| Author | Message | ||
     Jeffb |
Dynodave, I am glad your bike is running well. If you look back at my post on the 91", I said "so far 109 hp" Due to some valve train problems, the engine hasn't made power over 6000rpm. You are correct that my engine isn't making the power it should. Also, directly comparing dyno numbers here doesn't really accomplish much. Dyno's are not that consistant. Retail on the 91" is $7400. | ||
| Dynodave |
Jeff, The point that I am trying to make is that more is generally NOT better!! For example, on the 88 incher, I first did a pull with a very large and loud muffler. Peak torque was at 5500 RPM and it was 100 ft-lbs; peak HP was 105. We put in a smaller muffler and the torque peak moved down to 5000 RPM and it increased to 105 ft-lbs. In fact, the torque curve on the smaller muffler buried the larger muffler at ALL RPMs, providing a peak increase of 15 HP at 7000 RPM, to 120. This engine is also running small valves, a mild cam (.490 lift) and just a 42 mm Mikuni. You would do well to consider a conservative and balanced approach to the tuning to get the flattest possible torque curve. | ||
| Dynodave |
Speaking of less, I got a REAL good look at the Buell Pro Thunder Race bikes at Laguna; and it didn't hurt at all to have Eric Buell right beside me discussing them with me, either. They get 130 RWHP with a slightly shorter stroke and 7500 RPM red line. (1340 cc vs 1450 cc w/3.813 bore) Yes, Ralph, they use the ALUMINUM cylinders Just Like Mine. (No coincidence; I patterned my motor off the S1 that Tilley was campaigning in '99.) The block is stock; and it appears to be put together with glue just like Yankee Enginuity did mine. They use an externally stock looking head with the Blast rocker covers and NASCAR valve springs. Carburation is provided by 2 stock-looking CV carbs on 2" muffler pipe runners looking to be about 8" long. The pipes appear to be the race pipe setup. with a V&H shortie muffler; again not that much different from my setup. Hmmm...it appears that I am just that far from being able to run with the Big Boys...Time for another talk with Duncan at Yankee Enginuity. | ||
| Holligandave |
Curious about racing fuel....There is a store nearby selling 110 octane that is promoting more POWER. Anyone else tried it with improved results? Is it true that with a high performance O2 sensor to stay away from leaded fuel?? | ||
| Buellx1nc |
Holligandave: 02 Sensors DO NOT like Leaded Fuel. The fastest way to kill an 02 sensor is to hit it with a tank full of leaded fuel. Union 76 sells and unleaded racing fuel, it is not cheap but he octane is > 114 Ride Safe Tom | ||
| Blake |
High octane will not give more power to your Buell. High octane is for predetonation protection in higher compression engines. Higher octane fuel generally has less usable energy content than lower octane fuel. Use the lowest applicable octane for your timing and compression settings. Pump octane of 93 is fine at/near sea level. | ||
| Schemky |
Question, I am (seriously) considering the following mods for my 99M2: .495 H-D Cam Kooks header system Stage 1 porting on the heads (maybe) 10.5:1 hurricane pistons This will be used with a Baker 6-speed and the stock final drive ratio maintained. My M2 makes great torque and I want to maintain the low rpm grunt to complement the 6-speed. My primary use is touring and weekend corner carving on some awesome Ozark mountain roads. Anyone with any or all of these mods performed? | ||
| Aaron |
Schemky: Basically you're talkng about an S1W with Brian's stage 1 work and pistons ... take a look here to see about how that should run. Similar setup. I think we could've broke 100 if we had time to mess with the jetting. AW | ||
| Schemky |
Thanks Aaron, You've been quite astute at pointing out things that work well and things that do not. I respect your input. It appears as though my biggest concern, the loss of torque, is not a problem. The link you provided to the dyno chart indicates excellent torque where it matters most. Any scooter that pushes 100 hp is a "full meal deal" no matter how you slice it. Incidentally, will a 100 hp buell accelerate as fast as a high rpm 100 hp oriental bike with similiar overall weight? You wouldn't happen to have some good used .495 cams laying around would you? | ||
| Vr1203 |
Hi, I'm having problems with my turbo installation.It has full throttle stuttering that I can't remove with the normal jetting/needle changes.Any ideas?  | ||
| Blake |
Ensure the float bowl pressure feed is sealed well. The extra pressure from the turbo might require a more thorough job. If the pressure feed is nice and tight and clear, try raising the level in the float bowl a little. | ||
| Aaron |
