"Initial" Dyno Run Complete
Thread Starter
|
Road Master
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,016
Likes: 1
From: Front Royal, VA
"Initial" Dyno Run Complete
I brought the bike in today for the initial dyno run after 1000 miles on the engine. I thought it was going to be the complete tune but he didn't want to rejet today - only adjust the timing. The run was done on a Superflow machine. The HP number seems a little low but the bike feels great. He said the engine is running a bit rich but he'll adjust that during the full tune. He'd like to wait until fall when the weather is a bit cooler and I have more miles on the bike. I'm hoping I got all this straight. He went over a lot of info and I probably forgot or misunderstood some things.
R.I.P. BROTHER
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 6
From: Colorado Springs
KK.....
My first thought is that the Superflow is one of those serious dyno's that gives lower readings than say a Mustang LC unit.
I would have guessed your bike to make 110HP 120TQ based on your build. Take off 5% if the tune isnt dialed in but close...
Did the guy running the Superflow tell you that that machine may give a lower 10%-15%-Ish reading than the A-Typical worn out Mustang LC250 tell me the big numbers dyno's??
Why I ask is one would certainly expect to see 1HP per cubic inch on a build like yours if not 1.1HP. The TQ numbers Cam dependent are typically also in the 1.1 to 1.2 per cubic inch range.
Did he say anything about how that particular machines reads comparitively?
My first thought is that the Superflow is one of those serious dyno's that gives lower readings than say a Mustang LC unit.
I would have guessed your bike to make 110HP 120TQ based on your build. Take off 5% if the tune isnt dialed in but close...
Did the guy running the Superflow tell you that that machine may give a lower 10%-15%-Ish reading than the A-Typical worn out Mustang LC250 tell me the big numbers dyno's??
Why I ask is one would certainly expect to see 1HP per cubic inch on a build like yours if not 1.1HP. The TQ numbers Cam dependent are typically also in the 1.1 to 1.2 per cubic inch range.
Did he say anything about how that particular machines reads comparitively?
Thread Starter
|
Road Master
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,016
Likes: 1
From: Front Royal, VA
He said this machine typically reads lower than others and something about it taking measurements in real-world conditions. Not sure what that really means. I get the impression the numbers will increase a bit when he does the rejetting - but I don't see them rising that much. Did you notice the A/F ratio? Looking at the charts in the dyno section of this forum, my numbers seem way out there. It seems to be running very rich. I'd have expected that to have a negative effect on my gas mileage but I gained 7 mpg with the new engine (34 to 41).
R.I.P. BROTHER
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 6
From: Colorado Springs
He said this machine typically reads lower than others and something about it taking measurements in real-world conditions. Not sure what that really means. I get the impression the numbers will increase a bit when he does the rejetting - but I don't see them rising that much. Did you notice the A/F ratio? Looking at the charts in the dyno section of this forum, my numbers seem way out there. It seems to be running very rich. I'd have expected that to have a negative effect on my gas mileage but I gained 7 mpg with the new engine (34 to 41).
I shocked at your MPG numbers. Sheese KK my 95" gets about 25 around town and 35 on the Hwy and that running lean way up here at 6,000 above sea-level.
I think that dyno your bike was ran on was the pessimistic version compared to the dynojet LC units which are very optimistic hence enhancing customer happiness regardless of what the motor is truly doing.
I will say that so long as your seat of the pants impression is that it rips thats really all that matters!!
Nice Kill ya' big Viking!!
Banned
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 11,436
Likes: 13
Dont take me wrong, but id'e like to see better numbers than that for a 106" motor. Id'e be pretty PISSED. 
Trending Topics
R.I.P. BROTHER
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 6
From: Colorado Springs
They dynoed his bike on one of those superflow machines. I always thought those guys built those water filled units that you bolted up Nascar and Drag race motors too.
I dont think its KK's motor delivery those numbers...That just way too low for a 106 S&S Hot setup? If it was in fact producing numbers that low I think his Dyno sheet would show some wierdness with his power falling off early etc..etc.. His build pulls right up to 5500 as it should...
