lean condition when dyno'd - Page 2

roger albert · 04-13-2003, 08:21 PM

Hi Rob

Very welcome. The extra info you provided does seem to confirm even further that theory.

Tom, where'd you do your dyno work at?

thanks
roger

TLinuf · 04-14-2003, 02:57 AM

Austin Sport Cycles had a dyno brought over for a Saturday to run for their 'dyno day'. They're over on 620, not far from my shop.
It was a pretty cool setup. It's a Dynojet, installed in an enclosed trailer with side doors that open so you can watch them torture the machines right there.
Bikes that were run that day varied from a Triumph cruizer to Harleys to Gixxer street and race bikes; even a couple Kawasaki turbo bikes made the show for top honors.
Anyway, my bike made 88.4 on the 4th run, as I stated earlier. I wish I would have had the forsight to remove the CCP, but alas I did not.
It's really a smooth curve from ~4500 all the way to rev-limit, but peaking at 7800 or so.
People were remarking that this dyno seemed to be a little "low", but that could have been due to the atmosphereic conditions, esp. the humidity.
I would have liked to se over 90, but now I have something to shoot for ..... NOS anyone???

Roger,
Did you ever get yourself a shorter TA?

Tom

JustAnotherSquid · 04-14-2003, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TLinuf
People were remarking that this dyno seemed to be a little "low", but that could have been due to the atmosphereic conditions, esp. the humidity.
I would have liked to se over 90, but now I have something to shoot for ..... NOS anyone???

If it was reading low, it wasn't reading low by much, unless the local dyno here reads low also.

718Rider · 04-14-2003, 06:13 AM

I have the Vanderlinde chip in my bike and AM running it with the CAT CODE Plug. Does it make any difference with the Vanderlide chip to remove the plug?

Firebolter · 04-14-2003, 06:31 AM

Squid,

That curve on your printout looks very similar to what repoe's was like Saturday, although his top was 88 hp. Seems really erratic, wonder why the S curves look that way? Conversely, the curve on my Firebolt which I did saturday right after repoe's run was a nice building, constantly climbing, relatively linear curve that peeked at 73 hp. Weird, wonder what causes that dip at 6200-6700 rpm's? You certainly don't feel that when riding as it is a strong pull all the way up to ~8000...............

I'm gonna take my S up next time to baseline it just for grins......Should be similar.

CarlosT · 04-14-2003, 06:44 AM

Different dynos...different days...different weather...different operator...

repoe3 · 04-14-2003, 07:19 AM

unofficial corrective HP numbers...

after factoring in a power of two (2), the S miraculously increased its power to about 160HP. okay so i lie...

repoe3

repoe3 · 04-14-2003, 10:56 AM

we reached a concensus that the TPS really only affected low throttle positions, correct? so tweaking that would not affect the WOT? aside from the bbp chip and its adjustability and a custom power commander application, what other creative ideas can we come up with to tweak the EFI? anyone running the rhinewest chip with staintune/induct? anyone running the FIm that is not tuned for the induct, but running the induct anyway? questions questions. i thought EFI was supposed to make tunability easier than carbs...what happened to that logic?!?!?

repoe3

roger albert · 04-14-2003, 11:21 AM

That logic is flawed in cases such as this, where you have no real end-user tuning hooks (can only blindly swap chips) and where the system has no air measurement.

And, you're absolutely right in pointing out that messing with the TPS will not affect this at all. Utterly irrelevant.

You have about 4 options. Tweak the regulator, tweak the chip, tweak the motoronic via a piggy-back unit (PCIII, Fuel Nanny etc) or pull the cat code plug on a stock Motronic (which affects closed loop operation, but therefore shouldn't affect WOT either.)

EFI is a LOT easier, IF you have a good rolling dyno and the right software. Otherwise, a lot harder.

repoe3 · 11:44 AM

hmmm, fuel regulator. where is that located on the bike and how much do they run? any real data on what it does (i know it regulates the fuel) i mean like increasing boost on a turbo by X, that kinda data? i have to wonder if not every engine responds exactly the same way with the same mods, given manufacturing tolerances. the dyno tech even said looking at the curve, if the bike was carb'd he would increase the main jet. not is search of gobs of power, but more or less the technical exercise this is allowing me to go through helps me a lot in learning all these systems. also, my question is related to adding the fuel pressure regulator with the FIM chip. thanks.

repoe3

kinda answered my own questions or at least lennie did;

from a previous thread: lennie said:
"Your comments regarding the regulator would be consistent with my results in this area. The extra pressure of even the K12 reg is about what you need. I think they run about 3.5 bar. I have run upto about 3.9 bar with mine to get the best out of it with all the mods. This has a negative effect in other areas with too much fuel though.

A chip mapped for any combination exactly however is the best option. Pitty we all don't have all the combos to test and get maps for.

The FIM chip with stock fuel pressure actually removes the excess fuel from certain areas even runing the InDuct/Staintune/Cam sprocket combo as the stock map is a little too rich at these points.

