| Author | Message | ||
     Barker |
What do yall think? What else could I do to my map? I could not compare to stock, but after with the map I gained power across the curve and I think I got my Air/Fuell curve looking decent. What do yall think? 09 1125R, 48 state, 09-10112/M3HUS142 FMF Apex slip-on w/o quiet core stock air box/filter De-noided "Old Sweaty Balls" 5th gear http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpDjsefX6u8  (Message edited by barker on January 27, 2010) | ||
| Ccryder |
Wish we could have done ours together. We will always be comparing red balls to orange balls ;+} Besides that it looks ok. Too bad the advertising takes up soooo much of the page instead of the real information. What gear? Neil S. | ||
| Blackflash |
what kind of packing is it constructed with? Its a very nice looking piece.Is it a straight through style?  | ||
| Moosestang |
I'm no tuner, but i'd try adding a little more fuel everywhere. Surely someone knows what A/F ratio makes the best power. I'd expect 12.5-13.00, no? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
A/F is just below 14 per the graph. | ||
| Sharkytattoo |
Stoichiometric air-fuel ratios of common fuels Fuel By mass By volume [2] Percent fuel by mass Gasoline 14.7 : 1 — 6.8% Natural gas 17.2 : 1 9.7 : 1 7.9% Propane (LP) 15.5 : 1 23.9 : 1 6.45% Ethanol 9 : 1 — 11.1% Methanol 6.4 : 1 — 15.6% Hydrogen 34 : 1 2.39 : 1 2.9% Diesel 14.6 : 1 0.094 : 1 6.8% | ||
| Moosestang |
Stoichiometric air-fuel ratios of common fuels Fuel By mass By volume [2] Percent fuel by mass Gasoline 14.7 : 1 — 6.8% Natural gas 17.2 : 1 9.7 : 1 7.9% Propane (LP) 15.5 : 1 23.9 : 1 6.45% Ethanol 9 : 1 — 11.1% Methanol 6.4 : 1 — 15.6% Hydrogen 34 : 1 2.39 : 1 2.9% Diesel 14.6 : 1 0.094 : 1 6.8% Ummmmmmm, hugh? 14.7:1 is for the most complete combustion, that doesn't mean it will make the most power. | ||
| Redscuell |
Experience shows that's quite an ordinary result. And other posts indicate that stock R's can equal those results. So, objectively, the mods were not worthwhile for you. Also, yes, stoich is not our objective when making power; stoich would be a pollution control objective. Instead, AMCN magazine has stated, as has my dyno tuner, that 12-13 is the power-making range for m/cs. | ||
| D_adams |
14.7:1 is stoich for gas and is from an engineering standpoint a complete burn, best "mean, lean" mix is 14:1 for mileage. Best power is 13.2-12.8:1 and beyond that is considered "rich" to the point of not making additional power. Sure, it will run cooler, but it's a small waste of fuel. I have a chart somewhere in my books from school a long time ago, but those are the numbers I seem to remember. I think if you get to 11.5:1 or lower, you end up fouling the plugs a lot. | ||
| Fresnobuell |
No baseline comparison. That's where everything falls apart. It's impossible to tell if the mods made a difference. What if the dyno is 10HP conservative--then the 127 looks mighty good. | ||
| Barker |
I guess it could use a bit more fuell. The FMF is fuell hungry. I am @ 120 afv. The fuell curve in the image stays between 13.9 and 13.5. I could add more fuell globally. I remember reading some wher that max power is @ 13.2. Does that sound right? | ||
| Justa4banger |
OK.... so we now have a list of Stoich for all these fuels..... and then???? Yes i would say that dyno show your bike is lean.. too lean for me.. i would;t drive it around..its safer and would probably make more power if the a/f ratio was in the high 12's to 13:1.... go get a EBR race ecm for 250.00 try it out and get back with us  | ||
| D_adams |
Very valid point there. Mine feels stronger with the exhaust I built, but the dyno shows no difference between it and stock. Sure, the runs were done over a month apart, but I had a valid baseline, followed by a stock modified run and they were near identical. Even with the difference in dates, the temps were near the same, so I consider mine to show correct results. Maybe it's just me, but I think the sound alone is worth the money, time and effort. | ||
| Justa4banger |
i would stick with 12.8-13.... to be safe... as weather warms up things get a bit hotter.. | ||
| D_adams |
Wow, 120 AFV already? Are you using the PFU or just the manual tuning method and just adjusting the map globally? Max power should be between 12.8 and 13.2:1 so you're getting closer. Mine ran on the lean side, but I'm not concerned that it will explode on me. It's been running like that stock for 12,000 miles already and it's just fine. Just did the 12k valve service 2 weeks ago, everything was just peachy. I could have reused the spark plugs, they were a very nice tan color. | ||
| Fresnobuell |