If it were me I would want to get it jetted properly and then get a run on that Superflow machine and another run on a dealers or indys run of the mill Dynojet 250 or whatever....
The wildcard deal I think is that KK's run is one of the first I have seen from a Superflow machine as most folks tend to run with Dynojet machines optimism~~
His build once tuned and ran on a normal dyno that the vast majority of us are having our bikes ran on should easily bust 100/110 and by all rights do 110/120.
HD Forum Stories
The Best of Harley-Davidson for Lifelong Riders
10 Worst Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Ever
Pouria Savadkouei
Killer Custom's Jail Break Is The Breakout That Refused to Blend In
Verdad Gallardo
Crazy Bunderbike Build Looks Amazing, But Is It Impossible to Ride?
Verdad Gallardo
Harley-Davidson Reveals Super Cool Cafe Racer Concept
Verdad Gallardo
Engraved Rebellion: Inside Bundnerbike's Glam Rock II
Verdad Gallardo
10 Motorcycles You Should Never Buy
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Harley-Davidson Needs to Fix in 2026
Verdad Gallardo
Southpaw Super Glide: A Left-Hand-Drive 1979 Harley FXE Built to Fit the Rider
Verdad Gallardo
The Best and Worst Harley-Davidson Moves of 2025
Verdad Gallardo
Thread Starter
|
Road Master
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,016
Likes: 1
From: Front Royal, VA
I'm going to let it go until fall when I'll get the final tune on the superflow done. I think the numbers will come up a little bit. Then I'll try to schedule a run on a dyno within a few days so I can post both side-by-side. Might be an interesting comparison.
If it weren't for the numbers above and just based on seat of the pants - it blows the stock 88 out of the water from a stop light and getting on the expressway. It seems the shop gave me exactly what I wanted on the road. The ability to get past things without thinking about it. Even in 6th gear at 55 I just roll on a little and I'm past the clump of traffic and doing 90 in no time.
For someone that spends 50 percent of their time commuting through the city and the rest trying to get to some nice riding places in the hills, I can't imagine wanting more. The rest is a numbers chase which is mostly for fun.
Looking in the S&S Catalog, they advertise peak corrected HP at 102.3 and TQ at 110.7. It is my HP number that seems a little low. The curve shapes seem pretty reasonable I think. He used a different set of teeth on the primary which I think brings some of the torque down lower. The S&S graph shows about 85@2500 where I've got 92.8@2500. HP on the S&S advertisement is about 41@2500 where mine is 44.2@2500. Not big differences I guess. By shifting the curves downward a little, might that reduce the peaks?
If it weren't for the numbers above and just based on seat of the pants - it blows the stock 88 out of the water from a stop light and getting on the expressway. It seems the shop gave me exactly what I wanted on the road. The ability to get past things without thinking about it. Even in 6th gear at 55 I just roll on a little and I'm past the clump of traffic and doing 90 in no time.
For someone that spends 50 percent of their time commuting through the city and the rest trying to get to some nice riding places in the hills, I can't imagine wanting more. The rest is a numbers chase which is mostly for fun.
Looking in the S&S Catalog, they advertise peak corrected HP at 102.3 and TQ at 110.7. It is my HP number that seems a little low. The curve shapes seem pretty reasonable I think. He used a different set of teeth on the primary which I think brings some of the torque down lower. The S&S graph shows about 85@2500 where I've got 92.8@2500. HP on the S&S advertisement is about 41@2500 where mine is 44.2@2500. Not big differences I guess. By shifting the curves downward a little, might that reduce the peaks?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
BadHabit
Engine Mechanical Topics
2
Sep 2, 2015 01:00 PM
ryan9977
Ignition/Tuner/ECM/Fuel Injection
8
Jun 17, 2015 09:16 AM
ghoticov
General Harley Davidson Chat
55
Aug 11, 2013 01:44 AM
