My 09 103 with TW6-6 and thin head gaskets and SE air cleaner made 88 rwhp and 100 ftlbs SAE in 5th gear. (as a side note, my 2007 ZX14 Ninja with just slipons made 171 rwhp on this same dyno in 2007!!)

It was lean up top...I didn't pay for tuning but the dyno guy added 5pts of fuel up top and made another pass in 4th gear and although less power showing, I am sure it would have actually made more power if ran in 5th.
Why not just change the AUTOTUNE to be richer at 5000rpm+?

Roll ons were made at about 2700rpm, and should have been made a little lower...perhaps torque would have been 105??

Also, torque is a little flat at 3000 to 4000rpm...and A/F on the graph shows a lean spike...I think it needed more fuel there.

The PCV with autotune was on. My maps are set for 12.8 a/f at WOT from 2000 rpm+.

Question is, why are all the autotune a/f targets just set as the same numbers at WOT...like 13 to 1, or 13.2 to 1? (I use 12.8 to 1)
Shouldn't peak torque areas be richer?

Thoughts and input are appreciated...and yes, bike runs awesome as it is! Last tank of fuel was 42mpg!!!

Here's the dyno sheet and a screen shot of both the autotune and the mapping on the rear cylinder!!

Thanks

 

I downloaded all of the maps from the Power Commander website for my bike...to look at them all, and all use a generic target a/f scale....how can you make the bike richer at peak torque if you are using autotune with one of these 'generic' scales?????

 

looking at your tables compared to my old pc5 map. not sure why in the zero column you have -3,-10, -5, at idle hooked up to lap top set my afr's at 13.5-14,0 at idle on both cylinders and tuner kept that value in the 750-1500 rpm column. also from 750- 1000 rpms from 10% to 100% they set that value to 10 you have to realize that these auto tuner work ok but believe me having it tuned by someone that knows what they are doing is worth the money. you are just guessing with switching the afr's. and the timing is no where even close i will bet on that one!
these maps that people get do work some what. but how can you tune a bike at near sea level and give that map to someone else that is at higher altitude and think it will even be close. the tuner noticed on mine it was way too rich in the bottom to mid range. the best mileage before tune was 40 mpg now 50 highway and 45mpg when running it hard. best advice is get it tuned fooling with that auto tune will drive you nuts!!!

 

My idle is set as lean as it will allow me to go...if I go any leaner, the bike stalls when it settles to an idle. Also, IMO, on hot engines like ours, it's good to keep those BIG pistons cool (with more fuel) at idle and when you let off the throttle.

My tables (and map) are from 9 or 10 revisions from the autotune...started with zero map two months ago.
Any cells with no values are simply indicating that I have never put the throttle into such a position...no need to put 10's in them.

 

if you have done 10 auto tunes you might have actually hurt your tune. i did 5 and dynojet told me that's too many. and in the top two columns that added fuel because it can spike in those areas. and that's the problem with auto tuning there are a lot of cells that will never get adjusted do to some riders will never take there bikes up into those higher rpm areas or throttle positions or ever instill the load the dyno apply s on the engine. get it tuned correctly you will see the difference was worth it! not sure what you are referring to as hot engines? but if your talking horse power anything under 100hp is not what I would consider HOT!!

 

aircooled engines with big pistons are hot engines....

 

still no one has an answer as to why target a/f would not be richer at peak torque...
I am VERY versed on tuning, having tuned both my Vette and Tahoe using HP Tuners, tuning by lambda, tuning the MAF tables, timing tables, etc...been doing this for years.

Power Vision is pretty much exactly the same as the car HP Tuners (LS1 edit is similar too) and if you look at the MAF (on the car) and the MAP tables (on the bike) you will see that under load, especially at peak torque (around 3000rpm) fuel requirements are significantly increased.

What I am trying to understand is with PCV the stock ECM is telling the bike to run rich at peak torque, but with autotune turned on, we are demanding 12.8 or 13 to 1 A/F!!! Whatever we have the PCV set for...

Why does this seem to be the trend? The bike needs more fuel than that...

 

my afr is set at 13.8 at 70 kpa,13.7@80kpa,13.0@90kpa &12.8 at 95-100kpa with using a power vision after tune. before it was set at 13.0 in most of cells with auto tune and tuner said it was way to rich in those areas. here is some info on your pc5 vs pv. from ken at dynojet.

 

again, and just as Ken says, the PCV is overriding the ECU....we know this.

The stock mapping in the ECU does not have a 'steady' 12.8 or 13 to 1 A/F at WOT....it changes based on the RPM and MAP kpa (load as the motor goes through the rpm range).

The PCV is overriding that to a steady A/F....I am sure the likes of Fuel Moto when they used to tune with the PCV would accommodate for this??

 

here's more info contact ken at dynojet ext 1117