All this talk is gonna make me add a couple points of fuel to my AFVs this weekend. | ||
| D_adams |
Pfffft, it's gonna be 10-12 degrees at night here with highs in the 20's all week. No riding for me yet. Guess I got lucky last week that it hit 36 to run to the dealer for a dyno run. | ||
| Barker |
pfu @ 120, mpg not so good anymore. SOP meter says it has a lot more umph than stock and just the slip-on. | ||
| D_adams |
Just a fyi, 14:1 gets you the best fuel mileage. I got a lot of good info from a very nice tuner yesterday, started doing more research as well. Where your bike is at now, it's probably getting close to it's max HP numbers. I'm guessing that to gain more, you'd need to start playing with individual cells, but from what I've heard, the pfu is optimized fairly good. It may not be perfect, but it should be close. What was your mpg before and what's it at now? Also, has your riding style changed significantly? | ||
| Barker |
No riding style changes. Inter state cruz mpg went from a stock 40ish to 30ish with the pipe/fuelling. | ||
| D_adams |
I have just stumbled across some very interesting stuff here. I will be investigating this much more after work tonight. http://14point7.com/forum/index.php?topic=590.0 Not for the faint of heart, this is the nitty-gritty tuning stuff. $125 for a wideband controller setup? Yeah, the catch is, you gotta build it yourself. Guess what I'll probably be doing soon. | ||
| Blackflash |
A bird chirped in my ear once that these bikes have made the best power at 13.1 high rpms to 13.5 low side.More dyno testing tommorrow to comfirm this. | ||
| Justa4banger |
zeitronix makes a great wbo2 setup...catch is that it needs dashdaq or laptop to datalog.. good for a dyno but not so good while riding.. cool thing is that you can data log a bunch of stuff, just need to buy some sensors zeitronix is 279.00 | ||
| Blake |
Looks good to me. One question: Why not run it all the way to the rev limit, 10,500 rpm? | ||
| Barker |
after looking @ my video footage I noticed the IAT=132 ! | ||
| Redscuell |
"Just a fyi, 14:1 gets you the best fuel mileage." My own experience doesn't agree with that: I had mine richened up from that range to 12/13:1, and my fuel mileage skyrocketed from 35 mpg to 40 mpg on the identical commute (600 km/week). | ||
| Skntpig |
That doesn't surprise me you need more fuel than normal to get good power and mileage. A head design that will allow you to run pump gas with 12.3/1 comp means it is VERY efficient and gets rid of the charge with good velocity. | ||
| Captain_america |
From My Experience Of Tuning Hi-Po Cars I Alway Find The Most Power At 12.5-12.8:1 Depending On The Motor Build. I'd Say A Motor Like This Pulling Around 16" Of Vacuum @ 1250RPM (Which Would Be significantly Lower At 900) I Would Shoot For 12.6-12.7 Has Anyone Achieved This? | ||
| Highscore |
There is no rule of thumb for the A/F-ratio, the value depends on the design of the engine (combustion chamber lay out) and state of tune (i.e. ignition timing). 13:1 or Lambda 0,88 (I prefer this scale) is a nice base line and seldom really bad, engine hurting mixture, but for example a new Suzuki GSX/R 1000 loses power, if operated with this A/F-ratio, Lambda 0,92 makes better performance. Furthermore large bore engines prefer more fuel and a rather rich A/F ratio, especially if the compression ratio is also rather high. This is valid for most modern 4-valve pent roof V2 and single mororcyle engines. So KTMs and Ducs like Lambda 12,3 Lambda 0,85 to deliver best performance. The Helicon-engine has according my own testing the same preference for fuel. It is a fast and simple test for a new engine to vary the A/F-ration and check its influence for performance. This shows the "window" for A/F-ratio, wherein the mixture should be kept. In case of the Helicon-engine this "window" goes from Lambda 0,82 to Lambda 0,87. Within this boundaries the performance is pretty identical. This is only valid for a stock bike with stock ECU and of course for high engine loads. Under light loads the engine may be operated without any problems by a leaner mixture. When discussing A/F-ratios there will occur the same trouble as for dyno-numbers: Who is measuring right and true. I use a special lambda-meter calibrated by a span gas. But there is an independent and simple routine to check if a lambda meter is far off for its readings: In idle the stock ECU) executes Lambda 1 or 14,7:1. The value oscillates continuously slightly from the rich side 14,5:1 or 0.98- 0,99 to Lambda 1. As long as you see this values on the display your wide band meter, it is calibrated sufficiently. (Message edited by Highscore on January 27, 2010) |
