| Author | Message | |||
     Xb9 |
Thought we could start a thread to compare LFV (Learned Fuel Value). This might be interesting to see the differences based on altitudes, and to determine norms. Thanks to the thoughtful engineers at Buell you can read your LFV by putting your bike in diagnostic mode and scrolling through the menu until you get to F LFV and R LFV. Also state your mileage, elevation and location, and any mods to engine, intake or exhaust. This should be interesting  Not only for us but maybe the Buell engineers will find some interest in it! My 1125r: Box stock 850 miles Cleveland, Ohio 1150 ft. ASL F LFV: 90 R LFV: 100 If you don't all ready know, the base setting is 100 and that is the setting when new. The value goes lower to adjust the fuel map leaner and goes higher to adjust the fuel map richer. Each cylinder (front and rear) are adjusted independently by the ECM based on feedback from the O2 sensors. You can go to http://www.wunderground.com , type in your Zip code and it will tell you the elevation. (Message edited by xb9 on April 14, 2008) | |||
| Spectrum |
Mine does not have a LFV reading. I think the data your looking for in diagnostic mode are "F ADAPT FUEL" and "R ADAPT FUEL". I assume that is what your referring to. If so here are my numbers: Stock 2600 miles Charlotte, NC 795ft ASL FAF 90 RAF 89.5 | |||
| Two_buells |
My 1125r: stock 950 miles Red Lion, Pa. 950ft. per GPS F LFV: 90 R LFV: 100 | |||
| Xb9 |
This is great, Thanks. hope we get more data. Your right Spectrum, was going by memory - memory not so good. Two-Buells, we're pretty close in mileage, elevation, and have the same values. I didn't get any adjustment in the values until after break in mileage - then just the front. I'm wondering if the front adjusts first, then the rear at some point later. I noticed when the front adjusted, all of a sudden it ran a little better. | |||
| Bdutro |
Keep in mind that almost every state has a different fuel formulation too. | |||
| Zac4mac |
Mine when I checked before the trip was 94.5 front and rear, in Colorado at about 5000 feet. It was also 94.5 at near sea level and Buell C.S.(Matt) told me it should have changed down there. Since I'm back home and that's good numbers for here, it's a non-issue. I will take a look the next time I change altitude radically. Z | |||
| Cutty72 |
Just checked mine f adapt fuel 90 r adapt fuel 95 | |||
| Zac4mac |
Are y'all getting the same numbers running or not? F Adapt fuel 94.5 R Adapt Fuel 94.5 Checked w/ motor off, then started her, no change. Z | |||
| Xb9 |
Zak, I would expect yours being a lower number in Colorado (leaner) than us at around 1000 ft? | |||
| Bearly |
99.5 FAF 94.5 RAF 2304 Miles 512 MSL (altitude) here in Downtown Purcellville VA (Message edited by bearly on April 15, 2008) | |||
| Zac4mac |
Starting to think mine DOES have an issue. If y'all go up or down significantly in altitude, does this number change? Running rich?...not much soot in the pipe tips, but the rear wheel is black more than blue. If I get my rear wheel on in time, I'll go up a couple of thousand feet and see if it changes... Z | |||
| Xb9 |
Zac, Here in Ohio we don't have huge elevation changes available like you do in the rockies, so I can't really check. Same numbers running or not. My bike was running rich during break in (I could smell it) and it was noticeably less rich after the front adjusted. No black on my rear wheel, just get's a light coating of brown soot, kinda dry but greasy feeling and hard to clean off without a degreaser of some type. I find it interesting everyone's is adjusting lower, like the base setting is rich for any case. It probably is by design that they wanted the bike rich to start with and for break in. Doesn't seem like the earlier XB's were setup like this though. 100 seemed to be more of a mean. Just speculating. | |||
| Vincent |
2600 miles 367 ft front 94 rear 94.5 Dont know if this is correct but zack is much higher than me with same readout??? | |||
| Xb9 |
Zac, is your bike stock? I thought I read a post about you drilling your exhaust outlets or something. Any other mods to the engine/intake/exhaust? | |||
| Zac4mac |
Yes I opened the exhaust into the next chamber forward. 5/8", couldn't go any further without piercing the outer shell. I had the same numbers before and after. First time I went into Diag Mode, it was 94.5, hasn't budged. Didn't have a clue what it meant, but it's constant. Jeff at High Country bought one, so I'll check with him and see what his shows. Z | |||
| Bigdog_tim |
Ok - stupid question - how do you put the bike in diagnostic mode? I can't seem to find it in the owners manual. | |||
| Cutty72 |
bigdog with key off hold both toggle and mode buttons down and turn on key. Don't worry, I just figured it out myself. | |||
| Jpfive |
At 2889 miles, my adaptive fuel values are 100, front and rear. I am on the coast, running near sea level. I am not sure, though, that barometric adjustments will be reflected in these values - as these readings probably just adjust the basic map with a coefficient as they happen. I hope that there will be some in-depth detail on the functioning of the DDFI III in the service manual. Checked with the dealership parts manager today, BTW, and he shows an expected ship date now of May 15th for the manual. Jack | |||
| Nickcaro |
5300 miles inner air-box cover removed 10 - 400 ft f = 95 r = 100 | |||
| Trw |
800 miles Stock bike 10ft above sea level F-100 R-100 Is this good or bad? It never changes. | |||
| Xb9 |
Trw, yours may stay at 100 since you are at or near sea level just like Jpfive;I don't think it means anything "good or bad" that it is still at 100, especially at sea level. I did not observe a change until after 800 miles so it may still be a little early for yours if it is going to adjust. (Message edited by xb9 on April 17, 2008) | |||
| C4bird |
700 miles Stock bike 2700ft elevation F-100 R-100 | |||
| Zac4mac |
Hey - could some of you that haven't posted your numbers take a look and add yours? This is something that will only make sense with LOTS of data. I want to start a spreadsheet, but need more info. Thanks Zack | |||
| Rocketray |
3600 miles Stock Bike 4500 ft elevation (home) riding elevation 4500 to 9000 ft F- 94.5 R- 90.0 (Message edited by RocketRay on April 26, 2008) | |||
| Zac4mac |
This makes NO sense. Hopefully my Electrical Diagnostic Manual will show up today and I can look for an explanation. Otherwise, sounds like a call to BMC-CS...
It's a log graph, need to expand it vertically to see the AF values. Z | |||
| Xl1200r |
You're going to need a LOT more data and more sophisticated graph than excel can do. You need a 3-axis grpah so you can take mileage into account as well. | |||
| Zac4mac |
yeah, eleven data points aren't even scratching the surface... I thought of that, also a helpful data point would be "run quality", but unless you've encountered a radical elevation change, you have no point for comparison. Mine runs smoothly at elevation but was very rough at sea level. If apples are apples, I would expect Vincent's to be running like mine was down there, rough. I think apples are grapes right now. Z | |||
| Doerman |
Showing the data (front and rear) as a function of altitude does not clarify anything either.
It tells me that not enough sample values have been collected. Or that reading mechanism has errors or the fuel map does not correct for altitude correctly. Go figure.. Fun study. I live at 530 and can easily ride up to 5000 in a few minutes, so I'll get some data this weekend. Cheers Asbjorn | |||
| Xb9 |
Yea, I don't think we should be looking at anything with less than 1000 miles. Mines at 1050 miles and holding the same values as earlier reported: F Adapt fuel: 90 R Adapt fuel: 100 WE NEED MORE DATA PLEASE! | |||
| Cataract2 |
Ew, that's all over the place. Not real set pattern. |
