Sorry but I have to take issue with your statement that dyno numbers prove nothing. Why do folks like Andrews, HQ, Hillside, TMan, Woods, etc. use dyno results to show the difference in the preformance of their products? Numbers do mean something. If one knows how to read a dyno chart, one can tell whether or not a particular dyno chart can accurately be compared to another; what was the humidity? how many pulls? what was the ambient temperature? what gear was used? what correction factor was used? SAE, STD or DIN? was the clutch slipping? where are the peak numbers? how much torque under the curve? etc. Dyno charts have a role to play when building an engine based on how one rides and where one wants the power delivered.

A guy running a 24/37 primary in a well tuned Stage I TC88 that knows the bike and how to ride it will give you serious race without a 100/100 dyno sheet. So, I agree that numbers on a paper don't mean that one bike is faster than another but to say that dyno numbers don't mean anything at all is just not a true statement.

Not trying to start some chit but JMHO.

 

Yes, the SE catalog numbers are taken at the rear wheel, but check Harley's site, they claim that their bone stock 103 is putting out 101 foot pounds of torque. I PROMISE YOU that number is not taken at the rear wheel.

 

The whole auto industry does this, its nothing new! So why are you making a big deal about it? In the performance aftermarket world the chassis dyno is much more common then an engine dyno. A dyno is a tuning tool. When I dyno'd my turbo car and compared my ET and MPH in the 1/4 mile to the dyno numbers the math added up doing all the formulas.

 

What in the hell are you talking about "making a big deal out of it"? My point is that's it's marketing, and regardless of what you've got at the crank it isn't how much is being put to the ground. Period.

 

You may be right abut that but without a dyno chart we can't prove it one way or another. Howeve, your original statement was that the "MoCo tests and posts their numbers" which was an incorrect statement which has now been corrected.

 

I don't understand what the hell you're talking about!!!

 

I have been reading your post on the 48's I am very pleased with the set I put in my 96" I have a free flow air cleaner and a set of rush slip ons with 2" baffles. When I had the 48's put in I knew I would need a tuner so I went with a T-max auto tuner. The bike ran so good when I got it back I had a dyno run to see what I now have and to my surprise I have 90 hp. and 100 ft. lbs.torq. At 2145 rpms I have 90 ft.lbs. of torq. the curve goes up with the r,s and does not drop down to 90 again untill I reach 4750 rpms. It makes for a real nice ride. I ride a 08 Ultra and just about always ride two up it nice to turn the handle at 60 mhp in 6th gear and be able to pass a car.

 

If you are referring to my post I was pointing out that your statement

is BS. The numbers and charts in the SE catalog are taken at the rear wheel, so your statement is incorrect but has now been corrected for any other posters that might read it and go away misinformed.

 

I already stated that in post number 22 of this thread. Do you wait until you get drunk and then come to this forum everytime?

 

It's late, I can't sleep, so...