Posted by Bob Mann on March 14, 2008, 9:09 am
They just got done with the PC yesterday.
Engine - 95", HiComp forged pistons, .211 cams, head work.
Previous results from a 103 download into the stock ECM were 68hp and
78 ft-lbs. (It seemed to go much better than that would indicate)
New results are 82.25hp and 90 ft-lbs (or is that lbs-ft?)
Started with a 204 cam download and tweaked from there.
Not sure if they worked the timing much but I'm looking forward to
trying it out.
I think there should be a bit more there and I also think our dyno is
rating very conservatively.
--
Bob Mann
It may be that your sole purpose in life
is to serve as a warning to others.
Posted by Mark Olson on March 14, 2008, 9:20 am
Bob Mann wrote:
> They just got done with the PC yesterday.
>
> Engine - 95", HiComp forged pistons, .211 cams, head work.
>
> Previous results from a 103 download into the stock ECM were 68hp and
> 78 ft-lbs. (It seemed to go much better than that would indicate)
>
> New results are 82.25hp and 90 ft-lbs (or is that lbs-ft?)
>
> Started with a 204 cam download and tweaked from there.
>
> Not sure if they worked the timing much but I'm looking forward to
> trying it out.
>
> I think there should be a bit more there and I also think our dyno is
> rating very conservatively.
Are both of those hp numbers from the same dyno? If so you are going
to love the difference. Any chance you could post graphs of the
results?
With such a great improvement in power without doing any mechanical work,
I would imagine the old mapping was really delivering a pretty poor
mixture. Did you have air/fuel ratio information on either run?
--
'01 SV650SK1 '99 EX250-F13 '98 ZG1000-A13
OMF #7
Posted by Bob Mann on March 14, 2008, 9:35 pm
wrote:
>Bob Mann wrote:
>> They just got done with the PC yesterday.
>>
>> Engine - 95", HiComp forged pistons, .211 cams, head work.
>>
>> Previous results from a 103 download into the stock ECM were 68hp and
>> 78 ft-lbs. (It seemed to go much better than that would indicate)
>>
>> New results are 82.25hp and 90 ft-lbs (or is that lbs-ft?)
>>
>> Started with a 204 cam download and tweaked from there.
>>
>> Not sure if they worked the timing much but I'm looking forward to
>> trying it out.
>>
>> I think there should be a bit more there and I also think our dyno is
>> rating very conservatively.
>Are both of those hp numbers from the same dyno? If so you are going
>to love the difference. Any chance you could post graphs of the
>results?
I'll see about scanning them when I get a bit more time.
Yes, both from the same dyno.
>With such a great improvement in power without doing any mechanical work,
>I would imagine the old mapping was really delivering a pretty poor
>mixture. Did you have air/fuel ratio information on either run?
I have it for the new run and I imagine it's on the computer for the
old run.
I know it was running way rich.
--
Bob Mann
It may be that your sole purpose in life
is to serve as a warning to others.
Posted by Rayvan on March 14, 2008, 6:53 pm
> They just got done with the PC yesterday.
> Engine - 95", HiComp forged pistons, .211 cams, head work.
> Previous results from a 103 download into the stock ECM were 68hp and
> 78 ft-lbs. (It seemed to go much better than that would indicate)
> New results are 82.25hp and 90 ft-lbs (or is that lbs-ft?)
> Started with a 204 cam download and tweaked from there.
> Not sure if they worked the timing much but I'm looking forward to
> trying it out.
> I think there should be a bit more there and I also think our dyno is
> rating very conservatively.
> --
> Bob Mann
> It may be that your sole purpose in life
> is to serve as a warning to others.
I'd get a second opinion. Something is wrong.
Here's my graph from my bone-stock 88 inch carbed bike, then with the
new airbox/pipes/carb re-jet.
http://www.pbase.com/rayvan/image/42289899
--
Rayvan
Posted by Bob Mann on March 14, 2008, 9:39 pm
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:53:16 -0700 (PDT), Rayvan
>> They just got done with the PC yesterday.
>>
>> Engine - 95", HiComp forged pistons, .211 cams, head work.
>>
>> Previous results from a 103 download into the stock ECM were 68hp and
>> 78 ft-lbs. (It seemed to go much better than that would indicate)
>>
>> New results are 82.25hp and 90 ft-lbs (or is that lbs-ft?)
>>
>> Started with a 204 cam download and tweaked from there.
>>
>> Not sure if they worked the timing much but I'm looking forward to
>> trying it out.
>>
>> I think there should be a bit more there and I also think our dyno is
>> rating very conservatively.
>> --
>> Bob Mann
>>
>> It may be that your sole purpose in life
>> is to serve as a warning to others.
>I'd get a second opinion. Something is wrong.
>Here's my graph from my bone-stock 88 inch carbed bike, then with the
>new airbox/pipes/carb re-jet.
>http://www.pbase.com/rayvan/image/42289899
Carb bikes make more power in general.
The FI bikes "can" make more power but it is far more expensive to get
there. (Injectors, intakes etc.)
--
Bob Mann
It may be that your sole purpose in life
is to serve as a warning to others.
XML Sitemap
>
> Engine - 95", HiComp forged pistons, .211 cams, head work.
>
> Previous results from a 103 download into the stock ECM were 68hp and
> 78 ft-lbs. (It seemed to go much better than that would indicate)
>
> New results are 82.25hp and 90 ft-lbs (or is that lbs-ft?)
>
> Started with a 204 cam download and tweaked from there.
>
> Not sure if they worked the timing much but I'm looking forward to
> trying it out.
>
> I think there should be a bit more there and I also think our dyno is
> rating very conservatively.