The BBPower chip was done without the InDuct so it would not provide enough fuel on its own to compensate for the extra on road airflow at the higher rpms and speed where it is really needed.

Combining a chip and regultor though would undo the work done as Bernhard or Duane has done as their mapping is with less fuel.

It is good to see you guys testing and coming up with good results and sharing these on the board."

rob_wijhenke · 04-14-2003, 11:43 AM

Repoe: http://wijhenke.net/-upfuelpressure.htm

repoe3 · 04-14-2003, 11:56 AM

rob, reading the info on your site suggests to me that i would not want to do the different fuel regulator becuase it recommends disconnecting the O2 sensor. that just doesnt make sense to me. why not just unplug the O2 sensor, would that not richen it up anyways? also, when running the bike on the dyno it is not really taking air into consideration as it is getting the same volume at all RPM's. this is becoming a highly complex algebraic equation. lots and lots of factors. maybe i should just buy a custom ECU that allows direct connect and programming.

repoe3
not really consider the custom ECU just thinking online

rob_wijhenke · 04-14-2003, 12:04 PM

Repoe, you might be right but Roger might have the right answer. Or Lenie. Lennie, where are you in this discussion

I have to say I'm very very happy with the setup as it is now. The bike pulls like a maniac, much better than my departed one and I have the cat plug still connected.

What definitely is best, whatever the setup, is a custom chip. In Holland we have a guy, Ruud Freriks in Goes (south of Holland) who did wonders on my 888 Corsa a few years back. I got a HP increase of 8 with 15 (yes, 15) in the middle of the power band. I have to say he also increased the fuel pressure with about 10% and increased the airbox volume, hence the reason I installed the K12 FPR and induct.

But I am by no means an expert in this area, just fiddling around!

roger albert · 04-14-2003, 12:14 PM

Rob,

What do you mean by "and I have the cat plug still connected" ???
The plug (or wires and switch(es)) to where the plug used to be is how the correct map is selected from the bbp? Am I missing something here?

roger

rob_wijhenke · 04-14-2003, 12:18 PM

Ehrr, I have the cat plug connected in the cat eliminator pipe and it is wired and connected as it was stock. The BBP map selection is done through wiring the plug in the plastic container left/front per Bernies instructions...

Am I missing something now?

repoe3 · 04-14-2003, 01:24 PM

i think you mean the O2 sensor not the cat code plug that is in the box under the dash. i am really getting confused as i think some facts have blurred. i already took out the CCP, but since i run an FIM chip, that does not matter. cant really see disconnecting the O2 sensor, maybe upgrade to a new bosch unit. but it seems like what is needed is only a bit more fuel up high, not really anywhere else as it is already making over 5hp throughout the powerband.

i know it sounds like i am targeting max hp, but i am not, at least i dont think so. i am just trying to correct a fuel mixture issue that may or may not have been identified by the dyno runs. if i get more hp then great. but i love these types of discussions. really getting the gears going in everyone head.

if anyone has more to share about the K fuel regulator in conjunction with a chip (but without removing the O2 sensor) i would love to hear it.

of course all this talk about fuel, how about a different approach...lets say i add a pre-filter to the induct just to slow things down a bit, stick a foam filter into the nose of the induct. that kind of thing may not do anything on the dyno, but what about while riding? think think think

repoe3

repoe3 · 04-14-2003, 01:37 PM

hmmm...looking back at some of the original data and recall this site and this particular comment about the power curve with the induct fitted:

http://www.moto-one.com.au/performance/r1100splaycam.html

repoe3

rob_wijhenke · 04-14-2003, 01:57 PM

Yes, you're very right. I definitely ment O2 sensor mounted in the cat or cat eliminator. Hence the name I invented (just for the fun off it) Cat Plug...

BMW Atlanta · 04-15-2003, 06:18 AM

Well lets see, I was running an 02 prep(6k on the odo) with Carbon Induct, BBPower chip(stage3), SJ Filter, and Ztechnic exhaust last month and produced 94hp/71lbs on a rainy day in the upper 60's(F) with O2 sensor installed. I had a dip around 5200 rpms that really concerned me. I then installed the new Laser Race system and removed the O2 sensor at that time. Bike has much smoother roll on and I know the dip is gone but have yet to Dyno the bike, Maybe at lunch time today I can manage to get a run in. I cant expect much peak improvement, but if I managed to get rid of the dip, I will be very happy.

roger albert · 04-15-2003, 08:14 AM

Thanks for the feedback Bobby.

I'd be very curious to see how that curve changes. 94HP is pretty darned decent. I have stock pipes and cans with a laser cat elim, SJ-filter, and BBP set to 3 and doubt very much that I'm even at 90. That speaks pretty well to the Ztechnik. I don't want anything much louder than I have now, so if it's reasonable, then I might have to look into it. I'm actually looking more to the weight reduction more than the power bump.
Anyone ever done side by side weight comparisons of stock vs Ztechnik (I never much trust the published weights) ???

Any info appreciated.

regards
roger