V-Twin Forum banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
241 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
First I'd like to thank Steve once again for putting together an awesome kit and for the great service. :thumbsup:

Keep in mind that I only have 250 miles on my setup with the ThunderMax Autotune management. It runs smooth, pulls like crazy and has no bad manners. The map is pretty close after I made some changes but will contimue to tweak it some.

Results are SAE Corrected 114 hp & 108 tq on a Superflow dyno. A bit lower than I hoped for but feel it will improve some as the TMAT learns.

I also had Steve weld/cc my heads to flow simular to R&R cast heads and run a D&D Fatcat pipe. I do have a slight dip in the hp/tq curve between 3200 to 4000 rpms. I'm open to any suggestions. Below is my setup:

Engine
98" Rev Performance Cylinders
CP 10:6:1 compression dome pistons
.615/.585 gear drive cams
Welded and CNC heads flow similar to R&R Cast Heads
1.90 / 1.62 valves
HD compression releases
EZ adjustable pushrods
TP roller rockers
GMR roller lifters
Baisley oil pressure spring
Cometic gaskets
Zipper’s 320 cfm a/c
D&D Fat Cats 2 into 1 pipe
SE 50mm Throttle Body/Injectors

Drivetrain
Baker DD6, 6 speed (3.24 1st gear)
SE clutch spring

Electrical
ThunderMax with Autotune

I also have a question pertaining to dynos. What is different between a SuperFlow and a Dynojet? Which is more accurate?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,114 Posts
You sound as happy as a new father with your build...that's good. I wanted to comment on your dip in the torque, that is in every Fat Cat I ever tuned. No matter what the configuration of the build the Fat Cat has the same characteristic dip at 3000 to 4000 rpm (or in that area). I wouldn't worry too much about the dip....no other pipe produces the tq like the Fat Cat does at 1500 to 2500 rpm.

As far as which dyno is more accurate....good luck with that question, this will open a BIG can of worms here on this forum.
I'm partial to the Dyno Jet, it's what I use and I believe it is the leader in this industry not only from how it is built but also in the winPEP 7 software.
 

·
<><
Joined
·
3,971 Posts
Good numbers - you should be happy! Post a pic of your dyno sheet when you get a chance.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,037 Posts
how about with the quiet baffle?

HDMD88 said:
You sound as happy as a new father with your build...that's good. I wanted to comment on your dip in the torque, that is in every Fat Cat I ever tuned. No matter what the configuration of the build the Fat Cat has the same characteristic dip at 3000 to 4000 rpm (or in that area). I wouldn't worry too much about the dip....no other pipe produces the tq like the Fat Cat does at 1500 to 2500 rpm.

As far as which dyno is more accurate....good luck with that question, this will open a BIG can of worms here on this forum.
I'm partial to the Dyno Jet, it's what I use and I believe it is the leader in this industry not only from how it is built but also in the winPEP 7 software.
I've heard that the rumor is that the "quiet" baffle is better down lower in the RPM's and has less of the dip but you do give up qa little in the 5000 and up range. If that is the case so what.....who really runs a bagger over 5000 often.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,741 Posts
roofeditor, I know a lot of baggers that drag race, so, a lot of them go over 5000 a lot. ;) in the organization we race in, there is a Street Dresser class.

Doc, the dyno thing is a really interesting topic. SuperFlow, Factory Pro, DJ, etc. Which one has the least "issues". This one could get emotional.

Abnmarine, one of the issues we see with the Auto Tuners is that nobody gets a perfect spark advance curve in them to start with for what that combination wants. To do it right and to optimize it, a good tuner needs to get their hands on it, on the dyno.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
332 Posts
as a fellow power addict and rider....i can tell ya to leave it alone and ride it....i'm bettin it runs stronger'n most on the streets now....i know this, i been thru it with bout the same build....chasin power can be an unendin cycle....at some point, ya gotta just love it and ride it....personally, mines done til i twist a crank or smoke it some other way....hats off to you....hats off to Steve....aint it grand :woohoo:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
241 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Thanks everyone for the replies.

I'm learning the software and needed to make my speedo correct. I started off leaning out my fuel curves from 13:1 to 14:1 between 1700-2800 rpm when under 30% throttle. This is where I cruise at and wish to get decent mileage. Prior to the changes, I got 39 mpg on backroads.

I put my laptop in my tourpack and started datalogging. I went out for a long ride to record everything. I ended up stopping 6 times to change the speedo settings but now have it correct (Baker DD6 with 18" wheels).

I'm lovin this TMAT especially when datalogging. I came home and replayed the file and when cruising, I remained between 13:8 to 14:2 AFR. Perfect! The bike felt more responsive too.

I'm leaving the AFR alone now. I have it set at 12:8:1 during WOT. I will put a few more miles on it and datalog some WOT runs.

Later I may play with the timing tables. No rush for that right now as the bike runs damn good. No hesitation, sputters or popping ever. I like making my own adjustments as I did the same with my EFI superchargers Mustang a few years ago that had a stand alone engine management. That one made 750 rwhp and I drove it to work. :wootdnc:

GMR Kits are awesome! Bike pulls some good torque on the street. I'm more than satisfied.
 

·
Sub Par Member
Joined
·
769 Posts
Congrats on the build.

I've got the same torque dip in my GMR 107" build with the FatCat with quiet baffle, using pretty much the same TMax map as you. Except, the map I'm using, #359, is for the SE 4.89 gm/s injectors. I think the rest of the map is the same.

I increased the timing a bit in that area today and it seems a bit better. Don't want to do too much without someone more qualified looking over my shoulder.

