I have a Road King 2008 CVO with XIED's. Although the XIED's perform flawlessly in low and mid-range (closed loop AFR 13.8 on the dyno!) power is still a paltry 81Hp and 124 Nm at WOT. My tuner got a 2008 CVO with PCIII, V&H ovals, SEAC to 95 Hp and 145 Nm. The tuner told me that he puts the AFR to 13,5 and O2 eliminators with the PCIII. I think that he does no ignition and no VE tables changes. So in essence he only gets in more fuel at higher rpm's. I want to put on a SEAC and Monster ovals. I do not like the PCIII or SEST very much since I have a feeling that the standard Delphi system is probably quite good (especially with a mild tune) and I want to keep the bike in closed loop operation, be it a little richer than standard (XIED's). According to Stephen Mullen I could stay with the XIED's that would provide enough fuel in closed loop mode but the bike would be too lean at WOT. If I would like to see more WOT power I would have to go with a piggy-back fuel controller or SEST. My question is the following: "is there a stage I (legal or race) recalibration for the 2008 CVO, that gets the rev. limiter to 6200, increases the VE Tables and fuel at high rpm's?". What I hear is that the stock CVO's either already have a stage I flash (which seems since they do not have the stage I SEAC) or that it is not available. Can somebody tell me exactly what the case is and maybe provide me with a part-number if a stage I CVO flash exists.

There is no CVO Stage I flash for the 08's.....
&nbsp\\;
You say you want Closed Loop, but need more HP....
&nbsp\\;
Cold hard fact.... You NEED a Fuel Mgmt Unit to make this happen....
&nbsp\\;
A PROPERLY tuned SEST or PCEX will allow you to maintain the Closed loop operation, VALIDATE your VE's (Volumetric Effeciency), manipulate the spark tables to optimize efficient combustion all to get you the numbers that you are looking for....
&nbsp\\;
But beware.... That tuner could have a "Happy Dyno", and those final numbers could be skewed a bit.... DJ (The most common) is probably the least consistent....
&nbsp\\;
FWIW, chasing a HP/Tq number is cool and all, but durability, reliability, economy and Perma-Grin factor are FAR MORE IMPORTANT than a piece of paper that says what a bike did on 1 particular Dyno at WOT.....

Thanks for your info, that narrows down the options. I am not chasing a hp-number per sé, but here in Europe it's quite possible to drive at 90-100 mph for extended time and with its present set-up the bike gets a bit powerless around that speed. I agree with you that durability and drivability a far more important than a number at 6200 rpm that you will use seldom. On the other hand it is still a mild tune. isn't it.

If you are adding (what is it? 5 to 6 %) fuel while in closed loop with the XIEDs, then you are also adding that much at WOT, where the CVO tune was already (no doubt) properly rich. Right? You might do well, if all you want to do is trick out the O2 readings in closed loop, to go with a milder version of IED. It will not cool down your closed-loop operation as much, but it also will not cool down your WOT operation as much either. Maybe a happier balance this side of a SERT.

Glens,
I read your comment on "should sert do it". I thought that the XIED's only influenced the closed loop range, but now I understand that the different values that the XIED's generate cause the Delphi system to adjust the AFR across the board, is that correct? Your remark on AFR jumping around all over, will that also be the case with a mild stage I tune, or can I assume that the stage I tune will result in a leaner mixture at 100% AFR at the whole rpm-range? What about the valves on the international bikes. I would imagine that the VE is influenced quite a lot by valves opening and closing in the exhaust at fixed rpm's (actually I remember seeing the AFR spiking strangely when my bike was on the dyno at around 3.600rpm, although it returned to normal almost immediately), do you think this in the VE table to and that fixing the valve can have unexpected adverse effects?

That is my understanding and experience. The new AFVs which result from the use of the IEDs apply to every fuel calculation.

I cannot answer that because I do not know what it is you mean by mild stage I tune. Your use of the words stage I and tune signifies to me that some correction has been made to the ECU programming in conjunction with some changed-out breathing apparatus. Assuming both parts are true and were accurately done, there should be no jumping around of the AFVs (hence AFRs). If stuff was done ad-hoc then I would expect the AFVs to jump around unless someone got lucky.

I take it the spike was a rise in the AFR and that it occurred momentarily when the valve opened? There should also be a dip when the valve closes as the engine passes that point on the way down with a very-slightly trailing throttle, right?

I have no familiarity with the exhaust plumbing valves but agree that the VEs would be adversely affected by just physically disabling the valves. I would suppose that if there were a separate routine in the ECU to automatically change fueling calculation when the valves were active (closed) that those routines would be taken out of use as part of the valving function being disabled in the SERT. Either that or there are discreet VE table cells which would necessarily then need adjustment. I would have to look at a map in the software to be able to say something more definitive (but I would have to fire up Windows to do that and doing that always makes me want to have to scrub both my computer and myself afterwards).

If you have the software and run Windows (hopefully not on a computer you put on a public network) then compare the VE tables from similar maps from the two regions. That should tell you what you want to know.

If modifications are made without corrections to the VEs then the same erratic AFVs would result.

"The mild stage I tune" would be a SEAC and Monster Ovals, no stage I flash of the ECM, since that is apparently not available for a 2008 CVO. Maybe the same question but from another perspective. The XIED's trick the ECM into thinking that the AFR is too lean by sending a lower voltage to the ECM. The ECM corrects by multiplying the AFV with more than 100% (or less, you tell me) both in closed loop and open loop because it keeps the same multiplication factor that it has "learned" in closed loop. Now the VE increases because of the SEAC and slip-ons and the AFR leans out further. Will the XIED's now give an even lower voltage so it will get out of a predefined range of the ECM? If so, will the ECM give a fault-code and/or go into an "emergency"-setting as if the O2 sensors are not working correctly anymore?

Okay, now we are getting into uncharted (literally) territory. At this point in time I firmly believe everything I said in that other post to be true and accurate (you do not know how much I would love to get my hands on the low-level documentation for the Delphi!). Your description fits that to a tee, with the addition of the across-the-board positive-AFV (from whatever it might have possibly resulted in becoming otherwise anywhere with that ad-hoc apparatus). Really, really, uncharted territory for you, I am afraid.

If I had your kind of money invested, I would not hesitate to procure a SERT (or whatever it is called now) and some quality dyno time. Either that or a DTT (my personal choice, but I am a unix user, I do not do Windows) or a Tmax (in my understanding more like Windows in comparison).

Good luck!