Schemky: not likely without the same gearbox and weight. | ||
| Vr1203 |
Blake, It has a float bowl overflow that I sealed off.The fuel pump pumps fuel at 1 1/2 to 2 lbs. more than the boost.I have to check the operation of that system today.I set the float level per Aerochargers instructions.Are you suggesting that I need a pressure line from the plenum to the bowl?Wouldn't it see pressure internally? | ||
| Blake |
VR1203: The float bowl gets it's pressure (air pressure) from a feed at the carb inlet. The fuel pump pressure does need to be able to overcome the float bowl air pressure, but as long as it can keep the bowl filled, fuel line/pump pressure has no effect on carburation. The turbo kit should keep the air pressure feed at the mouth of the carb (no change from std config). Since the pressure feed originates at the carb inlet (after the turbo) it allows the higher pressure (charged) air to also be fed to the float bowl. Under normal circumstances a leaky or partially blocked pressure feed to the float bowl might not have any consequence; however with the turbo you could end up with significantly lower pressure in the float bowl than at the carb inlet. That could result in a real lean mixture at WOT. Did the turbo kit instructions say to seal the overflow? That might also have something to do with your problem. Seems unlikely though. Try new spark plugs too. | ||
| Vr1203 |
Hi, Blake. Yes the instructions were to seal off the overflow. I installed a set of 1 step colder spark plugs from stock.Today I called Aerocharger they recommended a #200 main,a stock needle. I installed those items and did notice a improvement.Tonight I ran an experiment,I wanted to find out if I had any boost leaks.I took a can coozy, duct-taped it to a vacuum hose,removed the air cleaner from the turbo inlet and installed the vacuum hose with the coozy as an adapter. Installing the hose on the exhaust of my shop vac.I saw about 3# of "boost".I found a little fitting on the back side of the plenum leaking real bad, I'll fix that tomorrow. | ||
| Blake |
The float bowl air feed tap is in the carb's plenum area. The circuit runs internal to the carb (no external tubes/hoses). If that's where the leak is, that may be your problem. Let us know. | ||
| Vr1203 |
Blake , I believe the port above the left screw on the flange where the air cleaner would have been is what you are referring to. It was leaking at that piont, the hold down plate is warped. I used a rubber gasket and it seemed to help. | ||
| Blake |
VRTurbo: You realize that if my guess ends up being correct, my already overblown ego will become absolutely intollerable. I'm sure y'all will yank me and my ego back to reality though.  | ||
| Vr1203 |
Blake,As The Turbo Turns! Yes the sealing of the area around the fuel bowl port did help. I think it was more of the effect of maintaining boost. That area was critical with the fuel bowl port close by. I have it sealed. I still had studdering.This where the power of the Internet comes into play. A person, Doug C. reading the ongoing saga e-mailed me and suggested a few things, having gone through the same problems.He suggested stretching the slide spring.Also he sent his carb settings. I had wondered if the slide in the CV carb was bouncing giving me the studdering effect. The modified spring helped.But as I was riding to work that day(Norton)I realized I could block off the boost from the diaphragm,use a stock(or my dynajet) spring,my thunderjet slide and get some throttle response back. It worked! Somewhat anyway. I still have to find a way to get the wheelies back! | ||
| Johnnybravo |
does any one know if the turbo that they sell for the buell s1 will fit a 00 m2? | ||
| Vr1203 |
JohnnyB, The exhaust is different.Aerocharger is the kit you're referring too ? They have a good web page. The S1 rear header pipe is outside the frame and the newer models are inside the frame.There might be other diffs. too. But you can make anything work if you try hard enough! I guess I hav'nt tried that hard , I've an appointment with a turbo bike specialist in Chicago. He's with Hahne. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Serious Blake Bait... I am wondering what the "effective" power gain is from lowering of rotational mass. I believe that extra rotational mass robs power exponentially (where non spinning mass robs power in a linear fashion), but have no idea what the derivation would look like. At some point, I think I overheard someone who was trying to sell lighter rear sprockets claim that reducing rotational mass by one pound gave an effective 7 horsepower power improvement. This sounds WAY too high to me, but I remember Blake doing some calculations on power loss from the belt that were suprisingly high as well, so who knows. What I am getting at is "effective" power from the upcoming firebolt. If that front wheel is 5 pounds lighter then an R1 (Buell claims 7lbs less unsprung weight, assume 2 pounds for extra rotor and caliper), and the figure I heard above is correct (which I doubt), that is effectively a 35 HP boost (which makes me doubt it even more). So anyone know any reliable rules of thumb for this kinda stuff? Blake, want to do the derivatiion for us? Bill "who only takes electrical or programming bait thanks" Kilgallon | ||
