TTS Mastertune Information
#121
#124
jluvs2ride
If your looking for a product to make it work like Mastertune, NO there is no add-on product that will do that.
#125
Rode the bike today for a quick test with the new mufllers AC and TTS man what a difference feels like a new bike!!!! Only thing I didn't like was a little decel popping if I twist it hard and get off it real fast it popped a few times..Now I only rode it under 2 miles as I was stretched for time today could this be maybe from not being warmed up all the way or from the tune?? What cables do I need to hook to my 08 Ultra and if I remeber right the connector is under the left cover?
#126
What's coming is an update for all models that we support with a new feature and the calibrations for 2005 and 2006 that were not there before. Calibrations to work with 2005 and 2006 Big Twin to convert to closed loop operation and V-rod calibrations.
Then the release of the update process for old SERT owners to convert to Mastertune for 2005 and newer bikes.
Then the release of the update process for old SERT owners to convert to Mastertune for 2005 and newer bikes.
Mark
#127
I'm getting ready to do an engine build from a 96" to a 107". I currently have a TMAX with A/T, but my builder sells and highly recommends the TTS. I'd really appreciate everyone's input as to which way I should go with this build. Currently I'm about 50/50 as to which way to go. But, it looks like with the input Steve has here on the forum, it may now be 75/25 as Zipper's help is normally anything but. Thanks in advance all.
Mike
Mike
#128
#129
I'm getting ready to do an engine build from a 96" to a 107". I currently have a TMAX with A/T, but my builder sells and highly recommends the TTS. I'd really appreciate everyone's input as to which way I should go with this build. Currently I'm about 50/50 as to which way to go. But, it looks like with the input Steve has here on the forum, it may now be 75/25 as Zipper's help is normally anything but. Thanks in advance all.
#130
Steve,
I am curious about the Closed Loop Bias Tables, and the resulting AFR. I have read that you recommend keeping the number set where it is (486) as you see this as the right balance between performance and economy.
What (non-mathmatic) values, or assumptions go into this recommendation?
The reason I ask is that, if I am reading the calculator correctly, that 486 number results in an AFR of ~14.67, which is only academicaly different than the Stoichiometric AFR on the calculator of 14.68, and which is mighty close to the stock 14.7 (as I have heard it reported to be)
A 2nd aspect to this question is that as a consequence of the above I am wondering if I am missing something. I've been hearing that AFRs down into the mid 13s are appealing to some because of cooler running engines and more power. I am personally thinking something in the middle, say 14.2 is a good balance (a number of 803 in the bias tables). Does this seem reasonable or a good idea?
Thanks, Steve
I am curious about the Closed Loop Bias Tables, and the resulting AFR. I have read that you recommend keeping the number set where it is (486) as you see this as the right balance between performance and economy.
What (non-mathmatic) values, or assumptions go into this recommendation?
The reason I ask is that, if I am reading the calculator correctly, that 486 number results in an AFR of ~14.67, which is only academicaly different than the Stoichiometric AFR on the calculator of 14.68, and which is mighty close to the stock 14.7 (as I have heard it reported to be)
A 2nd aspect to this question is that as a consequence of the above I am wondering if I am missing something. I've been hearing that AFRs down into the mid 13s are appealing to some because of cooler running engines and more power. I am personally thinking something in the middle, say 14.2 is a good balance (a number of 803 in the bias tables). Does this seem reasonable or a good idea?
Thanks, Steve