good without a baseline. The 92hp at the crank is for the '05, the '03's IIRC were rated at 87hp at the crank, which makes a 78hp rear wheel measurement within 11% is not bad at all. | ||
| Race_pirate |
Court- I dont know if thats enough, plus Gas Turbines have such a narrow effiency range it will be hell on the wallet when filling up!!! We tried to put a small APU engine in a 76' KZ400 back in college....I will go no further since I cannot incriminate myself since Motorcycling was forbidden at my educational penitentiary. (we really didnt get that far into the project) | ||
| Sweetp411 |
So it seems the avg HP gain with the normal amount of Mods is about 8-10 HP, that's better than I had imagined. I just find it hard to believe that I watched a show on the speed channel on "Two Wheel Tuesday" and this guy was test driving the new 2005 Yamaha R1 and they said that damn thing had 182 HP. I couldn't believe that a 1000 cc bike compared to my 984 cc bike could have 100+ more HP. Just blew me away. I've ridden my cousins '02 R1 and it scared the crap out of me had so much powerband, wow. But I'll stick with my yellow beast. | ||
| M1combat |
Yeah, but he has OHC's (dual even ), FOUR throats, FOUR pistons, EIGHT times as many valves, four times the injectors and better than two times the RPM's... not that that those things don't make for a VERY fun engine mind you ... | ||
| M1combat |
Also... Keep in mind that when you're leaned over, all that stuff is mostly useless. Buells are built to be leaned over, and they do it VERY well . | ||
| Sweetp411 |
Good point M1, all I know is that's a buttload of HP for a 1000 cc cycle, that's scary HP. | ||
| Race_pirate |
I like V Twin Torque, some of the metric sportbikes definetly have impressive hp, but there is no better feeling knowing that yer cycle has freight train grunt!!!! | ||
| M1combat |
That's true... However... Torque can ONLY be felt the moment you twist the grip. After that initial moment, you're feeling the HP. The initial "rip your arms off" feeling is the only time you feel the torque. After that, it's all HP. The benefit to a "torque" engine as opposed to a "HP" engine is that it makes HP lower in the rev range. | ||
| Mrvvrroomm |
"Yeah, but he has OHC's (dual even ), FOUR throats, FOUR pistons, EIGHT times as many valves, four times the injectors and better than two times the RPM's" XB = 2 valves/cylinder = 4 valves R1 = 5 valves/cylinder = 20 valves 20/4 = 5 times as many valves. | ||
| Race_pirate |
HP is Tq & Time.... Agreed I have been racing a 250cc 2 stroke the past few years, the exact inverse of the Buell, my GP bike makes all of 23 ft/lbs at 11,000rpm. Its all HP over 9000 to redline. (Message edited by race_pirate on April 28, 2005) | ||
| Rigga |
sweetp...im not sure but i think that might be my bike you are refering to,that was the run i had done when the o2 wiring for the tfi was incorrectly routed,ie connected up wrong,ive not had the chance to re test it as yet,but it did punt out just short of 87hp and 66ft torque and im very happy with the way it runs now,although id be happy if i could regain some low end pull | ||
| BadS1 |
Ted said 92HP is false advertising??? Thats not false advertising thats truth.Measured at the crank.The motor by its self does the numbers. | ||
| M1combat |
"XB = 2 valves/cylinder = 4 valves R1 = 5 valves/cylinder = 20 valves" Errr, uhhh, yeah.... Five times as many . | ||
| Dr_greg |
You all DO know that HP and torque are related by engine speed...in consistent units: horsepower = (torque) * (angular speed) One horsepower is 550 ft-lb/sec. In SI (metric) units power is in watts (usually kW for engines). The appropriate English units for torque are ft-lb and for angular speed radians/sec. So to speak of "torque" as being "instantaneous" and horsepower as something different is being ignorant of the physics. If you have a graph of torque vs rpm you can construct the corresponding graph of HP vs rpm. Didn't everybody study engineering in college? | ||
| M1combat |
Shut your pie hole, I'm not ignorant... I was talking about the feeling, not the math. I understand the math as well. I was speaking in layman's terms. If you think those are beneath you... Get a clue. A high torque engine or a high revving "HP" engine near it's torque peak will give you that instant grunt/jerk. A low torque engine or a high revving "HP" engine too low in the rev range will feel more docile. | ||
| M1combat |
"horsepower = (torque) * (angular speed)" "Didn't everybody study engineering in college?" That's just math... Try to design a bearing that will take the load of said torque though... THAT'S engineering. | ||
| Eexb |
"Didn't everybody study engineering in college?" NO !!! | ||
| Dilysi73 |
I studied ENGINEERING in HIGH SCHOOL!! This + this = BONG. If I use this fitting with this = PIPE.  Wait...sorry not engineering..it was agricultural.  Aaron  | ||
| Jerseyguy |
Court - You will have no bottom end on that baby. You'll need to crank it up to full RPM & dump the clutch. Better get a tire like this -  And then you may end up like this -  | ||
| Dr_greg |
M1, regarding the "pie hole" remark...I don't appreciate that kind of response. If I was pointing out the obvious you can respond in a somewhat more gracious manner. Or is "combat" your normal mode of discourse? And regarding designing bearings - you have no idea what I do or don't design. So drop it. |