| Vr1203 |
More turbo blues. Elton Fish was the person that I was going to have help me. He's now too buzy. Is there a outfit that has wrestled these turbos before? They need to be around the midwest somewhere,with a dyno of course. | ||
| Tripper |
Oops, bad assumption. The caliper is the same size as current ones. The rotor is slightly larger diameter than any currently available (375mm vs 340 on current Buells and 320 for R1), but notice that there is NO ROTOR CARRIER! hmmmmm, I wonder if Buells claim of 7 lbs wieght savings of the front wheel compared to the R1 is conservative. The perimeter brake system would appear to contrbute even more weight savings to the total wheel package.  | ||
| Reepicheep |
I think the claim was relative to an Yammy R1, which I think held the previous record for low unsprung weight. In that comparison, I meant the 2 lbs for extra caliper (which the Buell will not have, being single disk). So it is 7 pounds less then the unsprung weight of an R1. I did mistate myself though, I should not have included the extra rotor, which of course IS rotational mass. Thats very confusing. Let me just restate my question. I was just doing the Firebolt Versus R1 thing, and seeing if they actually end up a lot closer then they might look at first blush, due to unexpectedly low horsepower losses due to the exceptionally low rotational mass. Assuming that 5 pounds of the unsprung weight savings are rotational (big unlikely assumption number one) and that 1 less pound of rotational mass is roughly equal to a 7 horsepower gain (even less likely), that would be an effective 35 horsepower boost for the Firebolt, that actually puts it in reach of the Yammy R1 / Honda F4i. But like I said, I don't think it is nearly this significant.. so I would like to see the derivation and see what the difference really is. | ||
| Jmartz |
Reepicheap: Along those lines... I have often entertained the thought of using Titanium rods on a Buell. Given th rpm limited nature of the motor, a lighter reciprocating group would do wonders for rpm rise rate and "bottom end strength". Since forces rise with the square of the velocity (rpm) a modest reduction in weight can represent a large increse of the rpm where forces acting on the crank are back to same level. Unfortunately I don't know what to do about the valve train at 8000 rpm. jose | ||
| Lsr_Bbs |
Well, if your going to pop for Ti rods and I'd assume some lighter pistons ($$$$$$) the vavletrain would/could be lots of things. Ti or c/f pushrods. Ti or Mag rockers. Ti valves. Hey it's only money... Neil Garretson X0.5 | ||
| Lsr_Bbs |
...but to get what??? Maybe a reliable engine that will do 9,000 rpm...maybe...maybe reliable...and assuredly cost big $$$$$$$$$$. Now, why not have a DOHC setup on the firebolt mill for high reving fun??? This is one thing I'm surprised to [not] see on the new bike. Rumor was that it was easily converted to belt-driven DOHC from the current pushrod....the engine pics sure to support this. I'll gladly adjust valves and/or replace belts for reliable 120+rwhp...one of the most over-hyped bits of maintenance. Neil Garretson X0.5 | ||
| Jmartz |
The only reason for shelling out the dollars to make a fast Buell would be the trick factor. You would also get a very good performing bike off the line, maybe the best there is. Even with an 8 or 9K red line, the race pretty much needs to be over soon or the high revving jap rider will whizz by. Maybe one could embarass a 996 Duc. I was ready to ask Randy at Hyperfromance to build me a set of standard stroke rods but figured that if I was building big, I also needed to consider 4" bore and shorter stroke. Needless to say I'm still hoping for that day whan I can blow 15K in a motor that will make 150 RWHP and spin up to 8500 rpm. jose | ||
| Jmartz |
LSR I could not have been more disapponted when I saw a repackaged Sportster motor in the Fireblast. Instantly gone were my deams of new Buell that could actually run with the competition. That said, I think this new model will outperform anything in the current lineup which according to some might soon begin a gradual phase out. |
