When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Good numbers one way or another, but I'd say that dyno is a little happy as far as torque numbers go. I've never seen a stock 107 put out 110 torque,that's about 10 high, even at that I'm sure it runs like he!!
Inferno supercharger with different stages of tune and boost.
Torque increase with each change. lowest to highest.
std 107.
107 with Rotrex C15-60 supercharger and 2/1 exhaust
107 with C 15, 2/1 and rs468 cam
114 with C15, 2/1, rs468 cam
114 with Rotrex C30-74, 2/1, rs468 cam
Last edited by TTS Performance; Mar 10, 2019 at 05:20 AM.
If people really know dynos and understand parts. Some of these numbers are way way out of line. Or someone needs to calibrate there dyno and weather station.
Why would George Bryce at star racing go build a monster 130 plus inch. when there are guys with dyno sheets and a 114 or 124 with stock parts making more than him. And I only see him on this forum with a NHRA championship.
Good numbers one way or another, but I'd say that dyno is a little happy as far as torque numbers go. I've never seen a stock 107 put out 110 torque,that's about 10 high, even at that I'm sure it runs like he!!
full disclosure: the base run on the sheet is not from my bike. He did not do a base run on it, as it was an unnecessary step. The bike was stock, and he used numbers from a different stock 107 as the base numbers on the chart, because nobody actually gives a **** about what a stock motor does on the dyno. We all know they are slugs. I realize this doesn’t change your observation that most stock 107’s produce about 100ish ft-lbs. No argument there.
Neither I nor the builder are number chasers. The bike rips on the road, goal accomplished.
If people really know dynos and understand parts. Some of these numbers are way way out of line. Or someone needs to calibrate there dyno and weather station.
Why would George Bryce at star racing go build a monster 130 plus inch. when there are guys with dyno sheets and a 114 or 124 with stock parts making more than him. And I only see him on this forum with a NHRA championship.
This why chasing a number doesn't make much sense. Even if you are using the same dyno and the same operator the results can be altered. Some operators have more scruples than others and you are more likely to get honest numbers, but not necessarily high numbers. That is why when testing cams (or anything that is being tested) the same bike set up the same way on the same dyno with the same operator should be used. Also, just because a cam doesn't make the highest numbers doesn't make it a bad cam. Driveability means a lot, especially on a touring bike. Here's a couple sites that explain how dyno results can be hacked.
full disclosure: the base run on the sheet is not from my bike. He did not do a base run on it, as it was an unnecessary step. The bike was stock, and he used numbers from a different stock 107 as the base numbers on the chart, because nobody actually gives a **** about what a stock motor does on the dyno. We all know they are slugs. I realize this doesn’t change your observation that most stock 107’s produce about 100ish ft-lbs. No argument there.
Neither I nor the builder are number chasers. The bike rips on the road, goal accomplished.
There you go. That is what most of us are after. Doesn't do much good to have sky high dyno numbers if the bike doesn't perform well in real life. I have seen this before. A friend of mine was making really high numbers on his 95" TwinCam on the same dyno I was using, but on the street with my 95" I could run off and leave him because he wasn't making torque until he got to some pretty high rpm. I like torque because I don't usually wring my bikes out. They won't see above 4000 rpm much on the street unless I'm playing and that doesn't happen very often.
Very valid points by Dr.Buik and $tonecold. I, like others, do allot of research before selecting which parts/set up to buy and when I start looking at dyno sheets of certain set ups I will be the first to admit that the peak numbers as well as curve is what I see and start basing my decision on. My expectations then begin to set with what my results are going to be based off the research. Meaning, if I do not hit x amount of HP and TQ then my bike is not up to par with the ones I based my set up on. It then starts to get a bit more confusing and discouraging when I see a few people with the same parts/set up get varied numbers and at times it varies quite a bit. This becomes a struggle when you know you have the same set up as someone else but they got more out of their build then you did. Of course tuner, dyno etc all play a factor but my point is that this can take away from how the bike actually performs because if the performance exceeds your expectations and performs way better than before, then that is all that matters, at least in my opinion and experience...
Very valid points by Dr.Buik and $tonecold. I, like others, do allot of research before selecting which parts/set up to buy and when I start looking at dyno sheets of certain set ups I will be the first to admit that the peak numbers as well as curve is what I see and start basing my decision on. My expectations then begin to set with what my results are going to be based off the research. Meaning, if I do not hit x amount of HP and TQ then my bike is not up to par with the ones I based my set up on. It then starts to get a bit more confusing and discouraging when I see a few people with the same parts/set up get varied numbers and at times it varies quite a bit. This becomes a struggle when you know you have the same set up as someone else but they got more out of their build then you did. Of course tuner, dyno etc all play a factor but my point is that this can take away from how the bike actually performs because if the performance exceeds your expectations and performs way better than before, then that is all that matters, at least in my opinion and experience...
One thing you all need to be very careful about is how the dynosheet looks. When you display it on the old fashion near square PC screens versus on a more modern wide screen the same data looks completely different (think portrait versus landscape). Then if you squeeze the data display making it shorter from top to bottom the display will again begin to flatten the look of the data. I see these tricks being used all the time. Then, another one is how the dyno is run, if you do as any rider would do which is to twist the throttle open versus telling the dyno to hold the engine at a fixed RPM (say 1800 rpm) going to WOT, then releasing the load after the throttle is WOT will show the rise from zero on the sheet completely different than doing it the normal way you ride which is to just twist it open. Using the load to hold the engine back and then releasing it gives the sheet the appearance of greater torque than is really there at low RPM. Lots of tricks can and are played out there, you just have to know how to spot them. The best you can do is look at several installs from various places of the same parts and compare. If one place is showing much higher than others you will have a pretty good idea who is playing tricks.