You're actaully getting a bit more hp out of your 98" than I am on the 107". Peak torque is about the same.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
241 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Snaps said:
Congrats on the build.

I've got the same torque dip in my GMR 107" build with the FatCat with quiet baffle, using pretty much the same TMax map as you. Except, the map I'm using, #359, is for the SE 4.89 gm/s injectors. I think the rest of the map is the same.

I increased the timing a bit in that area today and it seems a bit better. Don't want to do too much without someone more qualified looking over my shoulder.

You're actaully getting a bit more hp out of your 98" than I am on the 107". Peak torque is about the same.
I'm using map #307. I posted the wrong map # in the other thread. Glad to hear the dip is normal. Do you think it will get even better after putting more miles on the TMAT?
 

·
Sub Par Member
Joined
·
769 Posts
Abnmarine said:
I'm using map #307. I posted the wrong map # in the other thread. Glad to hear the dip is normal. Do you think it will get even better after putting more miles on the TMAT?
Map #307 is for a Zipper's 95" with Rinehart True Duals, 9.5:1 dome pistons, and the 4.22 gm/s injectors. What made you decide on that one? Sounds like it's working pretty well, though.

My experience with the TMAT is that it gets better during the first 500 miles, or so. After that, I think any noticeable seat of the pants changes have already been made, but it's always fine tuning for changing conditions. My problem is I can't leave the damn thing alone.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
241 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Snaps said:
Map #307 is for a Zipper's 95" with Rinehart True Duals, 9.5:1 dome pistons, and the 4.22 gm/s injectors. What made you decide on that one? Sounds like it's working pretty well, though.

My experience with the TMAT is that it gets better during the first 500 miles, or so. After that, I think any noticeable seat of the pants changes have already been made, but it's always fine tuning for changing conditions. My problem is I can't leave the damn thing alone.
Sorry man. I just pulled it up again and it is #359.
 

·
I paid.........did you??
Joined
·
2,301 Posts
roofeditor said:
I've heard that the rumor is that the "quiet" baffle is better down lower in the RPM's and has less of the dip but you do give up qa little in the 5000 and up range. If that is the case so what.....who really runs a bagger over 5000 often.
The baffle diameter of the standard baffle and the quiet baffle are exactly the same. The only difference between the two baffles is the outer can.......on the standard baffle the outer can is solid and on the quiet baffle it is perforated with wrapping.

Steve
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
621 Posts
Abnmarine said:
Results are SAE Corrected 114 hp & 108 tq on a Superflow dyno. A bit lower than I hoped for but feel it will improve some as the TMAT learns.
Congratulations on your build! You have good numbers for the build.

The TMAX will tune in better over time, 250 miles is still low. I had to change my Maximum CLP offset to 40% to allow partial throttle tuning with my TB. As pointed out in another post, timing can be tuned better with a good tuner if you are wanting all the performance she can give.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
550 Posts
If you keep at it, you or an experienced tuner with a dyno should be able to get rid of that dip between 3,000 and 4,000 rpm. I had one with my break-in map, but my tuner was able to eliminate it. I have a similiar build as you, and I also run a Fatcat.
 

Attachments

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
241 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
nc-renegade said:
Congratulations on your build! You have good numbers for the build.

The TMAX will tune in better over time, 250 miles is still low. I had to change my Maximum CLP offset to 40% to allow partial throttle tuning with my TB. As pointed out in another post, timing can be tuned better with a good tuner if you are wanting all the performance she can give.
Thanks. I put 371 miles on it today thru the mountains.

She is running so damn good too. Yesterday I leaned out my af ratios in my cruise rpms to 14:1:1 and today got 50 mpg on back roads. Got 44 mpg running thru the mountains and twisties. It ran good but a tad hotter than I wanted so I richened it up to 13:8:1 to see what that does.

Pretty damn good mileage for a full bagger making 114 hp in a 98" kit with heads & cam. Course the 6 speed helps. Hell my stock setup with pipes, AC and PCIII only got 36 mpg and made 74 hp. I knew that tune was too rich though.

The ThunderMax with Autotune is the heat! It didn't miss a beat the whole day riding from sea level to 4,000 ft. I'm loving it!

If I do have someone tune it on a dyno, I will go to Zipper's direct. They are an hour from me and who would know their system any better than them?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
241 Posts
Discussion Starter #18

·
IronButt
Joined
·
6,364 Posts
We have found that the quite baffle has lessend the dip on some tunes it is gone. The bikes that have swapped over to it all have made a bit more tq and hp through the curve. Some have made the same peak numbers, but the curve cam on higher and dropped a bit on the peak rpm. I would take a broader curve over peak numbers any day.

Would love to see the dyno sheet, glad to hear you are happy with the build. How do you like how fast the engines revs??
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
241 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
HDWRENCH said:
We have found that the quite baffle has lessend the dip on some tunes it is gone. The bikes that have swapped over to it all have made a bit more tq and hp through the curve. Some have made the same peak numbers, but the curve cam on higher and dropped a bit on the peak rpm. I would take a broader curve over peak numbers any day.

Would love to see the dyno sheet, glad to hear you are happy with the build. How do you like how fast the engines revs??
I may get the quiet baffle to lessen the noise some. I ride to work at 80 mph so it will help some. I've also heard good this regarding the improvements. Keep in mind that this run was done with no tuning adjustments. It ran rich at 12:5:1 and I haven't even started playing with the timing tables.

My scanner as home sucks ass. I'll try to scan it at work tomorrow.

Yeah it revs quick! I definately have to be ready to grab the next gear. Thanks Steve. :wootdnc:
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top